☢ test - Í

robbery, trial court erred in admitting evidence of defendant’s prior charge of possession of a stolen vehicle, from California. “[T]he State did not establish that [defendant] had taken the California car, only that he was found driving it several hours after it was reported stolen, and we do not see the similarity between being in possession of a car stolen, unbeknownst to the owner, from a parking lot during daylight hours, and the charge of taking a car during the middle of the night after inflicting deadly violence on the owner.” Harmless error, however, in light of overwhelming evidence of guilt. Jordan v. State, 278 Ga.App. 126, 628 S.E.2d 221 (March 8, 2006). Defendant’s armed robbery of another boy of his bicycle, when defendant was 14, was sufficiently similar to armed home invasion committed when defendant was 19. “Both offenses were armed robberies in which Jordan held a gun to the head of the victim; both were committed with an accomplice and neither appeared to involve much advance planning. While there are obvious differences between the two offenses, the proper focus is on the similarity, not the differences, between them. [Cit.]” Johnson v. State, 277 Ga.App. 41, 625 S.E.2d 411 (November 15, 2005). Prior robbery was sufficiently similar: both prior and current offenses were robberies of commercial establishments with a gun and a bag, victims were store employees, in both instances defendant said he was unemployed and needed the money. Prior was admissible despite differences: defendant was unmasked and only brandished gun after being confronted by owner. Strahan v. State, 273 Ga.App. 116, 614 S.E.2d 227 (April 28, 2005). In defendant’s prosecution for armed robbery, trial court erred in admitting evidence of two previous burglaries. “In the burglaries, Strahan, who was 17, and another young man broke back windows and climbed into two unoccupied houses, where they stole televisions and other electronic devices which they immediately attempted to pawn. In this armed robbery, no evidence suggests that an accomplice worked with the perpetrator; the robber walked into an open restaurant with a handgun, brutalized the three women he found there; stole cash; and immediately went shopping with the money.” “‘The only apparent similarities between the independent act and the charged offense were that both involved a ‘taking’ and there was a general proximity in time and place; this is insufficient to establish a common ‘scheme or plan’ to do an act. Since the State failed to demonstrate a logical connection between the prior act and the indicted offenses so as to show a common scheme or plan, the trial court erred in admitting the similar transaction evidence.’ Thomas v. State, 253 Ga.App. 58, 60(1) (557 S.E.2d 483) (2001) (prior armed robbery not similar to assault on pizza deliveryman and theft of pizzas). See also Jones v. State, 226 Ga.App. 721, 724(1) (487 S.E.2d 618) (1997) (child molestation not similar to attempted murder); Walraven v. State, 250 Ga. 401, 408(4)(b) (297 S.E.2d 278) (1982) (incest not similar to a ‘bathtub’ murder).” Nashid v. State, 271 Ga.App. 202, 609 S.E.2d 106 (December 9, 2004). In defendant’s trial for armed robbery of a store and related offenses occurring in 2000, trial court properly admitted similar transaction evidence of 1993 bank robbery in New York City. “Both the New York robbery and the charged crimes concluded with dangerous vehicle chases in which the getaway driver drove erratically, imperiling the lives of others on the road, in an effort to elude the police. The drivers in both cases performed such maneuvers as frequent U-turns, darting through traffic, and driving toward oncoming vehicles. In light of these strikingly similar police chase finales, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the New York robbery.” Carero v. State, 277 Ga. 867, 596 S.E.2d 619 (May 24, 2004). Evidence of prior robbery, where defendant stole gun, was admissible in trial on second robbery, which occurred the following day and where the stolen gun was used. The evidence was “admissible both as an extrinsic transaction logically connected to the offenses being tried, and as a mutually dependent crime.” See also Eckman v. State , 274 Ga. 63, 548 S.E.2d 310 (2001). Grindle v. State, 265 Ga.App. 717, 595 S.E.2d 549 (February 19, 2004). Evidence of another purse snatching, similarly executed, the day before the incident in question was properly admitted as a similar transaction. “Under these circumstances, the trial court was authorized to find that the two offenses were part of a continuing course of conduct and single crime spree so that evidence of one was admissible in a trial of the other.” “Crime spree” evidence is more commonly admitted as res gestae – see Herndon v. State and other cases in same note under heading Evidence – Hearsay – Res Gestae. Accord, Lee v. State , 281 Ga.App. 479, 636 S.E.2d 547 (September 6, 2006) (similar armed robbery occurring within days of charged offenses was admissible both as a similar transaction and as res gestae). Williams v. State, 264 Ga.App. 115, 589 S.E.2d 676 (November 13, 2003). Evidence of prior robbery in which defendant was unarmed may be admissible as a similar transaction in trial for armed robbery.