We note that Cobb did not include a statement of the method by which his enumerations were preserved for appeal as required by Court of Appeals Rule 25 (a) (1). See Mattox v. State, 204 Ga. App. 750, 752 (3) ( 421 SE2d 97) (1992) ("It is well settled that this court will not consider issues and grounds for objection which were not raised and passed upon in the trial court.") (punctuation omitted). (Citation and punctuation omitted.)
Shields, supra, is distinguishable. It condemned the admission in evidence of a statement by the defendant, couched in unseemly language, constituting a denial of his role in the incident giving rise to his convictions. In Mattox v. State, 204 Ga. App. 750, 752 (1) ( 421 S.E.2d 97) (1992), as here, the defendant complained that the admission of testimony concerning his arrest days after the incidents on trial improperly placed his character in issue by showing the commission of another crime. Regardless of whether the challenged testimony was admissible under criteria for the admission of similar-transaction evidence, we held it was relevant in that case to show the circumstances of arrest.