unfair prejudice, i.e., the evidence must satisfy the requirements of OCGA § 24-4-403 ; and (3) there is sufficient proof so that the jury could find that the defendant committed the act in question. Taylor v. State , 358 Ga. App. 773, 778 (2) (a), 856 S.E.2d 368 (2021) (citation and punctuation omitted). "A trial court's decision to admit other acts evidence will be overturned only where there is a clear abuse of discretion."

As such, the other acts evidence was probative of Johnson's intent to commit the crimes as charged. See Campbell , 359 Ga. App. at 394-395 (3) (b), 858 S.E.2d 83 (affirming trial court's admission of Rule 404 (b) evidence to prove intent despite dissimilarities between circumstances involved in other act and crime as charged); Taylor v. State , 358 Ga. App. 773, 781 (2) (a) (ii), 856 S.E.2d 368 (2021) (noting that, although there were factual dissimilarities between other acts and charged crimes, both "involved deceit as a means to gain a pecuniary benefit"). Moreover, because the prosecutorial need for this evidence to show Johnson's intent was great, we cannot say that the trial court erred in admitting the 2007 incident under this prong.

"There is no bright-line test with regard to the temporal proximity of other acts evidence; rather, this issue is determined on a case-by-case basis." Taylor v. State, 358 Ga.App. 773, 781 (2) (a) (ii)(856 S.E.2d 368) (2021).

(Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Austin, 356 Ga. App. at 844 (2), 849 S.E.2d 689.See id.; see also Taylor v. State, 358 Ga. App. 773, 781 (2) (a) (ii), 856 S.E.2d 368 (2021).