☢ test - Í

Crane v. State, 300 Ga.App. 450, 685 S.E.2d 314 (September 23, 2009). At defendant’s homicide trial, trial court properly excluded defendant’s statements on scene to father and a female, tendered by defendant as “res gestae.” “Although Crane made statements to, and in the presence of, [DA’s intern] shortly after the shooting, we cannot conclude that such statements were ‘free from all suspicion of device or afterthought’ since Crane advised the female caller that he could not talk because he was in the back of a patrol car, and asked her not to call him back. OCGA § 24-3-3. Further, Crane's recounting of recent events to his father was a narrative and not part of the res gestae.” Hensley v. State, 300 Ga.App. 136, 684 S.E.2d 673 (September 21, 2009). At defendant’s trial for aggravated assault of a peace officer, felony obstruction, and related charges, trial court properly denied mistrial where officer violated court’s motion in limine by describing the basis of the arrest warrant which the officers were trying to execute against defendant (a warrant for aggravated assault). “Although the prosecutor failed to instruct the officer to limit his testimony, the officer did not give any details about the underlying aggravated assault charge. The comment was fleeting and incomplete , and the witness was immediately redirected before his testimony continued. See Gordian v. State, 261 Ga.App. 75, 77 (581 S.E.2d 616) (2003) (fleeting reference to possible criminal history is harmless). Compare with Smith v. State, 296 Ga.App. 608 (675 S.E.2d 310) (2009) (in-depth testimony about prior bad acts unrelated to the event in question warranted mistrial). Second, the evidence against Hensley was so overwhelming that the impact of the statement on the jury, if any, was minimal. … Finally, the trial court halted the testimony immediately upon Hensley's objection.” Accord, Jackson v. State , 316 Ga.App. 128, 728 S.E.2d 774 (June 7, 2012) (fleeting reference to defendant’s outstanding “federal and probation” warrants didn’t require mistrial in light of curative instruction). Ector v. State, 298 Ga.App. 847, 681 S.E.2d 654 (July 9, 2009). At defendant’s trial for fleeing and eluding, trial court erred in admitting evidence “concerning the off-white powdery substance found in his vehicle. … We agree with Ector that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting this evidence. Although the trial court referred to the substance as ‘drugs’ and found the evidence was admissible to show why Ector attempted to flee from law enforcement, as stated above, no evidence was presented in this case that the substance found in Ector's car was in fact contraband and Ector was not charged with any violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. Thus, this evidence was inadmissible to show Ector attempted to elude the officers because he was in possession of an illegal substance.” Harmless, however, in light of overwhelming evidence of guilt. Bonker v. State, 298 Ga.App. 867, 681 S.E.2d 256 (July 9, 2009). At defendant’s trial for armed robbery and related offenses, trial court properly admitted evidence of circumstances of defendant’s arrest a week later, where he was charged with public drunkenness and found in possession of the handgun used in the earlier robbery. “Here, even though the gun was discovered during a separate criminal incident, it is relevant because it shows that the handgun was in Bonker's possession only about a week after the robbery.” In re: J.W.B., 296 Ga.App. 131, 673 S.E.2d 630 (February 16, 2009). At defendant’s delinquency hearing, based on aggravated assault, trial court properly admitted res gestae evidence “that, after [victim] went inside his home, J.W.B. dropped his pants in front of female witnesses. … ‘It is well settled in this state that acts are pertinent as a part of the res gestae if they are done pending the hostile enterprise, and if they bear upon it, are performed whilst it is in continuous progress to its catastrophe, and are of a nature to promote or obstruct, advance or retard it, or to evince essential motive or purpose in reference to it.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Sypho v. State, 175 Ga.App. 833, 835(3) (334 S.E.2d 878) (1985). When J.W.B. dropped his pants, he was still shouting racial epithets at Cobb and had only moments before swung a metal rod at him. Further, J.W.B. dropped his pants in the direction of two women who were witnessing the events. Because J.W.B.'s conduct occurred ‘pending the hostile enterprise,’ the court did not err in admitting the evidence as part of the res gestae. See id.” Accord, Morey (November 3, 2011) (citing J.W.B.). Weems v. State, 295 Ga.App. 680, 673 S.E.2d 50 (January 26, 2009). At defendant’s cocaine trafficking trial, trial court properly admitted investigator’s testimony about prior drug sales at defendant’s residence that led to issuance of search warrant. “[T]he investigator's testimony concerning the previous drug sales was not similar transaction evidence, and so the state was not required to comply with the procedural rules set forth in USCR 31.3. Rather, the testimony was evidence of the circumstances surrounding the issuance and execution of the search warrant leading to the seizure of the cocaine and firearms that formed the basis of the charges in this case. And, this evidence was relevant and material because, as discussed above, it connected Weems to the residence and the cocaine seized from there. Accordingly, the investigator's testimony was admissible as part of the res gestae and was not subject to USCR 31.3. See Upshaw v. State, 257 Ga.App. 199, 200-201(3) (570 S.E.2d 640) (2002); Hamilton v. State, 210 Ga.App. 496, 499(4) (436 S.E.2d 500) (1993); Crowe v. State, 193 Ga.App. 385 (388 S.E.2d 24) (1989).”