Following his conviction for the malice murder of James Fielder, Arthur Robinson a/k/a Arthur Mabry appeals, contending that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of a certain similar transaction.1 We affirm. In the light most favorable to the verdict, the record shows that, on December 23, 2003, Geraldine Jones went to Mabry’s home to buy drugs. While Jones was there, Mabry and another man forced James Fielder into the house. Mabry then announced that he was about to commit a murder, and he warned Jones to get out of the house or he would kill her as well. Standing outside, Jones heard Mabry demand money from Fielder. Fielder explained that he could pay Mabry the next day, and Mabry then told Fielder that he was going to kill him. Jones next heard Fielder plead for mercy followed by two loud booming sounds. Fielder cried out, and Mabry stated that he was going to put Fielder’s body in the back yard. Some time later, Mabry showed Jimmy Barnes a body bag in his back yard. Barnes informed the police about the bag, and Fielder’s body was recovered and identified. In addition to this evidence, testimony regarding a prior altercation between Mabry and Fielder was admitted as well as a similar transaction. With regard to the similar transaction, evidence showed that, on May 16, 2004, Mabry attempted to take a radio receiver from Reginald Eason as payment for a debt, and the two began to fight. During the fight, Mabry picked up a brick and pummeled Eason in the head. Mabry also beat Eason with a tree branch. This similar transaction was admitted to show identity, bent of mind, and course of conduct.
This evidence was sufficient to enable the jury to find Mabry guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979. Mabry contends, however, that the trial court erred by admitting the similar transaction evidence of his altercation with Eason, arguing that the transaction was not sufficiently similar to the crime for which he was being tried.2 Mabry has waived his right to raise this argument on appeal. Although he objected to the similar transaction evidence at a pre-trial hearing conducted pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.3 B, he raised no objections when any of the evidence was elicited during trial, as he was required to do to preserve any objection. Young v. State , 269 Ga. 478, 479 3 499 SE2d 60 1998.
