The fact that Keller was arrested after the charged crime was committed does not necessarily imply he was ever arrested for another offense. See Gates v. State, 205 Ga. App. 333, 334 (2) ( 422 S.E.2d 232) (1992), where we found no undue prejudice to the defendant where a police officer testified that police had the defendant's photograph because he had been arrested; such a statement did not necessarily imply that the defendant had a prior arrest. And see Holloway v. State, 190 Ga. App. 528, 529 (2) ( 379 S.E.2d 542) (1989), where we found no undue prejudice in the admission of a mug shot bearing a date after the commission of and arrest for the charged robbery.
See Croy v. State, 195 Ga. App. 500, 501 ( 393 S.E.2d 756) (1990)." Gates v. State, 205 Ga. App. 333, 334 (3), 335 ( 422 S.E.2d 232). In the case sub judice, the effect of the newly discovered evidence offered by defendant at the motion for new trial hearing would merely go to impeach the victim's testimony that defendant subjected him to the act of aggravated child molestation as alleged in the indictment.