hearing pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule 31.3 (B), the trial court determined that the evidence of the 1996 burglary was admissible as a similar transaction to show intent and state of mind. Clark does not argue that the evidence of the 1996 burglary did not meet the three criteria set forth above. Instead, he argues that the trial court erred in failing to engage in a separate balancing test to determine expressly whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial impact. “[T]he trial court’s failure to expressly balance the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial impact presents no basis for reversal as a trial court is not required to fully articulate its reasoning in this regard.” Turley v. State, supra at 386 (1). See Owens v. State (<HOLDING>). Decided March 9, 2005. Carl P. Greenberg, for
holding that explicit finding that probative value of similar transactions outweighed their prejudicial impact is not required holding that trial court has discretion to determine whether probative value of photo outweighs prejudicial effect holding that proof of an explicit agreement is not required holding probative value of evidence must be balanced against any prejudicial effect holding that the probative value of evidence that defendant had recently been released from prison offered to show identity opportunity and motive outweighed its prejudicial effect in bank robbery prosecution