☢ test - Í

transpired shortly before and shortly after the commission of the murder was admissible as relevant res gestae evidence,’ noting that ‘[t]he State 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. This is true even if the defendant’s character is incidentally placed in issue. [Cit.]’ In the present case, testimony established that the murder occurred in the course of an attempted armed robbery that was incidental to and followed directly from Roberts’s participation in the sale of marijuana to the victim. Roberts’s identification as a drug dealer was, therefore, part of the res gestae. Likewise, his effort shortly after the crime to deflect police attention by giving a false name was part of ‘what transpired shortly.... after the commission of the murder’(id.) and was admissible as part of the res gestae. See also Luke v. State, 131 Ga.App. 799(4) (207 S.E.2d 213) (1974) (reversed on other grounds, State v. Luke, 232 Ga. 815 (209 S.E.2d 165) (1974)), holding a lie to police by a defendant questioned at the scene of a crime to be admissible as part of the res gestae. Since the fact of Roberts being a drug dealer and his false identification of himself both constitute part of the res gestae of the crime, there was no error in admitting that evidence even though it incidentally placed his character in issue. Johnson v. State, supra.” Accord, Abercrombie v. State , 297 Ga.App. 522, 677 S.E.2d 719 (April 16, 2009) (at defendant’s drug possession trial, evidence that defendant gave officer false identification information was admissible as res gestae); Johnson v. State , 292 Ga. 785, 741 S.E.2d 627 (April 15, 2013). Compare Jefferies (June 4, 2004) (not error to admit evidence of unrelated gun found on defendant’s person at time of arrest) and cases cited thereunder. Nichols v. State, 282 Ga. 401, 651 S.E.2d 15 (September 24, 2007). Defendant’s murder conviction reversed; trial court improperly admitted into evidence several firearms, found in defendant’s home upon his arrest, which were not connected to the crime. Arrest came nine days after the killing. “As a general rule, the circumstances connected with a defendant’s arrest are admissible, even if such circumstances incidentally place the defendant’s character in issue. Benford v. State, 272 Ga. 348, 350(n.2) (528 S.E.2d 795) (2000); Upshaw v. State, 257 Ga.App. 199, 200(3) (570 S.E.2d 640) (2002). However, that is not the end of the inquiry because the evidence still must be shown to be relevant. Benford at 350(3); Upshaw at 200(3). And the circumstances connected with an accused’s arrest are not automatically relevant. Benford at 350(3). ‘Rather, such evidence is subject to the same standard of relevancy and materiality applicable to other evidence.’ Benford at 350(3), quoting Johnson v. State, 272 Ga. 254 (526 S.E.2d 549) (2000). Indeed, when evidence of certain circumstances surrounding the arrest is wholly unrelated to the charged crime, the arrest is remote in time from the charged crime, and the evidence is not otherwise shown to be relevant, it should not be admitted, and thus, it is an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to do so. Benford at 350(3); Crosby v. State, 269 Ga. 434, 435(3) (498 S.E.2d 62) (1998). That is precisely the situation in this case.” “As to the weapons and ammunition, the State did not establish any illegality regarding their presence in the home; nor did the State establish that Nichols ever carried the weapons or fired them. Evidence that Nichols had in his home a rifle, shotgun, and ammunition, without more, was not probative of his guilt with regard to the shooting of Jones in the convenience store parking lot following an altercation with him. See Traylor v. State, 280 Ga. 400, 403(2) (627 S.E.2d 594) (2006).” State here improperly used the firearms “to show that Nichols had a propensity for violence and the inclination to kill people; therefore, he was not acting in self-defense or in the context of voluntary manslaughter when he fired at Jones. However, in order to show that a defendant has a propensity for certain behavior, the State must introduce evidence of the defendant’s other similar behavior. Belmar v. State, 279 Ga. 795, 800(3) (621 S.E.2d 441) (2005). But, the State did not attempt to introduce into evidence the found arms and ammunition as a separate and similar event or occurrence to show Nichols’s propensity to act in the manner that he did in the incident with Jones. And a primary aim of the rules regarding the introduction of such separate events or transactions is to avoid an improper inference of propensity . Smith v. State, 232 Ga.App. 290, 291(1) (501 S.E.2d 523) (1998).” Accord, Saxton v. State , 300 Ga.App. 535, 685 S.E.2d 780 (October 20, 2009) (Defendant’s conviction for aggravated assault reversed; trial court erred in admitting into evidence circumstances of defendant’s arrest, several months after the shooting incident in question, and in possession of a different weapon.); Rucker v. State , 291 Ga. 134, 728 S.E.2d 205 (May 29, 2012) (evidence of defendant’s videotapes, “among those items which were thought to be important enough to take during the attempted flight, were a circumstance arguably bearing on Rucker's sanity at the time he committed the crimes.” Compare Cobb (March 12, 2010), and Johnson (March 18, 2011), both above. Page v. State, 287 Ga.App. 182, 651 S.E.2d 131 (August 9, 2007). “A trial counsel’s decision not to object to statements that might have impugned the defendant’s character [here, reference to his arrest on a probation warrant] is a tactical one, and the trial court properly found that Page’s trial counsel was not ineffective,” Smith v. State, 234 Ga.App. 586, 588- 589(1)(a)(ii) (506 S.E.2d 406) (1998). Horne v. State, 286 Ga.App. 712, 649 S.E.2d 889 (July 20, 2007). When asked to take alco-sensor test prior to DUI arrest, defendant refused, “explaining that ‘the last time he did that it didn’t go so well and he got in trouble.’”