Christopher Hewell v. State, A21A0278

In 2016 Hewell worked as a handyman at James Swaim’s lake house and had occasion to be alone in the residence while Swaim took conference calls.
After a March 2017 trip by Swaim, multiple items (TV, bow, chainsaw, leaf blower, fishing gear) were missing; Swaim reported no signs of forced entry and that a deadbolt wasn’t working on return.
Hewell lived (and another tenant, Hall, stayed) at a nearby house; Hall reported separate thefts (TV, crossbow, fishing gear, coins) from that residence.
Hewell admitted taking many of the items but disputed unlawful entry, conceding theft-by-taking rather than burglary for some charges; he was indicted on three first-degree burglary counts (one involving Swaim).
At trial the State introduced Hewell’s two 2014 burglary convictions under OCGA § 24-4-404(b); the jury convicted on first-degree burglary for Swaim’s house and theft for Hall’s, and the trial court denied Hewell’s motion for new trial.
On appeal the Court of Appeals held the trial court abused its discretion admitting the prior convictions (they mainly showed propensity, not a proper 404(b) purpose), and the error was not harmless; the court reversed the denial of the motion for new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hewell)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Admissibility of prior burglary convictions under OCGA § 24-4-404(b)	Prior convictions were character evidence and unduly prejudicial; not probative of motive, intent, knowledge, or opportunity for the charged offenses	Prior burglaries showed common motive (to fund addiction), intent, opportunity, and knowledge; admissible for those non-character purposes	Reversed — court abused discretion admitting the prior convictions: they predominantly showed propensity and had minimal probative value for the stated purposes (motive/intent/knowledge/opportunity)
Whether the admission was harmless error	Admission likely influenced jury (prosecutor emphasized priors); seeks new trial	Evidence against Hewell was sufficient; errors were harmless	Error not harmless — given prosecutor’s cross-examination and the non-overwhelming evidence, cannot say admission did not contribute to verdict; reversal required

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Bradshaw v. State, 296 Ga. 650 (adoption of the Eleventh Circuit three-part test for OCGA § 24-4-404(b) admissibility)
Amey v. State, 331 Ga. App. 244 (discusses motive, intent, opportunity as permissible 404(b) purposes and limits on propensity inference)
Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65 (probative value of other-acts evidence depends on whether the contested fact is disputed)
Jackson v. State, 306 Ga. 69 (prior-act prejudice can outweigh probative value where intent is not genuinely contested)
State v. Jones, 297 Ga. 156 (recognizes great potential for prejudice from other-acts evidence)
Rouzan v. State, 308 Ga. 894 (use of prior acts to show special skill or specific knowledge)