HOUSEWORTH v. the STATE., 348 Ga. App. 119

On April 3–4, 2015, after drinking at a DeKalb County bar, Santana Houseworth drove a 2003 Honda Accord with passenger Cierra St. Hubert-Upshaw; Houseworth swerved to avoid an object in the road and later discovered significant damage to her car.
Bobby Gleaton, Jr. (Houseworth’s boyfriend) had left the vehicle earlier and was later found in the roadway; multiple vehicles struck him and he died from head and blunt-force injuries.
Police recovered vehicle debris (including a white Honda bumper fragment matching a 2003–2006 Accord) and observed damage to Houseworth’s car consistent with striking a pedestrian; St. Hubert-Upshaw testified Houseworth swerved to avoid Gleaton.
Houseworth was tried on two counts of first-degree vehicular homicide (one predicated on DUI less-safe, one on hit-and-run), hit-and-run, and DUI less-safe; jury acquitted on the DUI-predicate homicide but convicted on the hit-and-run–based homicide and related counts.
The State sought and the trial court admitted evidence of Houseworth’s subsequent May 21, 2016 DUI arrest (Rule 404(b) evidence) for the limited purpose of showing intent; the Court of Appeals found the evidence’s probative value minimal and its prejudicial effect substantial.
The Court of Appeals held the evidence was sufficient to support a hit-and-run–based vehicular homicide conviction but reversed because admission of the subsequent DUI arrest was an abuse of discretion and not harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Houseworth)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Sufficiency / causation for vehicular homicide predicated on hit-and-run	Gleaton’s own conduct (walking/crossing roadway) was a superseding proximate cause of his death, so Houseworth did not cause the fatal accident	Evidence (witnesses, car damage, debris, eyewitness swerve) authorized a finding that Houseworth struck Gleaton and left the scene, causing death	Court: Evidence sufficient; jury could find Houseworth caused the accident and found guilty on hit-and-run–based homicide
Application of reasonable-hypothesis rule to circumstantial evidence	Circumstantial proof failed to exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence	Trial included direct eyewitness testimony and defendant’s statements, so the rule did not apply	Court: Rule inapplicable because there was direct evidence; sufficiency review favors State
Admissibility of subsequent DUI arrest under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 balancing	The 2016 DUI arrest was irrelevant, minimally probative of intent, and highly prejudicial; should be excluded	404(b) allows prior acts to show intent; subsequent DUI shows intent to drink and drive and absence of accident	Court: Admission was abuse of discretion—probative value very low and prejudicial effect substantial; error not harmless, requiring reversal

Dickson v. State, 339 Ga. App. 500 (evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict rule)
Michael v. State, 335 Ga. App. 579 (jury resolves conflicting causation evidence)
Tanksley v. State, 281 Ga. App. 61 (acquittal on a predicate offense does not preclude conviction on related charge for sufficiency review)
Jones v. State, 297 Ga. 156 (Rule 404(b) and relevance of other-act evidence to intent in DUI context)
Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65 (probative value and Rule 403 balancing principles)
Brown v. State, 303 Ga. 158 (low probative value of other-act evidence when fact is conceded; harmless-error standard discussion)
Thompson v. State, 302 Ga. 533 (double jeopardy and retrial principles)