Appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated *222 assault upon a peace officer. The evidence adduced at trial reveals that appellant robbed Clifton Wells at gunрoint at a gasoline station in Fulton County. Appellant fled the scene of the robbery to an adjaсent construction site where he stole a truck. At the construction site, appellant, confrontеd by local police officers Marlin and Ward, swerved the truck toward the spot where Marlin was standing аnd then swerved and hit Ward’s patrol car. Appellant then entered the highway and drove into Fayette Cоunty where two county deputies attempted to bring appellant’s vehicle to a stop. These dеputies, Pruitt and Bennett, both testified at trial that appellant drove the truck directly toward each of their cars, causing impact. Pruitt testified that in his opinion appellant had room to avoid his car but did nоt do so. Bennett testified that after the impact with appellant’s truck, appellant was coming toward his driver’s door and Bennett had to take evasive action to avoid a life-endangering situation. Thе charges against appellant arise from the collisions with Pruitt and Bennett. The State also introduced testimony of a former police officer, Thompson, who testified as to a similar chase scene involving appellant which occurred in 1980. Thompson testified that appellant stole a truck after a burglary and during a chase, sped up, aimed the truck toward the officer’s car and collided with the car. Appellant testified at trial that he was trying to avoid the officers and that he did not intentionally strike their vehicles, but rather the officers hit his vehicle.
1. Appellant first asserts as error the admission of the evidence and testimony regarding the robbery of Wells and the encounters with Marlin and Ward on the grounds that these events were not the subject of the instant charges, were concluded before the collisions with Pruitt and Bennett and would be highly prejudicial to the appellant. “ ‘ “(I)t is well settled that all of the circumstances connected with an accused’s arrest, ... are admissible as evidence at trial, even those thаt establish the commission of another criminal offense.” [Cit.]’ ”
Howell v. State,
2. Appellant next enumerates error in the admission of the evidence and testimony of the similar incident invоlving Thompson. “Evidence of similar crimes is admissible where its relevance to show identity, motive, plan, schеme, bent of mind and course of conduct,
outweighs
its prejudicial impact. ‘However, before it is admissible, two conditions must be satisfied. First, there must be evidence that the defendant was in fact the perpetrator of the independent crime. Second, there must be sufficient similarity or connection between the independent crime and the offense charged. [Cit.]’ Mere lapse of time between the commission of аny prior similar crimes and the commission of the offenses currently at trial does not render the evidence automatically inadmissible. [Cit.]”
Oller v. State,
3. As to appellant’s enumeration that the court erred by denying appellant’s motion for a directed verdict, “[a] defendant is entitled to a directed verdict ‘(w)here there is no conflict in the evidеnce and the evidence introduced with all reasonable deductions and inferences therefrоm shall demand a verdict of acquittal. . . . ’[Cit.]”
Scavonne v. State,
4. Appellant’s enumeration that the court erred in allоwing Thompson to illustrate his testimony by drawing a diagram of the collision scene is without merit. The diagram served a demonstrative purpose, the witness specified that it was not drawn to scale and it was not admitted into evidence; therefore, we find no error in the way the trial court dealt with the diagram.
Harvey v. State,
Judgment affirmed.