☢ test - Í

prior incarceration” did not place his character in evidence. Citing “Gordon v. State, 273 Ga. 373, 379(4)(f) (541 S.E.2d 376) (2001); Lemming v. State, 272 Ga.App. 122, 129(2) (612 S.E.2d 495) (2005) (disapproved on other grounds, Miller v. State , 285 Ga. 285, 676 S.E.2d 173 (April 28, 2009)) (characterizing three references to defendant’s incarceration as ‘passing’).” Accord, Crane v. State , 294 Ga.App. 321, 671 S.E.2d 123 (October 31, 2008) (unsolicited comment from witness that defendant “sells drugs.”); Washington v. State , 295 Ga.App. 586, 672 S.E.2d 665 (January 16, 2009) (unsolicited passing reference to defendant’s “record”); Burden v. State , 296 Ga.App. 441, 674 S.E.2d 668 (March 5, 2009) (passing reference to defendant’s “record”); Walker v. State , 296 Ga.App. 531, 675 S.E.2d 270 (March 10, 2009) (victim commented that she called the police); Hamrick v. State , 304 Ga.App. 378, 696 S.E.2d 403 (June 10, 2010); Lanier v. State , 288 Ga. 109, 702 S.E.2d 141 (November 1, 2010) (passing reference to defendant talking to his probation officer); Toro v. State , 319 Ga.App. 39, 735 S.E.2d 80 (November 29, 2012) (“passing and equivocal” reference by officer suggesting that defendant was originally charged with “convicted felon with a weapon”; also suggestion that co- defendant, but not Toro, was offered a drug court program “because he did not have any priors.”); Coe v. State , 293 Ga. 233, 748 S.E.2d 824 (June 17, 2013) (passing reference to defendant being on parole didn’t mandate mistrial); Babbage v. State , 296 Ga. 364, 768 S.E.2d 461 (January 20, 2015). Shannon v. State, 275 Ga.App. 550, 621 S.E.2d 540 (September 22, 2005). Detective testified about a note relevant to the crime, saying the the telephone number on the note “belonged to McKibben, stating, ‘[t]hat’s the phone number that he had put on a previous arrest … form.’” Held, this statement did not require mistrial, as “the statement did not directly identify the person previously arrested.” Hunter v. State, 273 Ga.App. 52, 614 S.E.2d 179 (April 20, 2005). No harmful error in admitting defendant’s booking photo from night of this arrest; although no particular relevance of the photograph was shown (contrast Rittenhouse (February 14, 2000), below , where defendant’s appearance changed drastically between arrest and trial), “the record shows that the jury was told the photograph was taken the night of [Hunter’s] arrest, the photograph’s admission did not suggest that [he] was guilty of any previous crime or otherwise inflame the jury. [Cits.]’ Edmond v. State, 228 Ga.App. 695, 695-696(2) (492 S.E.2d 583) (1997).” Accord, Bettis v. State , 285 Ga.App. 643, 647 S.E.2d 340 (June 4, 2007); Smith v. State , 302 Ga.App. 128, 690 S.E.2d 449 (January 26, 2010) (“the State used those photographs to show that the clothes Smith was wearing at the time of his arrest were the same clothes worn by the man police identified as Smith on the videotape.”); Phillips v. State , 287 Ga. 560, 697 S.E.2d 818 (July 12, 2010). Cf. Webb v. State , 156 Ga.App. 623, 275 S.E.2d 707 (1980) (admission of “mug shots” was error and “could easily have given the jury the impression that the [defendants] had been in trouble with the law on some previous occasion.”); Kinsey v. State , 326 Ga.App. 616, 757 S.E.2d 217 (March 27, 2014) (no error in admission of defendant’s booking photo to show that defendant’s clothing matched 911 caller’s description, where the photo “was almost completely neutral in appearance, did not reveal that White was in custody or in handcuffs when he was photographed, and was not a photograph related to a previous crime.”). Wood v. State, 264 Ga.App. 787, 592 S.E.2d 455 (December 16, 2003). GBI agent’s testimony that search took place in defendant’s absence because “‘Mr. Wood had been arrested on some unrelated domestic violence charge’… falls short of placing his character in issue.” Copeland v. State, 263 Ga.App. 776, 589 S.E.2d 319 (October 24, 2003). “A witness’ mere statement that a defendant was in jail for some undisclosed reason does not place his character into evidence.” Accord, Jones v. State, 268 Ga.App. 246, 601 S.E.2d 763 (July 1, 2004); Lanier v. State , 269 Ga.App. 284, 603 S.E.2d 772 (August 26, 2004); Jones v. State , 270 Ga.App. 368, 606 S.E.2d 592 (November 8, 2004); Alexander v. State , 276 Ga.App. 288, 623 S.E.2d 160 (November 8, 2005); Baughcum v. State , 277 Ga.App. 799, 627 S.E.2d 855 (February 28, 2006). Roebuck v. State, 277 Ga. 200, 586 S.E.2d 651 (September 22, 2003). Witness’s testimony that he met defendant in YDC was admissible and relevant where defendant denied knowing witness, although incidentally placing defendant’s character in evidence. Also, “[e]vidence of [defendant’s] alleged use of aliases did not place his character into evidence.” Falak v. State, 261 Ga.App. 404, 583 S.E.2d 146 (May 27, 2003). “An unresponsive answer [by a witness] that impacts negatively on a defendant’s character does not improperly place the defendant’s character in issue.” Accord, Woodard v. State, 277 Ga. 49, 586 S.E.2d 330 (September 15, 2003) (Detective’s comment that he “saw several similar cases” when he arrested defendant was not elicited by counsel; trial court, in its discretion, could deny motion for mistrial); Smallwood v. State , 334 Ga.App. 224, 779 S.E.2d 1 (October 22, 2015) (witness testified he lost contact with defendant “till he got out of prison two-and-a-half or three years ago.”).