☢ test - Í

Chaparro v. State, 279 Ga.App. 145, 630 S.E.2d 645 (April 28, 2006). “That Chaparro provided cigarettes and alcohol to O.V. was admissible as an uncharged part of the res gestae in this case, since his actions in doing so were relevant to show the manner in which Chaparro ‘groomed’ the child for victimization. See Leaptrot v. State, 272 Ga.App. 587, 589(1) (612 S.E.2d 887) (2005) (showering with gifts and drugs showed the intent to induce the child into engaging in sexual intercourse).” Gonzalez v. State, 277 Ga.App. 362, 626 S.E.2d 569 (January 25, 2006). Photos of defendants taken in interrogation room after arrest were admissible over objection as part of the circumstances of arrest – “‘depicting [Gonzalez’s] appearance at the time of his arrest.’ [Cit.]” Scott v. State, 277 Ga.App. 126, 625 S.E.2d 526 (January 4, 2006). Stopped for a traffic violation, defendant was arrested on a drug trafficking warrant issued several months earlier. At the time of arrest, defendant was found in possession of more drugs, scales, and $10,000 cash. Held, these circumstances of arrest were properly admitted in evidence in defendant’s trial on the earlier warrant. “‘As a general rule, evidence of the circumstances surrounding an arrest is admissible if it is relevant to the crimes charged.’ Gresham v. State, 255 Ga.App. 625, 630(4), 566 S.E.2d 380 (2002) citing Benford v. State, 272 Ga. 348, 349-350(3), 528 S.E.2d 795 (2000). Even where the evidence involves other crimes for which the defendant has not been charged, such evidence may be admissible where relevant to the crime of which the defendant is accused. See, e.g., Butts v. State, 250 Ga.App. 695, 696-697(1), 552 S.E.2d 888 (2001).” Accord, Sheppard (October 27, 2009), above (defendant attempting to commit theft when arrested for prior theft). Rollinson v. State, 276 Ga.App. 375, 623 S.E.2d 211 (November 15, 2005). The defendant was charged with furnishing a handgun to a minor; the minor then used the handgun in a robbery. Held, evidence that the minor used the gun in a robbery was admissible. “The … robbery was a part of the res gestae of the crime of furnishing a gun to a minor.” Defendant was not charged as a party to that robbery, but was charged with another robbery committed by the same minor. Smith v. State, 274 Ga.App. 852, 619 S.E.2d 358 (August 1, 2005). “The record shows that, in response to questions from the State about his investigation of Smith, the investigating officer testified that he became suspicious of Smith’s involvement based on his knowledge of prior robberies which he linked to Smith by the descriptions of the car involved and the perpetrators, the modus operandi, and masks. In particular, the officer testified that [victim’s] description of the robbery and her assailant made him suspect that Smith had been involved based on similarities with certain prior cases he had investigated. Given the nature of this line of questioning regarding the officer’s investigation of the defendant, Smith’s contention that his character was improperly placed into evidence lacks merit. “Evidence which incidentally puts character in issue may be admitted if otherwise relevant. The evidence at issue here was relevant to explain why the [officer decided to investigate Smith]. That the evidence showed that Jones [had committed similar crimes which piqued the officer’s suspicions] does not change the result here. Testimony explaining the reason for [defendant’s] arrest need not be excluded simply because it incidentally shows the commission of another crime.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Jones v. State, 268 Ga.App. 246, 249(2) (601 S.E.2d 763) (2004). Accordingly, Smith’s contention in this regard lacks merit.” Jones does not seem to support this proposition; rather, it is consistent with other cases holding that the circumstances of the defendant’s arrest are generally relevant and admissible. The first two bracketed insertions into the Jones quote, made by the Smith court, are not propositions supported by Jones. Generally, evidence explaining why officers focused on defendant is not relevant. See Harris v. State , 279 Ga. 522, 615 S.E.2d 532 (June 30, 2005) and other cases under subheading Hearsay – Explaining Conduct, below. Blake v. State, 272 Ga.App. 181, 612 S.E.2d 33 (March 14, 2005). Fact that warrant for charges on trial was executed when defendant was arrested for other offenses was admissible. “The Georgia Supreme Court has held: ‘ The flight of the accused, where and when arrested, whether he resisted or not, how he was armed, and all the circumstances attending his arrest, are admissible to be considered by the [trier of fact] for what they are worth .... [W]here evidence is relevant for the purpose of showing the circumstances of the arrest, it will not be excluded because it incidentally shows the commission of another crime.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Newman v. State, 239 Ga. 329, 330, 236 S.E.2d 673 (1977).” Accord, Butler v. State , 277 Ga.App. 57, 625 S.E.2d 458 (December 6, 2005) ( Affirmed on different issue, Butler v. State , 281 Ga. 310, 637 S.E.2d 688 (November 20, 2006)); Carrie v. State , 298 Ga.App. 55, 679 S.E.2d 30 (May 4, 2009). Thomas v. State, 270 Ga.App. 181, 606 S.E.2d 275 (October 26, 2004). Obstruction conviction affirmed (but others