☢ test - Í

326 Ga.App. 32, 755 S.E.2d 844 (March 6, 2014). Jackson v. State, 270 Ga.App. 166, 605 S.E.2d 876 (October 21, 2004). “As a general matter, ‘[e]vidence of the defendant’s prior acts toward the victim, be it a prior assault, a quarrel, or a threat, is admissible when the defendant is accused of a criminal act against the victim, as the prior acts are evidence of the relationship between the victim and the defendant and may show the defendant’s motive, intent, and bent of mind in committing the act against the victim which results in the charges for which the defendant is being prosecuted.’ Mallory v. State. 271 Ga. 150, 154(7), 517 S.E.2d 780 (1999). In addition, the State is not required to give pretrial notice of prior difficulties evidence. Wall v. State, 269 Ga. 506, 500 S.E.2d 904 (1998).” Accord, Reed v. State , 279 Ga. 81, 610 S.E.2d 35 (March 7, 2005); Fields v. State , 281 Ga.App. 733, 637 S.E.2d 136 (October 4, 2006); Williams v. State , 290 Ga.App. 841, 660 S.E.2d 740 (March 4, 2008) ( Overruled on other grounds, Hatley v. State , 290 Ga. 480, 722 S.E.2d 67 (February 6, 2012)) (prior molestation of same child); McCullors v. State , 291 Ga.App. 393, 662 S.E.2d 197 (May 2, 2008) (prior assault); Stillwell v. State , 294 Ga.App. 805, 670 S.E.2d 452 (November 6, 2008) (prior molestation of same child); Rayner v. State , 307 Ga.App. 861, 706 S.E.2d 205 (February 15, 2011) (same as Stillwell ); Gant v. State , 313 Ga.App. 329, 721 S.E.2d 913 (December 15, 2011) (same as Stillwell ). Westbrooks v. State, 263 Ga.App. 566, 588 S.E.2d 335 (October 7, 2003). Defendant’s prior forgeries against the same victim were admissible as prior difficulties between the parties. “[W]e know of no case law limiting prior difficulty evidence evidence to [cases of violence], and when we examine the rationale behind the rule, it is clear that this type of evidence falls within that reasoning,” that rationale being “to demonstrate ‘the relationship between the victim and the defendant and [such evidence] may show the defendant’s motive, intent, and bent of mind in committing the act against the victim which results in the [current charges].’ In this case, Westbrooks’ prior forgeries on [victim’s] account show that their relationship was characterized by Westbrooks’ financial victimization of [victim]. Evidence of such a relationship is relevant to proving Westbrooks’ intent and bent of mind to steal from [victim], especially here, as Westbrooks denies transferring funds from [victim’s] account into her own account.” Evans v. State, 259 Ga.App. 9, 576 S.E.2d 27 (December 17, 2002). “Evidence of a defendant’s prior assaults upon a victim is admissible when the defendant is accused of a criminal act against the victim, as the prior acts are evidence of the relationship between the victim and the defendant, and may show the defendant’s motive, intent, and bent of mind in committing the charged act against the victim. For such evidence to be admitted, the state must show: (1) it is being introduced for an appropriate purpose, namely that it tends to prove the defendant’s motive or intent, or the state of the relationship between the victim and the defendant; (2) there is sufficient evidence that the victim and the defendant were the parties involved in the prior difficulty; and (3) there is a sufficient connection between the prior difficulty and the crime charged.” Accord, Melson v. State , 263 Ga.App. 647, 588 S.E.2d 822 (October 16, 2003). Myers v. State, 275 Ga. 709, 572 S.E.2d 606 (November 12, 2002). “Hearsay testimony that the victim believed the defendant was ‘dangerous’ or was ‘trouble,’ especially in the absence of evidence that the defendant was aware of the victim’s opinion of the defendant, is not evidence of a prior difficulty that tends to establish the defendant’s motive, bent of mind, or intent in killing the victim.” Defendant’s statements showing ill will and animosity toward victim, by contrast, are admissible as original evidence. Parks v. State, 275 Ga. 320, 565 S.E.2d 447 (June 10, 2002). Prior to this murder, Defendant smashed victim’s mother’s car windows. Evidence thereof was admissible as a prior difficulty between defendant and victim “because the evidence at trial showed that the incident in question occurred during a series of difficulties between [defendant] and the victim that spanned the course of several days, and because the evidence showed that [defendant] smashed all the windows out of the victim’s mother’s car because the mother told [defendant] that he could not speak with the victim on the phone when he repeatedly called her house.” Accord, Milner (January 22, 2007), above. Camphor v. State, 272 Ga. 408, 529 S.E.2d 121 (May 1, 2000). Malice murder, aggravated stalking and related convictions affirmed; trial court did not err in admitting evidence of prior difficulties between defendant and the victim without pretrial notification to the defense according to Wall v. State , 269 Ga. 506, 500 S.E.2d 904 (1998). Retroactive application of the ruling in Wall does not violate ex post facto constitutional requirements. Accord, Hammontree v. State , 283 Ga.App. 736, 642 S.E.2d 412 (February 23, 2007); Lopez (June 16, 2015), above. Hill v. State , 243 Ga.App. 124, 532 S.E.2d 491 (March 24, 2000). Involuntary manslaughter conviction affirmed; prior difficulty evidence – that defendant had previously shaken the infant victim – was properly admitted. “As evidence of a