☢ test - Í

Miller v. State, 303 Ga.App. 4, 692 S.E.2d 677 (March 18, 2010). At defendant’s trial for attempted armed robbery, trial court properly denied motion to sever two counts: “the charges constituted a series of connected acts. Miller committed both attempted armed robberies by approaching cashiers at party supply stores and pointing what appeared to be a gun covered with a white shirt. Miller wore the same clothing in both crimes, which were committed within a week of each other in the same area. Under these circumstances, Miller ‘was not automatically entitled to a severance.’ [Cit.]” Kollie v. State, 301 Ga.App. 534, 687 S.E.2d 869 (November 19, 2009). No abuse of discretion where trial court denied motion to sever armed robbery charges arising from home invasion from those arising from restaurant robberies. “Here, the trial court determined that the offenses were not joined solely because they were of a same or similar character. The court found that the robberies involved a common scheme and ongoing criminal enterprise. See Miller v. State, 270 Ga. 741, 744(3) (512 S.E.2d 272) (1999) (court found common scheme in burglaries 30 months apart). Further, although the record does not contain the court's specific finding with regard to whether the jury could ‘parse the evidence’ with regard to each charge, having reviewed the record, we cannot say that the evidence was so complex that the jury was unable to assess Brandt's guilt or innocence as to each charge. See Stewart v. State, 268 Ga.App. 243, 246 (601 S.E.2d 755) (2004).” Savage v. State, 298 Ga.App. 350, 679 S.E.2d 734 (May 14, 2009). Trial court properly denied motion to sever offenses where defendant robbed two Dollar General stores in Statesboro within five days. “The same method – a ruse about needing to use the bathroom – was used to distract store employees in both robberies. Each time Savage hid his face from the employee in the office near the safe. The offenses ‘were properly joined because they constituted a series of criminal acts closely connected by geography, time, and manner so as to constitute a scheme or plan of criminal conduct.’ Eady [ v. State, 182 Ga.App. 293 (355 S.E.2d 778) (1987) (whole court)].” Overton v. State, 295 Ga.App. 223, 671 S.E.2d 507 (November 26, 2008). In defendants’ RICO prosecution, no error in denying defendants’ request to sever the separate sets of predicate offenses. “The indictment shows that all the defendants were alleged to have ‘conspired among themselves and with others to develop and execute an interrelated pattern of criminal activity motived by, and the effect of which was, pecuniary gain, physical injury, and murder.’ They were further alleged to have committed solicitation to commit murder, false imprisonment of persons whom they intended to murder, and concealing the death of said persons after their murders, by burning their bodies in the trunk of a stolen car as part of the scheme of illegal activity.” Murray v. State, 293 Ga.App. 516, 667 S.E.2d 382 (September 11, 2008). Two counts of cruelty to children against same victim, one month apart, were properly combined for trial. In count 6, “Murray choked her, called her names, and rammed her head against the wall into two pictures that were hanging there, breaking the glass frames. The evidence as to Count 5 shows that Murray beat the victim, rammed her head into the floor, called her vile names, threatened to kill her, and choked her. The evidence as to Counts 5 and 6 was strikingly similar and reflected a pattern of criminal conduct toward the child.” Davis v. State, 287 Ga.App. 410, 651 S.E.2d 518 (September 4, 2007). No abuse of discretion in declining to sever armed robbery charges: “In both incidents – which occurred only three days apart – Davis approached his victim at a public facility and began a conversation. In both cases, Davis took the victim’s truck keys and did not return them until the victim had given him money. And in both instances, Davis canvassed the victim’s vehicle for other items to steal.” Accord, Legan v. State , 289 Ga.App. 244, 656 S.E.2d 879 (January 18, 2008) (trial court properly declined to sever three armed roberries of stores committed over two days); State v. O’Neal , 292 Ga.App. 884, 665 S.E.2d 926 (July 23, 2008) ( affirmed on a related issue, 285 Ga. 361, 677 S.E.2d 90 (May 4, 2009)) (trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for new trial based on failure to sever offenses where one offense was admissible at trial of other as res gestae). Crosby v. State, 287 Ga.App. 109, 650 S.E.2d 775 (August 3, 2007). Three shoplifting offenses were properly tried together. “Here, all three of the shoplifting incidents occurred in commercial establishments in close proximity to one another on the same road. All three were near Crosby’s residence. And, all three involved Crosby posing as an ordinary customer and at some point approaching the check out line or register as part of an effort to either distract employees or make his actions appear legitimate in some manner. Furthermore, the Eckerd and Blockbuster shoplifting incidents occurred on the same day within an hour of one another. In turn, the Blockbuster and Kroger shoplifting incidents both involved Crosby referring to his sister as part of his criminal scheme. Finally, the evidence of the three offenses was not complex, and there is nothing in the record that would indicate that the jury could not distinguish the evidence or apply the law to each offense separately.”