Thomas v. State, 290 Ga. 653

Thomas challenged convictions for malice murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and related counts stemming from two Athens convenience-store robberies on December 5, 2007.
Evidence tied a single male robber wearing a dark hoodie and mask to both crimes; Brown identified Thomas from eyewitness testimony and video.
State admitted evidence of two prior 1995 robberies as similar transactions to show motive/plan; similarities to charged crimes were emphasized.
Trial court denied Thomas's request to change venue due to pretrial publicity; court conducted voir dire and jury selection to mitigate publicity.
A preliminary-hearing witness was unavailable at trial; the court admitted the witness's testimony under OCGA §24-3-10 after due diligence.
The State presented Marla Lawson, a forensic-art expert, whose qualifications were admitted and the court allowed her testimony

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of similar transactions to prove motive/plan	Thomas argues improper admission of 1995 robberies	State contends similarities support motive/plan	Admissible; not an abuse of discretion
Change of venue due to pretrial publicity	Thomas claims inherent/actual prejudice	State contends no inherent prejudice; voir dire adequate	No abuse of discretion; no inherent/prejudice established
Admissibility of unavailable-witness testimony under §24-3-10	State did not exercise due diligence; testimony improperly admitted	State exercised due diligence; unavailability proper	Admissible; trial court did not abuse discretion
Qualification of forensic-artist as expert	Thomas challenges lack of formal training/peer review	Experience and reputation suffice for expert status	Qualified as an expert; no abuse of discretion
Sufficiency of evidence to sustain verdicts	Evidence insufficient for guilt beyond reasonable doubt	Evidence sufficient to convict under Jackson v. Virginia	Evidence sufficient; reasonable jurors could find guilt

Whitehead v. State, 287 Ga. 242 (2010) (similar-transaction evidence admissible for motive/plan; focus on similarities)
Ledford v. State, 289 Ga. 70 (2011) (relevance of older similar crimes despite intervening incarceration)
Moore v. State, 273 Ga. 11 (2000) (similar transaction evidence admissible; not required to be identical)
Moore v. State, 288 Ga. 187 (2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admission of similar transactions)
Wade v. State, 274 Ga. 791 (2002) (unavailability determination; due-diligence review sufficient)
Gear v. State, 288 Ga. 500 (2011) (pretrial publicity generally not inherently prejudicial; voir dire adequate)
McWhorter v. State, 271 Ga. 461 (1999) (voir dire/venue rulings routinely uphold trial settings)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause; admitted testimony from unavailable witness when cross-examined earlier)