Rodriguez v. State

In Rodriguez v. State, 211 Ga. App. 256 (439 S.E.2d 510) (1993) the Court identified two reasons why the State should specify the proper purpose for which it intends to introduce similar transaction evidence in the notice: (1) to assist the trial court in making the essential preliminary determination as to whether the State is seeking to introduce the evidence for an appropriate purpose; (2) to afford the defendant the opportunity to investigate the validity, relevancy, and other aspects of admissibility of the prior offenses. This Court also stated, in dicta, that the similar transaction notice "should clearly specify the proper purpose for which introduction of such evidence is sought, as an exception to the general rule of inadmissibility. . . . A rote recitation of any and all permissible purposes will not suffice." Rodriguez v. State, supra at 258 (4) (a).