The State sought to introduce evidence that Andre Plaines had committed a different burglary after he was charged with burglary, criminal damage to property, and related offenses. The trial court excluded the other-act evidence under Georgia’s rules governing relevance, unfair prejudice, and other-acts evidence. The State brought an interlocutory appeal. The Georgia Court of Appeals held that the proposed evidence was relevant to a permissible noncharacter purpose because the two burglaries involved unusual similarities, including the use of an orange circular saw to cut into an automated teller machine. The court also concluded that the trial court had applied the wrong legal analysis in excluding the evidence. It vacated the order and remanded for the trial court to reconsider admissibility under the required balancing framework. A dissent concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion and that the majority improperly displaced the trial judge’s assessment of the detective’s testimony and the evidence’s probative value.