☢ test - Í

mistrial, we find no error. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Wallace's motion for mistrial, as the testimony about not trusting Wallace was ambiguous and did not indicate that he had committed a crime.” Reid v. State, 281 Ga.App. 640, 637 S.E.2d 62 (September 21, 2006). Curative instruction was sufficient: “when asked whether he was friends with Reid, Clark responded that ‘[w]e hung together and smoked weed together so he [is] all right with me.’” Agee v. State, 279 Ga. 774, 621 S.E.2d 434 (October 24, 2005). Curative instructions were sufficient to address improper injection of defendant’s character by two witnesses, one who made reference to defendant’s ‘reputation on the street,’ and the other who mentioned that he was meeting defendant to ‘speak on cocaine’ and asked defendant “why was he catching cases like that and he getting money.” “[W]e note that the reference to Agee’s reputation was unintentional – it was not elicited by the State. Second, the trial court instructed the jury to disregard the reference. Third, the evidence of Agee’s guilt was overwhelming.” Accord, Banks v. State , 271 Ga. 59, 518 S.E.2d 415 (May 3, 1999) (unsolicited references to prior incidents where defendant hit victim); Ryan v. State , 276 Ga.App. 87, 622 S.E.2d 446 (October 25, 2005) (unsolicited reputation evidence quickly addressed by curative instruction); Banks v. State , 281 Ga. 678, 642 S.E.2d 679 (March 19, 2007) (witness’s unsolicited statement that he met defendant in prison sufficiently cured by court’s instruction); Ivey v. State , 284 Ga.App. 232, 644 S.E.2d 169 (March 16, 2007) (unsolicited reference to crack pipe found on defendant); Johnson v. State , 305 Ga.App. 853, 700 S.E.2d 735 (September 8, 2010) (In defendant’s rape trial, “the trial court's pointed instruction to the jury was sufficient to cure any potential prejudice resulting from the detective's vague, passing reference to ‘girls coming from the woodwork’”). Goldsby v. State, 273 Ga.App. 523, 615 S.E.2d 592 (June 6, 2005). “Georgia courts have held that curative instructions are adequate to remedy references to [defendant] being incarcerated for 22 years, see Dukes v. State, 273 Ga. 890, 893(3)(b) (548 S.E.2d 328) (2001), to [defendant] being on probation, see Sims v. State, 268 Ga. 381, 382(2) (489 S.E.2d 809) (1997), to [defendant] being arrested for DUI, see Browning v. State, 236 Ga.App. 893, 894(2) (513 S.E.2d 779) (1999), to [defendant] having a reputation for killing people, see Freeman v. State, 278 Ga. 349, 351(2)(c) (603 S.E.2d 214) (2004), and to [defendant] buying ‘dope.’ Mullins v. State, 270 Ga.App. 271, 276(5) (605 S.E.2d 913) (2004). A curative instruction is generally an adequate remedy when it is ‘promptly given and clearly inform[s] the jury that it should disregard the improper testimony.’ Dukes, supra. at 893.” Curative instruction was thus sufficient where accomplice testified about selling drugs to defendant, an incident not on trial. Accord, Hill v. State , 285 Ga.App. 503, 646 S.E.2d 718 (May 23, 2007); Rhines v State , 288 Ga.App. 128, 653 S.E.2d 500 (October 11, 2007); Gomez v. State , 315 Ga.App. 898, 728 S.E.2d 691 (May 17, 2012) (“A passing reference to probation does not place a defendant’s character in issue.”). Smith v. State , 244 Ga.App. 165, 534 S.E.2d 903 (May 24, 2000). Convictions for rape and related offenses affirmed; no mistrial required where witness improperly commented that fingerprints found at crime scene matched defendant’s “criminal history.” Trial court gave curative instruction. Citing Dimauro v. State, 185 Ga.App. 524(2), 364 S.E.2d 900 (1988) (curative instruction sufficient where officer testified that he used photo of defendant from “a previous arrest”); Dunn v. State , 251 Ga. 731, 734(4), 309 S.E.2d 370 (1983) (curative instruction sufficient where “a State's witness testified that the defendant had an arrest record.”). 4. DEFENDANT’S BELIEFS, LIFESTYLE OR RELIGION Boring v. State, 289 Ga. 429, 711 S.E.2d 634 (May 31, 2011). Murder conviction reversed “[b]ecause the trial court allowed the State to introduce improper and prejudicial character evidence at trial.” Evidence included “various items of evidence seized from the 15–year–old's bedroom during the police investigation, including photographs of appellant with dyed black hair and dark make-up; a document bearing the words of a ‘curse’ to be recited ‘while burning the letter over a black candle’; and seven different inscriptions, one typewritten and the rest handwritten on the bedroom walls, of song lyrics and quotations attributed to various singers and other artists, bearing themes of anguish, enslavement, atheism, and violence. [fn] Though the State elicited no elaboration from any of its witnesses regarding the import of these items, the State explicitly sought in both opening and closing to link these items with the so-called ‘gothic lifestyle’ and to characterize them as evidence of ‘satanic influences.’” Held, because there was no evidence linking any of the items with the crime, they were irrelevant and prejudicial, especially given the emphasis placed on them in opening and closing. “[I]n the numerous cases … in which we have upheld the admission of evidence of a defendant's association with an ‘unsavory’ organization or ideology, there was actual evidence adduced at trial affirmatively linking the defendant to the organization or ideology in question. Here, by contrast, nothing in the evidence adduced explicitly referenced satanism or ‘gothic’ beliefs or subculture, and there was no testimony actually linking the inscriptions