With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". clearly erroneous and, thus, will not be disturbed on appeal. Judgment affirmed. Smith, P. J., and Mikell, J., concur. Decided September 8, 2011. Clegg & Petrey, John H. Petrey, for appellant. Daniel J. Porter, District Attorney, Stephen A. Fern, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee. 1 See, e.g., Goolsby v. State, 299 Ga. App. 330, 330-31 (682 SE2d 671) (2009); 98) (2009). 20 261 Ga. 640 (409 SE2d 649) (1991). 21 Payne, 285 Ga. at 138; see Williams, 261 Ga. at 642 (2) (b). 22 Id. 23 See Davis v. State, 279 Ga. 786, 787-88 (3) (621 SE2d 446) (2005) (finding that evidence of defendant’s murder of witnesses to the murder for which he was being tried was admissible to show defendant’s course of conduct and bent of mind); Rainey v. State, 179 Ga. App. 584, 586 (4) (347 SE2d 341) (1986) (<HOLDING>); see also McCoy v. State, 273 Ga. 568, 571 (5)

A: holding that a defendant who alleges selfdefense can show through the testimony of another witness that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor a defendants prior knowledge of the victims reputation for violence is irrelevant because the evidence is offered to show the conduct of the victim rather than the defendants state of mind
B: 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
C: holding that uncharged sexual acts committed upon the same victim are admissible to show the conduct of the defendant toward the victim and to corroborate the evidence of the offense charged in the indictment
D: holding that evidence of assault on victim that was subsequent to the arson for which defendant was tried was admissible to show defendants bent of mind toward violence directed at the victim
D.