Court Opinion

ID: 9584570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:50:09.93607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:43.206863
License: Public Domain

Blackburn, Judge,
dissenting.
I disagree with the majority opinion’s conclusion that the defendant in this case waived any objection to the admission of the similar transaction evidence, other than on the singular issue of similarity. Further, I believe that the similar transaction evidence was improperly admitted. For those reasons, I respectfully dissent.
1. With regard to the majority’s finding that the defendant failed to raise a comprehensive objection to the similar transaction evidence, it should be noted that during the brief hearing on the matter, the trial court truncated defense counsel’s examination of the “similar transaction” witness, as well as any argument on the issue. It seems fundamentally unfair for this court to find that the defendant waived his objections when the trial court thus deprived him of the opportunity to object.
Further, it appears from the record that the defendant did, in fact, object on the various grounds eventually formalized in Williams v. State, 261 Ga. 640 (409 SE2d 649) (1991). At the time of the pretrial hearing on the admissibility of the similar transaction evidence, Williams v. State, supra, had not yet been decided, and the defendant’s objections before the trial court at that point in time naturally would have no reference to that case. However, in its order denying the defendant’s motion for new trial, the trial court specifically noted the defendant’s assertion that the transactions were not sufficiently similar and that the trial court failed to make the proper findings under Williams v. State, supra.
In Hunter v. State, 202 Ga. App. 195 (413 SE2d 526) (1991), *240where the defendant objected to the admission of a prior conviction only on the grounds that it was too remote in time to be relevant, this court held that he had waived any other objection regarding the admission of the similar transaction evidence. In the instant case, the majority extends Hunter to preclude review of any Williams issue not specifically raised before the trial court.
However, as pointed out by a dissent in Hunter, in Williams the Supreme Court “focused not on whether the appellant’s objection had been precisely framed and preserved at trial, but whether the State had met its obligations so as to justify making an exception to the general rule that such evidence is not admissible.” Hunter, supra at 199. Such a focus is particularly required in cases such as the instant one, where Williams was not yet decided and known to the bench and bar at the time of the trial.
In large part, this court has continued to avoid the application of Williams and Stephens v. State, 261 Ga. 467 (405 SE2d 483) (1991) by finding waiver of any objections by the defendant before the trial court or on appeal, for the failure to object to the State’s failure to meet its burden. See, e.g., Moore v. State, 207 Ga. App. 897 (429 SE2d 340) (1993); Jackson v. State, 205 Ga. App. 513 (422 SE2d 673) (1992). We do not apply the same waiver standard against the State in criminal cases, where the State fails to preserve error and such failure is ignored by this court in affirming convictions. See, e.g., Parker v. State, 211 Ga. App. 187 (438 SE2d 664) (1993). However, in Riddle v. State, 208 Ga. App. 8, 11 (430 SE2d 153) (1993), despite the waiver rule expounded in Hunter and its progeny, this court held that because the procedural requirement of holding a hearing on the admissibility of similar transaction evidence “is placed squarely with the State and the trial court,” the defendant’s failure to object to the omission of such a hearing did not constitute a waiver of that procedure.
To ensure that a hearing on the admissibility of similar transaction evidence accomplishes its purpose, the Supreme Court in Williams designed the procedural requirements discussed above, and the burden of complying with those procedures likewise is placed on the State and the trial court. If the failure to object to a trial court’s failure to hold a Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.3 (B) hearing does not result in a waiver, neither should the failure to object to the trial court’s failure to follow the procedural requirements delineated in Williams, that were designed to make such a hearing meaningful, constitute a waiver.
2. “ ‘It is universally recognized . . . that “(t)he general rule is, that, on a prosecution for a particular crime, evidence which in any manner shows or tends to show that the accused has committed another crime wholly independent from that for which he is on trial, *241even though it be a crime of the same sort, is irrelevant and inadmissible.” (Cits.)’ ” Stephens v. State, 261 Ga. at 469. Where a defendant has not placed his character in issue, proof of prior offenses is not admissible unless offered for some proper purpose, and not to show that the defendant is a person of bad character. Jones v. State, 257 Ga. 753, 757 (363 SE2d 529) (1988).
Such evidence may be admitted for the limited purposes of showing bent of mind, identity, intent, motive, scheme, or course of conduct, if the defendant is identified as the perpetrator of the independent offenses and there is sufficient similarity between the independent offenses and the crime charged so that proof of the former tends to prove the latter. Williams v. State, supra. However, “[i]t should also be emphasized that before such evidence is admissible, it must be shown that the evidence’s relevancy to the issues at trial outweighs the inherent prejudice it creates. [Cit.]” Randall v. State, 207 Ga. App. 637, 638 (428 SE2d 616) (1993). See also Adams v. State, 208 Ga. App. 29 (430 SE2d 35) (1993).
Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.3 (B) provides that “[t]he burden of proving that the evidence of similar transactions or occurrences should be admitted shall be upon the prosecution.” In Stephens v. State, supra, and Williams v. State, supra, the Supreme Court formalized the procedures and evidentiary standards which must be followed by the State and the trial court in order to admit evidence of similar transactions.
Specifically, the Supreme Court emphasized that “before any evidence of independent offenses or acts may be admitted into evidence, a hearing must be held pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.3 (B). At that hearing, the state must make three affirmative showings as to each independent offense or act it seeks to introduce. The first of these affirmative showings is that the state seeks to introduce evidence of the independent offense or act, not to raise an improper inference as to the accused’s character, but for some appropriate purpose which has been deemed to be an exception to the general rule of inadmissibility.
“The second affirmative showing is that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the accused committed the independent offense or act. The third is that there is a sufficient connection or similarity between the independent offense or act and the crime charged so that proof of the former tends to prove the latter. [Cit.] After the 31.3 (B) hearing, and before any evidence concerning a particular independent offense or act may be introduced, the trial court must make a determination that each of these three showings has been satisfactorily made by the state as to that particular independent offense or act.” (Footnote omitted; emphasis supplied.) Williams v. State, supra at 642. Unfortunately, in the instant case, those require*242ments were not met.
The trial court conducted a brief hearing on the admissibility of the similar transaction evidence proffered by the State. However, neither the State nor the trial court observed the structured procedures prescribed in Williams v. State, supra. At one point during the hearing, the State argued the similarity of the alleged independent offense and the conduct for which Cole was being prosecuted, but it “did not inform the trial court of the purpose for which the evidence was being offered and, therefore, it was impossible for the trial court to make the essential preliminary determination as to whether the state was introducing the evidence for an appropriate purpose.” Williams v. State, supra at 643.
Further, after the presentation of the testimony during the hearing, when it was incumbent upon the trial court to make specific determinations as to whether the State had satisfactorily made the requisite affirmative showings, the trial court simply stated that “Fve already made my decision. I’m going to let it go in.” Despite acknowledging that the similar transaction testimony was weak, the trial court thus admitted that evidence without making any determinations regarding the State’s required showings, and without any evaluation of whether the evidence’s relevance to the issues at trial outweighed the prejudice it surely created.
It must be emphasized that the procedures laid down in Williams v. State, supra, are requirements, and not mere recommendations, and should not be carried out in a perfunctory fashion. In Jones v. State, supra, the Supreme Court demonstrated some concern over how easily in recent years a criminal defendant’s character had been injected into evidence. Consistent with that concern, the procedures prescribed in Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.3 (B) and Williams v. State, supra, were designed to protect against the improper admission of character evidence. Neither the State, nor the trial court, nor this court has any authority to ignore, or incompletely or selectively apply, that mandate of the Supreme Court.
The record suggests no great need of the State for the testimony regarding the alleged prior offense, an incident for which Cole was never accused. In addition to the graphic testimony of the victim in the State’s case-in-chief, there was evidence of Cole’s harassment of the victim prior to the incident in question. Various police officers testified regarding Cole’s violation of a restraining order served upon him in October 1990, and how it was necessary to patrol the victim’s neighborhood because of a threatening telephone call Cole made to the victim in November 1990, a telephone call which was actually overheard by the chief of police. This admissible evidence alone was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find Cole guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offenses charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. *243307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
Decided December 3, 1993.
Richard L. Hodge, Mark G. Pitts, for appellant.
John R. Parks, District Attorney, Barbara A. Becraft, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
However, inasmuch as the State and the trial court failed to comply with the requirements designed to protect against the improper admission of character evidence, particularly the undetermined issue of the legal relevance of the alleged similar transaction, I would find the admission of the evidence erroneous. Further, notwithstanding the presentation of other, admissible evidence that was sufficient to support Cole’s convictions, it does not appear that the erroneous admission of the evidence of a prior act of non-consensual sexual intercourse was harmless. Accordingly, Cole’s convictions should be reversed. Stephens v. State, supra; Williams v. State, supra.
I am authorized to state that Judge Cooper joins in this dissent.