☢ test - Í

performed community service.” Cobb v. State, 302 Ga.App. 821, 692 S.E.2d 65 (March 12, 2010). At defendant’s trial for aggravated assault, no error in admitting evidence of gun found in defendant’s possession at arrest, although not used in the crime. “Here, although the evidence showed that the Derringer was not used to shoot Andrews, the Derringer was loaded and found at the scene of Cobb's and her co-defendant's arrest (within sixteen hours of the assault) along with the nine-millimeter handgun matching the description of the one used on Andrews. Further, Cobb testified that her co-defendant had purchased the Derringer for her, which had relevance to the nature of her relationship with her co-defendant, who accompanied Cobb to Andrews's home and who principally carried out the assault on Andrews. Therefore, under these circumstances, the trial court was within its discretion to admit the Derringer found during Cobb's arrest. See Artis v. State, 299 Ga.App. [287, 289(1) (682 S.E.2d 375) (2009)]; Gober [ v. State, 249 Ga.App. 168, 173-174(6) (547 S.E.2d 656) (2001).” Compare Nichols (September 24, 2007), below. Haywood v. State, 301 Ga.App. 717, 689 S.E.2d 82 (December 16, 2009). At defendant’s trial for possession of marijuana and cocaine with intent to distribute, trial court properly excluded evidence of circumstances co-defendant Clayton’s arrest – namely, that he was arrested in possession of cocaine. “At trial, the state proceeded under the theory that Clayton and Haywood jointly possessed the seized marijuana and cocaine. The fact that Clayton solely possessed drugs when he was arrested two weeks later ‘did not shine any light whatsoever’ on whether Clayton was in exclusive possession of the drugs seized in this case. Nichols v. State, 282 Ga. 401, 403(2), 651 S.E.2d 15 (2007). In other words, testimony that Clayton was found with drugs at an entirely different time and place two weeks after the charged crimes had no ‘logical relation’ to whether Haywood jointly possessed the seized marijuana and cocaine or actively participated in the attempted drug deal at the hotel. Id. at 404(3), 651 S.E.2d 15.” Wright v. State, 301 Ga.App. 178, 687 S.E.2d 195 (November 19, 2009). At defendant’s trial for shoplifting, no error in admitting store video recording which showed defendant’s husband separately shoplifting items, and showed defendant in possession of items later stolen by her. “Although, arguably, only a portion of the videotape was relevant to this case, where Wright met her husband and exchanged shopping bags, ‘upon the tender of demonstrative or documentary evidence, part of which is admissible and part inadmissible, and where the objection is to the evidence as a whole, it is not error to admit it all.’ Morrill v. State, 216 Ga.App. 468, 473(9) (454 S.E.2d 796) (1995), accord Kirkland v. State, 206 Ga.App. 27, 29(6) (424 S.E.2d 638) (1992).” “Although the videotape does not show Wright committing a crime, it does show her in possession of the merchandise for which she was charged, and the attendant circumstances leading up to her being in possession of the goods. While the State maintained that the videotape reflected Wright committing the crime of shoplifting, the tape also depicted the facts as testified to by Wright. Because the videotape was made contemporaneously to the incident at issue and provided context for the circumstances surrounding Wright's arrest it was admissible as part of the res gestae of the crime. Moclaire v. State, 215 Ga.App. 360, 365(7) (451 S.E.2d 68) (1994); Lyons v. State, 266 Ga.App. 89, 90(2) (596 S.E.2d 226) (2004). Circumstances surrounding an arrest that constitute part of the res gestae may always be shown to the jury along with the principal fact, and their admissibility is within the discretion of the trial court. Id.” Sheppard v. State, 300 Ga.App. 631, 686 S.E.2d 295 (October 27, 2009). Circumstances of defendant’s arrest, one week after subject theft, were properly admitted in evidence: “Sheppard was found with [co-defendant] Smith in the same area where [victim] Fripp's tools were stolen. Sheppard was wearing the same clothing that he had worn in the surveillance video of the theft, and he was riding the bicycle that Smith rode in the video. Immediately before Sheppard's arrest, Sheppard and Smith (who was also in the surveillance video) were walking up and down the street, making hand signals to each other and inspecting locked bicycles. The bicycle Sheppard was riding was stolen, and he was in possession of bolt cutters, a tool commonly used in the commission of thefts. Thus, we conclude that the evidence regarding the events of September 1, 2005, which was consistent with stealing property, was relevant to Sheppard's alleged theft of Fripp's suitcase and tools . [fn: See Benford v. State, 272 Ga. 348, 350-351(3) (528 S.E.2d 795) (2000) (evidence that the defendant possessed crack cocaine at the time of his arrest for murder was admissible at trial because the evidence showed that the defendant and the victim smoked crack cocaine prior to the murder); Scott [ v. State, 277 Ga.App. 126, 128(1) (625 S.E.2d 526) (2006)] (evidence that the defendant was in possession of digital scales, marijuana, cocaine, and a large amount of cash at the time of his arrest was admissible at trial for trafficking in cocaine); Gresham v. State, 255 Ga.App. 625, 630(4) (566 S.E.2d 380) (2002) (evidence that defendant was in possession of a knife at the time of his arrest was relevant and admissible at trial for the aggravated assault of a woman who testified that the defendant had threatened her with violence). ] Therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting this evidence.”