Williams v. State, A90A0249

• Decision Date: 12 March 1990
• Docket Number: No. A90A0249,A90A0249
• Citation: 392 S.E.2d 297,194 Ga.App. 822
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. The STATE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 297

392 S.E.2d 297

194 Ga.App. 822

WILLIAMS v. The STATE.

No. A90A0249.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

March 12, 1990.

Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joseph J. Drolet, A. Thomas Jones, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.

BIRDSONG, Judge.

Appellant, Kevin Williams, appeals his sentence and judgment of conviction of robbery, robbery by snatching, aggravated assault, and obstruction of an officer. Appellant asserts that the trial court erred by ruling that evidence of his prior robbery was admissible as a similar transaction, and that the admission of appellant's prior misconduct, as a similar transaction, constituted an impermissible attack upon his character. Held:

"Evidence of similar crimes is admissible where its relevance to show identity, motive, plan, scheme, bent of mind and course of conduct outweighs its prejudicial impact. 'However, before it is admissible, two conditions must be satisfied. First, there must be evidence that the defendant was in fact the perpetrator of the independent crime. Second, there must be sufficient similarity or connection between the independent crime and the offense charged.' [Cit.]" Oller v. State, 187 Ga.App. 818(2), 371 S.E.2d 455. Applying this test to the circumstances surrounding the prior robbery, we find that the evidence of similar transaction was admissible. Compare Howard v. State, 187 Ga.App. 74(2), 369 S.E.2d 271; see also Maggard v. State, 259 Ga. 291(2), 380 S.E.2d 259 (similar transaction evidence admissible to prove intent or lack of mistake although two crimes differed in some respects).

Appellant argues, inter alia, that the prior transaction was approximately two years old. "Mere lapse of time between the commission of any prior similar crimes and the commission of the offenses currently at trial does not render the evidence automatically inadmissible. [Cit.] Rather, lapse of time is a factor to be taken into consideration when balancing the probative value of the evidence against its potentially prejudicial impact." Oller, supra 187 Ga.App. at 820, 371 S.E.2d 455. We find as a matter of law, that the potentially prejudicial impact of the similar transaction evidence did not outweigh its probative value. After examining the record in its entirety, we are satisfied that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence. Roney v. State, 192 Ga.App. 760, 763, 386 S.E.2d 412.

Appellant further argues that it was error to admit evidence of a similar robbery...