Court Opinion

ID: 9585808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:04:07.226495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:15.081517
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
1. I concur in Division 1 of the majority opinion because of pre*541cedent, but I do so more narrowly. The majority’s approach puts the burden on defendant to prove harm instead of on the State to prove compliance or suffer adverse consequences. Harm should be presumed, at least unless it is shown that defendant had actual prior notice, which is the purpose of the rule. The rule by its nature implies a presumption of harm from lack of notice.
It provides for clear and positive identification to be given, by the State, before the hearing on the issue, so that defendant can adequately prepare to contest admissibility. See McBride v. State, 185 Ga. App. 271, 273 (2) (363 SE2d 802) (1987). The voids in the State’s notice do not reach substantial compliance. The answers to the questions “what?”, “where?” and “who?” were not answered; the answer only to “when?” was stated. As pointed out to the trial court, it leaves defendant guessing or at least uncertain.
Considering that the introduction of similar transactions is a guarded exception to the general rule against character evidence (OCGA § 24-2-2 and 24-9-20 (b)), and that Rule 31.3 carries forward the law’s reticence by casting the burden of proving admissibility on the State, compliance should be enforced.
In this case, there was notice although not in accordance with the procedural rule. Defendant argued to the trial court that he was not apprised by the document of the facts called for in. the rule, but he did not contest the statements that he knew them from a prior hearing and the supplementary sources. Had the fact been that he did not have the information required by USCR 31.3 (B), I would join in the majority’s conclusion without requiring a further showing of harm. That is, a defendant should not have to prove that if he had the facts, he would have used them in some beneficial way. To win a ruling of inadmissibility, he should only have to show that he had no notice.
Of course, there is a difficulty even with an “actual prior notice” exception to enforcement of the rule, in that it allows the State to choose the method by which it notifies defendant of the facts called for.
2. I concur in the dissent with respect to Division 2, and with the majority with respect to Divisions 3 and 4.