Background
On September 5, 2010, Calvin Streater and Samuel Blizzard, Jr. were shot execution-style in an Atlanta apartment, and Blizzard’s laptop and computer bag were stolen. Investigators identified Derrick Burden as the sole suspect based on DNA from a cigarette butt found at the scene, surveillance footage showing him with Streater earlier that morning, and a positive photo lineup identification by a witness who had seen Burden carrying Blizzard’s laptop bag shortly after the murders—before Burden dropped it and fled from police.
A Fulton County grand jury indicted Burden in 2012 on two counts of malice murder, six counts of felony murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and firearm offenses. A jury convicted him on all counts in December 2013, and he was sentenced to consecutive life terms without parole on the two malice murder counts, plus additional consecutive sentences on the firearm charges. Following years of appellate-counsel turnover, Burden’s motion for new trial was denied in April 2025, and he appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court.
At trial, the State introduced evidence of Burden’s 2012 Clayton County convictions—for burglary with intent to commit theft and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon—under OCGA § 24-4-404(b). The State’s theory was that those crimes mirrored the charged offenses: in both instances, Burden attempted a theft and shot at (or killed) anyone who interfered. The trial court admitted the evidence to show intent and motive, gave a limiting instruction, and the jury convicted.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Georgia unanimously affirmed Burden’s convictions (with one Justice not participating), holding that the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in admitting the Clayton County other-acts evidence under Rule 404(b). The Court analyzed the three-part admissibility test: (1) relevance to a non-character purpose, (2) probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 403, and (3) sufficient proof the defendant committed the other acts. Because Burden had pleaded guilty to the Clayton County crimes, he conceded the third prong and acknowledged on appeal that the evidence was relevant to prove intent—the first prong.
On the Rule 403 balancing question, the Court found the Clayton County crimes sufficiently similar to the charged offenses—both involved theft of electronics, use of a firearm against someone who interfered, and felon-in-possession charges—to carry substantial probative value on intent. The 18-month gap between the charged and other offenses was not temporally remote. The Court further found the prejudicial impact low: the prior crimes (burglary of an unoccupied home and firing a gun from 75 yards) were comparatively less inflammatory than the charged execution-style double homicide, the jury knew Burden had already been punished for those crimes, and the trial court gave proper limiting instructions.
The Court also noted that while subsequent case law has cast doubt on whether the evidence was properly admitted to show motive, admission on the intent ground alone was sufficient to affirm, making it unnecessary to resolve the motive issue.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 404(b) is a rule of inclusion under Georgia law; a trial court’s admission of other-acts evidence is reviewed only for clear abuse of discretion and will be reversed only in exceptional cases.
- When other-acts evidence is offered to prove intent rather than identity, Georgia courts require a lesser degree of similarity between the prior and charged conduct.
- Unfair prejudice under Rule 403 is not mere inculpation; it refers specifically to evidence that might lure the jury into a guilt finding based on improper grounds such as bad character or propensity—a risk diminished here by limiting instructions and the defendant’s prior punishment for the other acts.
- The Court signaled skepticism toward generic motive arguments after its 2025 decision in Wilson v. State, even while leaving the motive ruling unreviewed because the intent ground independently supported admissibility.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the broad scope of Rule 404(b) in Georgia criminal trials, particularly for prosecutors seeking to admit evidence of prior crimes that share a common modus operandi or mental state with the charged offense. The Court’s application of the Rule 403 balancing test—maximizing probative value, minimizing prejudicial impact, and resolving close calls in favor of admissibility—illustrates how difficult it is for defendants to exclude other-acts evidence once the State demonstrates a legitimate non-character purpose.
For defense practitioners, the case underscores the importance of challenging both the relevance and the prejudice prongs at the trial court level, and of seeking particularized limiting instructions. It also signals that Georgia courts may be moving toward a narrower view of “motive” as an admissible purpose under Rule 404(b), following Wilson v. State—an argument that may gain traction in future appeals where intent is also at issue.