Opinion
A94A0307.
DECIDED MARCH 23, 1994.
Armed robbery. Tattnall Superior Court. Before Judge Harvey.
Cowart McCullough, Hugh J. McCullough, for appellant.
Dupont K. Cheney, District Attorney, J. Thomas Durden, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
On June 5, 1991, following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to life in prison. More than two years later, defendant moved for permission to file an out-of-time appeal. The motion was granted and this appeal followed. Held:
1. Citing Williams v. State, 261 Ga. 640, 641-643 ( 409 S.E.2d 649) and Stephens v. State, 261 Ga. 467, 469 (6) ( 405 S.E.2d 483), defendant asserts the trial court erred in permitting the State to introduce a certified copy of a previous conviction for armed robbery as evidence of a similar transaction or occurrence. In this regard, defendant posits that the State did nothing more than introduce the copy of the previous conviction into evidence and that, therefore, the State failed to establish the similarity or connection between the previous offense and the crime charged. We find no merit in this enumeration of error because defendant did not make such an argument below. At a pretrial hearing to determine the admissibility of similar transaction evidence, defendant merely objected to such evidence on the ground that the State did not give him timely notice. During the trial, when the State introduced the certified copy of the previous conviction, defendant merely renewed his prior objection. It follows that defendant waived the evidentiary issue discussed in Williams and Stephens and that that issue was not preserved for appellate review. Compare Hunter v. State, 202 Ga. App. 195, 196 (3) ( 413 S.E.2d 526) with Riddle v. State, 208 Ga. App. 8 (1) ( 430 S.E.2d 153).
2. In his second enumeration of error, defendant contends the trial court erred because it failed to chastise a State's witness and give appropriate curative instructions after the witness mentioned defendant's subsequent arrest for driving under the influence. We find no error. The trial court promptly sustained defendant's objection to the witness's testimony and struck it from the record. Defendant did not ask for curative instructions; nor did he move for a mistrial. If defendant wanted the trial court to take additional corrective measures, he should have asked for them. See Turner v. State, 208 Ga. App. 728 ( 431 S.E.2d 727); Baine v. State, 181 Ga. App. 856, 858 (4) ( 354 S.E.2d 177); Campbell v. State, 111 Ga. App. 219, 220 (5) ( 141 S.E.2d 186). "[A]ppellant waived any error due to the court's failure to give curative instructions by not requesting curative instructions when the objection was sustained. [Cits.]" Price v. State, 204 Ga. App. 288, 289 (1) ( 419 S.E.2d 126). Accord Campbell v. State, 207 Ga. App. 902, 903 (1) ( 429 S.E.2d 538).
3. The trial court did not err in admitting into evidence the circumstances surrounding defendant's arrest. Coney v. State, 198 Ga. App. 272, 273-274 (3) ( 401 S.E.2d 304).
Judgment affirmed. Pope, C. J., and Smith, J., concur.