Thompson v. State
323 Ga. App. 790
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Thompson was convicted by a jury of one count of first-degree forgery, five counts of second-degree forgery, and one count of fleeing/eluding following a June 12, 2009 incident at a convenience store where he supplied two fraudulent payroll checks to accomplices McDowell and Russell.
- Store personnel identified the checks as fraudulent; Thompson fled in a vehicle, was pursued by police at speeds over 100 mph, and threw torn pieces of checks from the car before crashing and being arrested.
- Pieces recovered from the roadway matched the Taco Mac payroll checks; McDowell and Russell pled guilty to forgery and testified for the State, implicating Thompson and describing his role in supplying and directing destruction of checks.
- The State introduced two prior similar-transaction forgery incidents from 2008 in which Thompson participated in cashing fraudulent payroll checks drawn on Taco Bell franchise accounts; Thompson had pled guilty to one of those acts.
- Trial court gave a similar-transaction instruction and admitted the prior-act evidence over Thompson’s objection; Thompson appealed, arguing the prior acts were insufficiently similar and unduly prejudicial.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed admissibility for abuse of discretion and affirmed the convictions, concluding the prior acts were probative of a continuing scheme and not substantially outweighed by prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of similar-transaction evidence | State: Evidence admitted for proper purpose and shows defendant committed prior acts; probative of intent/participation | Thompson: Prior acts insufficiently similar; highly prejudicial and should be excluded | Court: Admitted — prior acts sufficiently similar; probative value outweighed any prejudice |
| Sufficiency of similarity between prior acts and charged offenses | State: Prior acts shared key features (cash payroll checks at small stores, amounts similar, drawn on Mexican-food restaurant accounts, within 15 months) | Thompson: Variations show lack of requisite similarity | Court: Focus is on similarities; law does not require identical acts; similarity requirement met |
| Prejudice vs. probative value balancing | State: Need for extrinsic evidence given defense that Thompson was not involved; prior acts show course of conduct | Thompson: Prior acts would unfairly bias jury against him | Court: Trial court properly considered State’s need and allowed evidence as not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
| Standard of review for admission of similar-transaction evidence | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Court: Admission reviewed for abuse of discretion; none found |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandler v. State, 311 Ga. App. 86 (discusses standards for admissibility of similar-transaction evidence)
- Beck v. State, 291 Ga. App. 702 (prior acts need not be identical; logical connection suffices)
- Salinas-Valdez v. State, 276 Ga. App. 732 (appellate review of trial court’s similarity finding is deferential)
- Gray v. State, 260 Ga. App. 197 (trial court’s discretion to exclude similar-crimes evidence when prejudicial outweighs probative)
- Grant v. State, 248 Ga. App. 203 (prior similar acts can show a continuing scheme and be probative of charged offense)