Clarence Peak appealed after the trial court denied his motion for a new trial, challenging the admission of two 32-year-old felony convictions to impeach his testimony. Former OCGA § 24-9-84.1(b) required the trial court to identify the concrete facts supporting its conclusion that the convictions’ impeachment value substantially exceeded their prejudicial effect; the court’s general balancing statement fell short. Because Peak and his daughter gave sharply conflicting accounts of the shooting, the error was not harmless. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the new-trial motion and state the factual basis for its balancing under the factors described in Clay.