Paul McCrory was convicted of cocaine possession after police found drugs in a vehicle near him and the State introduced evidence from a separate drug arrest as a similar transaction. McCrory challenged the denial of his motion for new trial, arguing that counsel had failed to preserve the objection and that the evidence was insufficient. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded. The trial court’s order denying suppression of the similar-transaction evidence did not contain the findings required to determine whether the evidence was admissible, and the omission prevented meaningful appellate review. The court directed the trial court to determine whether the State could establish the required elements for admitting the evidence and, if necessary, conduct a proper hearing. The court did not finally decide whether the evidence was admissible or whether a new trial was required. One judge concurred fully and specially, and another concurred specially.