☢ test - Í

related to different crimes that occurred in different locations, one was a circumstance of the arrest for the other. Accord, Perry v. State , 317 Ga.App. 885, 733 S.E.2d 57 (October 11, 2012) (no abuse of discretion in trying drug charge with charge of influencing witness – asking co-defendant to “take” the drug charge). Carruth v. State, 290 Ga. 342, 721 S.E.2d 80 (January 9, 2012). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed; no error in declining to sever counts charging murder of one victim and stalking of another. “The aggravated stalking offense [as to Potter] took place at the convenience store and was ongoing at the time that Tanya and [murder victim] Mosby came to Potter's aid by delivering evidence of the no contact order (the predicate for aggravating stalking). The ambush and murder occurred just minutes later when the two returned home; therefore, the acts were connected as a single scheme or plan. In addition, evidence of Carruth's turbulent relationship with Potter and his stalking of her was relevant to explain Carruth's animosity for Tanya and Mosby and his motive for the fatal attack. Thus, evidence of the stalking offense would be admissible in a separate murder trial. It follows that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the counts.” Accord, Griffin (January 22, 2013), above (no severance; earlier offenses admissible to show motive for later offenses). Stepho v. State, 312 Ga.App. 495, 718 S.E.2d 852 (November 10, 2011). Convictions for child molestation and aggravated child molestation affirmed; trial court properly denied motion to sever offenses relating to separate victims. “In this case, although the charged offenses involved different victims and occurred on different dates, they showed Stepho's common motive, lustful disposition, and bent of mind to satisfy his sexual desires. Notably, Stepho gained access to his second victim, A.P., through his familial relationship with his first victim, R.S. Furthermore, the molestation of R.S. came to light during the investigation of the molestation of A.P. The trial court was authorized to find that the circumstances related to Stepho's molestation of either child victim would have been admissible as similar transaction evidence in his trial involving the molestation of the other. See Collins [ v. State , 310 Ga.App. 613, 714 S.E.2d 249 (July 7, 2011)] (‘The mere difference in the victims' ages, sex, and specific acts of molestation did not render the similar transaction inadmissible.’). ‘Where the evidence of one crime would be admissible in the trial of the other crime, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion for severance.’ (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Boatright v. State, 308 Ga.App. 266, 274(2) (707 S.E.2d 158) (2011).” Accord, Duncan v. State , 315 Ga.App. 67, 726 S.E.2d 558 (March 22, 2012); Sutton v. State , A16A0446, ___ Ga.App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2016 WL 1577187 (April 20, 2016) (no severance of charges of molestation of defendant’s two granddaughters, several years apart). Willis v. State, 309 Ga.App. 414, 710 S.E.2d 616 (April 26, 2011). Armed robbery convictions affirmed; trial court properly declined to sever offenses, as “the three robberies in this case took place in a limited geographical area within four weeks of each other. Each involved a man approaching a lone pedestrian during the daytime, pointing a revolver at the victim, and demanding that the victim throw his or her money and property on the ground, and then fleeing on foot. The modus operandi of the robberies was strikingly similar, allowing the trial court the discretion to deny the motion to sever. As the trial court observed, the evidence was far from complex and posed no significant risk of jury confusion. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Willis's motion to sever. Dickerson v. State, 304 Ga.App. 762, 765(1) (697 S.E.2d 874) (2010); Fielding v. State, [299 Ga.App. 341, 343(1) (682 S.E.2d 675) (2009)].” Accord, Calhoun v. State , 318 Ga.App. 835, 734 S.E.2d 809 (November 28, 2012) (armed robberies at two stores, similarly perpetrated, not required to be severed). Machiavello v. State, 308 Ga.App. 772, 709 S.E.2d 28 (March 25, 2011). Convictions for aggravated child molestation and related offenses affirmed; trial court properly denied motion to sever charges related to two separate victims, occurring 2-3 years apart. “[E]vidence of one incident would be admissible during trial on the other, because the cases showed a common pattern of conduct and were ‘extremely similar in nature. The Defendant was involved in a romantic relationship with the victims' mothers. He was responsible for watching these children when the abuse took place while their mothers were at work.... He showed favoritism to each of the individual girls by giving them items of value.’ The first victim and her mother had lived with Machiavello then moved to their own house, where the abuse occurred. The second victim, her mother, and her brother were living with Machiavello when he committed the offenses. The female victims, who were ten and twelve, were also close in age. The trial court noted that if it did sever the case, proof of one offense would be admissible during trial on the other. The allegations portrayed a series of criminal acts closely connected by geography, involving similar victims who had both lived with Machiavello. The court held that the cases did not appear to be joined solely because they were similar, and questioned what severance would gain ‘in terms of intelligibility.’ It held that the offenses ‘may be ... an uninterrupted course of conduct ... not just a similar transaction[, with n]o intervening closure that makes it a separate course of conduct other than it's just different people.’” Accord,