A Haralson County jury convicted James Edward Hefner on two *613 counts of armed robbery that arose from his 1995 holdup of the Corinth Quik Stop. On appeal, he claims the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a similar transaction and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.
1. In two enumerations of error, Hefner contends the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. We apply the standard set forth in
Jackson v. Virginia,
Hefner’s accomplice, Wolf, walked into the Quik Stop around 7:00 p.m.-on August 28. Brandishing a sawed-off shotgun, he took money from the cash register and a ring and bracelets from the clerk. Wolf, who pled guilty to the crime, implicated Hefner as the driver of the getaway car. Although no independent witness placed Hefner at the crime scene, two witnesses reported seeing a man slouched down in the driver’s seat of an older, metallic blue or silver car parked near the store at the time of the robbery. Approximately seven hours later, after another convenience store holdup, police apprehended Hefner, accompanied by Wolf, driving a car matching the witnesses’ description. Inside the car police found a sawed-off shotgun, money, and the jewelry stolen from the Quik Stop’s clerk. Hefner admitted to police he had been with Wolf since 7:00 p.m. but said he was too intoxicated to remember what happened.
Because only slight evidence is needed to corroborate an accomplice’s incriminating testimony, the evidence that Hefner had been with Wolf at 7:00 p.m., that he was found driving a car matching one seen at the crime scene, and that he was in possession of a shotgun and items stolen from the Quik Stop sufficiently supports Wolf’s testimony and the convictions. See
Ladson v. State,
2. The similar transaction that Hefner contends the trial court erroneously admitted was a convenience store holdup that occurred in the early morning hours of August 29, 1995, moments before Hefner was arrested. The trial court admitted this crime to show Hefner’s “bent of mind and course of conduct.” “Absolute proof is not required that a defendant committed the offense in a similar transaction. . . . What is required is that there be evidence that the defend
*614
ant was the perpetrator of the independent crime and sufficient similarity or connection between the independent crime and the offense charged, such that proof of the former tends to prove the latter. Even where the defendant is not identified positively as the perpetrator of the independent crime, circumstantial proof may be used to establish his connection to it.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.)
Gunter v. State,
Hefner’s accomplice, Wolf, testified Hefner waited outside a convenience store while Wolf threatened the cashier with a shotgun and took a bag of money. Eyewitnesses confirmed the robber left in an older-model, light-blue Chevrolet. Hefner admitted dropping Wolf off at the convenience store, and the two were apprehended moments later with the stolen bag of money. This evidence was sufficient to show Hefner participated in the crime, and the crime was sufficiently similar to be admissible. See
Ryles v. State,
Judgment affirmed.