McCoy v. the State
332 Ga. App. 626
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- On Dec. 26, 2011, a victim was robbed at gunpoint while changing a tire; the robber took cash, a bank card, a cell phone, and keys, then fled in a stolen Honda Civic. A high-speed chase ended in a crash; one suspect (Damario) was captured, McCoy escaped but was later identified by an officer from a photo and charged.
- McCoy and Damario were indicted on armed robbery, fleeing/eluding, obstruction, and other counts; McCoy was convicted of armed robbery, fleeing/eluding, and obstruction; several other counts resulted in acquittal. Trial evidence included Damario’s testimony implicating McCoy and an officer’s post‑crash identification.
- The State introduced a prior Florida incident (June 2011) in which a victim identified McCoy in court as having carjacked/robbed him at gunpoint; a Florida deputy also later identified McCoy after a separate stolen-vehicle stop. The State stipulated it lacked proof McCoy committed an earlier Marietta carjacking.
- McCoy objected to admission of the Florida acts under OCGA § 24-4-404(b) as dissimilar and unduly prejudicial, arguing the in-court identification was highly prejudicial and the acts were not sufficiently similar.
- The trial court admitted the Florida evidence for intent and knowledge; McCoy moved for new trial, which was denied. On appeal, McCoy argued the similar-transaction evidence was inadmissible; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | McCoy's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior-bad-act evidence under OCGA § 24-4-404(b) | Florida robbery was too dissimilar and its in-court ID was highly prejudicial | Prior Florida acts are admissible to show intent/knowledge; identification had independent origin | Admissible: similar transaction permitted to show intent; no abuse of discretion |
| Prejudice under OCGA § 24-4-403 | In-court ID of McCoy by Florida victim was unduly prejudicial and outweighed probative value | Probative value (similarity, prosecutorial need) outweighed prejudice; limiting instruction reduced risk | Probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice; limiting instruction appropriate |
| Sufficiency of proof that McCoy committed the extrinsic act | In-court ID unreliable and insufficient to prove the Florida act was McCoy’s | Victim observed perpetrator at close range; identification had independent origin | Sufficient proof: jury could find McCoy committed the Florida act |
| Harmlessness of any error | Admission likely affected jury verdict | Given independent strong ID (officer) and other evidence, any error was harmless | Even if erroneous, admission was not likely to have contributed to verdict; harmless error |
Key Cases Cited
- Newsome v. State, 324 Ga. App. 665 (discussing appellate view of evidence in criminal cases)
- Byrd v. State, 325 Ga. App. 24 (defendant not entitled to presumption of innocence on appeal)
- Reed v. State, 291 Ga. 10 (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; accept factual findings unless clearly erroneous)
- Bradshaw v. State, 296 Ga. 650 (three-part test for admissibility of other-crimes evidence under § 24-4-404(b))
- Doublette v. State, 278 Ga. App. 746 (in-court identification admissible if it has independent origin)
- Jennings v. State, 277 Ga. App. 159 (victim testimony with in-court ID can establish independent act)
- Curry v. State, 330 Ga. App. 610 (intent is a material issue when defendant pleads not guilty; 404(b) evidence may be used to prove intent)
- Bright v. State, 314 Ga. App. 589 (error in admitting similar-transaction evidence requires showing harm to justify reversal)
- Mangum v. State, 308 Ga. App. 84 (admission of similar-transaction evidence harmless where other identification strongly supports verdict)
- U.S. v. Ramirez, 426 F.3d 1344 (similarity between crimes increases probative value of extrinsic acts)