Olds v. the State
332 Ga. App. 612
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Vashon Olds was convicted by a jury of false imprisonment and battery after an incident in which he restrained, bound, duct-taped, threatened, and assaulted a female houseguest; he was acquitted on kidnapping and aggravated-assault-with-intent-to-rape counts.
- The victim had recently moved into Olds’s trailer as a tenant and told him they would not resume a prior romantic relationship; Olds attacked her when she went back into the trailer to retrieve a jacket.
- The State introduced testimony about two prior extrinsic assaults by Olds on acquaintances (one in 1999 where Olds cut a woman’s chin with a knife; one in 2012 where Olds forcibly assaulted and attempted intercourse with another woman).
- Olds objected to admission of the extrinsic-act evidence; he argued the extrinsic acts were inadmissible character evidence and not relevant to the charged offenses.
- The trial court admitted the extrinsic-act evidence for purposes including intent, identity, motive, and to rebut mistake/accident; the jury convicted Olds and he appealed challenging that evidentiary ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Olds's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of extrinsic-act evidence under OCGA § 24-4-404(b) | Evidence was impermissible character evidence and not probative of the charged offenses | Evidence was admissible to prove intent, identity, motive, plan, and to rebut mistake/accident | Admissible; court applied the three-part test and affirmed admission |
| Relevance to intent | Intent was not at issue; dispute was whether the crime occurred | A not-guilty plea made intent a material issue; extrinsic acts showing same state of mind are relevant | Relevant: charged offense and extrinsics involved same state of mind (attacking women from behind) |
| Unfair prejudice under OCGA § 24-4-403 | Extrinsic acts would be unduly prejudicial and should be excluded | Probative value not substantially outweighed; similarity increases probative value; limiting instruction mitigated prejudice | No clear abuse of discretion; probative value outweighed prejudice; limiting instruction reduced unfair prejudice |
| Sufficiency to show extrinsic acts occurred | Testimony was unreliable / insufficient to prove extrinsic acts | Witnesses gave detailed, unrebutted testimony the jury could credit | Satisfied: jury could find extrinsic acts by preponderance; admission proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Bradshaw v. State, 296 Ga. 650 (Ga. 2015) (adopts three-part test for admissibility of other-crimes evidence under OCGA § 24-4-404(b))
- United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007) (extrinsic-offense evidence admissible to prove intent when state of mind is similar)
- United States v. Zapata, 139 F.3d 1355 (11th Cir. 1998) (similarity between charged and extrinsic offenses increases probative value)