☢ test - Í

Held, the statement was properly admissible. “Horne’s statement explained the reason for his refusal, was spontaneous and unsolicited, and was made immediately following his impaired driving; accordingly, the statement was admissible as part of the res gestae. See White v. State, 276 Ga. 583, 588(1)(c) (581 S.E.2d 18) (2003). See also Brooks v. State, 199 Ga.App. 525, 526(1) (405 S.E.2d 343) (1991). ‘This is true even if the defendant’s character is incidentally placed in issue.’ (Punctuation omitted.) Derrick v. State, 263 Ga. 766, 768(2) (438 S.E.2d 903) (1994).” Foster v. State, 286 Ga.App. 250, 649 S.E.2d 322 (July 3, 2007). No error admitting fact that defendant was found hiding in a closet upon his arrest. Distinguishing Richardson v. State , 199 Ga.App. 10 (403 S.E.2d 877) (1991) (error to admit testimony that defendant had hidden under bed on prior arrests – reference to prior arrests improperly placed defendant’s character in evidence). Accord, Gilford v. State , 295 Ga.App. 651, 673 S.E.2d 40 (January 23, 2009) (defendant hiding under bed; arrest not contemporaneous with offense of residential mortgage fraud). Quarles v. State, 285 Ga.App. 758, 647 S.E.2d 415 (June 8, 2007). Child molesting victim’s testimony that defendant “perpetrated these sexual acts against her partly because ‘ he got on drugs really bad’ … was relevant and admissible as ‘evidence of the entire res gestae of [the] crime[s] … even if the defendant’s character [was] incidentally placed in issue.’ Corza v. State, 273 Ga. 164, 166(2) (539 S.E.2d 149) (2000).” Ward v. State, 285 Ga.App. 574, 646 S.E.2d 745 (May 25, 2007). Reference to defendant’s illegal “turning” an electric meter in the process of burglarizing a building was not improper character evidence in the burglary prosecution, although the theft of electricity was not charged. “‘Generally, in the prosecution for a particular crime, evidence of another and distinct crime wholly independent from [the one being prosecuted] is inadmissible.’ Burger v. State, 242 Ga. 28, 32(8) (247 S.E.2d 834) (1978). If the statement by the defendant forms a part of the same transaction of the one being prosecuted, however, it is a part of the res gestae and is admissible. See id. The fact that it shows another crime and incidentally places the defendant’s character in issue does not render it inadmissible. See Lenear v. State, 239 Ga. 617, 619(3) (238 S.E.2d 407) (1977). Here, Ward acknowledged he ‘turned the electrical meter’ in connection with his admission of taking items from the storage shed. The acts were immediately related in time and place, and Ward failed to bring forward any evidence to rebut a showing that they were part of a single continuous transaction. See Maddox v. State, 227 Ga.App. 602, 604(3) (490 S.E.2d 174) (1997) (‘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. [Cit.]’) As a result, even assuming that the statement related to turning the meter placed Ward’s character at issue , it was in the discretion of the trial court to admit the reference as part of the res gestae of the burglary. See O'Kelly v. State, 196 Ga.App. 860, 861(2) (397 S.E.2d 197) (1990).” Smith v. State, 285 Ga.App. 399, 646 S.E.2d 499 (May 15, 2007). At defendant’s trial for drug possession, officer’s testimony that she was on the lookout for defendant on a burglary warrant was admissible as part of the res gestae. “‘The reference to the ‘warrant’ was part of the circumstances surrounding [Smith’s] arrest. All circumstances surrounding an arrest are admissible for whatever value the jury desires to place on them. Where evidence may incidentally put character in issue or be prejudicial it may be admitted if otherwise relevant. The warrant, as a circumstance of the arrest, was certainly relevant to the issues on trial as required by Momon v. State .’ (Citation omitted.) Peeples v. State, 234 Ga.App. 454, 457-458(4), 507 S.E.2d 197 (1998), citing Coney v. State, 198 Ga.App. 272, 273-274(3), 401 S.E.2d 304 (1991).” Accord, White v. State , 304 Ga.App. 158, 695 S.E.2d 425 (May 20, 2010) (fact that defendant was arrested at traffic stop based on outstanding warrant was properly admitted at trial); Amica v. State , 307 Ga.App. 276, 704 S.E.2d 831 (November 19, 2010). Williams v. State, 285 Ga.App. 190, 645 S.E.2d 676 (April 27, 2007). In prosecution for obstruction and driving on suspended license, reference to fact that defendant “had an open warrant” at the time of his arrest “falls short of placing his character in issue. [Cits.]” Cartledge v. State, 285 Ga.App. 145, 645 S.E.2d 633 (April 18, 2007). Evidence of others in a series of robberies, for which defendant was not indicted, was admissible as res gestae. “It is well-settled that ‘surrounding circumstances constituting part of the res gestae may always be shown to the jury along with the principal fact. Hence, acts and circumstances forming a part or continuation of the main transaction are admissible as res gestae and it does not matter that the act is another criminal offense and does not tend to establish the main offense.’ (Punctuation omitted.) White v. State, 265 Ga.App. 302, 304-305(2) (596 S.E.2d 9) (2003).” Meyers v. State, 281 Ga.App. 670, 637 S.E.2d 78 (September 26, 2006). Trial court properly allowed evidence of sexual