☢ test - Í

Guild v. State, 236 Ga.App. 444, 512 S.E.2d 343 (February 12, 1999). Similar transaction evidence properly admitted despite “a failure to articulate the purpose for its admission. Although neither the State nor the trial court clearly stated the purpose of the similar transaction evidence during the hearing on that subject or in response to Guild’s objection just prior to its admission, the jury was clearly instructed that its purpose was to show state of mind, knowledge, and intent. In these circumstances, we fail to see how the alleged error harmed Guild. [Cits.]” Johnson v. State, 236 Ga.App. 252, 511 S.E.2d 603 (February 5, 1999). “A defendant does not have to be positively identified as the perpetrator of a similar transaction. Rather, circumstantial proof may be used to establish his connection to it. Staten v. State, 219 Ga.App. 536, 537, 466 S.E.2d 20 (1995). And, that connection does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Martin v. State, 198 Ga.App. 488-489, 402 S.E.2d 95 (1991). In this case, we are satisfied that the state offered proof sufficient to show that Johnson was a party to the independent crime. Johnson was stopped within six hours of the robbery driving a Cadillac identified as the getaway car and owned by him. The robbery victim saw three men in the Cadillac and observed that the driver was wearing a white shirt. Johnson was stopped in the company of two other men, one of whom was wearing a light-colored shirt. The unusual handgun used in the robbery was found in the front passenger floorboard, near Johnson. Police also discovered that Johnson, a self-professed crack addict, had a quantity of cocaine in his possession-which a jury could infer was purchased with the proceeds of the robbery.” 21. PURPOSE – BENT OF MIND Graves v. State, S15A1357, ___ Ga. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2016 WL 854757 (March 7, 2016). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed; under pre-2013 Evidence Code, no error in admitting evidence of a prior shooting to show “bent of mind and course of conduct.” “[T]he May 2006 incident occurred less than six months before the murder, it involved Graves sitting in his El Camino in approximately the same location as the murder and at the same time of day, Graves was armed and in possession of a significant quantity of drugs at that time, and he was in the presence of an individual who was involved in the drug transaction in this case.” Holloman v. State, 291 Ga. 338, 729 S.E.2d 344 (July 2, 2012). Felony murder conviction affirmed; prior stabbing incident was properly admitted to show defendant’s bent of mind and course of conduct. “[P]ermitting evidence of a similar prior incident involving the defendant in order to show the defendant's course of conduct or bent of mind is a legitimate and proper purpose, and is not an infrequent occurrence at trial. See e.g., Jackson v. State, [291 Ga. 54, 727 S.E.2d 454 (May 7, 2012)]; Muhammad v. State, 290 Ga. 880(2), 725 S.E.2d 302 (2012). And, when a similar transaction is offered to show the defendant's bent of mind or course of conduct, a lesser degree of similarity is required than when such evidence is introduced to prove identity. Neal v. State, 290 Ga. 563, 564(2), 722 S.E.2d 765 (2012).” Accord, Davis v. State , 318 Ga.App. 166, 733 S.E.2d 453 (October 23, 2012); Harvey v. State , 292 Ga. 792, 741 S.E.2d 625 (April 15, 2013) (again declining to limit admission of similar transactions to show “course of conduct or bent of mind”). Newton v. State, 313 Ga.App. 889, 723 S.E.2d 95 (February 3, 2012). Conviction for criminal attempt to manufacture methamphetamine affirmed; trial court properly admitted similar transaction evidence to show “bent of mind” despite defendant’s contention that the new evidence code doesn’t allow evidence for that purpose. “As Newton himself acknowledges in his appellate brief, however, the new Georgia Rules of Evidence do not go into effect until January 1, 2013. See Ga. L.2011, p. 1, § 1. Presently, and at the time of the trial court's finding in this case, ‘[c]ourse of conduct and bent of mind are appropriate purposes for which similar transaction evidence can be introduced.’ (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Henderson v. State, 303 Ga.App. 527, 529(1) (693 S.E.2d 896) (2010); see also Wade v. State, 295 Ga.App. 45, 48 (670 S.E.2d 864) (2008) (‘[W]e are not authorized to depart from the precedent of the Supreme Court of Georgia authorizing the bent of mind rationale for admitting similar transaction evidence here.’) (citations, punctuation, and footnotes omitted). Thus, based on Newton's position that he was not involved with the methamphetamine laboratory in this case, as well as the similarity of his prior drug crime with the offense at issue, we discern no abuse of the trial court's discretion in admitting the evidence of Newton's prior attempts to manufacture methamphetamine for the purpose of showing his bent of mind and course of conduct in this case. Cf. Robertson v. State, 306 Ga.App. 721, 724–725(2) (703 S.E.2d 343) (2010).” Accord, Carder v. State , 327 Ga.App. 464, 759 S.E.2d 550 (June 4, 2014) (trial court properly admitted evidence of prior offenses to show bent of mind under pre-2013 Evidence Code). 22. PURPOSE – COURSE OF CONDUCT/MODUS OPERANDI Brooks v. State, S15A1480, ___ Ga. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2016 WL 854929 (March 7, 2016). Malice murder and related convictions reversed; under 2013 Evidence Code, trial court erred by admitting other acts evidence (of a prior murder committed by defendant) “to prove identity, motive and course of conduct.” Case on trial: Brooks and an accomplice shot