58900 | Ga. Ct. App. | Jan 10, 1980
Defendant appeals his conviction of robbery by sudden snatching, the sole contention being that the trial court erred in admitting, over objection, evidence of the commission by defendant of a prior offense of robbery by sudden snatching. Held:
The offense occurred in Gainesville on the evening of December 14,1978. Since the victim was unable to identify defendant other than by general description, his identity as the perpetrator was the issue. The state produced evidence that the morning after the robbery defendant used a Chevron credit card taken in the snatching to buy gasoline and then attempted to make a purchase with a Sears credit card also taken. While being transported to
"Generally, evidence of independent crimes is inadmissible unless its relevance to the issues at trial outweighs its prejudicial impact. [Cits.]” Payne v. State, 233 Ga. 294" court="Ga." date_filed="1974-11-18" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/payne-v-state-1335715?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1335715">233 Ga. 294, 312 (210 SE2d 775). "Testimony relating to other crimes is admissible if such testimony aids identification or shows the state of mind, plan, motive or scheme of the accused. [Cits.]” Blake v. State, 239 Ga. 292" court="Ga." date_filed="1977-06-28" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/blake-v-state-1365524?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1365524">239 Ga. 292, 295 (236 SE2d 637). The evidence that defendant had two weeks earlier committed the same type of crime in the same fashion and had used a credit card from it in a purchase shortly thereafter was relevant as it tended to establish his identity as the perpetrator and was properly admitted. In view of the trial court’s charge to the jury specifically limiting their consideration of the evidence of the other robbery, we find that its relevance outweighed any possible prejudicial impact. See Hanson v. State, 143 Ga. App. 200 (237 SE2d 699).
Judgment affirmed.