☢ test - Í

prosecuting attorney to argue that [the defendant] had been involved in a prior gang shooting’). Harmless, however, given overwhelming evidence of guilt “and that the jury acquitted Lingo of the armed robbery of Dominguez.” Sifuentes v. State, 293 Ga. 441, 746 S.E.2d 127 (July 11, 2013). Convictions for malice murder, criminal street gang activity, and related offenses affirmed; trial court properly admitted video recordings seized from defendants’ home, “depicting gang-related images and activities . … In order to prove the offense of criminal street gang activity, see OCGA § 16–15–4, the State was required to prove the existence of a criminal street gang, which ‘may be established by evidence of a common name or common identifying signs, symbols, tattoos, graffiti, or attire or other distinguishing characteristics.’ OCGA § 16–15–3(2). The videotapes at issue here were relevant in proving both the existence of the Norteno gang and Appellants' affiliation with it, essential elements of the street gang crimes which the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that the videos were made approximately two years prior to the crimes at issue goes to their evidentiary weight and does not render them inadmissible.” Accord, Nwakanma (January 20, 2015), above. Hilton v. State, 288 Ga. 201, 702 S.E.2d 188 (November 8, 2010). Murder and related convictions affirmed; evidence of defendant’s knowledge of other crimes committed by his fellow gang members was properly admitted “to show Hilton’s motive and intent in this case, as well as to support an inference that he was privy to discussions with Thomas regarding the killing of [victim] Officer Green. [Cits.]” Horne v. State, 281 Ga. 799, 642 S.E.2d 659 (March 19, 2007). Defendant’s handwritten notes “which referenced robbery and killing using a nine millimeter weapon and receiving proceeds of the crimes” were relevant and admissible to show intent despite defendant’s contention that it was “evidence of his gang affiliation.” “[T]here is no requirement that the State charge a defendant with a gang-related offense ‘in order to admit otherwise relevant evidence of gang activity.’ Wolfe v. State, 273 Ga. 670, 674(4)(c) (544 S.E.2d 148) (2001).” Eason v. State, 283 Ga.App. 574, 642 S.E.2d 207 (February 13, 2007). “Eason’s statement to the victim that he was a gang member was admissible as res gestae of the crime,” although it placed his character in issue. Accord, Morey v. State , 312 Ga.App. 678, 719 S.E.2d 504 (November 3, 2011) (defendant’s statement that he was gang leader, and other evidence the assault in question was gang-motivated, properly admitted to show motive and as res gestae). Ramirez v. State, 279 Ga. 569, 619 S.E.2d 668 (September 19, 2005). Two passing references to gangs, without assertion that defendant was a gang member, followed by court instructions to jury to disregard the references and telling jury that “there was no evidence that Ramirez was a member of, or connected with, a gang,” did not require mistrial. “Compare Hartry v. State, 270 Ga. 596(2) (512 S.E.2d 251) (1999) and Alexander v. State, 270 Ga. 346(2) (509 S.E.2d 56) (1998) (trial court abused its discretion in denying motion for mistrial where prosecution represented during opening argument that it would introduce evidence that the crime was gang-related, but failed to offer such evidence at trial, proffered no good faith explanation for his argument, and no specific curative instructions were given to the jury).” Edge v. State, 275 Ga. 311, 567 S.E.2d 1 (July 11, 2002). “Evidence of gang membership or involvement is admissible to show motive. Mallory v. State , 271 Ga. 150, 153(6) (517 S.E.2d 780) (1999); Clark v. State , 271 Ga. 6, 9(4) (515 S.E.2d 155) (1999). And here, gang membership was key to Edge’s motive for his involvement in the crimes. The State’s evidence was that Edge participated in the crimes in concert with fellow gang members, in retribution for [the victim]’s gang-related actions.” Accord , Maxwell v. State , 267 Ga.App. 227, 599 S.E.2d 228 (May 4, 2004); Garibay v. State , 275 Ga.App. 170, 620 S.E.2d 424 (August 17, 2005); Yat v. State , 279 Ga. 611, 619 S.E.2d 637 (September 19, 2005); Willoughby v. State , 280 Ga. 176, 626 S.E.2d 112 (January 30, 2006) (members of the “Mafia Mob Family” “could advance in rank by committing crimes” and participated in rituals to elevate members); Johnson v. State , 277 Ga.App. 499, 627 S.E.2d 116 (February 6, 2006) (membership in “Baby Gangsters” “was relevant to show how the defendants knew one another, and to provide a context and motive for the defendants’ joint participation in the robbery;” to explain why one defendant, the ringleader, got all the proceeds; and to explain threats against State’s witness, a former associate.); Wornum v. State , 285 Ga. 168, 674 S.E.2d 876 (March 9, 2009) (notebooks with gang information properly admitted where “[t]he State's theory was that [defendant] committed the crimes in order to improve his status or rank within a gang.”); Harris v. State , 298 Ga.App. 708, 680 S.E.2d 693 (July 2, 2009); Guzman v. State , 287 Ga. 759, 700 S.E.2d 340 (September 20, 2010); Morey (November 3, 2011), above; Finley v. State , 298 Ga. 451, 782 S.E.2d 651 (February 8, 2016).