Wilson v. State: Georgia Supreme Court Narrows “Common Plan or Scheme” under Rule 404(b) and Clarifies Harmless-Error Review

1. Introduction

Citation: Wilson v. State, S25A0430, Supreme Court of Georgia, decided 24 June 2025.
Key Holding: Evidence of a defendant’s prior armed robbery was improperly admitted to show motive and a “common plan or scheme” under OCGA § 24-4-404(b); because the error was not harmless, murder and related convictions were reversed.
Ancillary Holdings: (i) Evidence was otherwise constitutionally sufficient to retry Wilson on murder, kidnapping, and arson; (ii) evidence was insufficient on theft-by-receiving; (iii) cell-site location information obtained pre-Carpenter under the Stored Communications Act was admissible under the good-faith exception.

Andrew Wilson was convicted of malice murder, felony murder, kidnapping with bodily injury, first-degree arson and theft by receiving in connection with the brutal death of Gregory Harris. The State’s theory hinged on Wilson’s alleged pattern of befriending affluent men, stealing luxury watches, and eliminating evidence. At trial, prosecutors introduced a 2011 armed-robbery episode involving another wealthy victim, John Taylor, to prove Wilson’s motive and common plan. The Supreme Court found that the two events were insufficiently distinctive to satisfy Rule 404(b) and that the evidentiary error was not harmless, mandating reversal.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Rule 404(b) Error: The trial court abused its discretion in admitting the 2011 robbery. The prior act showed, at most, a generic propensity to rob, not a unique modus operandi or shared motive.
Harmless-Error Analysis: Because the State’s case was purely circumstantial and it heavily emphasized the prior-robbery narrative, the improper evidence likely contributed to the guilty verdicts. Error not harmless ⇒ convictions reversed.
Sufficiency Rulings:
- Murder, kidnapping & arson – constitutionally sufficient; State may retry.
- Theft by receiving – insufficient; double-jeopardy bars retrial.
Cell-Phone Data: Court upheld denial of motion to suppress; investigators relied in good faith on the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA) pre-Carpenter.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Heard v. State, 309 Ga 76 (2020) – Established the three-prong test for admitting other-acts and insisted on a “particularly stringent” similarity analysis when the State’s purpose is identity/common plan. Wilson leans heavily on Heard to find insufficient uniqueness.
Kirby v. State, 304 Ga 472 (2018) – Warned against characterizing motive in overly generic terms (“violence for money and sex”); relied on in rejecting State’s “greed” rationale.
Pritchett v. State, 314 Ga 767 (2022) – Clarified overlap between “plan” and “identity” and reiterated need for a “signature crime”; used for comparison.
Brooks v. State, 298 Ga 722 (2016) – Provided federal-styled requirement that extrinsic acts be distinctive for identity purposes.
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018) – Post-dated the investigation; cited to affirm good-faith reliance on SCA despite later change in constitutional landscape.
Rivera, Rooks, Randolph lines – Demonstrated circumstances where 404(b) errors can be harmless; Court distinguished those cases due to lack of overwhelming direct evidence here.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

Relevance prong: Prior robbery could be relevant only if it showed motive beyond mere propensity or demonstrated a unique scheme tying the two crime sprees. The Court found:
- Motive – “Greed” is too generic; Rule 404(b) forbids propensity reasoning.
- Common plan – Similarities (meeting at strip club, theft of watches, change of phone number) were deemed generic to robberies, not distinctive. Significant dissimilarities (level of violence, destruction of evidence, victim relationship) further undercut probative value.
Rule 403 balance: Because relevance was inadequate, the probative value was low and prejudice high.
Harmless-error calculus:
- Weight of erroneously admitted evidence: central to prosecution’s narrative; repeatedly emphasized.
- Strength of properly admitted evidence: “strong but not overwhelming” circumstantial case; no DNA, no eyewitness, no confessions.
- Result: Not highly probable verdict unaffected ⇒ reversal.
Good-faith exception: Investigators acted in objective reliance on SCA and then-binding Georgia precedent (Ross, Registe); suppression denied.
Sufficiency: On theft-by-receiving the State could not prove Wilson possessed Harris’s watches; retrial barred.

3.3 Potential Impact

Narrower 404(b) Gateway: Prosecutors must identify near-signature similarities before introducing prior acts for “plan” or “identity.” Generic commonalities (luxury items, multiple accomplices) will not clear the bar.
Expanded Reversal Risk: Courts emphasize prosecutorial over-use of 404(b); repeated “professional robber” rhetoric viewed as propensity and heightens prejudice.
Circumstantial Cases: Where forensic links are absent, reliance on other-acts evidence is perilous; harmless-error shield less likely.
Pre-Carpenter CSLI: Confirms investigators may rely on SCA orders obtained before 2018; future suppression attempts unlikely to succeed if good-faith criteria met.
Theft-by-Receiving Guidance: Clarifies that mere association with co-defendant who pawns a look-alike item is insufficient; possession evidence must tie defendant to the stolen property.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 404(b): An evidence rule barring use of prior bad acts solely to show the defendant’s bad character but allowing such acts for specific, limited purposes (motive, identity, etc.).
Common Plan or Scheme: One of the accepted 404(b) purposes: the prosecution argues the defendant followed a signature pattern. To be admissible the pattern must be sufficiently distinctive, not just routine criminal behavior.
Harmless-Error Standard: Even if the trial court erred, an appellate court will affirm if it is highly probable the error did not affect the outcome.
Good-Faith Exception: Under the Fourth Amendment, evidence seized in objectively reasonable reliance on a statute or precedent later declared unconstitutional is usually admissible.
Sufficiency vs. Harmless Error: Sufficiency (Jackson v. Virginia) asks whether any rational juror could convict; harmless-error asks whether the error likely did influence this jury’s verdict.

5. Conclusion

Wilson v. State is now the leading Georgia authority constraining the “common plan or scheme” avenue for admitting other-acts evidence. It underscores that:

Similarity must approach uniqueness; otherwise prior acts will be excluded.
If erroneously admitted 404(b) evidence is central to the prosecution’s theory, convictions are vulnerable on appeal.
Investigators may still rely on pre-Carpenter SCA orders; good-faith remains intact.
Sufficiency and harmless-error analyses serve different functions and can yield different outcomes for retrial.

Practitioners should treat 404(b) evidence with caution, craft precise non-propensity arguments, and prepare for rigorous appellate scrutiny. Trial judges must articulate detailed findings to survive review. The decision re-balances the scales between probative value and prejudicial risk, fostering a more disciplined use of a powerful evidentiary tool.