THI RD DI VI SI ON

DI L LA RD, P. J.

, GOBEI L and HODGES, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

October 18, 2019



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 9 A1 01 4 . J O NES v . THE STATE.

D I LLA R D , Pres i d i n g J u d g e.

Ro n ni e J o n es ap p eal s h i s co nv i ct i o n s fo r rap e an d ag g rav at ed b at t ery

, arg u i n g

t h at t h e t ri al co u rt (1 ) i m pro perl y e x p r e s s e d an o pi n i o n o n h i s g u i l t i n v i o l at i o n o f

O CGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 ; (2 ) erred i n refu s i n g t o g i v e a ju ry i n st ru ct i o n o n b at t ery as a

l es s er-i n cl ud e d o ffen s e o f ag g rav at ed bat t ery ; an d (3 ) ab u s ed i t s d i s cret i o n by

al l o wi n g t h e St at e t o i n t ro d u ce ex t ri n s i c ev id en ce o f a pri o r ag g ra v a t ed -as s au l t

co n vi ct i o n

. Fo r t h e reas o n s set fo rt h i n f r a

, we rev ers e J o n es ’ s co n v ict i o n s an d rem an d

t h e cas e fo r fu rt h er p ro ceed i n g s co n s i s t en t wi t h t hi s o p i n i o n

.

Vi ewed i n th e li g h t m o s t fav o rab l e t o th e ju ry ’ s v erd i ct

, 1 t h e reco rd s ho ws t h at

J o n es an d t h e v i ct i m

, C. W

., m et i n 2 00 9

, an d were m arri ed i n 2 01 2

. Jo n es was

1 S ee, e.g

. , Mo r r i s v. S t a t e , 3 4 0 Ga. Ap p . 2 9 5 , 2 9 5 (7 9 7 SE2 d 2 0 7 ) (2 0 1 7 ).p h y s i cal l y an d v erb al l y ab u s i v e t o C. W

. d u ri n g t h ei r m arri ag e an d i so l at ed h er fro m

fam i l y an d fri en d s

. An d as a res u l t of t h i s ab u si ve b eh av i o r, C. W

. at t em p t ed t o l eav e

J o n es s ev eral t i m es ; b u t each t i m e, th ey g o t b ack t o g et h er b ecau s e h e was ag g res s i v e

an d s h e w as afrai d of hi m

. Bu t ev en t u al l y

, C. W

. l eft J o n es fo r g o o d an d m o v ed to

No rt h Au g us ta. On e n i g h t aft er h er m o v e, wh en s h e was rel ax i n g at h o m e, J o n es wen t

t o h er h o u s e, k ick ed i n t he d o o r, “ ch arg ed [h er] l i k e a q uart erb ack [,] ” an d t h reat en ed

t o b reak her j aw i f s h e cal l ed t h e p o l ice. In Feb ru ary 2 0 1 4

, aft er t h i s i n ci d en t

, C. W

.

fi nal ly fi led fo r d i v o rce.

Sev eral m o n th s l at er, o n Au g u s t 2 1

, 2 0 1 4

, J o n es cal led C. W

. an d to l d h er t h at

h e wo u ld ag ree t o a d i v o rce o n t h e co n d i t i o n th a t s h e g i v e h i m a ri d e t o h i s

car— wh i ch was at h er m o t h er’ s h ou s e— an d t al k t o h i m ab o u t t hei r rel at i o ns h i p

. C.

W

. ag reed

, b u t aft er s he p i ck ed J o n es u p

, h e i n s t i g at ed a fi gh t ov er h er car (wh i ch s h e

h ad recen t l y pu rch as ed ), al l eg i ng t h at an o t h er m an b o u g h t i t fo r h er. Jo n es —wh o was

d ri v i ng t h e car—

b ecam e i n creas i n gl y an g ry

, an d at s o m e p oi n t

, he t o ok hi s han d s o ff

t h e wh eel

, g rab b ed C. W .’ s n eck , ch o k ed h er, an d t h reat en ed t o fl ip t he car an d k i l l

t h em bo t h

. Bu t h e ev en t u al l y c a l m e d do wn

, an d aft er s t o p p in g b ri efl y at a

co n ven i en ce s t o re, J o n es d ro v e C. W

. t o h er m o t h er’ s h o u s e as p l an ned

. Th ereaft er,

J o n es t o o k C. W

. t o “ th e Ri v erwal k ,” ap o l o gi zed fo r at t ack in g her i n t h e car, an d t o ld

2h er t h at h e wan t ed t o d i s cu s s w o rk i n g o n t hei r m arri ag e. W h en C. W

. t o l d h i m t h at

s h e di d no t wan t t o t al k ab ou t t h at

, t h ey ret u rn ed t o h er m o t h e r ’s h o u s e, an d J o n es

l eft

.

Lat er t h at ev en i n g

, aro u n d 1 1 : 0 0 p .m

. , Jo n es ret u rn ed to C. W .’ s m o t h er’ s

h o u s e an d t o l d h er t o get i nt o t h e car wi t h h i m

. A l t ho u gh C. W

. d i d no t wan t t o g o

wi t h J o n es

, s h e ag reed t o d o s o

. Th en

, aft er m ak i ng a few s t o p s

, J o n es t o ok C. W

. to

h i s fam i l y ’ s au t o sh o p

, wh ere he h ad b een li v i n g

. On ce t h e re, J o n es as k ed C. W

. i f

s h e wo u l d h av e sex wi t h h i m o n e l as t t i m e b efo re t he d i vo rce. C. W

. ag reed

, an d t h ey

h ad co n s en s u a l s ex o n a m at t res s t h at had been p l aced on t h e fl o o r o f t h e s h o p.

Aft erward

, o u t s i d e o f t he s h o p

, J o n es as k ed C. W

. i f s he was s t i l l s ure ab o u t wan t i n g

a d i v o rce; an d wh en s h e s ai d y es

, J o n es t ol d her t h at “ it ’ s bes t t h at [s he] l eav e b efo re

[h e] h u rt [h er]

. ” J o n es t h en wen t b ack i n t o h i s sh o p, b u t wh en C. W

. s tart ed h er car,

h e ran b ack o ut s id e, “

ju m p ed t h ro u g h t h e [car] wi n d o w[,] ” p u s h ed h i s el b o w i n t o h er

t h ro at , t oo k h er k ey s , an d wen t b ack i n s i d e.

C. W

.— wh o d i d n o t h av e h er p h o n e o r key s

— wen t b ack i n t o t h e s h o p

, cal l ed

o u t J o n es ’ s n am e, an d t h en s h e h eard t h e d o o r s l am beh i n d her. C. W

. i m m ed i at el y

l o o k ed t o h e r left an d s aw t h at J o n es was h o l d i n g a can of g as o l i n e an d a l i g h t er.

J o n es t h reat en ed C. W

., s ay i n g : “ Bi t ch

, I’ m g oi n g t o k i l l y o u

. I’ m g o i n g t o t each y o u

3ab o ut p l ay i n g w i th m e.” J o n es t h e n s t a r t e d po u ri n g g as ol i n e o n C. W

., wh i l e s h e

b eg ged h i m to s t o p an d t ri ed t o es cap e. A ft er d ro p p in g t h e gas o l in e can an d l i g h t er,

J o n e s grab b ed C. W

. ’ s n eck “ ex t rem el y h ard ” wi t h h i s ri g h t h an d an d t h rew h er o n

t h e m at t res s

. J on es g ri p p ed h er n eck s o h ard t h at sh e l o s t co ns ci o us n es s, an d wh en

s h e awo k e, h e l i t her o n fi re an d “ ev ery t h i n g wen t u p i n fl am es .” On ce t h e fi re was

p u t ou t (b y b o t h C. W

. an d J o n es ), C. W

. b eg g ed J o n es t o t ak e her t o t h e h o s p i t al fo r

t reat m en t

, b ut h e t o l d h er t h at s h e “ wo u l d b e fi n e” an d d ro v e h er t o a p h arm acy

i n s t ead

.

C. W

. co u l d n o t m o v e d u e t o h er i n ju ri es

, s o s h e s t ay ed in t h e car wh il e J o n es

wen t i nt o t h e p h arm a c y f o r a f e w m in u t es

. Bu t wh i l e h e w as i n s i d e, C. W

. s aw a

co u pl e n earb y an d as k ed t h em t o cal l 9 1 1

. Al t h o u g h t he p o l i ce h ad b een cal l ed

, C. W

.

s t il l wen t b ack t o t h e s h o p wi t h J o n es b ecau s e s h e w as afrai d o f h i m

, an d o n ce t h ere,

J o n es p u t Vas el i ne, g au ze, an d tap e o n h er bu rn s

. T h en

, J o n es h ad v ag i n al in t erco u rs e

wi t h C. W

. ag ai n s t her wi l l

, wh i l e s he was s t i l l in “ s o m u ch p ai n” an d b eg gi n g h i m

t o g et h el p fo r her i nju ri es

. Aft er J o n es ejacu lat ed

, s h e “ bal l ed o v er i n a k n ot ” o n h er

s i de, an d h e “ had s ex wi t h [h er] fro m b eh i nd .” Ev en t u al l y

, aft er s ev eral fu t i l e at t em p t s

t o es cap e, J o n es l et C. W . l eav e fo r wo rk , an d s h e d ro v e to h er s i s ter’ s ho u s e t o g et

4h e lp

. As a res u l t o f t h e at t ack

, C. W

. s u ffered s u ch s ev ere i n ju ri es th a t s h e w a s

h o s p it al i zed an d rem ai n ed i n t h e In t en s i ve Care Un i t fo r t wo week s

.

Su b s eq uen t l y

, J o nes was ch arg ed

, v i a i n di c t m e n t

, wi t h rap e an d ag g rav at ed

b at t ery

. An d fo l lo wi n g a j u r y tri al

, 2 J o n es was co n v i ct ed o f b o t h ch arg ed offen s es

.

J o n es fi l ed a m o t i o n fo r a n ew t ri al

, an d aft er a h eari n g on th e m at t er, t h e t ri al co u rt

d en ied t h e m o ti o n . Th i s ap p eal fo l l o ws

.

1 . J o n es arg u es t h at t h e tri al co u rt erred b y i m p ro p erl y ex pres s i n g an o p i n i o n

o n h i s g ui l t i n v i o l at i on o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 . W e ag ree.

Un d e r OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 (a), “ [i ] t i s erro r fo r an y ju d g e i n an y cri m i n al cas e,

d u ri n g i t s p ro g res s o r i n h i s ch arg e t o t h e ju ry , t o ex p res s o r i n t i m at e h i s o p i n i o n as

t o wh at h as o r has n o t b een pro ved o r as t o t h e g ui l t o f t he accu s ed .” An d s h o u l d an y

ju d g e ex p res s an op i n i o n as t o “ t h e g u i l t o f t h e accu s ed

, t h e Su p rem e Co urt o r Co u rt

o f Ap peal s o r t h e t ri al co u rt i n a m o ti o n fo r a n ew t ri al s ha l l g ran t a n ew t ri al .” 3

W h i l e J o n es was rep res en t ed b y co u n s el fo r t h e m ajo ri t y o f th e t ri al

, h e as k ed

t o rep res en t h i m s el f fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f cro s s -ex am i n in g C. W

. Sp eci fi cal l y

, aft er t h e

2 As ex p l ai ned m ore fu l l y i n f r a

, at t ri al

, Jo n es wa s p r i m a r i l y rep res en t ed by

co u ns el

, b u t d u ri n g p o rt i o ns of t h e t ri al

, i n cl ud i n g s o m e o f t h e cro s s -ex am i n at i o n o f

C. W

. , h e el ect ed t o rep res en t h i m s el f.

3 (Em p h as i s s u p pl i ed ).

5St at e p res en t ed t h e t es t im o ny of C. W

. an d t wo o th er w i t n e s s es

, Jo n es n o t i fi ed t h e

co u rt t h at h e was n ot s at i s fi ed wi t h h i s a t t orn ey

, an d h e as k ed t he co u rt t o ap p o i nt

n ew co u n s el t o rep res en t h i m

. T h e c o u rt res po n d ed t h at i t wo u l d n ot ap p o i n t n ew

co u ns el b ecau s e J on es was rep res en t ed b y a sk i l l ed at t o rn ey ; b u t th e co urt as k ed i f

h e wan ted t o rep res en t h i m s el f. T h e c o u rt t hen q u es t i o n ed J o n es at l en g t h t o m ak e

s u re t h at h e u n d ers t o o d wh at rep res en t i n g h i m s el f wo u ld en t ai l, i n c l u d i n g t h at h e

wo u l d b e b o u n d by al l o f t h e ru les o f ev i d en ce lawy ers m u s t a d h ere to an d t h at

d efen d an t s wh o rep res en t t h em s el v es us u al l y h av e a n eg at i v e o u t co m e wi t h t h e ju ry

.

Ev en t u al l y

, aft er a l en gt h y d i s cu s s i o n o n t h e m at t er, t h e t ri a l c o urt g ran t ed J o n es ’ s

req u es t t o rep res en t h i m s el f, b u t req u i red h i s co u n s el to rem ai n i n t h e co u rt ro o m to

as s i s t h i m i f n eces s ary

.

J o n es t h e n r e c a l l ed C. W

.— wh o h ad b een p rev i o us l y ex am i n ed b y th e St at e

an d h i s co u n sel —fo r ad d i t i o n al cro s s -ex am in at io n

. Th ro u g ho u t J o n es ’ s cro s s

ex am i n at i o n of C. W

. , h e as k ed n u m ero u s i m p ro p er q u es t i o n s, an d th e St at e o b ject ed

each t i m e t h at h e d i d s o

. T h e co urt al s o i n t erru p ted J o n es s ev eral t i m es t o ex p l ai n wh y

cert ai n q u es t i on s were i m perm i s s i b l e. An d aft er Jo n es as k ed C. W

. a s t ri n g o f

o b ject i on ab l e q u es t i o n s

, th e St at e arg u ed t h at he was b ad g eri ng h er, n o t i n g t h at s h e

h ad b een o n t h e wi t n es s s t an d f o r o ver two d ay s an d J o n es was n o t as k in g h er an y

6rel ev an t q u es t i on s

. Im m ed i at el y t h ereaft er, th e co u rt h ad t h e fo ll o wi n g ex ch an g e w i th

J o n es :

Th e co u rt : Si r, I’ v e t o l d y o u y o u ’ re b o u n d b y t he s am e ru l es o f

ev i d en ce t hat l awy ers are. Yo u can ’ t ju s t s ay an y t h i n g y o u

wan t t o . M o v e o n t o t he n ex t q u es t i o n

.

J o n es : I ju s t as k ed t h e q u es t i o n a b ad w ay

. I ju s t w an t t o g et s om e

t ru t h o f t h i s , wh at h ap p en ed t h at n i g h t

.

Th e co u rt : Si r, a l l

o f t h i s i s t h e t r u th . M o v e t o y o u r n ex t q u es ti o n

. 4

J o n es t h en co n t i n u ed wi t h h i s cro s s-ex am in at i o n o f C. W

.

On ap p eal

, J o n es arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt i m p ro perl y ex p res s ed i t s o p i n i o n

o n h i s g u i l t wh en

— d uri n g th e v i ct i m ’ s t es ti m o n y

— i t s t at ed “ al l o f t h is i s t ru e.” Bo th

p art i es ag ree t h at J o n es fai l ed t o o b ject at th e t i m e w h e n t h e co u rt m ad e t h i s

s t at em en t

, b u t ack n o wl ed g e th at we s t i l l re v i e w J o n es ’ s cl ai m fo r p l ai n erro r u n d er

OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 (b ), wh i ch p ro v i d es :

Excep t a s p r o v i d

ed i n s u b s ect i o n (c) of th i s Co d e s ect i o n

, fai l u re t o

m ak e a t im el y o b

ject i o n t o an al l eg ed v io l at i o n o f parag rap h (1 ) o f

s u b s ect i o n (a) o f t h i s Co d e s ect i on sh al l p recl u d e ap p el lat e r e v i e w

,

u n l es s s uch vi o la ti o n co n s t i t u t es p l a i n er r o r wh i c h affect s s u b s t an t iv e

4 (Em p h as i s s u p pl i ed ).

7ri gh ts o f t h e p art ies

. Pl ai n erro r m ay b e co n s i d ered o n ap p eal ev en wh en

a t i m el y o bject i o n i n fo rm i n g t h e co u rt o f th e sp eci fi c o bject i o n was n o t

m ad e, s o lo n g as s u ch erro r affect s s u b s t an t iv e ri g h t s o f t h e p art i es

. 5

Bu t reg ard l es s

, un d er OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 (c), “ [s ] h o ul d an y j u d ge ex p res s an o p i n i o n

as t o t h e g u i l t o f t h e accu s ed

, t h e Su p rem e Co u rt o r Co u rt o f Ap p eal s o r t h e t ri al co u rt

i n a m ot i o n fo r a n ew t ri al s h al l g ran t a n ew t ri al .” 6

Here, d u ri n g an ex ch an g e wi t h Jo n es reg ard i ng hi s i m p ro per q u es t i on i n g o f t h e

v i ct i m

, t he t ri al co urt ex p res s ed an o p i ni o n as to h i s g u i l t

. Sp eci fi cal ly

, d u ri ng J o n es ’ s

cro s s -ex am i n at i o n of C. W

., t h e vi ct i m a n d o n l y ey ewi t n es s to t h e at t ack

, t h e t ri al

co u rt s t a t e d t h a t “ al l o f t h i s i s t h e t ru t h .” Th e St at e co n t en d s t h at

, t ak en i n co n t ex t

,

5 (Em p h as i s s u pp l i ed ). Un d er a p ri o r v ers i o n o f O CGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7

, a t ri al co urt ’ s

s t at em en t s , i n t im at i n g i t s o pi n i o n ab o u t wh at h as o r h as n o t b een p ro ved , “ req u i red

an au t o m at i c rev ers al an d a n ew t ri al .” Qu il l er v. S t a t e

, 3 3 8 Ga. Ap p

. 2 0 6, 20 8 (7 8 9

SE2 d 3 9 1 ) (2 0 1 6 ). Bu t u n d er t h e n ewl y rev i s ed Co d e s ect i o n

, i n c o n tras t, t h e t ri al

co u rt m u s t “ pro vi de a cu rat i v e i n s t ru ct i o n o r d ecl are a m i s t ri al o nl y wh ere t h e erro r

h as b een o b

ject ed t o

, OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 (a) (2 ); an d t h e fai l u re t o o bject t o t h e erro r

at t ri al p recl u d es ap p el l at e rev i ew u n l es s s u ch vi o l at i o n c o n s t i t u t ed p lai n erro r.

OCGA § 1 7-8 -5 7 (b ).” Id

. (ci t at i o n s o m it t ed ). W h il e th e n ew v ers i o n o f t h e s t at u t e d id

n o t b eco m e effect i v e u n t i l J u l y 1

, 2 0 1 5

, s ee G a. L. 2 0 15 , p

. 1 05 0 (2 0 1 5), t hi s Co u rt

h as h el d t h at t he cu rren t v ers i o n o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 (b ), wh i ch p ro v i d es fo r p l ai n

erro r rev i ew, ap p l ies ret ro act i v el y

. S ee id

. at 2 0 9

. Bu t as ex pl ai ned m o re fu l l y i n fr a

,

u n l i k e Sect i o n s (a) an d (b ) o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7, Sect i on (c) of t he s t at u t e s t i l l req u i res

au t o m at i c rev ers al an d t he g r a n t o f a n ew tri al wh en

, as i n t h i s cas e, t h e t ri al co u rt

ex p res s es an o p i n i o n as t o t h e g u i l t o f t h e accu s ed

.

6 (Em p h as i s s u p pl i ed ).

8t h i s s t at em en t was m erel y an at t em p t b y th e co u rt t o “ co n t ro l t he co nd u ct o f t h e t ri al

an d g u id e [J o nes ] [,] wh o w as act i n g as h i s o w n at t o rn ey .” Th i s arg u m en t i s a

n o n s tart er. To t h e co n t rary

, t he d am n i n g t es t i m o n y offered b y C. W

. ag ai n s t J o n es

ri gh t b efo re t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s “ al l of t h i s i s t ru t h ” s t a t e m e n t ex t en si vel y d et ai l ed t h e

v i o l en ce i n fl i ct ed o n h er b y J o n es d u ri n g t h e i nci d en t at is s u e. Ad d i t i o nal l y

, t h e p l ai n

l an g u ag e o f OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 (c)— wh ich ap p li es wh en a t ri al co u rt ex p res s es an

o p i n i o n reg ard i n g a d efen d an t ’ s g u i l t

— d o es n o t rem o t el y s u gg es t th at t h e co urt ’ s

s u b j ect i ve i n t en t i n m ak i n g t h e o ffen d i n g s t a t e m e n t i s rel ev an t

. In d eed

, al l t h at

m at t ers are t he w o rd s e

x p r e s s e d b y t h e t ri al co u rt

. An d t hi s is p erfect l y reas o n ab l e

b ecau s e t h e p u rp o s e o f t h i s st at ut o ry s ect i o n

— as refl ect ed b y t he rel ev an t t ex t

— i s to

“ k eep t h e j u r

y fro m b ei n g i n fl u en ced b y t h e ju d g e’ s o p i n i o n

. ” 7

Nev ert h el es s

, t h e St at e al s o co n ten d s th at J o n es can n o t s h o w p l ai n erro r

b e c a u s e

, i n t er a l i a

, h e h as n o t d em o n st rat ed t h at th e t ri al co u rt ’ s co m m en t s l i k el y

7 Qu i l l er

, 3 38 Ga. Ap p

. at 2 0 8 ; s ee Da ven p o r t v. S ta t e

, 3 0 8 G a. A p p

. 14 0

, 1 5 6

-

5 7 (3 ) (7 0 6 S E 2 d 75 7 ) (2 0 1 1 ) (“ [W ] h il e a ju d g e m ay no t ex p res s an o p i n i o n o r

i n t i m at e t o t he ju ry wh at h as o r h as n o t (i n h i s o r h e r v i ew) b een p ro v en i t i s wel l

es t ab l i s h ed th at t he p u rp o s e o f t h is l im i t at i o n i s t o prev en t t h e ju r y fro m b ei n g

i n fl u en ced

, n ot t o k eep t h e ju d g e fro m m ak i n g u p h i s o r h er o wn m i nd .”(p u n ct u at i o n

an fo o tn o t e o m i t t ed )).

9a ffect ed t h e ou t co m e o f th e t ri al

. 8 Bu t th i s co nt en t i o n i s l i kewi s e wi t h o u t m e r i t

b ecau s e, u nd er OCGA § 17 -8 -5 7 (c), wh en a co u rt ex p res s es an o pi n i o n as t o t h e

d efen d an t ’ s g u i l t

, h e o r s h e s h al l b e g ran t ed a n ew t ri al

. 9 W e co n cl u d e, t hen

, t h at t h e

t ri al co u rt ’ s st at em en t th at al l o f t h e v i ct im ’ s t es t i m o ny i s “ t h e t ru t h ” i s eq ui v al en t to

co m m u n icat in g i ts b el i ef t o t he ju ry t h at Jo n es was gu i lt y

, ev en i f t h at i s n o t wh at i t

8 In S t a te v. Kel l

y

, 2 9 0 Ga. 2 9 (7 18 SE2 d 2 3 2 ) (2 0 1 1 ), o u r Su p rem e Co u rt s et

fo rt h t he req u irem en ts fo r an ap p el l an t t o s h o w p l ai n erro r:

Fi rs t

, th ere m

u s t b e an erro r or d e f

e c t

— s o m e s o rt o f d ev i at io n fro m a

l eg al ru l e— t h at h as n ot b een i n t en ti o n al l y rel i n q ui s h ed o r ab an d o n ed

,

i .e

. , affi rm at i vel y wai v ed

, b y t h e ap p el l an t

. Seco n d

, th e l eg al erro r m u s t

b e cl ear o r o bv io u s

, rat h er t h an s u b ject t o reas o n ab l e d i sp u te. Th i rd

, th e

erro r m u s t hav e affect ed t h e ap p el l an t’ s s u b s t an t i al ri g h t s

, wh i ch i n th e

o rd i nary cas e m ean s he m u s t d em o n s t rat e t h at i t affect ed th e o u t co m e o f

t h e t ri al co u rt p ro ceed i ng s

. Fo u rt h an d fi n al ly

, i f t h e ab ov e t h ree p ro n g s

are s a t i s fi ed

, th e ap p el l at e co u rt h as t h e d is cret i o n t o rem ed y th e

erro r— d i s cret io n wh i ch o u g h t t o b e ex erci s ed o n l y i f t h e erro r s eri o us l y

affect s t h e fai rn es s, i n t eg ri t y or p u b li c rep u t at i o n o f ju d i ci al

p ro ceed i n g s

. Id

. at 3 3 (2 ) (a) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

Bu t as ex p l ai n ed s u

pr a

, p l ai n -erro r rev i ew d oes n o t ap p l y u n der t h e ci rcu m s t an ces o f

t h i s cas e.

9 S ee OCGA § 1 7

- 8

- 5 7 ( c) (“ Sh ou l d an y ju d g e exp r es s a n o pi n io n a s t o t h e

g u i l t of t h e a ccu s ed

, t h e Su p rem e Co u rt o r Co u rt o f Ap p ea l s o r t he t ri al co u rt i n a

m o ti o n fo r a n ew t ri al s h a ll g ran t a n ew t ri al .” (em p h as i s s u p p li ed )).

10i n t en d ed

. As a res u lt

, ev en t h o u g h J o n es fai led to o b ject t o t h e o ffen d i n g s t at em en t

at tri al

, we are s t at u t o ri l y req u i re d t o rev ers e h i s co n v i ct io ns an d g ran t h i m a n ew

t ri al

. 1 0

2

. In l i g h t of o u r h o l d in g i n Di v i s i o n 1 s up r a

, we n eed n o t ad d res s J o n es ’ s

rem ai n i n g cl ai m s o f erro r. N ev ert h el es s

, becau s e t h e i s su es h e rai s es are l i k el y to

reo ccu r up on ret ri al

, we fi n d i t p ru d en t t o res ol v e t h em no w i n th e in t eres ts o f ju d i ci al

eco n om y

. 1 1

1 0 S ee An t h o ny v. S t a t e

, 3 0 3 Ga. 3 9 9

, 4 0 6 (4 ) n

. 1 2 (8 1 1 SE2 d 39 9 ) (2 0 1 8 )

(“ To d ay

, i n t h e ab s en ce of a t i m e l y o b ject i o n, a ju d i ci al co m

m en t— ot h er t h a n a

co mmen t o n t h e g u i l t of t h e accu s ed

, s ee OCGA § 1 7-8 -5 7 (c)— am o u n ts t o rev ers i b l e

erro r u nd er t h e s t at u t e o nl y t o t h e ex ten t t hat i t is a pl ai n erro r wh i ch a f fect s

s u b s t an t i ve ri g h ts .” (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ) (em p has i s su p pl i ed )); Ha r r is v. S t a t e

, 3 0 2

Ga. 8 3 2

, 8 3 4 (2 ) n .2 (8 0 9 SE2 d 7 2 3 ) (2 0 1 8 ) (“ Un d er t h e am en d ed v ers i o n o f [OCGA

§ 17 -8 -5 7 ]

, wh i ch wen t i nt o effect i n J u ly 2 0 1 5

, a fai l u re t o o b ject al l o ws rev i ew o n l y

fo r p l ai n erro r (u n l es s t h e t ri al ju dg e ex pres s es an o p i ni on ‘ as t o t h e g ui l t o f t h e

accu s ed

, ’ i n wh i ch cas e r ever s al i s s ti l l a u to ma ti c. ”)). W e h av e fo un d no p ri o r cas es

i n w h ich a tri al co urt m ad e a s t at em en t s i m i l ar t o th e o ffen d i n g rem ark at i s s u e i n t h i s

cas e, b u t we d o n o t h es i tat e i n fi n d i n g t h at t h e co u rt ’ s co m m e n t h e r e es s en t i al l y

co m m u n icat ed i t s b el i ef t h at J on es was g u il t y

. Cf

. Hi gh t o wer v. S t a t e , 3 04 Ga. 7 5 5,

7 5 9 (2 ) (b ) ( 8 2 2 SE2 d 2 73 ) (2 01 8 ) (h o ld i ng t h at t h e co u rt ’ s co m m en t t h at a d o ct o r

was “ a freq u en t wi tn es s i n Fu l t o n Co u rt s ” i n d i cat ed n ot h i n g ab o u t t h e d e f en d an t ’ s

g u i l t ); Pya t t v. S t a t e

, 2 98 Ga. 7 42

, 7 4 6-7 4 8 (3 ) (7 8 4 SE2 d 7 5 9 ) (2 0 16 ) (h o l d i n g t h at

a t ri al j u d g e’ s co m

m en t ap p eari n g t o ag ree wi t h th e St at e t h at a wi t n es s ’ s s t at em en t

was “ cri t i cal ev i d en ce” d i d n o t v i ol at e OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 7 ).

1 1 Becau s e t here was s u ffi ci en t ev i d en ce to su p po rt J o n es ’ s co n v ict i o n s

, h e m ay

b e ret ri ed fo r t h o s e o ffen s es

. S ee Ra i n es v. St a te

, 3 0 4 G a. 58 2

, 5 8 9 (2 ) (b ) (8 2 0 SE2 d

6 7 9

, 6 8 7 (2 01 8) (“ [ T ]h e d efen d an t m ay b e ret ri ed i f th e ev i d en ce p res en t ed was

11(a) J on es arg ues t h at t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y refu s i n g t o g i v e a ju ry i ns t ru ct i o n

o n b at tery as a l es ser-i n cl u ded o ffen s e o f ag grav at ed b at t ery . W e d i s ag ree.

Pri o r t o t ri al

, Jo n es req u es t ed cert ai n ju ry ch arg es i n wri t in g

, i n cl u d i n g o n e o n

b at t ery as a l es s er-i n cl ud ed o ffen se o f ag g rav at ed b at t ery

. Th en

, d uri n g t h e ch arg e

co n feren ce at t h e co n cl u s i o n o f t ri al

, t h e t ri al co urt i n fo rm ed Jo n es t h at i t w o u l d n ot

g i v e t h e req u es t ed ju ry ch arg e, an d J o n es o b ject ed

. In ex p l ai n i n g i t s ru l i n g

, t h e co u rt

s t at ed t h at J o n es d en i ed co m m i t t i n g t h e cri m e al t o g et h er

, an d n ev er arg u ed t h at h e

was g ui l t y o f s i m

p l e bat t ery

. Jo n es n o w arg u es t h at t he t ri al co u rt erred i n t h is res p ect

b ecau s e t h e ev i d en ce s u pp o rt ed a ch arg e o n b at t ery

.

W e rev i ew th e t ri al co u rt ’ s refu s al t o g i v e a req u es t ed ch arg e fo r an “ ab u s e o f

d i s cret i o n .” 1 2 An d in co n s i d eri n g wh et h er t h e co u rt ab u s ed it s d i s cret i o n i n fai l i n g to

g i v e a ju ry

ch arg e o n b at t ery as a l es ser-i n cl u ded offen s e of ag g rav at ed bat t ery

, we

b eg in b y co n s i d eri n g t h e t ex t of OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 3 .1

. (a) an d OCG A § 1 6 -5 -2 4 (a).

Un d er t h e fo rm er, a p ers o n co m m i t s th e o ffen se o f b at t ery w h en “ h e o r s h e

i n t en t i o n al l y cau s es su b st an t ial p h y s i cal h arm o r v i s i b l e b o d i l y h arm t o an o t h er”; 1 3

s u ffi ci en t t o s u p p o rt h i s co n vi ct i o n fo r t h e cri m es ch arg ed .”).

1 2 S a l a z a r -Ba l der as v. S ta t e

, 3 4 3 Ga. Ap p

. 2 0 1

, 2 0 3 (1 ) (8 06 SE2 d 6 44 ) (2 0 1 7 ).

1 3 OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 3 .1 . (a).

12an d u n d er t h e l at t er, a p ers o n co m m i t s t h e offen se o f ag g rav at ed bat t ery wh en “ h e o r

s h e m al i ci o u s ly cau s es b o d i l y h arm t o an ot h er b y dep ri v i n g h i m o r h er of a m em b er

o f h is o r h er bo d y

, b y ren d eri n g a m em b er o f h i s o r h er b o d y u s el es s

, o r b y s eri o u s l y

d i s fi g u ri n g h i s o r h er bo d y o r a m em b er t h ereo f.” 1 4 Im

p o r t an t l y

, t h es e t wo b at t ery

s t at u tes “ cat eg o ri ze t h e t y pes o f b at t ery b y t h e s ev eri t y o f t h e h arm in fl ict ed an d

. . .

p ro v id e h ars h er pen al t ies fo r bat t eri es t h at res u l t i n m o re s ev ere b od i l y h arm ”; 1 5 an d

h ere, J o n es m ai n t ai ns th at t h e ev i d en ce p res en t ed b el ow s u p p o rt ed a ju ry ch arg e o n

b at t ery

.

Sp eci fi cal l y

, J o nes arg u es t hat t h e ev i d en ce h e g rab b ed C. W

. b y t h e n eck

,

t h rew h er t o t h e fl oo r, an d s et h er o n fi re, w h i ch cau s ed “ v i si b l e bu rn s an d b l i s t ers ,”

s u p p ort ed a ju ry i n s t ru ct i o n o n b at t ery becau s e o f h i s t es t i m o n y t h at C. W

.

acci den t al l y cau s ed t h e fi re, in ju ri n g t h em b o t h

. Acco rd i n g t o J o n es

, o n th e n i g h t in

q u es ti o n

, h e an d C. W

. were at h i s s h o p

, an d t h ey arg u ed ab o u t J o n es ch eat i n g o n h er

wi t h an o th er wo m an

. An d d uri ng t h i s arg u m en t

, J o n es was h o l di n g a l ig h t er wh en h e

real ized t h ere were g as can s o n t h e fl o o r t hat n eed ed t o b e m o v ed o ut of t h e wal k way

.

J o n es cl ai m ed t h at

— wh e n h e w a s m o v i n g t h e can s

— C. W

. ju m p ed o ff o f t h e b ed

,

1 4 OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 4 (a).

1 5 W i l l i a ms v. S t a t e , 2 4 8 Ga. Ap p . 3 1 6, 3 1 8 (1 ) (5 4 6 SE2 d 7 4 ) (2 0 0 1 ).

13ap p ro ach ed h i m

, an d “ hi t hi s h an d s ” wh i l e h e was h ol d i n g o n e o f t h e g as can s an d a

l i gh t er. J o n es fu rt her t es t i fi ed t h at C. W .’ s act i o n s cau s ed g as o l in e t o p o u r o u t o f t h e

can an d li g h t h is ch es t an d h an d s o n fi re. Fi n al l y

, acco rd i n g t o J o nes

, h e th rew t h e g as

can aft er h i s h an d s were o n fi re, an d wh en h e d i d so

, C. W

.— wh o w a s d i r e c t l y in

fro n t of h i m

—al s o cau g h t o n fi re. Es s en t ial l y

, J o n es m ai n tai n s t h at C. W .’ s i n ju ri es

were cau s ed b y

an acci d en t , wh i ch was h er fau l t , an d th at h e n ev er i n t en d ed t o h u rt

h er.

Gi v en th e fo reg o i n g

, i f t h e ju ry b el i ev ed J on es ’ s t es t i m o n y an d fo u n d t h at C.

W

. was n o t cred i b le, i t w o ul d n o t be au t h o ri zed to co n v i ct h i m o f b at t ery

o r ag g rav at ed bat t ery

. Pu t an o t h er way

, J o n es pres en t ed an “ al l or n o th i n g ” defen s e. 1 6

In d eed

, wh en t h e co u rt d ecl i n ed t o g i v e t h e req u es t ed i n st ru ct io n

, i t co rrect l y s t at ed :

“ He s ai d h e d i d n ’ t d o i t . So ei t her h e d id co m m i t t h e ag g rav at ed b at t ery o r n o t h i n g.

He d i d n ’ t s ay h e co m

m it t ed a bat t ery at al l .” An d Geo rg i a co urt s h av e rep eat ed l y h el d

t h at wh en a d efen d an t arg u es t h at h e d i d n ot co m m it t h e ch arg ed offen s e, a t ri al co u rt

d o es n o t ab u se i t s d i s cret i o n i n d ecl i n i n g t o ch arg e t h e ju ry t h at i t i s au t h o ri zed t o fi n d

1 6 S ee, e.g

. , Ng u

yen v. S t a t e

, 2 9 6 Ga. Ap p

. 8 5 3

, 8 5 7 (1 ) (a) ( 6 7 6 SE2 d 2 4 6 )

(2 0 0 9) (ex p l ai n i ng th at t h e reco rd d em o n s t rat ed an “ al l o r n o t h in g ” d efen s e s t rat eg y

wh en t h e d efen d an t co n ten d ed t h at h e was n ot g u il t y o f an y cri m e).

14t h e d efen d an t g u i l t y o f a l es ser-i n cl u d ed o ffen s e. 1 7 Th us

, t h e tri al co u rt d id n o t ab u s e

i t s d i s cret i o n i n d ecl in in g t o d o s o

.

(b ) Fi n al l y , J o n es arg u es t h at t h e t ri al co u rt ab us ed i t s d i scret i o n b y al l o wi n g

t h e St at e t o i n t ro d u ce ex t ri n s i c ev i d en ce o f a p ri o r ag g rav at ed b at tery ag ai n s t a

p reg n an t wo m an i n Fl ori d a. Ag ai n , we d i s ag ree.

Pri o r t o tri al

, t h e t ri al co urt ru l ed th at J o n es ’ s Fl ori d a co nv i ct i o n was

ad m i s s i b l e u n d er O CGA § 2 4-4 -4 0 4 (b ) as p ri o r-act s ev i d en ce, an d J o n es arg u es t h e

co u rt erred i n d o i n g s o. Bu t wh en t h e co n v i ct i on w as act u al l y ad m it ted at tri al d u ri n g

J o n es ’ s t es ti m o n y

, t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s i n s t ru ct i o n t o t h e ju ry i n d i cat ed t h at i t ad m i t t ed t h e

co n vi ct i o n u n d er a di fferen t s t at u t e. Sp eci fi cal l y

, a f t er J o n es t es t i fi ed at len g t h as to

h i s v ers io n o f ev en t s o n t h e ni g h t i n q u es ti o n

, wh ich d i rect l y co n t rad i ct ed C. W .’ s

1 7 S ee H o r n e v

. S t a t e

, 3 33 Ga. A p p

. 3 53

, 3 6 1 (5 ) (b ) (7 7 3 SE2 d 4 6 7) (2 0 1 5 )

(h o l d i n g t h at a ju ry i n s t ru ct i o n o n b at t ery as a l es ser-i n cl u ded o ffen s e o f ag g rav at ed

b at t ery was u n warran t ed wh en t h e d efen d a n t as s ert ed t h at th e v ict i m ’ s i n ju ry was

s el f-i n fl ict ed an d h e d en ied co m m i t t i n g t h e offen s e); Al l en v. S t a te

, 24 7 Ga. Ap p

. 1 0,

1 7 (4 ) (b ) (5 4 3 SE2 d 4 5 ) (2 0 00 ) (h o l d i n g t h at t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n ot err i n d ecl i n i n g

t o gi v e a ju ry i n s t ru ct i o n o n bat t ery as a l es s er-i n cl u d ed o ffen s e o f ag g rav at ed b at t ery

wh en t h e d efen d an t cl ai m ed t hat t h e v i ct i m was in ju red b y acci d en t

, in wh i ch cas e n o

b at t ery was co m

m i t t ed a t a l l ); s ee a l

s o In g r a m v. S t a t e

, 3 17 G a. A p p

. 60 6

, 6 0 7 (1 )

( 7 3 2 SE2 d 4 5 6 ) (2 01 2 ) (h o l d i ng t h at t ri al co un s el was n o t i n effect i v e fo r d e c i d i n g

ag ai n s t req u es ti n g a ju ry

i ns t ru ct i o n o n a l es s er-i n cl ud ed offen s e i n o rd er t o p u rs u e

an al l -o r-n o t h i n g d efen s e).

15t es t i m o ny

, t h e St at e so u g ht t o ad m i t e v i d en ce o f t h e p ri o r co n v i ct i o n at i s s u e. Bu t

b efo re ad m i t t i n g t h e ev i d en ce, t h e t ri al co u rt i ns t ru ct ed t h e ju ry as fo l l o w s :

Lad i es an d g en t l em en o f t h e ju ry

, I’ m g o in g t o g i v e y o u an o t h er l i m i t i n g

i n s t ru ct i o n. I ch arg e y o u t h at i n d et erm i n i n g t h e cred i bi l i t y o r

b el i ev ab i li t y of a w it nes s an d an y t es t i m o n y b y t hem i n co u rt

, y o u m ay

co n s i d er w h e r e ap p l i cab l e ev i d en ce offered t o at tack t h e cred i b i li t y o r

b el i ev ab i li t y o f an y su ch wi t n es s

, wh i ch w o u ld in cl u d e ev i d en ce o f a

fel o n y co n v i ct i o n

, t h at i s

, p ro o f t h at th e d efen dan t h as been co n v i ct ed

o f o t h er o ffen s es w hi ch m ay b e p res en t ed t o y o u at t h i s t im e. .

Th u s, i t ap pears t h at th e tri al co u rt ad m i t t ed J o nes ’ s p r i o r c o n v i ct i on s o l el y fo r t h e

p u rp os e o f d et erm i n i ng h is cred i b i l i t y an d n o t fo r an y o f t h e p u rp os es d el i n eat ed i n

Ru l e 4 0 4 (b ). 1 8 Reg ard l es s

, a t ri al co u rt ’ s ev id en t i ary ru l i n g s m u s t be affi rm ed “ ab s en t

an ab us e o f d i s cret i o n .” 1 9

1 8 See OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 4 (b ) (“ E v i d en ce o f o t h er cri m es

, wro n g s

, o r act s s h al l

n o t b e ad m i s s i b l e t o pro ve t h e ch aract er o f a pers o n i n o rd er t o s h o w act i o n in

co n fo rm i t y t herewi t h

. It m ay

, h o wev er, b e ad m i s s ib l e fo r o t h er p u rp o s es

, i n cl u d i n g,

b u t n o t l i m i t ed t o, p ro o f o f m o t iv e, o p p o rt u n i t y

, i n t en t

, prep arat io n

, p l an

, k no wl ed ge,

i d en t i t y, o r a b s en ce o f m i st ak e o r acci d en t .”). Pri o r t o tri al

, t h e t ri al co u rt p ro v i d ed

reas on i n g fo r i t s d eci s io n t o ad m i t J o n es ’ s p r i o r co n v i ct i o n u n d er Ru le 4 0 4 (b ) an d

ex p res s l y st at e d i t s v i ew t h at t h e p ri o r co n v ict i on ’ s p ro b at i v e v al u e su b s t an t i al l y

o u t wei gh ed an y preju d ici al i m p act

. Bu t t h e co u rt d id n o t rei t erat e t h i s fi n d in g wh en

, d u ri n g t ri al , i t ad m i t t ed th e p ri o r co n v i ct i o n fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f i m peach m en t

.

1 9 S mi t h v. S ta te , 2 9 2 Ga. 6 2 0, 6 2 4 (5 ) (7 40 SE2 d 1 5 8) (2 01 3 ).

16An d h ere, wh i le t he t ri al co u rt d i d n ot referen ce t he s t at u t e b y nam e, OCGA §

2 4 -6 -6 0 9 (a) (1 ) p ro v i d es :

Fo r t h e p u rp o se o f at t ack i n g t h e ch aract er fo r t ru t hfu l n es s o f a wi t n es s

. . . [e] vi d en ce t h at a wi t nes s o t h er t h an an accu s ed h as b een co n v i ct ed

o f a cri m e s h a l l b e a d m i t t ed s u b ject t o t h e p ro v i s i o n s o f Co de Sect i o n

2 4 -4 -4 0 3 i f t h e cri m e was p u n i s hab l e b y d eat h o r i m p ri so n m en t i n

ex ces s o f o n e y ear u n d er t h e l aw u n d er w h i ch t h e wi t n es s was co n v i ct ed

an d ev i d en ce t h at an accu s ed h as b ee n co n v i ct ed o f s u ch a cri m e sh al l

b e ad m i t t ed if th e co u rt d et erm i n es t h at t h e p ro b at i v e val u e of ad m i t t i n g

t h e ev id en ce o u t wei gh s i t s p reju d i ci al effect t o t he accu s ed

. 2 0

An d as we h av e p rev i o us l y ex p l ai n ed

, t h e i n t ro d u ct i o n o f ev i d en ce o f a p ri o r fel o ny

co n vi ct i o n i s i n t en d ed t o “ affo rd th e ju ry a b as i s to i n fer t h at t h e w i t nes s ’ s ch aract er

i s s uch t h at h e wo u l d b e l es s l ik el y t h an t h e av erag e t ru s t wo rt h y ci t i zen t o b e t ru t h fu l

2 0 S u b s ect i o n (a) (1 ) o f OCGA § 2 4 -6 -6 0 9 ap p l y in g t o p ri o r cri m es o f t h e

accu s ed

, wh i ch are l es s th an t en y ears o l d

, “ d oes no t req u i re t h e p r o b at iv e v al u e o f

ad m i t t i ng t h e p ri o r cri m e ‘ s u b s t an t i al l y ’ o u t wei g h i t s p r e j u d i ci al effect

, as was t h e

cas e u nd er t he p ri o r l aw an d i s p r e s e n tl y t he cas e un d er su b sect i o n (b ) o f O CGA §

2 4 -6 -6 0 9, wh i ch ap p l i es wh en th e p ri o r cri m e i s m o re th an t en y ears o l d .” Jo r d a n v.

S t a t e

, 3 4 4 Ga. Ap p

. 2 6 7

, 27 2 (5 ) n .9 (8 1 0 SE2 d 1 5 8 ) (2 0 1 8); s ee R o b i n s on v. S t a t e

, 3 3 6 Ga. Ap p

. 62 7

, 6 3 1 ( 3) (7 8 5 SE2 d 3 0 4 ) (2 0 1 6 ) (n o t in g t h at

, b ecau s e t h e

d efen d an t ’ s pri or co n v i ct i o n s were les s t h an t en y ears o l d

, t h e m o re s t ri n g en t

“ s u b s t an t i al l y o u t wei g h s s tan d ard ” d o es n o t ap p l y as to t h e a d m i s s io n o f t h o s e

co n vi ct i o n s ). It i s u n d is p ut ed t h at J o n es ’ s p ri o r co n v ict i o n fo r ag g rav at ed as s au l t i s

l es s t h an t en y ears o l d.

17i n h i s t es t i m o n y. ” 2 1 I n d eed

, t h e i n t ro d uct i on o f ev i d en ce o f a p ri o r cri m e i s t h u s a

“ g en eral at t ack o n t he cred ib i l i t y o f t h e wi t nes s .” 2 2

As p rev i o u s l y d i s cu s s ed

, J o n es t es t i fi ed t h at C. W .’ s i n ju ri es res u l ted fro m an

acci den t

, wh i ch s h e cau s ed

, d irect ly co nt rad i ct i n g ev i d en ce pres en t ed b y t h e St at e

t h at h e pu rp o s efu l l y t h reat en ed h er, l i t h er o n fi re, an d rap ed her. Sp eci fi cal ly

, J o n es

co n ten d s t hat h i s pri or co n v i ct i on was i n ad m i s s i b l e u n d e r OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 3 2 3

b ecau s e i t was s u b m it t ed fo r th e s o l e p urp o s e o f s h o wi n g t h at h e h ad a h i s t o ry o f

v i o l en ce ag ai n st wo m en

. Bu t co n t rary t o h is a r g u m en t s

, t h e pro b at iv e v al u e o f J o n es ’ s

p ri o r co n v i ct i on was h i g h b ecau s e h i s cred ib i l i t y was cen tral to th e o u t c o m e o f h i s

t ri al

. In d eed

, J o nes t o o k t he st an d, cat eg o ri cal l y d en i ed co m m it ti n g t h e ch a r g ed

2 1 Jo r d a n

, 3 4 4 Ga. Ap p

. at 2 7 2 (5 ) (p u n ct u a t i o n om i t t ed ); a cco rd Ro b i n s o n

, 3 3 6 Ga. Ap p . at 6 31 (3 ).

2 2 Jo r d a n

, 3 4 4 Ga. Ap p

. at 2 7 2 (5 ) (p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ); a cco rd Ro b i n s o n

, 3 3 6 Ga. Ap p

. at 6 3 1 (3 ); s ee R o n a l d L. Carl s o n an d M i ch ael Sco t t Carl s o n,

CARLSON ON EVIDENCE, p

. 3 1 2 ( 6 t h E d

. 20 1 8 ) (“ Ru l e 6 0 9 (a) (1 ) co n cern s

i m p e a ch m en t o f a wi tn es s ’ t ru t h fu l n es s w i t h ev i d en ce o f a cri m e t h at i s p u n i s h ab l e

b y

. . . i m

p ri s o n m en t i n e x c e s s o f o ne y ear u n d er t h e l aw wh i ch t h e wi t n es s was

co n vi ct ed .”).

2 3 S ee OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 3 (“ Rel ev an t ev id en ce m ay b e ex cl u d ed i f i t s pro b at i v e

v al u e i s s u b s t an t i al l y o u t wei g h ed b y t h e d an g er o f u n fai r preju d ice, co nfu s i o n o f t h e

i s su es

, or m i s l ead i n g t h e ju ry or b y co n si d erat i on s o f u n du e d el ay

, was te of t i m e, o r

n eed les s p res en t at i o n o f cu m u lat i v e ev i d en ce.”).

18o ffen s es

, an d b l am ed t h e vi ct i m fo r s et t i n g t h em b o t h on fi re. 2 4 Fu rt h erm ore, t h e t ri al

co u rt red u ced t h e ri s k o f u n fai r p reju d i ce b y i n s tru ct i n g t h e ju ry th at J o n es ’ s p ri o r

co n vi ct i o n was b ei n g ad m it t ed fo r t h e ju ry t o co n s i d er i n d et erm i ni n g h i s

t ru t h fu l n es s

. 2 5 An d

, o f co u rs e, we s h o u l d no t as s u m e t h at th e ju ry “ p ai d n o at t en t i o n

t o s o m e p o rt i o n s o f t h e ch arg e; b u t o n t h e co n t rary t h e p res u m p ti o n i s th at t h e ju ry

p ay s at t en t i o n t o an d co rrect l y ap p l i es al l o f t h e ch arg e.” 2 6

2 4 S ee Jo r d a n

, 3 4 4 Ga. Ap p

. at 2 7 2 (5 ) (h o l d i n g t h at t he d efen dan t ’ s p ri o r

co n vi ct i o n

, w h i ch was ad m i t t ed u n d er OCGA § 2 4-6 -6 0 9 (a) (1 ), was ad m i s s i b l e

wh en

, i n t er a l i a

, th e defen d an t “ p l aced h i s cred i b i l it y d i rect l y at i s s u e b y t es t i fy i n g

at t ri al th at h e t o o k n o p art i n t h e arm ed ro b b ery an d t h a t h e a c t u a l l y t ri ed to

d i s co u rag e t h e ro b b er by t el l in g h im t h at t h e vi ct i m d id n ot h av e an y t h i ng t o t ak e”);

Carl s o n

, s u

p r a n o t e 22

, p

. 3 13 (“ On ce a cri m i n al d efen d an t ch oo s es t o t es t i fy

, h e

p l aces h i s c r e di b i l i t y i n i s s u e as d o es an y wi t n es s

. . . . Fel o ni es n ot i nv o l v i n g

d i s h o n es ty are ad m i t t ed i f t h e co u rt det erm i n es t h e p ro b at iv e v al ue o f ad m i t t i n g t h i s

ev i d en ce o u twei g hs i t s p reju d i ci al effect t o t h e accu s ed .” (fo ot n o t es o m i t t ed )).

2 5 S ee Hu g h es v. S t a t e

, 3 4 1 Ga

. A p p

. 5 94

, 5 9 6 -9 7 (1 ) (8 0 2 SE2 d 3 0) (2 0 1 7 )

(h o l d i n g t h at ev i d en ce was no t u n fai rl y p reju d i ci al

, i n part

, b ecau s e t h e co u rt g av e a

l i m i ti n g i n s t ru ct i o n as t o h o w t h at ev i d en ce sh o u l d b e co n s i dered ); Ki m v. S ta t e

, 3 3 7

Ga. Ap p

. 1 5 5

, 1 59 (7 8 6 SE2 d 5 3 2 ) (2 0 1 6) (n o t in g th at

, i n fi n d i ng t hat ev i den ce was

ad m i s s i b l e u n d er O CGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 3

, t h e t ri al co urt g av e a l i m i ti n g i n st ru ct i o n t o t h e

ju ry an d q u al i fi ed ju ro rs un d er oat h are p res um ed t o fo l l ow t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

i n s t ru ct i o n s ).

2 6 B rya n t v. Ch a s t een

, 1 2 1 Ga. Ap p

. 4 4 6

, 4 4 6 ( 1 ) (1 7 4 SE2 d 1 9 2 ) (1 9 7 0 )

(p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

19M o r eo v er, J o n es ’ s p ri o r ag g rav at ed -as s au l t co n v i ct i o n was no t t h e so l e

ev i d en ce t h at h e h ad a h i s t o ry o f v io l en ce ag ai n s t wo m en

. In d eed

, wel l b efo re t h e

co n vi ct i o n was ad m i t t ed i n to ev i d en ce du ri n g J o n es ’ s t es t i m o n y

, C. W

. h ad al read y

t es t i fi ed at l en g t h as t o t h e ex t rem el y v io l en t an d ab u s i v e co n du ct th at t o o k p l ace

d u ri n g th ei r m arri ag e. 2 7 Un d er t h es e ci rcu m s t an ces

, t h e tri al co u rt d id n o t ab u s e i t s

d i s cret i o n i n ad m i t t i n g J o nes ’ s p ri o r co n v i ct i o n fo r ag g rav at ed b at tery o n a p reg n an t

wo m an fo r t h e ju ry t o co n s i d er i n d et erm i n i n g wh et her h e t es ti fi ed tru t hfu l l y

. 2 8 An d

2 7 S ee Jo r d a n

, 3 44 G a. Ap p

. at 2 7 2 (5 ) (h o ld in g t h at o ne fact o r r e d u ci n g t h e

p reju d i ci al i m

p act o f ev i den ce o f the de f e ndan t ’ s p ri or fel o n y co n v i ct i on

— w h i ch was

ad m i t t ed u n d er OCGA § 2 4 -6 -6 0 9 (a) (1 )— was t hat th e ju ry d id n o t learn h e was a

cri m i n al s o l el y

fro m t h e ad m i s s i o n o f t h e ev i den ce).

2 8 See Ro b i n s o n

, 3 3 6 Ga. Ap p

. at 6 3 1 (3 ) (h o l d i n g t h at t he t ri al co ur t d i d n ot

ab u se i t s d i s cret i o n i n a d m i t t i ng ev i d en ce o f a d efen d an t ’ s p ri o r fel o n y co n v i ct i o n

wh en

, i n t er a l i a

, t h e d efen d an t ’ s cred ib i l i t y was cen t ral t o th e d i s pu t e an d b o t h t h e

p ri o r an d cu rren t offen s es w ere v i o l en t cri m es ); Jo n es v. S t a t e

, 3 1 8 G a. Ap p

. 1 0 5

, 1 0 7

(3 ) (7 3 3 SE2 d 4 07 ) (2 0 1 2 ) (h ol d i n g t hat t h e t ri al co u rt di d n o t ab u s e i t s d i s cret i o n in

ad m i t t i ng ev i d en ce o f a d efen d an t ’ s p ri o r ag g rav at ed -as s au l t co n vi ct io n wh en

, i n t er

a l i a

, h is cred i b i l i t y was “ o b v i o u s l y o p en t o at t ack ”); Ho p ki n s v. S t at e

, 3 0 9 Ga. Ap p.

2 9 8

, 3 0 0 (1 ) (7 0 9 SE2 d 8 7 3 ) (2 0 1 1 ) (h o l d i ng t h at t h e t ri al co u rt di d no t a b u s e i t s

d i s cret i o n i n ad m i t t i n g t h e d efen d an t ’ s p ri o r b u rg l ary co nv i ct i o n i n a p ro s ecu t i o n fo r

s h o p li ft i n g wh en t h e defen d an t t es t i fi ed t h at h e h ad no i n t en t i o n o f co m m i t t i n g t h eft

,

m ak i n g h i s cred ib i l i t y h i g h l y rel ev an t t o t h e ju ry ’ s d eci s i on ); s ee a l s o E u b a n ks v.

S t a t e

, 3 3 2 Ga. Ap p

. 5 6 8

, 5 7 0 (1 ) (7 7 4 SE2 d 1 46 ) (2 01 5 ) (n o t i n g t hat t h e pro b at i v e

v al u e o f d e f

en d an t ’ s p ri o r co n v i ct i o n was n o t su b st an t i al l y o u t wei g hed b y u n fai r

p reju d i ce, i n p art

, b ecau s e t h e t ri al co u rt g av e a l i m i t i n g i n s t ru ct i o n t o red u ce t h e ri s k

o f u n d u e preju d i ce). W e ack n o wl ed g e J on es ’ s arg u m e n t t h at h is p ri o r Fl o ri d a

co n vi ct i o n was m i s lead i n g t o t h e ju ry b ecau s e Fl ori d a’ s s t at u te fo r ag grav at ed b at t ery

20b ecau s e Jo n es ’ s p ri o r co n v i ct i o n f o r ag g rav at ed bat t ery o f a preg n an t wo m an was

ad m i s s i b l e u n d er OCGA § 2 4 -6 -6 0 9 (a) (1 ), we n eed no t s ep arat el y ad d res s t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s p ret ri al ru l i n g t h at t h e co n v ict i o n was al s o ad m i s s i bl e u n d er Ru l e 4 0 4 (b ).

In s u m

, b ecau s e t h e t ri al co urt v i o lat ed OCGA § 1 7 -8 -5 8 ( c ) b y ex p res s l y

co m m en t i n g o n J on es ’ s g u i l t b efo re t h e ju ry

, w e rev ers e J o n es ’ s co n vi ct io n s an d

rem an d t h e cas e fo r a n ew t ri al as req u i red b y t h e s t at u t e.

Ju d g men t r ever sed a n d ca s e r ema nd

ed . Go b ei l

a n d Ho d g es , JJ., co ncu r

.

ag ai n s t a p reg n an t wo m an i s d i fferen t t h an G eo rg i a’ s ag g rav at ed

- b a t t e ry s t at u t e.

Nev ert h el es s

, we fi n d th at an y d i fferen ce b et w een t h e two s t at u tes d i d n ot ren d er t h e

Fl o ri da co n v i ct io n u nfai rl y p reju d i ci al wh en i t was ad m i tt ed fo r t h e s o le p u rp o s e o f

ch al l en g i n g J o n es ’ s cred i b i li t y

, wh i ch he p l aced i n i s s u e, an d th e t ri al co u rt i n s t ru ct ed

t h e ju ry i n t h at r e g a r d

. I n deed

, i f a d efen d an t ch o o s es t o t es ti fy

, a p ri or fel o ny

co n vi ct i o n i s ad m i s si b le fo r i m p each m en t p u rp o s es

, so l o n g as t h e co u rt d et erm i n es

t h at i t s p ro b at i v e v al u e s u b s tan t i al l y o u t wei gh s i ts p reju d i ci al e f f e c t

. S ee S t r o u d v.

S t a t e

, 3 0 1 Ga. 8 0 7

, 8 1 1 ( I I ) ( 80 4 SE2 d 4 1 8 ) (2 0 1 7 ) (“ [I] f t he d efen d an t t es t i fi ed

,

ev i d en ce o f p ri o r fel o n y co n v i ct i o n s was ad m i s s i bl e fo r i m p each m en t p u rp o s es u p o n

t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d et e r m i n at i o n t h at i t s p ro b at i v e v al u e s u b s t an ti al ly o ut wei g h ed i t s

p reju d i ci al effect .”). An d fo r t h e reas o n s d i s cu s s ed s u pr a

, i ncl u d in g t h e cen t ral i t y o f

t h e d efen d an t ’ s cred i b il i ty t o t h e o u t co m e o f t h e cas e, t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t ab u s e i t s

d i s cret i o n i n m ak i n g t h is det erm i n at i o n

. See Jo h n so n v. S t a t e

, 32 8 Ga. Ap p

. 7 0 2

, 7 0 9

(3 ) (b ) (7 6 0 SE2 d 6 82 ) (2 0 14 ) (h o l d i n g t h at t h e t ri al co u rt d i d n o t err i n co n cl u d i n g

t h at g i v en t h e n at u re o f th e ch arg es i n t he cas e an d th e fact t h at t h e cred i b i l i t y o f t h e

v i ct i m an d t h e d efen dan t were cen t ral t o t he i ss u es

, t h e p ro b at i v e v al u e o f t h e p ri o r

co n vi ct i o n s u b s t an t i al ly

o u twei g h ed an y

p reju di ci al effect ).

21