☢ test - Í

shown any likelihood that he was prejudiced by the [photograph], much less that the probative value of the [photograph] is “substantially” outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.’” Accord, Smith v. State , 325 Ga.App. 745, 754 S.E.2d 788 (February 18, 2014) (video of defendant’s police interview, showing him handcuffed, was not unduly prejudicial; jury already knew that defendant had been arrested and handcuffed). Wright v. State, 319 Ga.App. 723, 738 S.E.2d 310 (February 11, 2013). Armed robbery and related convictions affirmed. Trial court properly allowed evidence that defendant, when arrested four months after the robbery on an unrelated charge, had given police a false name. “The prosecutor argued that a reasonable inference would arise from the arresting officer's contemplated testimony, together with other evidence, that Wright was in flight from police apprehension relating to the [subject] incident.” Care was taken not to mention the unrelated (drug) charge for which defendant was arrested. Boynton v. State, 317 Ga.App. 446, 730 S.E.2d 738 (July 27, 2012). Convictions for armed robbery and related offenses affirmed; no error in admitting photo of defendant in shackles, taken just after his arrest on similar transaction, showing that his clothing “match[ed] the victim’s description of the gunman’s clothing.” Bryson v. State, 316 Ga.App. 512, 729 S.E.2d 631 (June 29, 2012). Armed robbery and related convictions affirmed; evidence that defendant was apprehended while speeding and driving without a license didn’t improperly place his character in evidence. “‘Flight is always a circumstance which may be shown and a jury is authorized to take into account in determining guilt or innocence of an accused, and evidence thereof is not inadmissible because it incidentally puts the defendant's character in issue.’ (Citations omitted.) Hogans v. State, 251 Ga. 242(1), 304 S.E.2d 699 (1983). Notably, Bryson himself relies upon the challenged evidence in support of his defense theory that he fled from the officers to avoid traffic tickets, not because he was guilty of the charged offenses. Cf. Hovis v. State, 260 Ga.App. 278, 281–282(1)(b), 582 S.E.2d 127 (2003) (failure to object to testimony that defendant did not have a driver's license was not erroneous since the testimony supported the defense theory and provided an alternative explanation for defendant's act of leaving the scene of the accident).” Rawls v. State, 315 Ga.App. 891, 730 S.E.2d 1 (May 17, 2012). Child molestation and related convictions affirmed; trial court properly admitted evidence that defendant had been drinking on the day of the victim’s outcry to school officials. “Rawls argues that because no crime was committed on the day of D.R.'s outcry at school, the circumstances of that day cannot be considered part of the res gestae of the crime. … Here, D.R. had described the abuse to interviewers and in direct testimony as occurring when Rawls had been drinking alcohol and when he picked her up early from school, as he did on the day of her outcry at school. Specifically, D.R. told the forensic interviewer that ‘he does this when he's drunk sometimes,’ and she testified at trial that she smelled alcohol when he abused her. The outcry itself was direct evidence of the abuse, [fn] and Rawls's odor of alcohol on the day of D.R.'s outcry was relevant as one of the circumstances leading up to the outcry , particularly because it aroused suspicion by school personnel who intervened and precipitated D.R.'s outcry.” Solis-Morales v. State, 315 Ga.App. 724, 728 S.E.2d 253 (May 1, 2012). Convictions for aggravated assault and related offenses affirmed; no error in admitting video showing defendant in handcuffs being searched after arrest. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the evidence wasn’t “substantially more prejudicial than probative” because it showed him in handcuffs. The video showed an officer finding robbery victim’s keys in defendant’s pocket, a point defendant challenged at trial. Mere fact that defendant was handcuffed was not prejudicial. “Because the jury already knew that Solis–Morales had been handcuffed by the time of the search, and because the trial court properly charged the jury on the presumption of innocence, we cannot say that Solis–Morales has shown any likelihood that he was prejudiced by the video, much less that the probative value of the video is “substantially” outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See Hicks v. State, 256 Ga. 715, 720–721(13) (352 S.E.2d 762) (1987).” Accord, Hamlin (February 27, 2013), above. Manuel v. State, 315 Ga.App. 632, 727 S.E.2d 246 (April 12, 2012). Aggravated battery and related convictions affirmed; trial court properly admitted evidence that defendant possessed handgun at time of arrest, some 19 days after the crime. “There was eyewitness testimony at trial that when Manuel shot the victim, he pulled a handgun from the right rear pocket of his pants. The fact that, at the time of his arrest for shooting the victim, Manuel was carrying a handgun in precisely the same location and manner on his person was relevant to the issue of his identification as the shooter in this case and thus was not ‘wholly unrelated’ to the charged crimes.” “Furthermore, Manuel's arrest for the charged crimes occurred less than three weeks from their commission. Thus, his arrest was not so remote in time from those crimes as to render the otherwise relevant evidence of the handgun automatically inadmissible. See Simmons [ v. State, 251