Appellant Nathaniel Harvey was convicted of malice murder and armed robbery arising out of the beating death of 79-year old Hosie Eldell and sentenced to two terms of life in prison.1 He appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial. Finding no error, we affirm. 1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence authorized the jury to find that during an argument with the victim over a woman, appellant struck the victim in the head several times with the victim’s cane, causing the cane to break and a sharp edge of the broken cane to cut the victim’s neck. Appellant then took the victim’s wallet and car and drove to Atlanta. The victim was found dead in his apartment two days after the attack with blunt force trauma to his head and a fatal wound on his neck. This evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.
2. Appellant previously had been convicted in Coffee County Superior Court of voluntary manslaughter in connection with the killing of George Day. The court admitted evidence of this prior offense after conducting a hearing in full compliance with the mandate of Williams v. State , 261 Ga. 640, 642 2 b 409 SE2d 649 1991. Appellant enumerates as error the admission of this similar transaction evidence.Before evidence of prior crimes is admissible, the trial court must determine that the State has affirmatively shown that: 1 the State seeks to admit evidence of the independent offenses or acts for an appropriate purpose; 2 there is sufficient evidence that the accused committed the independent offenses or acts; and 3 there is sufficient connection or similarity between the independent offenses or acts and the crimes charged so that proof of the former tends to prove the latter.Palmer v. State , 271 Ga. 234, 239 8 a 517 SE2d 502 1999. See also Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.3 B. Here, the trial court determined the evidence presented was probative of appellant’s motive, course of conduct and bent of mind and that there was sufficient connection between the prior offense and the crimes charged. The court specifically found that in both instances appellant knew the victim and obtained the weapon from the victim, both incidents arose from arguments with the victim and resulted in the victim being struck or shot in the head, neither victim was in a position to defend himself, and in both cases appellant attempted to conceal evidence. Based on our review of the record, the trial court’s findings were not clearly erroneous and will not be disturbed on appeal. See Davis v. State , 279 Ga. 786, 787 3 621 SE2d 446 2005.
