Huff v. the State, 334 Ga. App. 254

On Feb. 2, 2009 three masked men robbed a convenience store; one carried a knife. Surveillance video and store evidence (a dropped merchandise bag) were introduced at trial. A fingerprint on the bag matched Huff’s left middle finger.
Several weeks later Huff was arrested in connection with an attempted Domino’s robbery and later pled guilty to that attempted robbery; the State sought to introduce that incident as similar transaction evidence at Huff’s convenience-store robbery trial.
The trial court held a Williams hearing outside the jury and ruled the Domino’s attempted robbery admissible to show modus operandi, bent of mind, and identity.
At trial, the court sua sponte told the jury that it had found the prior offense sufficiently similar and that its probative value outweighed prejudice, then gave a limiting instruction directing the jury to determine similarity and probative value for themselves.
Huff moved for a mistrial arguing the court’s oral remark improperly commented on the evidence; the motion was denied. Huff was convicted of armed robbery and possession of a knife during the commission of a felony and sentenced to 20 years (15 to serve). He appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court violated OCGA § 17-8-57 by telling the jury it had found the prior offense similar and probative	Huff: the court’s statement expressed opinion on similarity/probative value and improperly commented on evidence, warranting reversal	State: reversal unnecessary because Huff admitted the prior offense (guilty plea) and thus any comment was harmless or immaterial	Court: Reversed — the court’s statement that the other crime was similar and probative violated OCGA § 17-8-57 and required a new trial
Whether Huff’s trial counsel was ineffective	Huff argued counsel was ineffective (details not reached)	State defended adequacy of counsel (not addressed)	Not reached — court reversed on OCGA § 17-8-57 error and did not decide ineffective-assistance claim

Smith v. State, 292 Ga. 588 (court remarks about admissibility generally not prohibited expression of opinion)
Murphy v. State, 290 Ga. 459 (trial judge may not comment on disputed material facts or credibility)
Chumley v. State, 282 Ga. 855 (trial court’s comment that prior act was sufficiently similar constitutes prohibited opinion under OCGA § 17-8-57)
Patel v. State, 282 Ga. 412 (same principle barring judge comments on evidence)
Freeman v. State, 295 Ga. 820 (analogy: judge’s voluntariness rulings when expressed to jury violate OCGA § 17-8-57)
Williams v. State, 261 Ga. 640 (framework for admissibility of similar transaction evidence)
Ray v. State, 181 Ga. App. 42 (analogous holdings on judge comments outside presence of jury)
Ellis v. State, 292 Ga. 276 (distinguishing permissible explanatory rulings from prohibited expressions of opinion)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)