☢ test - Í

have her lie on the floor, with threats of violence if she moved or called police. The modus operandi of the robberies was strikingly similar, allowing the trial court the discretion to deny the motion to sever. See Allen v. State, 268 Ga.App. 519, 524-525(1) (602 S.E.2d 250) (2004) ; Roman v. State, 245 Ga.App. 225, 227(2) (537 S.E.2d 684) (2000) ; Johnson [ v. State, 213 Ga.App. 194-195(1) (444 S.E.2d 334) (1994)].” No jury confusion shown, as defendant was convicted on four counts and acquitted on the other two. Hill v. State, 298 Ga.App. 677, 680 S.E.2d 702 (July 2, 2009). Similar transaction evidence was properly admitted: “Hill used a similar modus operandi in committing the two crimes – during the commission of both armed robberies, he grabbed the victims from behind, held their left arms, showed them a knife on their right sides, and forced the victims to open the cash register. Hill then took the money, and concealed the victims in another area of the store while he made his escape.” Nesbitt v. State, 296 Ga.App. 139, 673 S.E.2d 652 (February 17, 2009). Dicta: “We question whether the state established a sufficient similarity between the 1994 robberies and the robbery at issue here. The prosecution offered minimal evidence regarding the 1994 crimes, establishing little more than that they occurred on the street and at night.” Ruled harmless error, however, in light of overwhelming evidence of guilt. Fuller v. State, 295 Ga.App. 439, 672 S.E.2d 438 (January 6, 2009). Understatement: “a sufficient similarity between the independent offense and the crime charged existed so that proof of the former tended to prove the latter. In fact, the incidents are virtually identical: the robberies occurred at cell phone stores located seven miles apart, the robberies took place within 30-40 minutes of each other, and the perpetrator in both robberies wore a dark sweatshirt and a dark cap. In addition, in both instances the perpetrator used a handgun, forced the victims to empty cash out of the registers, made the victims walk into bathrooms after the robberies, and threatened the victims in the same manner. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the similar transaction evidence to be presented to the jury.” Williams v. State, 295 Ga.App. 249, 671 S.E.2d 268 (November 25, 2008). Other robberies were properly admitted as similar transactions. “The [similar transaction] Sigala robbery was logically connected to the [on trial] Fisher robbery because the items taken from Fisher's purse were found in the same truck used in the Sigala robbery, which Sigala described in sufficient detail to allow the investigating officers to link it to his robbery. Thus, the trial court properly admitted the Sigala robbery evidence at trial. See Lampkin v. State, 277 Ga.App. 237, 239 (626 S.E.2d 199) (2006) (state must demonstrate sufficient connection or similarity between independent offense and crime charged so that proof of former tends to prove latter). The [similar transaction] Velazquez robbery was similar to the Fisher robbery in numerous respects. See Harris v. State, 222 Ga.App. 52, 54-55(2)(a) (473 S.E.2d 232) (1996). The robberies occurred within a week of each other; the victims had just parked their cars outside their residences when they were approached by a black male with a gun and robbed; the victims were both robbed of money, cell phones and keys; and they both identified Williams from the same photo array.” Garvin v. State, 292 Ga.App. 813, 665 S.E.2d 908 (July 18, 2008). Trial court properly admitted evidence of defendant’s prior armed robbery as a similar transaction in his current armed robbery trial “ to rebut Garvin's defense of being an unwilling participant, innocent bystander or withdrawn co-conspirator in the present armed robbery. In both cases, the victims were over fifty-five years old and lived alone. In both cases, Garvin initially disavowed any knowledge of the crime, then claimed mere presence at the scene of the crime.” Rolle v. State, 286 Ga.App. 190, 648 S.E.2d 712 (June 27, 2007). In prosecution for car hijacking and related offenses, evidence of prior hijacking was properly admitted. “In both instances, Rolle used a weapon, committed a violent and unprovoked assault, and immediately fled the scene of the offense after stealing the victim’s keys and motor vehicle. See also Cain v. State, 268 Ga.App. 39, 41 (601 S.E.2d 415) (2004) (finding that a prior robbery of a motor vehicle can be admitted to show a defendant’s course of conduct or bent of mind to steal cars).” Daniels v. State, 281 Ga. 226, 637 S.E.2d 403 (November 6, 2006). Similar transaction was sufficiently similar to admit: “the similarities were numerous. The incidents were close in time, almost within a two-year period of each other; each involved the morning robbery of a lone male employee at a convenience store in Cairo; the employee was forcibly moved around the store; money was taken from the cash register; the robbery was accomplished with a weapon other than a firearm [fn]; and a borrowed vehicle was used for transportation in perpetration of the crimes.” Inman v. State, 281 Ga. 67, 635 S.E.2d 125 (September 18, 2006). In defendant’s trial for murder and armed