In Georgia, the standard for whether the proper prosecuting officer knows about all charges is whether the prosecutor has actual knowledge of all the charges; the Supreme Court has rejected a subjective knowledge test. See Baker v. State, 257 Ga. 567, 568-569 (361 SE2d 808) (1987). In Baker v. State, the Supreme Court dictated that only crimes "actually known to the prosecuting officer actually handling the proceedings" would be barred by double jeopardy. Id. at 569. The Court noted: The adoption of this rule does not impose an unfair or inequitable burden on the defendant, since he can invoke the procedural protection of OCGA 16-1-7 (b) by the simple act of apprising the proper prosecuting officer of the existence of any crimes arising from the same conduct which are not actually known to that officer. Id. And the Court has held that "a prosecutor is one who instigates a prosecution by making an affidavit charging a named person with the commission of a penal offense, on which a warrant is issued or an indictment or accusation is based." Eady v. State, 10 Ga. App. 818 (1) (74 SE 303) (1912).