☢ test - Í

Bertholf v. State, 298 Ga.App. 612, 680 S.E.2d 652 (June 30, 2009). Physical precedent only. Conviction for possession of methamphetamine reversed on other grounds. No error in admitting evidence that defendant, at traffic stop, gave them his prison id. card. “Bertholf produced the [Department of Corrections] ID card voluntarily, and volunteered the information about his prior conviction when the officer asked him if he had a driver's license. Thus this evidence was part of the res gestae and was admissible despite its prejudicial nature. See Roberts v. State, 282 Ga. 548, 551(6) (651 S.E.2d 689) (2007); Lee v. State, 280 Ga. 521, 522 (630 S.E.2d 380) (2006); Shouse v. State, 231 Ga. 716, 718(8) (203 S.E.2d 537) (1974).” Haygood v. State, 289 Ga.App. 187, 656 S.E.2d 541 (January 16, 2008). Child molestation and related convictions affirmed. “[E]vidence that an accused has been released from jail on bond in the case at issue would not place his character in evidence.” Borders v. State, 285 Ga.App. 337, 646 S.E.2d 319 (May 10, 2007). Child molestation and related convictions affirmed. “‘[M]ere mention that a defendant has been in jail falls short of placing his character at issue.’ Taylor v. State, 272 Ga. 559, 561(2)(c) (532 S.E.2d 395) (2000); Adams [ v. State, 276 Ga.App. 319, 324(6)(a), n.3 (623 S.E.2d 525) (2005)].” Accord, Jennings v. State , 285 Ga.App. 774, 648 S.E.2d 105 (June 11, 2007); Evans v State , 288 Ga.App. 103, 653 S.E.2d 520 (October 26, 2007); Rudnitskas v. State , 291 Ga.App. 685, 662 S.E.2d 729 (May 7, 2008); Jackson v. State , 284 Ga. 484, 668 S.E.2d 700 (October 27, 2008) (charcter not placed in issue where videotape of statement to police showed defendant in jail uniform); Mathis v. State , 299 Ga.App. 831, 684 S.E.2d 6 (July 31, 2009) (witness: defendant said, “don’t stop the car, because he wasn’t going back to jail.”). Williams v. State, 285 Ga.App. 190, 645 S.E.2d 676 (April 27, 2007). Reference to fact that defendant “had an open warrant” at the time of his arrest “falls short of placing his character in issue. [Cits.]” Parks v. State, 281 Ga.App. 679, 637 S.E.2d 46 (September 7, 2006). Prosecutor asked officer to explain how photo line- ups are generated, whereupon officer replied “‘When somebody … is taken to jail they have a photograph taken, every time they go to jail. So if you’ve been arrested forty times in Richmond County—’ At this point, the trial court sua sponte excused the jury and Parks then moved for a mistrial.” Trial court denied mistrial but gave “strong” curative instruction. Held, no mistrial was required: “The testimony in question was a general description of computer-generated lineups, and the witness’s interrupted reference to a hypothetical person arrested multiple times in Richmond County did not specifically identify Parks. ‘Such fleeting and incomplete references to a possible criminal history are harmless error that is curable by instruction. [Cits.]’ Gordian v. State, 261 Ga.App. 75, 77(2) (581 S.E.2d 616) (2003). ‘ Reference to an arrest, made in the presence of the jury without other detail, is harmless error where proper instructions are given to disregard the reference to the past arrest and it is not error to overrule a motion for mistrial based thereon. [Cits.]’ Dunn v. State, 251 Ga. 731, 734(4) (309 S.E.2d 370) (1983). The trial court gave immediate and strong curative instructions to the jury and did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial. See id.” Accord, McKenzie v. State , 284 Ga. 342, 667 S.E.2d 43 (September 22, 2008) (evidence “that the police ‘looked up’ the [defendant’s] photograph in the ‘record book’” to construct a line-up, and that witness learned defendant’s name “when the police showed him McKenzie’s ‘report’” did not put defendant’s character in issue); Battise v. State , 295 Ga.App. 833, 673 S.E.2d 262 (January 15, 2009) (obtaining photo from jail records). Keith v. State, 279 Ga.App. 819, 632 S.E.2d 669 (May 18, 2006). Officer’s testimony referring to defendant’s possible future incarceration “did not place Keith’s character in issue.” Copprue v. State, 279 Ga. 771, 621 S.E.2d 457 (October 24, 2005). “The State introduced a redacted copy of [defendant’s] ‘jail booking history’ and his January 30, 2000 release from the Cook County jail for the purpose of establishing a timeline to refute [defendant’s] alibi defense that he was in Indiana on the day of the incident. The State also sought to show that [defendant], who several witnesses referred to as ‘Q,’ was known by that alias. We conclude the evidence was relevant and admissible to confirm that Archie bonded [defendant] out of jail just days prior to the murder and that the witnesses were, in fact, referring to [defendant] when they spoke about ‘Q.’ Moreover, since the State redacted from the documents any reference to the reason for the incarceration, contrary to [defendant’s] assertion, this is not a case where the State improperly introduced a previous conviction for the sole purpose of impugning the defendant’s character. See Johnson v. State, 275 Ga. 508(3) (570 S.E.2d 292) (2002).” Dickerson v. State, 275 Ga.App. 695, 621 S.E.2d 831 (October 4, 2005). Detective’s “passing reference to Dickerson’s