☢ test - Í

Downing v. State, 255 Ga.App. 225, 564 S.E.2d 828 (May 2, 2002). “Evidence of membership in a gang is admissible to show a motive for a defendant’s criminal conduct. Mallory v. State, 271 Ga. 150, 153(6), 517 S.E.2d 780 (1999). Although the State must make the evidence at issue relate to its case, it is not required to prove that the crimes committed were in furtherance of gang activity. See Wolfe v. State, 273 Ga. 670, 674(4)(d), 544 S.E.2d 148 (2001). Here, it is apparent that much of [defendant]’s criminal liability for the commission of the indicted offenses was derivative. [Co- defendant, who was at large,] was the main perpetrator while defendant acted as his accomplice and as a party to the crimes. As such, the State was entitled to show that the two culprits were closely associated in such a way as to be expected to aid and support each other in committing these crimes and to show that [defendant]’s presence at the crime scene was not mere happenstance.” Veal v. State , 242 Ga.App. 873, 531 S.E.2d 422 (March 17, 2000). Aggravated assault and related convictions affirmed; “testimony from witnesses that a dispute in the nightclub involving gang signs preceded the parking lot shooting was admissible as part of the crime and as res gestae, even though the evidence incidentally put Veal's character in issue.” Billups v. State, 272 Ga. 15, 523 S.E.2d 873 (November 15, 1999). Defendant’s murder conviction affirmed. “Because the state presented evidence that [co-defendant] Ross and Billups knew each other through their gang involvement and that the crimes were carried out as a mission for the gang, the evidence [of defendant’s gang affiliation] was properly admitted.” Mallory v. State, 271 Ga. 150, 517 S.E.2d 782 (June 1, 1999). Evidence of gang affiliation was properly admitted. “Mallory had earlier warned [victim] Weston not to interfere with his gang and had threatened to shoot him , and the fight at school occurred because one of Weston's acquaintances wore an article of clothing in a color associated with a gang inimical to Mallory's. Under those circumstances, there was no error in admitting evidence of Mallory's gang membership to show its bearing on his motive for the attack on Weston and his friends that resulted in Weston's death.” Clark v. State, 271 Ga. 6, 515 S.E.2d 155 (April 12, 1999). “The State is authorized to present evidence of a defendant’s motive for allegedly committing a criminal act. Johnson v. State, 260 Ga. 457(2), 396 S.E.2d 888 (1990). When that motive directly involves [defendants’] membership in an unsavory group, the relevant and material evidence does not become inadmissible because it may incidentally put [defendants’] character or reputation into evidence. Mize v. State, 269 Ga. 646(3), 501 S.E.2d 219 (1998) (evidence of Ku Klux Klan and National Vastilian Aryan Party membership admissible to establish motive); Earnest v. State, 262 Ga. 494(1), 422 S.E.2d 188 (1992) (evidence of satanic cult membership admissible to establish motive).” Selley v. State, 237 Ga.App. 47, 514 S.E.2d 706 (March 16, 1999). At defendant’s trial for armed robbery and bringing a stolen vehicle into the state, trial court properly admitted defendant’s statement that the crimes had been part of a gang initiation. “Selley’s statement regarding the gang activity helped establish the motive for the crime of bringing the stolen car into Georgia. See Warren v. State, 233 Ga.App. 699, 700(2), 505 S.E.2d 777 (1998). Selley testified that he came to Georgia in the stolen car as part of ‘an initiation thing.’” 11. GOOD CHARACTER Rai v. State, 297 Ga. 472, 775 S.E.2d 129 (July 6, 2015). Murder and related convictions affirmed; under pre-2013 Evidence Code, no error in excluding testimony by third party as to specific acts showing defendant’s good character. “[A] defendant ‘may produce evidence of his good character in two ways. He may take the stand himself and testify as to his past good conduct, or ... he may call third parties to testify as to his general reputation in the community. He may not, however, call third parties to testify to specific acts of past good conduct either to refute [other] evidence or to introduce evidence of his good character.’ Boyce v. State, 258 Ga. 171, 171(1), 366 S.E.2d 684 (1988). Accord Banta v. State, 282 Ga. 392(4), 651 S.E.2d 21 (2007).” Banta v. State, 282 Ga. 392, 651 S.E.2d 21 (September 24, 2007). Defendant, charged with felony murder of an infant she was babysitting, sought to introduce good character evidence in the form of testimony about her good care of other children in her home. Held, trial court properly excluded this evidence, as “ Banta was not authorized to call third parties to testify to specific acts of her past good conduct. Boyce v. State, 258 Ga. 171(1) (366 S.E.2d 684) (1988).” 12. GUN OWNERSHIP/POSSESSION Ballard v. State, 297 Ga. 248, 773 S.E.2d 254 (June 1, 2015). Felony murder and related convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance based on “failing to object on ‘character evidence’ grounds to a witness' testimony that he had