Court Opinion

ID: 9561132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:04:05.870713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:38.913357
License: Public Domain

Ruffin, Judge,
concurring specially.
Although I agree with the dissent’s analysis, I cannot agree with the result. As the dissent notes, evidence of similar transactions should not be admitted unless it is relevant to an issue involved in the case. Such evidence is not admissible simply to establish that a defendant has a criminal nature. Here, Roberts was charged with possession of cocaine. Because I fail to see how either identity or *263state of mind were at issue with regard to this charge,11 believe that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence of the similar transaction.
But, I cannot agree that the error was harmful. Even if a trial court errs in admitting such evidence, “the error alone is not automatically grounds for a new trial hut is subject to scrutiny for harmless error.”2 As the dissent recognizes, Roberts’ identity was not at issue because the police saw him drop a plastic bag that contained cocaine. This compelling eyewitness testimony almost certainly would have resulted in Roberts’ conviction even if the similar transaction evidence had not been admitted. I, therefore, fail to see how he was harmed by the admission of this evidence. Accordingly, I am constrained to agree with the result reached by the majority.

 Had Roberts been charged with attempting to sell cocaine, his state of mind would be relevant.

 (Punctuation omitted.) Buice v. State, 239 Ga. App. 52, 57 (3) (520 SE2d 258) (1999).