☢ test - Í

Eubanks v. State, 332 Ga.App. 568, 774 S.E.2d 146 (June 23, 2015). Child molestation conviction affirmed. Under 2013 Evidence Code, evidence of prior child molestation was properly admitted under OCGA § 24-4-414(a), which “provides that ‘[i]n a criminal proceeding in which the accused is accused of an offense of child molestation, evidence of the accused's commission of another offense of child molestation shall be admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.’” Evidence here was relevant to establish intent, and “to show that Eubanks had a motive of seeking nonconsensual sexual contact with a minor.” Similarities of the incidents – both involving digital penetration of girls about the same age – make the prior act “‘highly probative’ of motive,” quoting United States v. Brimm, 13-10392 (unpublished, 11 th Cir., April 28, 2015). Watford v. State, 332 Ga.App. 499, 773 S.E.2d 452 (June 15, 2015). Convictions for forgery, false statements, and related offenses affirmed; under 2013 Evidence Code, trial court properly admitted evidence of other acts to prove motive. Proof that defendant was on first offender probation at the time of the offense “was admissible to show his motive for providing false information to the Cobb officer. … Permitting the introduction of evidence of Watford's probationary status for that purpose would not constitute an abuse of discretion. See U.S. v. Key, 76 F.3d 350, 354 (11 th Cir., 1996) (in case involving charges of bank fraud and making false statements on loan application, admission of prior judgments against defendant did not contravene Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b); judgments were evidence that defendant had motive to misrepresent his identity in order to obtain credit).” Amey v. State, 331 Ga.App. 244, 770 S.E.2d 321 (March 18, 2015). Armed robbery and related convictions reversed; trial court erred by admitting evidence of prior armed robbery as similar transaction under 2013 Evidence Code. Evidence was offered to prove identity, motive and opportunity. Motive. Mere motive “to gain money” is not enough to admit prior robberies. “‘Such logic would make all prior robberies admissible in any robbery case,’” quoting Milich, § 11:13 at 318. “‘Numerous courts have recognized that evidence of an imminent financial burden on the defendant is admissible for the purpose of proving motive.’ United States v. Reed, 700 F.2d 638, 643(III) (11 th Cir., 1983). In the case before us, the State presented evidence that Amey had no job and was sleeping on a futon in the living room of friends at the time of the 2011 [offense on trial]. But in order for the prior attempted robbery to be relevant to the issue of motive, the State would also have had to present evidence showing that Amey lacked a job or had some other specific need for money at the time of the [prior] 2008 attempted robbery. The attempted robbery would then be relevant to show that Amey was willing to commit robbery when he had a specific need for money. … Based upon the State's failure to present evidence of Amey's impecuniousness at the time of the prior attempted robbery, we conclude that motive was not a proper purpose for admitting such evidence. As a sister state has recognized, ‘[t]he general motive of gaining wealth, which could be the underlying basis for almost any crime, is not sufficient to establish a motive.’ State v. Leday, 97 So.3d 501, 506 (La.App., 2012) (concluding evidence of prior robbery inadmissible to show motive in later robbery case).” Bradshaw v. State, 296 Ga. 650, 769 S.E.2d 892 (March 2, 2015). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed; under 2013 Evidence Code, evidence of prior murder was properly admitted as a similar transaction to prove intent and motive. Defendant thought both murder victims had tried to cheat him in drug deals. 1. Intent is made an issue by entry of a not guilty plea. 2. Motive. “Motive has been defined as ‘“the reason that nudges the will and prods the mind to indulge the criminal intent.”’ United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 912 n. 15 (5 th Cir., 1978) (citation omitted). In this case, the evidence of the Ohio murder was relevant to motive because it demonstrated appellant's willingness to use violence when he or someone close to him is cheated in a drug deal. See United States v. Banks, 514 F.3d 959, 976 (9 th Cir., 2008) (holding that evidence of the defendant's prior stabbing of someone who insulted his gang status was admissible to prove motive under Rule 404(b) in his trial for attempted murder of someone else who also insulted his gang status).” Accord, Brooks (March 7, 2016), above (same quote from Beechum). Goodman v. State, 293 Ga. 80, 742 S.E.2d 719 (May 6, 2013). Malice murder and theft by taking convictions affirmed; under pre-2013 Evidence Code, trial court properly allowed evidence of prior murder of victim’s husband, committed by victim and defendant, to show motive for defendant’s killing of victim. Mitchell v. State, 314 Ga.App. 694, 725 S.E.2d 824 (March 9, 2012). Convictions for armed robbery and related offenses affirmed; no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of separate armed robbery committed the day before. The separate robbery involved some of defendant’s co-conspirators, but not defendant. One conspirator was arrested for the first robbery, so his brother stepped in to help with the offense on trial “‘to help [his] brother out’ and obtain money to pay for an attorney. This evidence explained the State's theory of how the robbery was planned and the motive of the perpetrators, including Mitchell. The evidence did not implicate Mitchell in the prior robbery, so the risk of unfair