The opinion
LUMPKIN, Vice Presiding Judge,
concurring in results.
I concur in the results reached by the Court. However, while I agree with the major portions of the Court’s discussion of the application of res gestae evidence, I find the analysis does not focus on the determining factor of whether it is a res gestae issue or not.
As we have reaffirmed, the test for the admissibility of other crimes evidence is set forth in Bruner v. State, 612 P.2d 1375, 1377 (Okl.Cr.1980). The opinion fails to recognize that the application of the res gestae exception to the admissibility of other crimes evidence is directed to the conduct of the defendant being tried. The prior or subsequent actions of the defendant must relate to the “entire transaction” of the offense(s) which are the subject of the present prosecution. In this case, the other attempted drug purchases were not connected to the Appellant by any evidence. Since the Appellant was not involved with those transactions, the res gestae exception does not apply and res ges-tae should not even be mentioned as a matter *179 of consideration regarding the admissibility of that evidence.
The only consideration, in evaluating the admissibility of the other attempted drug transactions in this case, must be directed to determining if the evidence is relevant under 12 O.S.1981, § 2401. If the evidence is determined to be relevant, the trial court must then make the analysis under 12 O.S.1981, § 2403, as to whether the “probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, needless presentation of cumulative evidence, or unfair and harmful surprise”.
I agree with the Court that evidence the undercover informants were searched prior to making the buy from Appellant was relevant, however, the other attempts to purchase drugs that night was not. Therefore, it was error to admit the evidence of the unrelated attempted drug purchases and it appears that the perception of the jury as to the dangers of widespread drug trafficking prejudiced the Appellant as it relates to the recommended sentence. The modification of sentence as determined by the Court cures this error.