section 24-4-404(b) decision to admit evidence in Georgia

2024But as we state below, “[o]n appeal, a trial court’s decision to admit evidence pursuant to OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) is reviewed for a clear abuse of discretion.” Brannon v. State, 298 Ga. 601, 606 (4) ( 783 SE2d 642 ) (2016). bed because he had a gun under it; that after the two divorced, Bowman “wanted [Brewer] to come back,” apologized to her and promised to not hit her again, but then “hit [her] in [her] face” and would tell her “nobody else would have [her]”; that once after the divorce, he choked a man that she was “seeing” and “took [her] kids and . . . left with them”; and that in another i

2024But as we state below, “[o]n appeal, a trial court’s decision to admit evidence pursuant to OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) is reviewed for a clear abuse of discretion.” Brannon v. State, 298 Ga. 601, 606 (4) ( 783 SE2d 642 ) (2016). bed because he had a gun under it; that after the two divorced, Bowman “wanted [Brewer] to come back,” apologized to her and promised to not hit her again, but then “hit [her] in [her] face” and would tell her “nobody else would have [her]”; that once after the divorce, he choked a man that she was “seeing” and “took [her] kids and . . . left with them”; and that in another i

2020See OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) (“The prosecution in a criminal proceeding shall provide reasonable notice to the defense in advance of trial. . . .”). 6 Kirby v. State, 304 Ga. 472, 479 (4) ( 819 SE2d 468 ) (2018). 4 “A trial court’s decision to admit other acts evidence under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) will be overturned [on direct appeal] only where this is a clear abuse of discretion.”7 Here, the State offered the 404 (b) evidence at issue via testimony from an officer who investigated and arrested Westbrook for the 1999 robbery and through a certified copy of his conviction pursuant to a guilty plea.

2020See OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) (“The prosecution in a criminal proceeding shall provide reasonable notice to the defense in advance of trial. . . .”). 6 Kirby v. State, 304 Ga. 472, 479 (4) ( 819 SE2d 468 ) (2018). 4 “A trial court’s decision to admit other acts evidence under OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) will be overturned [on direct appeal] only where this is a clear abuse of discretion.”7 Here, the State offered the 404 (b) evidence at issue via testimony from an officer who investigated and arrested Westbrook for the 1999 robbery and through a certified copy of his conviction pursuant to a guilty plea.

2018On appeal, a trial court's decision to admit evidence pursuant to OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) is reviewed for a clear abuse of discretion, a review requiring the appellate court to make a "common sense assessment of all the circumstances surrounding the extrinsic offense, including prosecutorial need, overall similarity between the extrinsic act and the charged offense, as well as temporal remoteness." [Cit.] (Citations omitted.) Parks v. State , 300 Ga. 303 , 305-306, 794 S.E.2d 623 (2016).

2018On appeal, a trial court's decision to admit evidence pursuant to OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) is reviewed for a clear abuse of discretion, a review requiring the appellate court to make a "common sense assessment of all the circumstances surrounding the extrinsic offense, including prosecutorial need, overall similarity between the extrinsic act and the charged offense, as well as temporal remoteness." [Cit.] (Citations omitted.) Parks v. State , 300 Ga. 303 , 305-306, 794 S.E.2d 623 (2016).

2024Brannon v. State, 298 Ga. 601, 606 (4) ( 783 SE2d 642 ) (2016). “[E]videntiary errors require reversal only if they harm a defendant’s substantial rights,” and the “test for determining nonconstitutional harmless error is whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” Pritchett v. State, 314 Ga. 767, 778 (2) (c) ( 879 SE2d 436 ) (2022) (citations and punctuation omitted).

2024Brannon v. State, 298 Ga. 601, 606 (4) ( 783 SE2d 642 ) (2016). “[E]videntiary errors require reversal only if they harm a defendant’s substantial rights,” and the “test for determining nonconstitutional harmless error is whether it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the verdict.” Pritchett v. State, 314 Ga. 767, 778 (2) (c) ( 879 SE2d 436 ) (2022) (citations and punctuation omitted).

2023To be admissible under Rule 404 (b), other-acts evidence must satisfy a three-part test: (1) the evidence is relevant to an issue in the case other than the defendant’s character, (2) the probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice as required by OCGA § 24-4-403 (“Rule 403”), and (3) there is sufficient proof for a jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the prior act. v. State, 309 Ga. 385, 392 (4) ( 846 SE2d 83 ) (2020) (holding that we no longer routinely review the sufficiency of the evidence in non-death penalty ca

2023To be admissible under Rule 404 (b), other-acts evidence must satisfy a three-part test: (1) the evidence is relevant to an issue in the case other than the defendant’s character, (2) the probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice as required by OCGA § 24-4-403 (“Rule 403”), and (3) there is sufficient proof for a jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the prior act. v. State, 309 Ga. 385, 392 (4) ( 846 SE2d 83 ) (2020) (holding that we no longer routinely review the sufficiency of the evidence in non-death penalty ca

2023To be admissible under Rule 404 (b), other-acts evidence must satisfy a three-part test: (1) the evidence is relevant to an issue in the case other than the defendant’s character, (2) the probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice as required by OCGA § 24-4-403 (“Rule 403”), and (3) there is sufficient proof for a jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the prior act. v. State, 309 Ga. 385, 392 (4) ( 846 SE2d 83 ) (2020) (holding that we no longer routinely review the sufficiency of the evidence in non-death penalty ca

2023To be admissible under Rule 404 (b), other-acts evidence must satisfy a three-part test: (1) the evidence is relevant to an issue in the case other than the defendant’s character, (2) the probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice as required by OCGA § 24-4-403 (“Rule 403”), and (3) there is sufficient proof for a jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the prior act. v. State, 309 Ga. 385, 392 (4) ( 846 SE2d 83 ) (2020) (holding that we no longer routinely review the sufficiency of the evidence in non-death penalty ca

2022See Hood, 309 Ga. at 499 (2). 5 The State also admitted, among other things, a still photograph taken from the surveillance video showing Gibson exiting the store with his cart.

2021Whaley v. State, 343 Ga. App. 701, 706-707 (3) (a) ( 808 SE2d 88 ) (2017).

2021Whaley v. State, 343 Ga. App. 701, 706-707 (3) (a) ( 808 SE2d 88 ) (2017).

2021Other acts evidence may be admitted if the court concludes that the evidence is sufficient for the jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the other act was committed.”34 [A] trial court’s 31 Strong v. State, 309 Ga. 295, 300 (2) (a) ( 845 SE2d 653 ) (2020). 32 Id. at 301 (2) (a). 33 See id. 34 (Punctuation omitted.) Id. 20 decision to admit evidence pursuant to OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) is reviewed for a clear abuse of discretion. . . .”35 In this case, Ramirez-Ortiz does not argue that the State failed to satisfy the third part of the Rule 404 (b) test.

2021Other acts evidence may be admitted if the court concludes that the evidence is sufficient for the jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the other act was committed.”34 [A] trial court’s 31 Strong v. State, 309 Ga. 295, 300 (2) (a) ( 845 SE2d 653 ) (2020). 32 Id. at 301 (2) (a). 33 See id. 34 (Punctuation omitted.) Id. 20 decision to admit evidence pursuant to OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) is reviewed for a clear abuse of discretion. . . .”35 In this case, Ramirez-Ortiz does not argue that the State failed to satisfy the third part of the Rule 404 (b) test.

2020(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Fleming v. State, 306 Ga. 240, 246 (3) (b) ( 830 SE2d 129 ) (2019). require a finding of ineffective assistance since the decision whether to seek severance is a matter of trial tactics or strategy, and a decision amounting to reasonable trial strategy does not constitute deficient performance.” (Citations omitted.) Harris v. State, 279 Ga. 522, 529 (6) ( 615 SE2d 532 ) (2005).

2020(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Fleming v. State, 306 Ga. 240, 246 (3) (b) ( 830 SE2d 129 ) (2019). require a finding of ineffective assistance since the decision whether to seek severance is a matter of trial tactics or strategy, and a decision amounting to reasonable trial strategy does not constitute deficient performance.” (Citations omitted.) Harris v. State, 279 Ga. 522, 529 (6) ( 615 SE2d 532 ) (2005).

2020(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Fleming v. State, 306 Ga. 240, 246 (3) (b) ( 830 SE2d 129 ) (2019). require a finding of ineffective assistance since the decision whether to seek severance is a matter of trial tactics or strategy, and a decision amounting to reasonable trial strategy does not constitute deficient performance.” (Citations omitted.) Harris v. State, 279 Ga. 522, 529 (6) ( 615 SE2d 532 ) (2005).

2020(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Fleming v. State, 306 Ga. 240, 246 (3) (b) ( 830 SE2d 129 ) (2019). require a finding of ineffective assistance since the decision whether to seek severance is a matter of trial tactics or strategy, and a decision amounting to reasonable trial strategy does not constitute deficient performance.” (Citations omitted.) Harris v. State, 279 Ga. 522, 529 (6) ( 615 SE2d 532 ) (2005).

2020See Davis, 306 Ga. at 145-146 (3) (c). (ii) Prior to trial, the State provided notice of its intent to present evidence of other acts pursuant to OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) (“Rule 404 (b)”).

2017A trial court’s decision on whether to admit evidence under OCGA §§ 24-4-404 (b) and 24-4-403 is reviewed for a “clear abuse of discretion.” Id. (a) Prong one: The trial court allowed the State to introduce evidence of two other acts for the limited purpose of showing Johnson’s “intent to . . . use a firearm.” “A culpable state of mind — intent or criminal negligence — is an essential element of every crime.” (Citation omitted.) Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65, 72 (2) ( 786 SE2d 633 ) (2016).

2017A trial court’s decision on whether to admit evidence under OCGA §§ 24-4-404 (b) and 24-4-403 is reviewed for a “clear abuse of discretion.” Id. (a) Prong one: The trial court allowed the State to introduce evidence of two other acts for the limited purpose of showing Johnson’s “intent to . . . use a firearm.” “A culpable state of mind — intent or criminal negligence — is an essential element of every crime.” (Citation omitted.) Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65, 72 (2) ( 786 SE2d 633 ) (2016).

2016On appeal, a trial court’s decision to admit evidence pursuant to OCGA § 24-4-404 (b) is reviewed for a clear abuse of discretion, a review requiring the appellate court to make a “common sense assessment of all the circumstances surrounding the extrinsic offense, including prosecutorial need, overall similarity between the extrinsic act and the charged offense, as well as temporal remoteness.” Bradshaw, 296 Ga. at 657-658 (citations and punctuation omitted).

2015But its relevance to another purpose must be established through a chain of reasoning that does not rely on the forbidden inference that the person has a certain character and acted in accordance with that character on the occasion charged in the case.”) (citation and punctuation omitted); United States v. Procopio, 88 F3d 21, 29 (III) (1st Cir. 1996) (“If evidence supports a chain of inference independent of any tendency of the evidence to show bad character, it is said to have ‘special relevance’ and not barred by Rule 404.”) (citation 24 As noted above, the State asked the trial court to ad