Jones v. State, 301 Ga. 544

Michael Jones was convicted at trial (2013) of DUI per se for a 2011 incident; a prior 2005 DUI (to which he pled guilty) was admitted as extrinsic-act evidence under OCGA § 24-4-404(b).
Trial court admitted the prior DUI for intent/knowledge after applying the three-part test: relevance, Rule 403 balancing, and sufficient proof of the prior act.
On appeal, Court of Appeals initially reversed (Jones I), this Court granted certiorari and held the prior conviction was relevant as to intent (Jones II), and remanded for Rule 403 review; Court of Appeals then affirmed (Jones III).
This Court reviewed whether the trial court properly performed the Rule 403 balancing and held the trial court abused its discretion: the prior DUI’s probative value was minimal while the risk of unfair prejudice was high, in part because the prosecutor used the prior conviction to emphasize alleged dishonesty.
The Court nonetheless found the erroneous admission harmless as to the DUI per se conviction because direct evidence (admission of drinking, driving, high BAC test results) was overwhelming; judgment affirmed for any reason.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Jones)	Held
Admissibility of 2005 DUI under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 for intent	Prior conviction is relevant to show intent and has probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice	Prior DUI is minimally probative for intent (general-intent crime) and highly prejudicial; thus inadmissible	Trial court abused discretion under Rule 403 (probative value substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice), but error was harmless for DUI per se conviction
Whether a categorical rule should bar extrinsic-act evidence for general-intent crimes	No categorical bar; courts must assess need and probative value case-by-case	Argues for bright-line rule excluding such evidence in DUI cases	Court declines bright-line rule; whether charged crime is general intent is a factor in assessing prosecutorial need and marginal probative value
Harmless-error as to conviction and sentence	Admission error did not affect verdict on DUI per se given overwhelming direct evidence (BAC, admission, driving)	Erroneous admission was prejudicial and requires reversal	Error was harmless for DUI per se conviction; conviction and sentence affirmed

Olds v. State, 299 Ga. 65 (explains three-part test for extrinsic-act evidence and assessing probative value under Rule 403)
Hood v. State, 299 Ga. 95 (standard of review for admitting other-acts evidence)
Brannon v. State, 298 Ga. 601 (Rule 403 analysis context)
Bradshaw v. State, 296 Ga. 650 (citing Perez for factors courts should consider in balancing)
Perez v. United States, 443 F.3d 772 (11th Cir.) (lists factors: prosecutorial need, similarity, temporal remoteness)
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (definition and scope of "unfair prejudice")
State v. Jones, 297 Ga. 156 (prior, related decision clarifying relevance of the prior DUI to intent)
Smith v. State, 299 Ga. 424 (harmless-error framework under new Evidence Code)
Mullins v. State, 299 Ga. 681 (affirmation under right-for-any-reason rule)