*1 рlaintiffs opposite conclusion, Dixie would have known and safety press. devices on the of the lack have known imposed duty any legal to- on Keller to show failure Plaintiffs’ negligence. Judgment in favor of to their claim of them fatal wards Keller was а matter law. remaining unnecessary foregoing to address makes it 3. The proximate intervening cause. modifiers and issues of Poрe JJ., concur. February Decided
Rehearing denied March Kraselsky, Hodges, Erwin, Erwin, & A. William Hedrick William appellants. Hedrick, H.
Lokey Pierce, Bowden, Jr., for & Samuel P. v. THE STATE. A90A1601.JOHNSON Pope, robbery. Appellant of armed Ernest Johnson was convicted shotgun to force his evidence showed that Johnson used sawed-off poker. gun- way playing At in which sеveral men were into a house money point, each of the men and and watches from Johnson took money pokеr door, table. Johnson backed also took the partner telling out, that he had a the men not to stick their heads they out, Jоhnson bust did their heads would outside and stick admitting 1. Johnson the trial court erred previous offense he committed the similar offense. Jоhnson admits and that he served years rob- ten his conviction. the earlier after (who bery, money accomplice aсtually gun) took wielded the Johnson and an people working jewelry in a from several and watches and (the though were in eаr- the times of the robberies different store. Even mid-day lier and the this case occurred at one occurred (a pistol а.m.), weapon approximately was different 2:00 and the used case), previous robbery, shotgun in used sufficiently nonetheless we hold that the crimes were mind scheme. each Johnson method to show bent of preyed spot money gathered upon grouр people in one and took jewelry Aaron v. from each the victims. See lapse of time between Nor is the previous dispositive. As noted crime and this one the two crimes. most the time between Johnson was merely Lapse balancing of timе is a factor probative admitting against potentially value of the similar offense its prejudicial effect. (1975) years (laрse of seven held not to bar admission of similar of fense); 761) (1985) 11, 14 see also Rich v. offense). (lapse held not a bar to of similar аdmission Ad *2 mission of the similar offense was error. Although flight slight, evidence of there was evidence to (3b)
support Supreme State, Thе it. Court Renner v. 683) (397 (1990), publication opinion SE2d held that after of its (January 1991), 10, case in the that no advance sheets trial courts could longer charge flight. long course, Of trial in the preceded holding the of the effective date Renner. Beasley, J., J., conсurs. concurs
specially. Judge, concurring specially.
Beasley, I concur but am troubled the admission of of evidence the offense, which is ruled on in Division robbery The State the that evidence of the earlier armed prove was admissible to “intent and motive.” At the trial State de- sired its admission to show “motive and of mind.” The bent court charged knowledge, that such evidence can be considered “where design, operаndi, good intent, motive, faith, common modus or bad plan, identity mind, scheme, conduct, bent of and course of or other depеndent upon person’s matters a state of mind are involved ma- terial elements the offense which he is on trial. . . .” ex- plaining еmphasized this, the court it that was to be “solely only identity, state, with reference to the mental or intent the of Defendant. ...” demоnstrating of Evidence similar acts bad character are inher-
ently prejudicial generally the to defendant and is for that rеason per- § inadmissible. OCGA 24-9-20.The law deems such evidence son’s conduct on a to another occasion be irrelevаnt to the issues on trial, [case] “unless the nature involves such character and ren- necessary proper investigation dеrs or of such conduct.” OCGA “ say, charged § ‘[w]hen 24-2-2. That is one is on trial with proof separate independent, crime, distinct, of a commission offense is never logical admissible, there unless is some connection proof two, between the from it which cаn be said that of the one ” (71 State, 261, tends to establish the Bacon v. 263 other.’ 209 Ga. 615) (1952). (214 SE2d v. Ga. 131 SE2d 234 656) (1975), firmly similarity “Regardless Court cautioned: separate crimes, of the two evidence offense should never be prejudice outweighed by ladmitted unless ‘the it its rele- creatеs is vancy [Cit.]” on trial.’ to the issues person identity. primary Whether the in this case was issue so “intended” to do to do or “intended” committed who weapon, example, is, That was not contested. means it accident, both the act was a mistake was no contention that there aspects v. of intent. Rich Ga. are of which doing was he had a “motive” for so also Whether SE2d dispute, if thesе two factors needed ex- much at all. Even not trinisic tween a robber was was not the “logical proof, connectiоn” it is difficult to construct a be- through Although argued it that crimes could the two committing robbery if he another would have motive for monеy, just no after ten and had that from released purpose this evidence. The State of the State’s offer of purpose damaging for which such to articulate the should be generally offered, the court evidence is so that can inadmissible particular judge is, to an issue whether is relevant logical connection, is admitted. whether there See (357 819) (2b) (1987); App. 60, v. Devane (1987); Statе v. John- Hill (1980). son, 246 Ga. logical appellant Nevertheless, not stand on a lack con- does *3 They urges similar. that the two offenses are not I concur. nection but rather reason, are, and for that 1991.
Decided March McCorvey, appellant. Gary C. for Attorney, Kathryn Pridgen, Fallin, Assistant
John C. District Attorney, District
A90A1611.REID v. ODOM. Carley, Appellant-plaintiff against appellee-defendant, brought seek suit ing personal injuries arising an automobile colli- recover jury general in favor tried verdict o: sion. The judgment appellee Appellant аppeals entered| was returned. from the jury’s the trial court verdict. objection Over that was authorized evidence,! appellee following closing argu counsel for was allowed to make the your jury: [you] “[I]f ment to the determine from review of evi-| [appellant] on, if he hai have had his seatbelt dence that mayb injuries less or different his seatbelt on his would have been