☢ test - Í

alleged “drug and alcohol use, spending habits, financial problems, academic difficulties, and dating patterns” in the absence of evidence “showing a factual nexus between [victim’s] disappearance and her lifestyle.” Hayes v. State, 276 Ga.App. 268, 623 S.E.2d 144 (November 7, 2005). Trial court did not abuse its discretion “in its decision to exclude [on relevancy grounds] evidence that [co-defendant] had become a confidential informant” after the last criminal act at issue. Ray v. State, 273 Ga.App. 656, 615 S.E.2d 812 (June 15, 2005). Trial court properly admitted ski masks found in search of defendant’s apartment, although no one testified that they were the same ski masks worn by the robbers. Circumstantial evidence supported their relevance: “all of the victims testified that the two armed robbers wore similar ski masks, and these masks were found behind the air conditioner in Ray’s utility closet. The closet was very dusty, but the masks were dust-free, indicating that they had not been stored very long.” Andrews v. State, 268 Ga.App. 213, 601 S.E.2d 746 (June 30, 2004). “Two of the state’s witnesses at trial, both law enforcement officers, testified over objection that approximately seven months after the commission of the crimes in this case, officers found shell casings from a .22 caliber handgun while executing a search warrant at the home where Andrews’ brothers resided. Testimony was also presented that Andrews had previously resided at the residence, but had not lived there for approximately seven months before the gun was found. The officers testified that the search was in connection with the investigation of the murder of a pawnshop owner, and that Andrews’ brothers had been charged with murder in that case. The gun allegedly used in the murder of the pawnshop owner was recovered and identified as a .22 caliber handgun.” Held, this evidence was circumstantial but “relevant to show that Andrews may have had access to a weapon of a type that matched the caliber of the ammunition that was discovered at the scene of the crime in this case.” Long v. State, 265 Ga.App. 605, 595 S.E.2d 93 (January 29, 2004). Admission of nude photo of alleged child molesting victim over defendant’s relevancy objection was an abuse of discretion; there was no evidence that defendant took the photograph; it shows the defendant several years before the alleged molestation; and her mother, clothed, also appears in the picture, making it dissimilar to the allegations before the court (involving acts performed when the mother was not present). “[T]he potential for the photograph to ‘unduly arouse the jury’s emotions of prejudice, hostility, or sympathy’ so clearly outweighs its extremely low probative value that the trial court’s decision to admit the photograph was an abuse of discretion.” Error was harmless, however, because cumulative of victim’s testimony and because defendant was charged, not with photographing victim, but with touching her. “[T]he photograph was not patently salacious and Long describes its sexual nature as ‘ambiguous’ in his appellate brief.” Simmons v. State, 271 Ga. 563, 522 S.E.2d 451 (October 18, 1999). “‘Where counsel elicits testimony unfavorable to his client, he will not be heard to object to it, no matter how prejudicial it may be, if it is a direct and pertinent response to the question propounded.’ Mosely v. State, 269 Ga. 17, 21(4), 495 S.E.2d 9 (1998).” Defense counsel here asked state’s pathologist why more blood wasn’t found on murder victim, opening door to witness’s opinion that defendant had raped the victim and wiped away the blood. Redding v. State, 239 Ga.App. 718, 521 S.E.2d 840 (August 27, 1999). At defendant’s trial for cocaine possession with intent to distribute, trial court properly excluded evidence of officers’ unrelated prior arrests of another drug dealer. “Defendant Redding's sole defense at trial was that Officers Giugliano and Dorsey are falsely prosecuting him for the charged offenses because he refused to provide information against a suspected drug dealer whom the officers had targeted for arrest – Grady Blackwell. … [T]his proffer does not directly or indirectly support defendant Redding's theory that any law enforcement officer is falsely accusing him of the crimes charged based on his refusal to provide information against Grady Blackwell. Since proof of Officer Giugliano's law enforcement efforts against Grady Blackwell would have done nothing but cast a bare suspicion in support of defendant Redding's defense, the trial court did not err in excluding Officer Giugliano's proffered testimony.” Fides v. State, 237 Ga.App. 607, 516 S.E.2d 101 (April 12, 1999). “ The trial court did not err in refusing to let one of defendant Fides’ attorneys testify that defense counsel had difficulty obtaining the police report of Fides’ arrest. Pretermitting whether the attorney was competent to testify, his testimony was irrelevant. The report was available to defendant Fides before trial. The arresting officer was available for cross-examination about the arrest and about any discrepancies that may have appeared in the report. The fact that Fides’ attorney initially had trouble getting the report did not bear on any issue to be tried by the jury and was, therefore, irrelevant. OCGA § 24-2-1. The exclusion of irrelevant evidence is not error. Muse v. State, 160 Ga.App. 272, 273(2), 287 S.E.2d 224 (1981).”