In criminal proceedings, the State often attempts to use evidence of “similar transactions” against a defendant. This typically comes in the form of the State introducing evidence at trial of a defendant’s prior crimes to help prove that defendant’s guilt.
Under O.C.G.A. § 24-4-404(b), evidence of other acts can be introduced by the prosecution to prove a defendant’s “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” This type of evidence is only admissible if the State shows:
“(1) that it seeks to introduce the evidence not to raise an improper inference as to the defendant’s character but for some proper purpose; (2) that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant committed the independent offense; and (3) that there is a sufficient connection or similarity between the independent offense and the crime charged so that proof of the former tends to prove the latter.” Amica v. State, 704 S.E.2d 831 (Ga.App. 2010).