☢ test - Í

confiscated five guns among the three of them. … Bay contends that the trial court erred in allowing the State to exhibit two of those guns to the jury. Although these weapons were not admitted into evidence, Bay argues that because the evidence showed that he did not possess those particular guns, presenting them in front of the jury was harmful in that it gave the impression that Bay ‘had an arsenal on him at the time of his arrest.’ The State presented the two guns to an acquaintance of Bay’s and asked him if he recognized them. The witness stated that he recognized both guns as belonging to one of the men arrested with Bay. Therefore, we see no prejudice here as the testimony disassociated Bay from the two guns. Moreover, all five guns were a circumstance of Bay’s arrest .” Moore v. State, 265 Ga.App. 511, 594 S.E.2d 734 (February 11, 2004). Officer’s testimony that defendant was “uncooperative, verbally abusive, resisted arrest… and smelled as if he had been drinking,” when arrested at the scene shortly after the robbery was properly admitted. “[O]ur Supreme Court has held that all circumstances connected with a defendant’s arrest are considered proper evidence to be submitted to the jury and to be weighed by the jury for what they are worth,” citing Benford v. State , 272 Ga. 348, 528 S.E.2d 795 (2000). Compare Jones (July 11, 2002), below. West v. State, 265 Ga.App. 339, 593 S.E.2d 874 (January 29, 2004). “Evidence of the handgun in West’s apartment was a circumstance of the arrest that was properly admitted as part of the res gestae.” Smith v. State, 265 Ga.App. 236, 593 S.E.2d 695 (January 20, 2004). Not error to admit defendant’s book-in photograph where State contended it showed that defendant was intoxicated at time of his vehicular homicide arrest. Wells v. State, 265 Ga.App. 245, 593 S.E.2d 710 (January 20, 2004). “[T]he conduct of a defendant before, during, and after the crime, may be considered by the jury in establishing his commission of the crime and criminal intent.” Trial court thus did not err in allowing evidence that defendant “had to be forcefully removed” from his prison cell “several hours after he broke the window” in the door. McCollum v. State, 258 Ga.App. 574, 574 S.E.2d 561 (November 6, 2002). Trial court did not err in allowing evidence of defendant’s drug seizure in another county, the previous day, as part of the res gestae of the arrest in this case. “[T]he circumstances of the previous day’s arrest in Cobb County were relevant to the issues at trial for the purpose of showing the circumstances of the arrest and need not be excluded simply because they are potentially prejudicial.” Not clear how the prior arrest was relevant. Jones v. State, 256 Ga.App. 470, 568 S.E.2d 807 (July 11, 2002). Fact that defendant possessed a knife when arrested was irrelevant to robbery by force charge at issue and should have been excluded from evidence (although overwhelming evidence of guilt made this harmless error). “Evidence acquired in connection with a defendant’s arrest is neither automatically relevant nor automatically prejudicial.” Compare Moore (February 11, 2004), above. Johnson v. State, 255 Ga.App. 721, 566 S.E.2d 440 (June 11, 2002). “Circumstances surrounding an unrelated arrest which are not relevant to the issues being tried and which improperly put the defendant’s character in issue should be excluded from evidence.” Here, drugs found during an unrelated arrest had no bearing on defendant’s charges for armed robbery; however, gun found during arrest was relevant and admissible. Forrester v. State, 255 Ga.App. 456, 565 S.E.2d 825 (May 21, 2002). Defendant was arrested in a house full of cocaine. His defense centered on a female who was also present, contending that she had a greater connection to the house than he did. To counter this, state tendered into evidence certain personal papers belonging to defendant and found in a briefcase in the house, including papers related to other serious pending charges against defendant. With this evidence, the prosecution wanted to establish Forrester's connection with the house. Defendant contended the introduction of the documents placed his character in evidence. Held, the papers were relevant to show defendant’s connection to the location of the drugs; their admission in evidence was not error, though they did incidentally place defendant’s character in evidence. See Miller v. State, 163 Ga.App. 889, 890-891(3), 296 S.E.2d 182 (1982) (material testimony does not become inadmissible because it incidentally puts a defendant’s character in issue). “Although the better practice would have been to redact heavily such an exhibit, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting it.” Herndon v. State, 253 Ga.App. 543, 559 S.E.2d 749 (January 31, 2002). Defendant’s conviction for armed robbery and aggravated assault affirmed. Defendant robbed three different shops in Fulton County on day one and then robbed a Douglas County store the following day. Held, the trial court properly admitted evidence of Defendant’s conviction for a