☢ test - Í

cocaine found in the apartment where the shootings took place. … [T]he evidence would have been admissible under the doctrine of res gestae. See, e.g., Nash v. State, 285 Ga. 753(2), 683 S.E.2d 591 (2009).” Gillespie v. State, 333 Ga.App. 565, 774 S.E.2d 255 (July 16, 2015). Physical precedent only. Conviction for armed robbery and related offenses vacated on other grounds, but under pre-2013 Evidence Code, no error admitting evidence of marijuana found near defendant at time of arrest, some eight days after offenses occurred. “Here, while the marijuana was not found on Gillespie's person, but rather in the small closet where he was hiding, the marijuana bore a logical relation to his arrest in that the crimes at issue arose out of a plan to steal marijuana by first pretending to want to buy it from an unwitting seller. [Cits.] Further, there was testimony that “a pound” of marijuana was stolen and divided between the robbers, including Gillespie. Marijuana played a role in the events leading to the crimes, and the evidence in the instant case was relevant. [Cits.] Further, the lapse of eight or nine days between the crime and Gillespie's arrest with the marijuana nearby does not render the incident so remote in time that admissibility is barred. Manuel v. State, 315 Ga.App. 632, 633(1), 727 S.E.2d 246 (2012) (gun which was not used in the crime and was in defendant's possession during arrest 19 days after shooting was not too remote in time to be admissible); Nealy v. State, 246 Ga.App. 752, 752–753(1), 542 S.E.2d 521 (2000) (admission of bulletproof vest worn by defendant at time of arrest, where crime involved a shootout 26 days earlier, not too remote in time).” Goggins v. State, 330 Ga.App. 350, 767 S.E.2d 753 (October 8, 2014). Child molestation conviction affirmed; evidence that defendant not only showed victim his penis (as alleged in indictment), but placed it in her mouth (not charged, or disclosed until five days before trial) was admissible as part of the res gestae. “[I]t is well-settled that ‘[e]vidence of another and distinct crime is admissible if it was committed as a part of the same transaction and formed a part of the res gestae.’ (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Prather v. State, 279 Ga.App. 552, 553, 631 S.E.2d 758 (2006) (Evidence of defendant's battery of the child victim's grandmother that occurred shortly after the defendant's act of child molestation was admissible as part of the res gestae). Furthermore, ‘the [S]tate is entitled to present evidence of the entire res gestae of the crime. Even though a defendant is not charged with every crime committed during a criminal transaction, every aspect of it relevant to the crime charged may be presented at trial.’ (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. Here, L.G. testified that Goggins had her perform oral sex on him during the incident when he exposed his erect penis to her. Accordingly, the evidence of the oral sex was admissible as part of the res gestae of the crime for which Goggins was charged, despite the fact that he was not charged with the additional crime in the indictment.” Trial was conducted under 2013 Evidence Code, which replaces res gestae with intrinsic evidence; but analysis should otherwise be the same. Prado v. State, 327 Ga.App. 402, 759 S.E.2d 287 (May 30, 2014) (Physical precedent only). Conviction for marijuana trafficking affirmed. Where defendant was charged with trafficking marijuana found in vehicle, trial court properly allowed evidence that defendant and the vehicle were found at a known marijuana grow house, though defendant wasn’t on trial for the marijuana in the house. “‘The [S]tate is entitled to present evidence of the entire res gestae of the crime.’ (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Dryden v. State, 316 Ga.App. 70, 76(4), 728 S.E.2d 245 (2012). … Furthermore, all circumstances surrounding a defendant's arrest, if relevant to the crime charged, are admissible as part of the res gestae of the crime, even if the evidence incidentally places the defendant's character in issue. See Adkins v. State, 280 Ga. 761, 763(3), 632 S.E.2d 650 (2006); Scott v. State, 277 Ga.App. 126, 127(1), 625 S.E.2d 526 (2006).” “[T]he trial court was authorized to find that Prado's stop at the marijuana ‘grow house’ was part of a continuous course of conduct, closely connected in time, place, and manner to his trafficking of the marijuana found in the trailer. Moreover, the surveillance and search of the marijuana ‘grow house’ were part of the circumstances surrounding Prado's arrest. And because Prado denied knowing about the marijuana found hidden in the trailer, evidence that he was observed visiting a large, active marijuana growing operation moments before driving away in tandem with the trailer was relevant to show that he knowingly possessed the drugs inside the trailer. For these combined reasons, the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting evidence of the surveillance and search of the Creekwood Drive residence as part of the res gestae of the crime. See Kohler v. State, 300 Ga.App. 692, 694–695(1), 686 S.E.2d 328 (2009) (in case where the defendant was tried for trafficking in cocaine after he delivered certain boxes to a residence under police surveillance, evidence of the large amount of marijuana found in the residence where the defendant was arrested was admissible as part of the res gestae because ‘the presence of the marijuana was relevant to the issue of [the defendant's] knowledge’ of the cocaine in the boxes he delivered); Mines v. State, 167 Ga.App. 766, 767–768(2), 307 S.E.2d 291 (1983) (in case where defendant was tried for drug possession, evidence of the defendant's activities at establishment ‘immediately prior to the arrest’ was admissible ‘for the purpose of showing that he did in fact possess the drugs with criminal motive and intent’). Cf. Scott, 277 Ga.App. at 127–128(1), 625 S.E.2d 526 (defendant's admission at time of his arrest of his ‘connection to a high level drug dealer’ was admissible as part of the circumstances of his arrest for trafficking in cocaine).”