☢ test - Í

[she] had been intimate.’ Woods v. State, 250 Ga.App. 164, 166(1)(a), 550 S.E.2d 730 (2001). See also Brigman v. State, 282 Ga.App. 481, 485(2), 639 S.E.2d 359 (2006) (evidence of way defendant lashed out at previous girlfriends who angered or disappointed him was admissible to show intent, bent of mind, and course of conduct); Smith v. State, 232 Ga.App. 290, 295(1), 501 S.E.2d 523 (1998) (‘[a] prior act can ... show [a defendant's] actual course of conduct in reacting to disappointment or anger in a [romantic] relationship, evidencing a pattern’); Howard v. State, 228 Ga.App. 775, 776(1), 492 S.E.2d 683 (1997) (similar transaction evidence probative of defendant's method of resolving disputes with his girl friends by committing violence against them).” Bryant v. State, 282 Ga. 631, 651 S.E.2d 718 (October 9, 2007). At defendant’s arson/murder trial, trial court properly admitted evidence suggesting that defendant had previously burned down his own home to collect the insurance proceeds. The prior fire apparently resulted in no criminal charges. “Evidence of the earlier house fire was introduced, not only to show motive, but to demonstrate Bryant’s course of conduct. Before each incident, Bryant acted in a suspicious manner with regard to fire, and both fires occurred at homes to which Bryant had access. Also, Bryant had incurred substantial debt prior to each fire and reaped financial benefit as a result of each fire. The two transactions were sufficiently similar so that responsibility for the previous house fire tended to prove Bryant’s responsibility for the arson of Haynes’s mobile home. Head v. State, 276 Ga. 131, 135(5) (575 S.E.2d 883) (2003). Yet, Bryant further maintains that the State failed to prove that he previously burned his own home. But, it is quite the contrary. The State established by a preponderance of the evidence that Bryant burned his home by outlining his suspicious behavior with regard to that fire. This included evidence of observation of Bryant playing with fuse wire before the fire, Bryant’s insistence that his wife spend the evening of the fire with her parents and that she take their dog with her; his prior rental of an apartment without the knowledge of his wife; and his retention of articles that would have been destroyed in the fire.” 32. SIMILARITY OF OFFENSES -- ASSAULT/ BATTERY See also subheading SIMILARITY OF OFFENSES – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, below Dillard v. State, 297 Ga. 756, 778 S.E.2d 184 (October 5, 2015). Malice murder conviction affirmed. Under pre-2013 Evidence Code, similar transaction evidence was properly admitted. “The trial court properly admitted the evidence after finding in each of the transactions that, like the victim in this case, (1) the victims were young African–American women who were either sex workers or had substance abuse problems, or both; (2) the victims were sexually and/or physically abused—often by choking.” “Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in this case because the sheer number of prior transactions overwhelmed the jury with evidence of appellant’s bad character. We disagree. The mere fact that the State proferred evidence of multiple similar acts did not render them inadmissible. The trial court properly weighed each similar transaction and determined that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Olds v. State, 332 Ga.App. 612, 774 S.E.2d 186 (June 26, 2015). False imprisonment and battery convictions affirmed; under 2013 Evidence Code, trial court properly admitted evidence of defendant’s prior similar assaults on female acquaintances to prove intent. “With regard to Olds's state of mind, the charged offense of aggravated assault and both of the extrinsic acts are very similar since all three offenses involve violent assaults on female acquaintances whom Olds attacked from behind.” Cert. granted on a different issue, case no. S15G1610, October 19, 2015. Lamar v. State, 297 Ga. 89, 772 S.E.2d 636 (May 11, 2015). Felony murder and related convictions affirmed; under pre- 2013 Evidence Code, similar transaction evidence was properly admitted ‘for the proper purposes of showing ‘course of conduct, intent, and lack of mistake.’” “With regard to the 1998 school shooting, Lamar opened fire with a handgun in a public setting. With regard to the 2009 arrest, Lamar was arrested for giving a false name and, once again, investigated for opening fire with a handgun in a public setting. It cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting both of these prior offenses as similar transactions.” Here, Lamar shot victim who was “attending a barbeque cookout.” Rivers v. State, 296 Ga. 396, 768 S.E.2d 486 (January 20, 2015). Felony murder and related convictions affirmed; trial court properly admitted similar transaction evidence under pre-2013 Evidence Code. “The State offered evidence of appellant's assault on [his former girlfriend] Polk and his prior sale of drugs for the purpose of showing appellant's course of conduct and bent of mind and offered Polk's identification of appellant as evidence that he committed the prior offenses. The trial court found the prior incident sufficiently similar because in both instances appellant was involved with and selling drugs and used his fists to resolve a dispute. Although the victim of the prior assault was known to appellant and in this case the victim was a stranger, when determining whether evidence of a similar transaction is admissible ‘the proper focus is upon the similarities between the incidents and not upon the differences. [Cit.]’ Daniels v. State, 281 Ga. 226, 228 (637 S.E.2d 403) (2006). Viewed in this manner, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's