Jones v. State, 301 Ga. 544

Michael Jones was tried in 2013 for DUI per se (and DUI less safe; the latter merged) based on a 2011 stop; the State introduced evidence of a 2005 guilty plea to a prior DUI (less safe).
The trial court admitted the 2005 conviction under OCGA § 24-4-404(b) (Rule 404(b)) for intent; the jury convicted Jones of DUI per se and merged the less-safe verdict for sentencing.
Jones appealed claiming the prior conviction was wrongly admitted; the Court of Appeals excluded it (Jones I), this Court reversed as to relevance (Jones II) and remanded for Rule 403 balancing; on remand the Court of Appeals affirmed (Jones III).
This Court granted further review, examined whether the trial court properly applied the Rule 403 balancing test (probative value vs. unfair prejudice), and concluded the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the prior conviction.
Despite the error, the Court held the admission was harmless regarding the DUI per se conviction because the evidence of guilt (driving, admission of drinking, breath tests showing BAC well above .08) was overwhelming.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jones)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Admissibility of 2005 DUI under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403	Prior DUI was irrelevant or its probative value was outweighed by unfair prejudice	Prior DUI was relevant to intent and probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudice	Trial court abused discretion: probative value was minimal and substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice, so admission was erroneous
Harmless error as to conviction/sentence	Erroneous admission affected Jones's substantial rights and requires reversal	Error was harmless because evidence of DUI per se was overwhelming (BAC well over .08)	Error was harmless as to the DUI per se conviction and sentence; judgment affirmed for any reason

Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65 (discusses distinction between relevance and probative value and Rule 403 balancing)
Jones v. State, 297 Ga. 156 (2015) (Jones II) (held prior DUI relevant to intent and remanded for Rule 403 analysis)
Jones v. State, 335 Ga. App. 563 (2016) (Jones III) (Court of Appeals affirmed admission; later reviewed)
Hood v. State, 299 Ga. 95 (addresses appellate review and abuse-of-discretion standard for other-acts evidence)
Brannon v. State, 298 Ga. 601 (discusses Rule 403 considerations)
United States v. Perez, 443 F.3d 772 (11th Cir.) (lists factors for evaluating extrinsic-act probative value: prosecutorial need, similarity, remoteness)
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (explains unfair prejudice concept)
Smith v. State, 299 Ga. 424 (discusses harmless error standard)