Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0483. CEDRICK RHODES v. THE STATE.

Appellant Cedrick Rhodes appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial

following his conviction on multiple counts of armed robbery, aggravated assault,

possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, and criminal damage to

property in the first degree. Among other things, Rhodes asserts on appeal that the

trial court abused its discretion by admitting “other acts” evidence pursuant to OCGA

§ 24-4-404 (b) and OCGA § 24-4-403 to prove his intent. In the recent case of Olds

v. State, Case No. S15G1610, ___ Ga. ___ (___SE2d ___) 2016 Ga. LEXIS 393

(decided May 23, 2016), our Supreme Court clarified the law concerning the proper

analysis that our court must employ in deciding the admissibility of such evidence to

prove intent, acknowledging that its previous precedent may have led courts astray

in conducting the balancing test for admissibility, which such evidence must pass

under OCGA § 24-4-403.

1 As the Supreme Court stated in Olds, “[t]he application

of the Rule 403 test is a matter committed principally to the discretion of the trial

courts[.]” Id., 2016 Ga. LEXIS 393 at *10. Moreover, it is by no means clear to us

that the trial court would have reached the same result regarding the admissibility of

the extrinsic evidence to prove intent (and accordingly, would not have reached the

same result in deciding Rhodes’ motion for new trial), had the court had the benefit

of the Supreme Court’s decision in Olds to guide it. Accordingly, because this is a

matter committed to the discretion of the trial court in the first instance, and in light

1 That section provides that “[r]elevant evidence may be excluded if its

probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,

confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury or considerations of undue delay,

waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” 

June 29, 2016
of the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement of the law which significantly affects

this analysis, we believe the better course in this case is to vacate the trial court’s

order denying Rhodes’ motion for new trial and remand to the trial court for

reconsideration in light of Olds.

2 See State v. Brown, 333 Ga. App. 643, 653 (3) (777

SE2d 27) (2015) (remand necessary when this Court cannot discern whether trial

court applied appropriate test in excluding other-acts evidence and thus cannot

undertake a meaningful review of that order). Following the entry of a new order

upon remand, the parties shall have the right to appeal any adverse ruling by the trial

court in accordance with the applicable procedures governing such appeals. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

2 Rhodes also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the effectiveness

of trial counsel. We have reviewed the transcript of the evidence submitted at trial

and have little hesitancy in concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support

Rhodes’ convictions of the crimes charged, thus obviating any potential double

jeopardy concerns should the trial court determine that a new trial in this case is

necessary. The remainder of Rhodes’ contentions are more properly addressed in any

future appeal in this case, as necessary. 

06/29/2016