McKinney v. State, 318 Ga. 566

Jerrion McKinney was indicted in Fulton County on multiple counts, including violating Georgia’s Gang Act, aggravated assault, and firearm offenses arising from a 2020 incident involving alleged gang activity in Atlanta.
The State sought to admit evidence of three prior acts by McKinney, arguing they constituted admissible "criminal gang activity" under OCGA § 24-4-418 ("Rule 418"), regardless of any connection to gang interests at the time.
The trial court admitted only one prior act, excluding the others for lack of a nexus to an intent to further gang activity, relying on the Georgia Supreme Court’s interpretation of a different provision in Rodriguez v. State.
The Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that Rule 418 does not require a nexus between the act and gang-related intent, but that admissibility must still be evaluated under the general evidentiary rules, including Rule 403.
The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari to resolve whether Rule 418 requires a connection between the prior act and gang interests, and whether Rule 403 analysis applies.

Issue	McKinney’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Does Rule 418 require a nexus between other acts and an intent to further gang activity?	Yes, based on Rodriguez, Rule 418 should require prior acts to have been committed to further gang interests.	No, plain text of Rule 418 allows admission of prior acts defined as criminal gang activity, regardless of nexus.	No nexus required under Rule 418; admissibility based on statutory definition alone.
Does Rule 403 apply to evidence admitted under Rule 418?	Yes, even if Rule 418 allows it, evidence is inadmissible if unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.	No opposition; State acknowledged applicability of Rule 403.	Yes, Rule 403 (and Rule 402) still cabin admissibility even if Rule 418 is satisfied.

Rodriguez v. State, 284 Ga. 803 (construed nexus requirement for convictions under a different provision, not controlling for Rule 418)
Wilson v. State, 312 Ga. 174 (clarifies that Rule 403 exclusionary rule applies broadly)
Deal v. Coleman, 294 Ga. 170 (principles of statutory interpretation – plain text controls)