and, thus, was not tried with his co-defendants. 13 The jury convicted Trusty of all charges except the kidnapping charges relating to F. D. andC.D. and the possession-of-a-firearm-by-a-convicted-felon charge, which was nolle prossed. We affirmed his convictions in an unpublished opinion, Trusty v. State, 337 Ga. App. XXIX (Case no. A16A0701) (June 10, 2016). 14 See English v. State, 301 Ga. App. 842, 842 (689 SE2d 130) ing that evidence supported the defendant’s convictions on charges of armed robbery of both victims, despite no proof of which victim owned the property taken, when evidence showed that both victims “were subjected to the robbers’ exercise of actual force by the use of an offensive weapon so as to induce the relinquishment of the property”); Harp, 302 Ga. App. at 18 (<HOLDING>). 23 Patch v. State, 337 Ga. App. 233, 236-37
holding that police had probable cause to arrest defendant before defendant was identified by victims where victims informed police that two cars had been taken at gunpoint and one of perpetrators was heavyset and wearing striped shirt officers located defendant in vicinity of cars defendant matched description and was disheveled and sweaty and gun was found nearby holding that there was sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation when the defendant previously planned to commit the robbery armed himself with a shotgun and shot the victim during the robbery holding that evidence defendant approached victim with a handgun while attempting to obtain money from conveniencestore cash register but fled without taking cash was sufficient to support convictions for attempted armed robbery holding that evidence was sufficient to support convictions for two counts of armed robbery when money was taken from one victims immediate presence at gunpoint and given to second victim and second victim was then forced to surrender the money to defendant at gunpoint holding that before a defendant is entitled to introduce evidence of the victims character for violence there must be sufficient evidence to support a finding that the victim was the first aggressor and that once the defendant testified that he was attacked and cut by the victim without provocation before using the victims utility tool to stab the victim the defendant was clearly entitled to question the victim about past acts of violence reflected in court documents from the state of oregon