Vance Bell was found guilty by a Catoosa County jury on one count of theft by receiving, two counts of criminal use of an article with an altered identification mark, and four counts of owning a chop shop.1 His amended motion for new trial was denied, and he appeals. As the State candidly acknowledges, it failed to give proper and timely notice of its intent to introduce evidence of a similar transaction under Uniform Superior Court Rules 31.1 and 31.3, and Bell was not afforded a hearing as required by Uniform Superior Court Rules 31.2 and 31.3 B . We therefore reverse. The trial of this case took place on October 4-6, 2006. On the day before trial, the State filed and served a supplemental list of six witnesses. The next day, Bell filed a motion in limine raising the point that the State had failed to comply with Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.3. The trial court held a Jackson-Denno hearing with respect to one witness, but no Rule 31.3 B hearing was held.
On the third and final day of trial, before the similar transaction witness testified, Bell again raised the issue of the motion in limine, asserting that he was not informed of the witness until the eve of trial and was given no notice of similar transaction evidence. While Bell’s counsel acknowledged that he had been given sufficient time to interview the witness, he stated that his trial tactics “would have definitely changed” had he known about the witness, and he renewed his objection to the witness. The trial court ruled that it would allow the witness to testify and “would expect to admit” the similar transaction evidence. Bell requested a hearing on the similar transaction evidence, and the trial court responded, “No, sir. We’re not going to have a dry run of the trial.” Asked by Bell’s counsel if he “could have some guidance” with regard to the evidence that would be allowed, the trial court stated, “I’m not going to preliminarily make a ruling . . . . I’ll rule on it at the proper time if need be.” But before the witness testified, the trial court “in an abundance of caution” asked the jury to retire, and stated that it would make the findings required under Rule 31.3 B. However, the trial court did not specify the evidence to be presented or the purpose for its admission. During the witness’s testimony, Bell again renewed his objection at several points.
