☢ test - Í

‘[n]ever see[n] [the victim] with a gun’ and had not ‘ever known him to have a gun.’ However, the testimony in question has nothing to do with the victim's character, as the physical observation of a person having or not having a gun says nothing about the character of person who has or does not have that gun. Indeed, the testimony here only speaks to this particular witness' observations about whether he had ever seen the victim with a gun, and nothing more.” Lee v. State, 308 Ga.App. 711, 708 S.E.2d 633 (March 24, 2011). Aggravated assault and related convictions affirmed; trial court erred, but harmless, in allowing into evidence testimony that a witness saw defendant with a medium-sized pistol (the type of gun used in the shooting in question) near the date of the incident. “The state contends that the witness's testimony was not evidence of Lee's bad character, on the ground that gun ownership and the custom of carrying a gun do not, by themselves, impute bad character. See Sweet v. State, 278 Ga. 320, 325(7) (602 S.E.2d 603) (2004). The jury, however, was presented with more than simply evidence that Lee owned or carried a gun; the witness testified that Lee – whose youth the jury could observe [fn: See generally OCGA § 16-11-132(b) (persons under the age of 18 are not lawfully allowed to possess or have control of a handgun except in limited circumstances) ] – had pulled out the gun while in a group of people at a shopping mall. This testimony imputed bad character to Lee. See Moon v. State, 202 Ga.App. 500, 501(2) (414 S.E.2d 721) (1992) ( witness's testimony that defendant not only had a reputation for carrying a gun but also for shooting the gun placed the defendant's general character in issue ).” Harmless, however, in light of overwhelming evidence of guilt. Henderson v. State, 272 Ga. 621, 532 S.E.2d 398 (July 5, 2000). Murder and related convictions affirmed; no improper character evidence. “The trial court did not err in permitting Battle to testify that Henderson owned a .357 Magnum and a M–1 carbine and that Benjamin had a 9–millimeter handgun. Neither ownership nor possession of a firearm imputes bad character. OCGA §§ 16–11–129; 16–11–126(c). Gomillion v. State, 236 Ga.App. 14, 16(3), 512 S.E.2d 640 (1999). Compare Moon v. State, 202 Ga.App. 500, 501, 414 S.E.2d 721 (1992) (testimony that defendant had a reputation for carrying and shooting a gun impermissibly placed defendant's character in issue).” Davis v. State , 272 Ga. 327, 528 S.E.2d 800 (May 1, 2000). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed as to Davis, reversed as to co-defendant Hill based on Bruton violation. Witness’s testimony that he urged victim to leave his house after confrontation with Davis “because he knew Davis was ‘fixing to go home and get something’” was not improper character evidence. “Gun ownership and the custom of carrying a gun do not, by themselves, impute bad character. Gomillion v. State, 236 Ga.App. 14, 17, 512 S.E.2d 640 (1999).” Accord, Cohen v. State , 275 Ga. 528, 570 S.E.2d 301 (September 30, 2002); Williams v. State , 277 Ga. 853, 596 S.E.2d 597 (May 24, 2004); Sweet v. State , 278 Ga. 320, 602 S.E.2d 603 (September 13, 2004); Evans v State , 288 Ga.App. 103, 653 S.E.2d 520 (October 26, 2007); Byrum v. State , 282 Ga. 608, 652 S.E.2d 557 (October 29, 2007); Williams v. State , 284 Ga. 849, 672 S.E.2d 619 (January 26, 2009); Cane v. State , 285 Ga. 19, 673 S.E.2d 218 (February 9, 2009); Pate v. State , 315 Ga.App. 205, 726 S.E.2d 691 (March 27, 2012) (Physical precedent only; carrying a knife doesn’t impute bad character); Roberts v. State , 317 Ga.App. 385, 730 S.E.2d 753 (August 2, 2012) (witness testified that defendant was nicknamed “AK” “because he talked frequently about AK-47s.”); Thomas v. State , 293 Ga. 829, 750 S.E.2d 297 (October 21, 2013); Marshall v. State , 297 Ga. 445, 774 S.E.2d 675 (June 29, 2015). But see Lee (March 24, 2011), above (underage person pulling gun in public place reflects on character). 13. INTRINSIC EVIDENCE Seminal case under 2013 code, applying Federal Rules: United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1344 (11 th Cir., 2007). Brooks v. State, S15A1480, ___ Ga. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, 2016 WL 854929 (March 7, 2016). Malice murder and related convictions reversed; under 2013 Evidence Code, trial court erred by admitting other acts evidence (of a prior murder committed by defendant) “to prove identity, motive and course of conduct.” Dicta in discussion of other acts evidence: “Evidence is intrinsic ‘if it is (1) an uncharged offense which arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense, (2) necessary to complete the story of the crime, or (3) inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense.’ United State v. Utter, 97 F.3d 509, 513 (11 th Cir., 1996).” Baughns v. State, 335 Ga.App. 600, 782 S.E.2d 494 (February 5, 2016). Aggravated assault and burglary convictions affirmed. Under 2013 Evidence Code, no error in admitting evidence of other burglaries committed by defendant’s co-conspirators. “The trial court determined that, even if the evidence of the uncharged burglaries did not directly implicate Baughns, those burglaries arose out of the same burglary spree as the charged burglaries and therefore the evidence was admissible as being intrinsic to the charged offenses.” “Under relevant federal authority, ‘evidence is