Aрpellant and two companions entered a convenience store for the purрose of committing an armed robbery. After the trio temporarily posed as customers, appellant approached the check-out counter, pulled a pistol arid said, "This is a hold-up.” Before the trio could obtain any money from the cash register or from customers, оne of appellant’s companions shot and killed a customer because he believed the customer was trying to telephone the police. Appellant’s primary contеntion at trial was that he had abandoned any conspiracy to commit the offense of аrmed robbery prior to the time his companion shot the customer.
1. Appellant first contends thаt the trial court erred in allowing into evidence the testimony of a witness identifying appellant аs the man who had robbed her in the store at gunpoint four days prior to the offense for which the аppellant was found guilty in this case. The state contends that the testimony was admissible under an exception to Code Ann. § 38-202, which section
*635
generally excludes testimony as to the general character of the defendant. There are many exceptions to the general rule. See
Thomas v. State,
Furthermore, the admission of this testimony was harmless and will not аffect the validity of the trial court’s judgment because the evidence against the appеllant is overwhelming and establishes that he did not withdraw his agreement or abandon his plan in sufficient time or manner to absolve himself from the consequences of the action of his companions.
Hamilton v. State,
2. Appellant contends that under the facts of this case the trial cоurt should have charged the jury on conspiracy and on attempted armed robbery as lessеr included offenses to the crime of murder. "It is manifest from a reading of [Chapter 26-32] of the Criminal Code of Georgia that it was the intent of the legislature to make conspiracy itself a sepаrate crime only in cases where the crime conspired to be committed had not in faсt been committed, that is, where the conspiracy had been, so to speak, 'nipped in the bud.’ ”
Crosby v. State,
*636
3. Appellant сontends that the trial court erred in refusing to give a charge on the law of conspiracy in thе form specifically requested by him. The charge that was given by the trial court covered all аpplicable principles of law as suggested by the evidence. It was unnecessary for thе trial court to charge the applicable principles of law in the exact language requested by the appellant.
Herrmann v. State,
4. Finally, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial based upon the district attorney’s having displayed to the jury a .38 caliber pistol and two holsters which were not offered into evidence as exhibits. The question of whether or not to grant a mistrial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. That decision will not be reversed оn appeal absent an abuse of discretion.
Patterson v. State,
Judgment affirmed.