Roberts v. State, 315 Ga. 229

On Nov. 1, 2016, Jabari Pettway was found shot to death; five .40-caliber casings and two cigarette butts were recovered at the scene. One cigarette butt matched Roberts’s DNA.
Cell‑tower and surveillance evidence placed Roberts and Pettway together shortly before the shooting and placed Roberts’s movements consistent with post‑murder actions (calls to an acquaintance, efforts to destroy Pettway’s car).
Roberts was arrested, gave custodial statements denying involvement, and investigators linked a Pinger account used to call Pettway to Roberts.
Nine days before the murder, Roberts allegedly committed an armed robbery of Monica Mendoza; police recovered a single .40‑caliber casing from that scene. Ballistics testing showed that casing was fired from the same Smith & Wesson .40 pistol as the casings at Pettway’s homicide scene.
At trial the State introduced evidence of the Mendoza robbery under OCGA § 24‑4‑404(b) (Rule 404(b)) to prove identity; the jury convicted Roberts of malice murder and related counts.
On appeal Roberts argued the robbery evidence was improperly admitted; the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed, holding a limited portion of the robbery evidence was intrinsic (thus admissible) and any error admitting the remainder was harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Mendoza robbery evidence under Rule 404(b) to prove identity	Roberts: robbery not sufficiently similar or linked to the murder to admit under Rule 404(b)	State: prior robbery relevant to identity (same gun, witness ID, casing link)	A limited portion (ballistics casing and testimony placing the gun in Roberts’s hands) was intrinsic and admissible; the robbery as a whole was not intrinsic.
Effect of admitting non‑intrinsic robbery details	Roberts: extraneous details were prejudicial and require reversal	State: any error harmless given strong independent evidence and limiting instruction	Any error admitting the non‑intrinsic details was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed.

Williams v. State, 302 Ga. 474 (2017) (intrinsic evidence is not governed by OCGA § 24‑4‑404(b))
Harris v. State, 314 Ga. 238 (2022) (intrinsic evidence must still satisfy Rule 403)
Johnson v. State, 312 Ga. 481 (2021) (tests for when other‑acts evidence is intrinsic: same transaction, completes the story, or inextricably intertwined)
Smith v. State, 307 Ga. 263 (2019) (appellate review of admission of other‑acts evidence is for abuse of discretion)
Battle v. United States, 774 F.3d 504 (8th Cir. 2014) (limited evidence that a prior crime used the same gun can be intrinsic)
United States v. Fortenberry, 971 F.2d 717 (11th Cir. 1992) (evidence of defendant’s possession of the weapon on other dates admissible as intrinsic when directly relevant to charged offense)
United States v. Roberts, 933 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1991) (carefully limited testimony about recovery/possession of same weapon shortly before/after charged crime may be intrinsic)