In th e S u p re m e Co u rt o f Ge o rg ia

De c id e d: Ma rc h 2 , 2 01 5

S 1 4 A1 36 5 . BRADS HAW v

. THE S TATE.

THOMP S O N, Ch ie f Ju stic e

.

Ap p e lla n t Ch risto p h e r Bra d sh aw a n d Mic h a e l B o y k in we re jo in tly

i n d i c t ed f o r m a lic e m

urd e r a n d o th e r c rim e s in c on n e c tio n with th e sh o o tin g

d e a th s o f De v o n taS te m

b rid g e a n d Dio n Bric e

. Th e tria l c o u rt se v e re d th e c o

d e fe n d a n ts’ tria ls, a n d a

pp e lla n t wa s trie d first, with Bo y k in te stify in g a g a in st

h im

. Ap p e lla n t wa s c o n v ic te d o n a ll c o un ts o f th e in d ic tm e n t, e x c e p t th e c o u n t

fo r ta m p e rin g with e v id e n c e

, on wh ic h th e tria l c o u rt d ire c te d a v e rd ic t. 1

1 T h e c r i m es o c curred on J une 25, 2011. On May 31, 2012, appellant was indicted by a Clay ton County g rand jury for the malice murder of Stembridg e and B r ice, for the felony murder of

Stembridg e and B rice, for the ag g ravated assault of Stembridg e and B rice, for criminal attempt to

possess marijuana, for the possession of a weapon during the c o mmission of a felony

, and f or tampering with evidence. A t trial, the trial court d irected a verdict on the tampering with evidence

count, and on March 14, 2013, a jury found appellant guilty

on the other eig h t counts. The felony

murder verdicts were vacated as a matter of law, and the trial court merg ed the ag g ravated assault

verdicts w ith the verdicts on malice murder. The trial court sentenced appellant to life without the

possibility of parole on both malice murder verdicts, to five consecutive y e ars on the f irearm verdict,

and to 12 concurrent months on the marijuana verdict. On March 18, 2013, appellant filed a motion

for n ew trial, which he amended on J anuary 17, J anuary

21, and J anuary 2 2, 2014. On March 25,

2014, the trial court denied appellant’s motion for n ew trial, as amended. Appellant filed a timely

notice of appeal, and the case was docketed in this Court for the September 2014 term and submitted

for decision on the briefs.Ap p e lla n t a

p p e a ls, c o n te n d in g th a t th e e v id e nc e is in su ffic ie n t to su p p o r t h i s

c o n v ic tio n s a n d th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d b y a d m ittin g e v id e n c e o f a p rio r m u rd e r

c o m m itte d b y a

p p e lla n t.

1

. Vie we d in th e lig h t m o st fa vo ra b le to th e v e rd ic t, th e e v id e nc e a t tria l

sh o we d th a t a

p p e lla n t a n d Bo y k in b o th m o v e d fro m Da y to n

, Oh io

, to Atla n ta

,

wh e re th e y m e t in Ma y 2 0 1 1 a n d b e c a m e frie n d s. O n Ju n e 2 5

, 2 0 11

, a p p e lla n t

to ld Bo y k i n t h a t h e w a n te d to b u y a po un d o f m a riju a n a

. Bo y k in

, wh o a t th e

tim e of a p p e lla n t’s tria l h a d no t m a d e a d e a l with th e S ta te in e x c h a ng e fo r h is

te st i mo n y

, te stifie d th a t h e a rra n g e d fo r a p p e lla n t to p u rc h a se m a riju a n a fro m

S te m b rid g e

. Th a t n ig h t, S te m b r i d g e a n d Bric e p ic ke d u p Bo y kin a t h is

a p a rtm e nt a n d d ro v e to a n e a rb y a p a rtm e n t c o m

p le x

, wh e re th e y m e t a

p p e lla n t.

Ap p e lla n t g o t in S te m

b rid g e ’s c a r a nd sa t b e hin d S te m b rid g e

, wh o wa s in th e

d riv e r’s se a t. Bric e wa s in th e fro n t p a sse n g e r se a t, a n d Bo y k in wa s sittin g

b e h in d h im

.

Be fo re th e m a riju a n a sa le o c c u rre d

, Bo y k in ’s p h o n e ra n g

, a n d h e ste p p e d

o u t o f th e c a r, wh ic h ha d bo th p a sse n g e r sid e win d o ws o p e n

. Bo y k in fin ish e d

h is c o nv e rsa tio n a n d

, wh ile o u tsid e th e c a r, b e ga n sp e a kin g with th e o th e rs in

th e c a r. He sa w S te m

b rid g e h a n d th e m a riju a n a to a pp e lla n t, wh o sa id it “ d id n’t

2fe e l rig h t,” “ lik e it a in ’t h e a v y e n o u g h

. ” A p p e lla n t c u t in to th e m a riju a n a a n d

“ h a y sta rtin g po p p in g o u t.” Ap p e lla n t th e n pu lle d o ut a c h ro m e se m i-a u to m a tic

h a n d g u n a n d sh o t S te m

b rid g e in th e b a c k o f th e h e a d

. Bo y k i n f l e d an d th e n

h e a rd m ore sh o ts. Bo y k in tu rn e d a ro u n d a n d sa w a p p e lla n t ru nn in g b e h in d h im

.

Ap p e lla n t to o k off h is c a p a n d w h ite t-sh irt (u n d e r w h i c h h e wa s we a rin g a

wh ite ta n k to p) a n d th re w th e m to th e sid e

. Th e y bo th ra n to Bo y kin ’s m o th e r’s

a p a rtm e nt, wh ic h wa s n e a rb y

. Bo y k in ’s m o th e r te stifie d th a t w h e n Bo y k in a n d

a p p e lla n t c a m e in to th e a p a rtm e n t th a t n ig h t, b oth we re swe a ty a n d th a t

a p p e lla n t wa s we a rin g a wh ite ta n k to p a n d n o c a p

, w h e re a s w h e n sh e h a d se e n

h im e arlie r in th e d a y

, h e wa s we a rin g a wh ite t-sh irt a n d c a p

. B o y k i n a n d

a p p e lla n t we n t im m e dia te ly to Bo y k in ’s ro o m

. Ac c o rd in g to Bo y k in

, a p p e lla n t

th re a te n e d to kill h im if h e to ld a n y o ne w h a t h e h a d se e n a n d a lso sa id th a t h e

k n e w wh e re Bo y k in ’s m o th e r liv e d

. Ap p e lla n t sh o w e re d

, a n d h e an d Bo y k in

th e n we n t to a

p p e lla n t’s a p a rtm e n t.

S t em brid g e wa s sh ot o n c e in th e b a c k of th e h e a d

, a n d B ric e wa s s h o t

o n c e in th e h e a d a n d o n c e in th e b a c k

. Bo t h d i e d f r o m th e ir in

ju rie s. S e v e ra l

9 m m sh e ll c a sin g s we re fo u n d in a n d a ro u n d th e c a r, a n d th e p la c e m e n t o f th ose

c a sin gs w a s c o n siste n t wit h a p e rso n sh oo tin g fro m th e ba c k se a t. F o re n sic

3e v id e n c e sh o we d th a t th e c a sin g s, a s w e ll a s t w o b u lle ts re c ov e re d fro m th e

v ic tim s’ b o d ie s, we re fir e d f ro m a h a n d g u n re c o v e re d fro m a pp e lla n t’s

a p a rtm e nt. Th e p o lic e fo u n d a c ig ar in th e b a c k se a t o f th e c a r an d a wh ite t-sh irt

a n d c a p, b o th with b lo od on th e m

, n e a r th e c a r. Bo th th e c ig a r a nd th e c a p h a d

a p p e lla n t ’ s D N A o n th e m

, a n d th e b lo o d re c o v e re d fro m th e c a p a n d sh irt

m a tc h e d S te m

b rid g e ’s DNA.

Th e S ta te o ffe re d e v id e n c e of a p rio r sim ila r c rim e

, wh ic h o c c u rre d a b o u t

six m o n th s b e fo re th e p re se n t c rim e s a n d wh ic h th e tria l c o u rt a d m itte d fo r th e

lim ite d p u rp o se o f p ro vin g id e n tity

, in te n t, a n d m otiv e

. Bo y k in a n d a p p e lla n t

b o th h a v e fa m ily in Oh io

, a n d Bo y kin te stifie d th a t, in e arly Ju ne 2 0 1 1

, h e a sk e d

a p p e lla n t to g o to O h io with h im

. Ap p e lla nt, h o we v e r, sa id th a t h e c o uld n o t g o

to Oh io b e c a

u se he wa s w a n te d fo r a m u rd e r th e re

. Ap p e lla n t to ld Bo y k in th a t

h e ha d sh o t Je ffe ry Be a n s in th e he a d a n d k ille d h im b e c a u se Be a n s wo u ld n o t

p a y fo r d ru gs th a t a

p p e lla n t’s b r o t h e r h a d g iv e n h im

. Ap p e lla nt sa id th e

sh o o tin g o c c u rre d o n P a

u l L a wre n c e D u n b a r S tre e t in D a y to n

, O h io

. A Da y to n

p o lic e o ffic e r te stifie d th a t o n Ja n u a ry 1 0

, 2 0 1 1

, h e we n t to 2 27 P a u l La wre n c e

Du n ba r S tre e t a n d fo u n d Be a n s’s b o d y th e re

. H e h a d b e e n sh o t m u ltip le tim e s,

in c lu din g in th e h e a d , a

n d d ie d

.

4Ap p e lla n t’s g irlfrie n d te stifie d th a t, in Ma y an d Ju n e 2 0 1 1

, sh e twic e sa w

Bo y k in with a g u n th a t lo o k e d lik e th e m urd e r we a p o n

, a n d a

p p e lla n t’s fa th e r,

wh o wa s v isitin g h is so n fro m Oh io o n Ju ne 2 5

, 2 0 1 1

, te stifie d th a t, a b o u t 8 :0 0

a .m

. th a t d a y

, h e sa w Bo y k in sle e pin g o n h is so n ’s so fa with a g u n th a t lo o k e d

lik e th e m u rd e r we a p o n ly in g b e sid e h im

. S h o rtly th e re a fte r, a p p e lla n t’s fa th e r

le ft to re tu rn to Oh io

.

2

. A p p e lla n t c o n te n d s th a t t h e e v i de n c e is in su ffic ie n t to su pp o rt h is

c o n v ic tio n s. Mo re sp e c ific a lly

, h e a rg u e s th a t th is C o urt m ay n o t c o n sid e r th e

sim ila r tra n sa c tio n e v id e nc e in d e te rm in in g th e le g a l su ffic ie n c y o f th e e v id e n c e

b e c a u se th a t e v id e nc e w a s im

p ro p e rly a d m itte d

, a n d th a t, with o u t th a t e vid e n c e

,

th e o n ly re m a in in g e v id e n c e is th e u n c o rro b o ra te d te stim o n y o f h is c o

d e fe n d a n t. Ap p e lla nt is wro n g o n b o th c o u n ts.

As e x p la in e d in Div isio n 3 b e lo w, th e tria l c ou rt d id n o t e rr b y a d m ittin g

th e sim ila r tra n sa c tio n e v id e n c e

, a nd we th u s c o n s i d e r it in d e te rm in in g th e

su ffic ie n c y o f th e e v id e n c e

. Mo re o ve r, e v e n if th e tria l c o urt ha d e rre d in

a d m ittin g th e e vid e n c e

, th is Co u rt c o u ld ne v e rth e le ss c o nsid e r it in d e te rm in in g

th e le g a l su ffic ie n c y o f th e e v id e n c e

. S e e Co wa rt v. S ta te

, 2 9 4 G a

. 3 3 3

, 3 4 3

n .1 2 (7 5 1 S E2 d 3 9 9 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (e x p la in in g th a t, in d e te rm in in g th e su ffic ie n c y o f

5th e e v id e n c e

, a re v ie win g c o u rt “ m u st c o n sid e r a ll o f th e e vid e n c e a d m itte d b y

th e tria l c o u rt, re ga rd le ss o f wh e th e r th a t e v id e n c e w a s a dm itte d e rro ne o u sly ”

(c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d )). 2

As fo r a p p e lla n t’s c la im th a t Bo y k in ’s te stim on y wa s n o t p ro p e rly

c o rro b o ra te d, Ge o rg i a ’ s ne w Ev id e n c e Co de p ro v id e s th a t to su sta in a fe lo n y

c o n v ic tio n

, th e te stim o n y o f a n a c c o m p lic e m ust b e c o rro b o ra te d

. 3 S e e OCGA

§ 2 4-1 4 -8

. Th is C o d e s e c tio n is v irtu a lly id e n tic a l to th e c o rro b o ra tio n

p ro v isio n in th e o ld Ev id e n c e Co d e

. S e e fo rm e r OCGA § 2 4 -4 -8

. In e n a c tin g

th e ne w Ev id e n c e Co d e

, th e G e n e ra l A sse m b ly e x p re sse d its in te n t a s fo llo ws:

It is th e in te n t o f th e G e n e ra l Asse m b ly in e n a c tin g th is Ac t to a d o p t

th e F e de ra l Ru le s of Ev id e n c e

, a s in te rp re te d b y th e S u p re m e Co u rt

o f t h e U n ite d S ta te s a n d th e Un ite d S ta te s c irc uit c o u rts o f a pp e a l

a s o f Ja n u a ry 1

, 2 0 1 3

, to th e e xt e n t t h a t su c h in te rp re ta tio n is

c o n siste n t with th e Co n stitu tio n o f Ge o rg ia

. Wh e re c o n flic ts we re

2 There was an ex c eption to this rule u n d er G e org ia’s old Evidence Code for improperly

admitted hearsay e vidence, w hich w as “deemed to have no probative value and so could not be

considered in determining the sufficiency of the evidence.” Cowart, 294 Ga. a t 343 n .12. Under our

new Evidence Code, if “a party does not properly

object to hearsay , the objection shall be deemed

waived, and the hearsay evidence shall be leg al evidence and admissible.” OCGA § 24-8-802. See

Paul S. Milich, Ga. Rules o f Evidence § 16:7 (citing this provision of the new Evidence Code and

say ing that “[ o] n J anuary 1, 2013, Georg ia will be the last jurisdiction in the nation to abandon the

19th century fiction that hearsay is ‘illeg a l’ evidence with no probative value. Under the pre-2013

rule, even if hearsay was admitted without objection, it could not sustain a finding or verdict based

upon it.” (footnote omitted)).

3 B ecause appellants’ trial w as h e l d a fter J anuary 1, 2013, the c orroboration provision of

Georg ia’s new Evidence Code is applicable. See Ga. L . 2011, pp. 99, 214, § 101.

6fo u n d to e x ist a m o n g th e d e c isio n s o f th e v a rio u s c irc uit c o u rts o f

a p p e a l in te rp re tin g th e fe d e r a l ru le s of e vid e n c e

, th e Ge n e ra l

Asse m b ly c o n sid e re d th e d e c isio n s o f th e 1 1 th Circ u i t Co u rt o f

Ap p e a ls. It is th e in te n t o f th e Ge n e ra l Asse mb l y t o re vise

,

m o d e rn iz e

, a

n d re e n a c t th e g e n e ra l la ws o f th is sta te re la tin g t o

e v id e nc e wh ile a d o p tin g

, i n l arg e m e a su re

, th e F e d e ra l Ru le s o f

Ev id e n c e

. Th e Ge n e ra l Asse m b ly is c og niz a n t th a t th e re a re m a n y

issu e s re g a rd in g e vid e n c e th a t a re n o t c o v e re d b y th e F e d e ra l Ru le s

o f Ev id e n c e a n d in th ose situ a tio n s th e fo rm e r p ro v isio n s o f Title 2 4

h a v e b e e n re ta in e d

. Un le ss d isp la c e d by th e p a rtic u la r p ro v isio n s

o f th is Ac t, th e Ge n e ra l Asse m bly in te nd s th a t th e su b sta n tiv e la w

o f e v i d e n c e in Ge o rg ia a s it e x iste d o n De c e m b e r 3 1

, 20 12

, b e

re ta in e d.

S e e Ga . L. 2 0 1 1 , p . 1 00

, § 1

.

Th e F e d e ra l Ru le s of Ev id e n c e c o n ta in n o p ro v isio n r e g a rd in g a c c o m p lic e

te stim o n y

, a nd th e “ ‘u n c o rro bo ra te d te stim o n y o f an a c c o m p lic e is su ffic ie n t to

su p p o rt a c o n v ic tio n in th e F e d e ra l Co u rts if it is n o t on its fa c e in c re d ib le o r

o th e rwise in su b sta n tia l.’” Un ite d S ta te s v

. Le Qu ire

, 9 4 3 F2 d 15 5 4

, 1 56 2 (1 1 th

Cir. 1 9 9 1 ) (c ita tio n o m itte d ). Ac c o rd Un ite d S ta te s v

. He n le y

, 3 6 0 F 3 d 5 0 9

, 5 1 3

(6 th Cir. 2 0 04 ) (“ ‘[I] t is we ll-se ttle d t h a t u n c o rro b ora te d te stim on y o f a n

a c c o m p lic e m a y su p p o rt a c o n v ic tio n in fe d e ra l c o u rt.’” (c ita tio n o m itte d )).

In th e a b se n c e of a p ro visio n in th e F e de ra l Ru le s o f Ev id e n c e g o v e rn in g

a c c o m p lic e te stim on y , in lig h t o f th e Ge n e ra l Asse m b ly ’s sta te m e n t th a t it d id

n o t in te n d to c h a ng e th e su b sta n tiv e la w o f Ge o rg ia a s e xistin g o n De c e m b e r 3 1

,

72 0 1 2, u n le ss th a t la w wa s d isp la c e d b y a p ro v isio n o f th e n e w Ev id e n c e Co d e

,

a n d in lig h t o f th e n e a

rly id e n tic a l la n g u a g e o f th e a c c o m plic e p ro visio n s in th e

o ld a n d n e w Ev id e n c e Co d e s, we g iv e th e n e w a c c o m p lic e p ro v isio n th e sa m e

m e a n in g a s th e o ld on e . S e e City o f Th o m a sto n v

. B rid g e s, 2 6 4 Ga

. 4

, 6 (4 3 9

S E2 d 9 0 6 ) (1 9 9 4 ) (n o tin g th e “ ru le o f c o n stru c tio n th a t a b se n t a c le a r in d ic a tio n

to th e c o n tra ry

, th is Co u rt sh o uld a c c o rd to v irtu a l l y i d en t i c a l la n g u a g e in

su c c e sso r pro v isio n s th e sa m e c o n stru c tio n g iv e n th e o rig in a l la n g u a g e ” ). S e e

a lso Je rm a n v

. Ca rlisle

, Mc Ne llie

, Rin i, Kra m e r & Ulric h, L.P .A., 5 5 9 U.S

. 5 7 3

,

5 8 9 -5 9 0 (1 3 0 S Ct 1 6 0 5

, 1 7 6 LE2 d 5 1 9 ) (2 0 1 0 ) (“ We h a v e o fte n ob se rv e d th a t

wh e n ‘ju d ic ia l in te rp re ta tio ns h a v e se ttle d th e m e a nin g o f an e x istin g sta tu to ry

p ro v isio n, re p e titio n o f th e sa m e la n gu a g e in a n e w sta tu te in d ic a te s, a s a g e n e ra l

m a tte r, th e in te nt to in c o rp o ra te its

. . . ju d ic i a l i n t e r p re ta tio n s a s we ll.’”

(c ita tio n o m itte d )).

Re g a rd in g a c c o m

plic e te stim on y , we h a v e sa id th a t

su ffic ie nt c o rro b o ra tin g e v id e n c e m a y be c irc u m sta n tia l, it m a y b e slig h t, a n d it n e e d n ot o f itse lf b e su ffic ie n t to wa rra n t a c o n v ic tio n

o f th e c rim e c h a rg e d

. It m u st, h o we ve r, be in d e p e n de n t o f th e

a c c o m p lic e te stim on y a n d m

u st d ire c tly c on n e c t th e d e fe n d a n t w ith

th e c rim e

, or le a d to th e in fe re n c e th a t h e is g u ilty

. Slig h t e v id e n c e

fro m a n e x tra n e ou s so u rc e id e n tify in g th e a c c u se d a s a p a rtic ip a n t

in th e c rim in a l a c t i s su ffic ie n t c o rro bo ra tio n o f th e a c c o m plic e to

8su p p o rt a v e rd ic t.

Th re a tt v

. S ta te

, 2 9 3 Ga

. 5 4 9

, 5 5 1 (7 4 8 S E2 d 4 00 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (c ita tio n s a n d

p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d ).

He re

, th e re wa s a m

p le c o rro b o ra tio n o f Bo y k in ’s te stim o n y

. In a d d itio n

to th e sim ila r tra n sa c tio n e v id e n c e

, th e m u rd e r we a po n wa s fo u n d in a

pp e lla n t’s

h o m e ; a c a p a n d t-sh irt lik e th e o n e s th a t B o y k in sa id a p pe lla n t d isc ard e d ne a r

th e m urd e r sc e ne we re fo u n d n e a r th e re ; a p pe lla n t’s DNA wa s fo u n d o n th e c a p ;

a n d S te m b rid g e ’s DNA w a s fo u n d o n th e c a p a n d t-sh irt. Th u s, th e re wa s

su ffic ie n t c o rro b ora ti o n o f Bo y k in ’s te stim o n y

, an d v ie we d in th e lig h t m o st

fa v o ra ble to th e ve rd ic t, w e c o n c lu de th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s su ffic ie n t to

a u th oriz e a ra tio n a l ju ry to fin d b e y o n d a re a s o n a b l e d o u b t th a t a p p e lla n t wa s

g u ilty o f th e c rim e s o f wh ic h he wa s c o n v ic te d

. Se e Ja c k so n v. Virg in ia

, 4 4 3 U.

S . 3 07 , 3 1 9 (9 9 S Ct 2 7 8 1 , 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ).

3

. Ap p e lla n t c o n te n d s th a t th e tria l c o u rt e rre d b y a dm ittin g e v id e n c e o f

th e Oh io m

u rd e r a s a sim ila r tra n sa c tio n . We d isa g re e

.

Be c a u se a pp e lla n t’s tria l wa s h e ld a fte r Ja nu ary 1

, 2 0 1 3

, G e o rg ia ’s n e w

Ev id e nc e Co d e g o v e rn s th is c o n te n tio n

. OCGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 4 (b ) o f th e n e w Co d e

sa y s:

9Ev id e n c e o f o th e r c rim e s, wro n g s, o r a c ts sh a ll n o t b e a d m issib le to

p ro v e th e c h a ra c te r o f a p e r s o n i n o rd e r to sh ow a c tio n in

c o n fo rm ity th e re with

. I t m a y

, ho w e v e r, b e a dm issib le fo r o th e r

p u rp o se s

, in c lu din g

, b u t no t lim ite d to

, p ro o f o f m o tiv e

,

o p p o rtu n ity

, in te nt, p re p a ra tio n

, p la n

, k n o wle d g e

, id e n tity

, o r

a b se n c e o f m ista k e o r a c c id e n t.

Mo re o v e r, u n d e r O CGA § 2 4 -4 -4 0 3

, “ [r] e le v a n t ev id e n c e m a y b e e x c lu d e d if

its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is su b sta n tia lly o u twe ig h e d b y th e d a n g e r o f u n fa ir p re ju d ic e

,

c o n fu sio n o f t h e issu e s, o r m isle a d in g th e ju ry o r b y c o n sid e ra tio n s of u n d u e

d e la y

, wa ste o f tim e

, or n e e d le ss p re se n ta tio n o f c u m u la tiv e e vid e n c e .” Bo th o f

th e se p ro v isio n s tra c k th e ir fe d e ra l c o un te rp a rts. S e e R u le s 4 0 3 a n d 4 04 (b ) o f

th e F e d e ra l Ru le s o f Ev id e nc e

.

Th e Ele v e n th Circ u it a

p p lie s a th re e -p art te st to d e te rm in e a d m issib ility

o f e v id e nc e o f o th e r c rim e s a n d a c ts u n d e r Ru le 4 0 4 (b ):

(1 ) th e e v id e n c e m

u st b e re le v a n t to a n issu e o th e r th a n d e fe nd a n t’s

c h a ra c te r; (2 ) th e p ro b a tiv e v a lu e m u st n ot b e s u b s t a n tia lly

o u twe ig h e d by its u n d u e p re ju d ic e ; (3 ) th e g o ve rn m e n t m u st o ffe r

su ffic ie nt p ro o f so th a t th e ju ry c ou ld fin d th a t d e fe n d a n t c o m m itte d

th e a c t.

Un ite d S ta te s v

. Elliso r, 5 2 2 F 3 d 1 2 5 5

, 1 26 7 (1 1 th Cir. 20 0 8 ). 4 A le a d in g

4 As for the third prong of this test, the United States Supreme Court has held that Rules 104

and 404 (b) of the F ederal Rules of Evidence do not r equire, as a condition of admissibility

, a preliminary finding by the trial court t h a t the g overnment has proved the other c rime by a preponderance of the evidence. See Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 688-689 (108 SCt

1 0tre a ti s e o n fe d e ra l e v id e n c e la w sa y s th a t th is te st is th e su b sta n tia l e q u iv a le n t

o f th e te st a

p p lie d b y o th e r fe d e ra l c o u rts, se e 2 We in ste in ’s F e d e ra l Ev id e n c e

§ 4 0 4 .2 1 [1 ] [b ] -[m ]

, bu t e v e n if th e Ele v e nth Circ u it te st is in c o n flic t with th a t

o f o th e r fe d e ra l c irc uit c o u rts, th e Ge n e ra l A sse m b ly h a s e x p re sse d its in te n t to

fo llo w th e Ele v e nth Circ u it a s o f Ja n u a ry 1

, 2 0 1 3

, in th e e v e n t of su c h a c o n flic t.

We th u s a

p p ly th e Ele v e n th Circ u it ru le

. Th is in cl u d e s its ru le

, wh ic h is

c o n siste n t with t h is S ta te ’s lo n g sta n d in g ru le re g ard in g th e a d m issio n o f

e v id e n c e

, th a t a d e c isio n to a d m it e v id e n c e u n d e r F e de ra l Ru le s o f Ev id e n c e 4 0 3

a n d 4 0 4 ( b) is re v ie we d fo r a “ ‘c le a r a b u se o f d isc re tio n .’” Un ite d S ta te s v

.

Mc Na ir, 6 0 5 F 3 d 1 1 5 2 , 1 2 0 3 n .6 9 (1 1 th Cir. 2 0 1 0 ) (c ita tio n o m itte d ).

As fo r th e first pro n g o f th e a n a ly sis, th e tria l c o u rt a d m itte d e vid e n c e o f

th e Oh io c rim e to sh o w in te n t, m o tiv e , and id e ntity . With re ga rd to in te n t,

“ [a ] d e fe n d a n t w h o e nte rs a n o t g uilty p le a m a k e s in te n t a m a te ria l

1496, 99 L E 2d 771) (1988). I nstead, the Court held, other acts e vidence may be admitted if the court

concludes that the e vidence is sufficient for the jury to f ind by a p reponderance of the evidence that

the other act was committed. I d. at 689-90. Th e C o u rt also noted that, althoug h the petitioner

initially arg ued that the g overnment was required to prove the other crime b y clear and convincing

evidence, the petitioner properly conceded at oral a rg ument that his position was w r ong in lig ht of

the Court’s decision in B ourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (107 SCt 2 7 7 5

, 9 7 L E 2 d 144)

(1987), in w hich the Court held that “preliminary factual finding s under Rule 104 (a) are subject to

the p reponderance-of-the-evidence standard.” Huddleston, 4 8 5 U.S. at 687 n.5. Our new Evidence

Code has adopted the preponderance of the evidence standard for p reliminary factual question

reg arding the admissibility of evidence. See OCGA § 24-1-104 (a) (“Preliminary questions shall be

resolved by

a preponderance of the evidence standard.”).

1 1issu e wh ic h im p o se s a su bsta n tia l bu rd e n o n th e g o v e rn m e n t to

p r o v e in te n t, w h ic h it m a y p ro v e b y qu a lify in g R u le 4 0 4 ( b )

e v id e nc e a

bse n t a ffirm a tiv e ste p s b y th e d e fe n d a nt to re m o v e in te n t

a s a n issu e .” “ Wh e re th e e x trin sic offe nse is o ffe re d to p ro v e in te n t,

its re le v a n c e is d e te rm in e d b y c o m p a rin g th e d e fe n d a n t’s sta t e o f

m in d in p e rp e tra tin g b o th th e e x trin sic an d c h a rg e d o ffe n se s.”

Th u s, wh e re th e sta te o f m in d re q u ire d fo r th e c h a rg e d a n d e x trin sic

o ffe nse s is th e sa m e

, th e first p ro n g o f th e Ru l e 4 0 4 ( b ) te st is

sa tisfie d

.

Un ite d S ta te s v

. Ed o u a rd

, 4 8 5 F 3 d 13 24

, 1 3 4 5 (1 1 th C i r

. 2 0 0 7 ) (c ita tio n s

o m itte d ). Be c a

u se th e m

u rd e r o f th e v ic tim in t h is c a se a n d th e Oh io c a se

in v o lv e th e sa m e m e n ta l sta te a n d a p p e lla n t d id n o t ta k e ste p s to re m ov e in te n t

a s a n issu e , e vid e n c e o f th e Oh io m u rd e r wa s re le v a n t to e sta b lish h is in te n t.

W e a l s o c o n c lu d e th a t th e e v id e n c e wa s a d m issib le to sh o w m o tiv e

.

Mo tiv e h a s b e e n d e fin e d a s “ ‘th e re a so n th a t n u d g e s th e will a n d p ro d s th e m in d

to in d u lg e th e c rim in a l in te n t.’” Un ite d S ta te s v

. Be e c h u m

, 5 8 2 F 2 d 8 9 8 , 9 1 2

n .1 5 (5 th Cir. 1 9 7 8 ) (c ita tio n o m itte d ). In t h is c a se

, th e e v id e n c e o f th e Oh io

m u rd e r wa s re le v a n t to m o tiv e b e c a u se it d e m o nstra te d a

p p e lla n t’s willin g n e ss

to u se v io le n c e wh e n h e o r so m e o n e c lo se to h im is c h e a te d in a d ru g d e a l. S e e

Un ite d Sta te s v. B a n k s, 5 1 4 F 3 d 9 5 9

, 9 7 6 (9 th Cir. 2 0 0 8 ) (h o ld in g th a t e v id e n c e

o f th e d e fe n d a

n t’s p rio r sta b b in g o f so m e o n e wh o in su lte d h is ga n g sta tu s wa s

a d m issib le to pro v e m otiv e u n d e r Ru le 40 4 (b ) in h is tria l fo r a tte m p te d m u rd e r

1 2o f so m e o n e e lse wh o a lso in su lte d h is g a ng sta tu s). 5

Mo re ov e r, we a

re sa tisfie d th a t th e tria l c o u rt d id n o t a b use its disc re tio n

in d e t e rm in in g th a t th e pro b a tiv e v a lu e o f e v id e n c e of th e Oh io c rim e

, wh ic h

wa s fa c tu a lly sim ila r to th e Ge o rg ia c rim e s a n d o c c u rre d o nly six m o n th s b e fo re

th e m a n d wh ic h w a s ne e d e d b y th e S ta te to h e lp e sta blish th a t a pp e lla n t a n d n o t

Bo y k in wa s th e s h o o t e r, wa s n o t su b sta n tia lly o u twe ig h e d b y its p re ju d ic ia l

e ffe c t. S e e Un ite d S ta te s v

. Pe re z

, 4 4 3 F 3 d 7 7 2

, 7 8 0 (1 1 th C ir. 20 06 ) (sa y in g

th a t “ [t] h is d e te rm in a tio n lie s with in th e d isc re tio n o f th e distric t c o urt an d ‘c a lls

fo r a c om m o n se n se a sse ssm e n t o f a ll th e c irc u m sta n c e s su rro un d in g th e

e x trin sic o ffe n s e

, in c lu d in g p ro se c u to ria l n e e d

, ov e ra ll sim ila rity b e twe e n th e

e x trin sic a c t a

n d th e c ha rg e d o ffe n se

, a s we ll a s te m p o ra l re m o te ne ss.’” (c ita tio n

o m itte d )); Un ite d Sta te s v

. Me rrill, 5 1 3 F 3 d 1 2 9 3

, 1 30 1 (1 1 th Cir. 2 0 0 8 ) (sa y in g

th a t a tria l c o u rt’s d isc re t i o n t o e x c lu d e e v id e nc e u n d e r th e b a la nc in g te st o f

“ ‘Ru le 4 0 3 is a

n e xtra o rd in a ry r e me d y wh ic h sh o u ld b e u se d o n ly sp a rin g ly

5 H aving determined that the evidence was admissible as to intent and motive, we need not

ex a mine whether it was also admissible on the issue of identity

. See United States v. Souksakhone

Phaknikone, 605 F 3d 1099, 1 108 ( 11 t h Cir. 2010) ( say ing that for purposes of proving identity

, “the

likeness of t h e o ff

e n s es is the crucial consideration. T h e phy sical similarity must b e such that it

marks the offenses as the h andiwork of the accused.

. . . The ex trinsic act must be a ‘sig nature’

crime, and the defendant must have used a modus operandi that is uniquely h is.” ( citations and

quotation marks omitted)).

1 3sin c e it p e rm its th e tria l c o u rt to e x c lu de c o n c e de d ly p ro ba tiv e e vid e n c e ’”

(c ita tio n o m itte d )); Un ite d S ta t e s v

. T e r z a d o

- M a d ru ga

, 8 9 7 F 2 d 1 0 9 9

, 1 11 9 (1 1 th

Cir. 1 9 9 0 ) (sa y in g th a t in c lo se c a se s, th e b a la n c e un de r Ru le 40 3 sh o u ld b e

stru c k in fa v o r o f a d m issib ility .).

F in a lly

, c o n tra ry t o a

p pe lla n t’s c o n te n tio n

, th e th ird p ro ng o f th e te st is

a lso sa tisfie d

. Ba se d o n a p p e lla n t’s sta te m e n ts to Bo y kin a n d th e te stim o n y o f

th e Oh io o ffic e r, a ju ry c o u ld h a v e fo u n d b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e

th a t a p p e lla n t c o m m itte d th e Oh io c rim e . S e e Ed o ua rd , 4 8 5 F 3 d a t 1 3 4 5

.

F o r th e se re a so n s, we c o n c lu d e th a t th e tria l c o u rt d id n ot a b u se its

d isc re tio n b y a d m ittin g e v id e n c e o f th e Oh io c rim e

.

Ju d g m e n t a ffirm e d . All th e Ju stic e s c o nc u r.

1 4