State v. HARRIS (Two Cases), 316 Ga. 272

Lorenzo Harris was indicted for malice murder after Larry Jones was shot in a parking lot on March 26, 2019; surveillance and scene evidence implicated a shooter who entered a red truck and fired .40-caliber rounds.
Witness Shirley Ndetti (who knew a man called “Low”) identified Harris from a single photograph; police intended to introduce Harris’s red truck ownership and phone records placing him nearby.
The State sought to admit evidence of two prior incidents: the Hank Aaron Incident (Mar. 7, 2019) where 13 .40-caliber casings matched the Jones shooting, and the Almond Incident (Sept. 2019) alleging Harris orchestrated a robbery; the court excluded both under Rule 403.
The trial court orally granted Harris’s motion in limine (excluding the prior shootings) and granted his motion to suppress Ndetti’s out-of-court identification, but did not enter written orders memorializing those rulings.
The State requested written orders the Friday before trial; the trial court entered a non-responsive order that effectively refused to provide written orders, and the State filed a §5-7-1 notice of appeal that day.
The Georgia Supreme Court held it had jurisdiction under the Morrell exception, found the trial court applied an incorrect Rule 403 standard and did not adequately analyze the suppression issues, vacated the rulings, and remanded for reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State may appeal oral pretrial rulings without a written order	The trial court refused to enter written orders despite the State’s explicit requests; Morrell exception permits appeal and clock starts on refusal	Harris argued the State waived by failing to submit a proposed draft order	Court: Morrell exception applies; refusal occurred June 10 and State’s June 10 notice was timely
Admissibility of two prior shootings (intrinsic evidence / Rule 403)	Prior incidents are intrinsic, probative, and relevant (forensics and proximity link gun to Harris)	Evidence is highly prejudicial, irrelevant to charged conduct, and should be excluded under Rule 403	Court: Trial court applied wrong Rule 403 standard (used "highly prejudicial" / "more prejudicial than probative"); vacated exclusion and remanded to apply proper "probative value substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice" analysis
Suppression of Ndetti’s out-of-court photographic identification	Single-photo was merely confirmatory because Ndetti knew Harris; identification reliable	Single-photograph show-up was impermissibly suggestive and risked misidentification	Court: Single-photo was suggestive; but trial court did not adequately analyze totality (including witness familiarity). Grant vacated and remanded for proper substantial-likelihood-of-misidentification inquiry

State v. Morrell, 281 Ga. 152 (Ga. 2006) (recognizes exception allowing State to appeal oral rulings when trial court refuses to enter a written order)
State v. Lynch, 286 Ga. 98 (Ga. 2009) (applies Morrell exception where court declined to enter written order)
Woods v. State, 279 Ga. 28 (Ga. 2005) (court must question its jurisdiction when jurisdiction is doubtful)
Titelman v. Stedman, 277 Ga. 460 (Ga. 2003) (trial court has duty to enter written orders; party’s failure to draft does not relieve that duty)
Harris v. State, 310 Ga. 372 (Ga. 2020) (defines when evidence is intrinsic: same transaction/series, completes the story, or is inextricably intertwined)
State v. Jackson, 351 Ga. App. 675 (Ga. App. 2019) (trial court errs if it applies the wrong Rule 403 standard)
Hattney v. State, 279 Ga. 88 (Ga. 2005) (witness familiarity with suspect defeats a substantial-likelihood-of-misidentification claim)
Newton v. State, 308 Ga. 863 (Ga. 2020) (identification-suppression review: impermissibly suggestive procedures require totality analysis to assess substantial likelihood of misidentification)
Leeks v. State, 309 Ga. App. 724 (Ga. App. 2011) (single-photograph show-ups are impermissibly suggestive)