☢ test - Í

Ga. 183, 185(1) (304 S.E.2d 693) (1983).” Ryan v. State, 276 Ga.App. 87, 622 S.E.2d 446 (October 25, 2005). No chain of custody showing required for defendant’s bloody blue jeans . “We agree with the State that jeans are made by numerous manufacturers in many styles and colors and are ornamented in myriad ways. ‘Unlike fungible items, [an article of clothing] is a distinct physical object which is identifiable upon observation and does not require custodial proof for admission into evidence at trial.’ (Citations and footnote omitted.) Ridley v. State , 240 Ga.App. 307, 308(2), 523 S.E.2d 383 (1999). Here, the presence of the blood stains added an even more distinguishing characteristic to the pants, making it possible for the pants to ‘be identified and differentiated by the senses on observation.’ Ramey v. State , 238 Ga. 111, 113(4), 230 S.E.2d 891 (1977). See Pace v. State , 271 Ga. 829, 840-841(26), 524 S.E.2d 490 (1999).” Sanders v. State , 243 Ga.App. 216, 534 S.E.2d 78 (March 28, 2000). Conviction for selling cocaine affirmed; State didn’t have to show chain of custody of videotape. “Distinct physical objects that can be identified and differentiated by the senses of observation, such as videotapes, are not subject to the chain of custody requirement. Gadson v. State, 263 Ga. 626, 627(2), 437 S.E.2d 313 (1993); Johnson v. State, 231 Ga.App. 823, 826(4), 499 S.E.2d 145 (1998).” Hartry v. State, 270 Ga. 596, 512 S.E.2d 251 (February 8, 1999). State was not required to prove chain of custody of shirt defendant wore during shooting “[b]ecause the shirt was a distinct and recognizable physical object that could be easily identified simply by observation. Harper v. State, 251 Ga. 183, 185, 304 S.E.2d 693 (1983).” Accord, Kenney v. State , 236 Ga.App. 359, 511 S.E.2d 923 (February 9, 1999) (accomplice’s clothes); Bishop v. State , 271 Ga. 291, 519 S.E.2d 206 (July 6, 1999) (fork found in murder victim’s hand); Ridley v. State , 240 Ga.App. 307, 523 S.E.2d 383 (October 7, 1999) (stolen clothes); Pace v. State , 271 Ga. 829, 524 S.E.2d 490 (December 3, 1999) (murder victim’s sweat pants and pillow); Kempson v. State , 278 Ga. 285, 602 S.E.2d 587 (September 13, 2004) (bullets taken from victims’ bodies); Buckley v. State , 270 Ga.App. 493, 606 S.E.2d 581 (October 21, 2004) (pendant); Ryan (October 25, 2005), above; Morales v. State , 286 Ga.App. 698, 649 S.E.2d 873 (July 19, 2007) (cell phone); Green v. State , 287 Ga.App. 248, 651 S.E.2d 174 (August 14, 2007) (bullets, citing Kempson ); Felton v. State , 283 Ga. 242, 657 S.E.2d 850 (February 25, 2008) (bandanna); Anderson v. State , 295 Ga.App. 594, 672 S.E.2d 541 (January 16, 2009) (watches); Moore v. State , 285 Ga.App. 157, 674 S.E.2d 315 (March 9, 2009) (gun and cartridge); English v. State , 304 Ga.App. 285, 696 S.E.2d 106 (June 1, 2010) (defendant’s cell phone); Johnson v. State , 289 Ga. 498, 713 S.E.2d 376 (July 5, 2011) (brown jumpsuit); Wheeler v. State , 290 Ga. 817, 725 S.E.2d 580 (March 23, 2012) (letter written by murder victim, “in which she stated that Wheeler had threatened her life and that Wheeler should be investigated if ever she were found dead.”); Walker v. State , 294 Ga. 851, 757 S.E.2d 64 (March 28, 2014) (murder suspect’s bloody shoes). R. CHARACTER See also subheading PRIOR DIFFICULTIES; WITNESSES – CHARACTER WITNESSES; and WITNESSES – IMPEACHMENT - CHARACTER, both below See new OCGA § 24-4-404, 405 1. ALIASES Buckholts v. State, 283 Ga.App. 254, 641 S.E.2d 246 (January 11, 2007). Defendant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine. Evidence that defendant used a different last name on his driver’s license was relevant and admissible, and did not place defendant’s character in issue, given officer’s testimony that drug traffickers often use aliases. Avery v. State , 244 Ga.App. 177, 534 S.E.2d 897 (May 24, 2000). Aggravated assault, armed robbery, and related convictions affirmed; no mistrial required where witness referenced defendant’s alias, in contravention of parties’ pretrial stipulation. “‘Testimony as to the use of an alias does not place the character of an accused in issue. McClendon v. State, [170 Ga.App. 790, 791(2), 318 S.E.2d 145 (1984)].’ McCord v. State, 268 Ga. 842, 843(2), 493 S.E.2d 129 (1997). Hence, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of Avery's request for a mistrial and curative instruction.” Accord, Munn v. State , 263 Ga.App. 821, 589 S.E.2d 596 (October 28, 2003). 2. CIRCUMSTANCES OF ARREST/OFFENSE/RES GESTAE See also subheading HEARSAY – RES GESTAE, below For cases under 2013 code, see new subheading INTRINSIC EVIDENCE, below. Dixon v. State, 298 Ga. 200, 779 S.E.2d 290 (November 2, 2015). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed; under pre-2013 Evidence Code, no error in “allowing the admission of testimony regarding suspected narcotics other than