In State v. Moore, Franklin App. No. 03AP-145, 2003 Ohio 5342, the court explained that the challenged evidence must amount to more than merely a reference to "a brush with the law; rather, the disputed evidence must make a reference to the commission of another crime." Id. at P12. The court went on to reject Moore's claim of prejudice where the state had used seven fingerprint cards to demonstrate Moore's signature. Moore argued that the cards implied that he had been arrested and fingerprinted seven times, but the court found that the implication alone was insufficient to establish prejudice. Id., see, also, State v. Lee, Franklin App. No. 01AP-16, 2001 Ohio 8887 (rejecting claim of prejudice where witness referred to appellant's "release").