Glass v. State

A Fulton County jury found Monica Glass guilty of aggravated assault, which offense arose when Glass got into an altercation with another woman in a government housing project and cut her several times in the face with a razor, resulting in hospitalization and numerous stitches. Without challenging the sufficiency of the evidence against her, Glass claims solely that the trial court erred in permitting the State to introduce a similar transaction wherein Glass got into an altercation with another woman in a government housing project and hit her several times in the head with a crowbar, resulting in hospitalization and numerous stitches.1 Glass contends that the similar transaction evidence was “unnecessary to prove the elements of the offense on trial, and it should have been excluded as being harmfully prejudicial.” We disagree.

a While Glass objected to the introduction of this evidence during the pretrial hearing conducted pursuant to USCR 31.3 B, she failed to object to the testimony of the witness at trial and therefore has failed to preserve her objection for review. “The rule requiring a trial objection on similar transaction evidence is firm in Georgia jurisprudence, and we are bound to follow it.”2