Priester v. State, 316 Ga. 133

May 15, 2017: victim Genaro Rojas‑Martinez was shot and killed at a Smyrna gas station; surveillance showed a green 2002 Chevrolet Avalanche and a shooter who fired a silver revolver at the victim’s head.
Appellant Joseph Priester had borrowed that Avalanche the night of the murder; cell‑phone tower data placed his phone near the restaurant where the victim worked shortly before the shooting and about one mile from the gas station immediately after the shooting.
The State indicted Priester for malice murder, felony murder (aggravated assault), aggravated assault, and firearm offenses; a jury convicted on all counts and the court imposed life without parole plus a consecutive five‑year firearm term.
The State admitted Rule 404(b) evidence that Priester committed an armed robbery and fired a large .44 magnum at a car during a drug deal the day before the murder; the trial court admitted that evidence for opportunity, intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake/accident and gave limiting instructions.
On appeal the State conceded that admission for intent/knowledge/mistake was erroneous but argued the evidence was admissible for opportunity; the Court reviewed harmless‑error and plain‑error standards and affirmed Priester’s convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Priester)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the trial court erred in admitting prior armed‑robbery/shooting evidence under OCGA § 24‑4‑404(b)	Evidence only showed bad character/propensity and was unfairly prejudicial; not admissible for permissible 404(b) purposes	Evidence showed opportunity (same gun type, firearm familiarity, presence in Georgia) and limiting instructions mitigated prejudice; State concedes some uses were erroneous but urges harmlessness	Court assumed error for some purposes but found admission harmless given strong case against Priester and limiting instructions; no reversible error
Whether the jury instructions allowing consideration of the other‑act evidence for intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake constituted plain error	Instruction was clear, obvious error that likely affected outcome and impaired fairness	Even if those portions were erroneous, the instructions taken as a whole plus the strong evidence make it unlikely the error affected the verdict; plain error not shown	Plain‑error standard not met; instructional error did not likely affect outcome; conviction affirmed

Moore v. State, 315 Ga. 263 (2022) (de novo review when weighing evidence in harmless‑error analysis)
Henry v. State, 307 Ga. 140 (2019) (nonconstitutional harmless‑error test: whether it is highly probable error did not contribute to verdict)
Saxton v. State, 313 Ga. 48 (2021) (reviewing record de novo and weighing evidence as reasonable jurors would when assessing harmless error)
Allen v. State, 310 Ga. 411 (2020) (erroneously admitted 404(b) evidence can be harmless where proof of guilt is strong)
Edwards v. State, 308 Ga. 176 (2020) (limiting instructions can mitigate prejudice from other‑acts evidence)
Williams v. State, 313 Ga. 443 (2022) (presumption jurors follow trial court instructions reduces unfair prejudice)
Howell v. State, 307 Ga. 865 (2020) (admission of other‑acts evidence harmless where instructions and strong proof weigh against prejudice)
Carpenter v. State, 305 Ga. 725 (2019) (jury instructions must be considered as a whole when assessing impact)
Jones v. State, 302 Ga. 892 (2018) (instructional error may be harmless given strong evidence)
State v. Lane, 308 Ga. 10 (2020) (explaining burden on defendant to demonstrate prejudice from cumulative errors)