ATLANTA, Ga. (WIAT) — Nearly six years after being convicted of murdering his 22-month-old son after leaving him in a hot car for hours, the Supreme Court of Georgia has reversed Justin Ross Harris’ conviction.

Harris, who grew up in Tuscaloosa, was convicted in 2016 of murder in the death of his son, Cooper, who died from a heatstroke after being left in Harris’ car outside his office in Vinings, Georgia for hours on June 18, 2014. During Harris’ trial, details of his extramarital affairs were brought up, with prosecutors inferring that Harris wanted to kill his son in order to continue his affairs without the responsibility of parenthood.

In the end, Harris was convicted of two counts of felony murder, malice murder, first and second-degree cruelty to children and dissemination of harmful material to minors. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

In its 155-page decision, the court voted 6-3 to reverse the jury decision, paving the way for a new trial to be held against Harris.

“We were not at the trial, and based only on the cold record before us, we cannot say for sure what was going through Appellant’s mind when he shut the Tucson’s door on the morning of June 18, 2014, and sealed Cooper’s fate,” the opinion read. “We do not know whether Appellant planned and executed the horrific murder of his 22-month-old son by leaving him to suffer and slowly die in a hot vehicle, or rather if Appellant made a tragic, fatal mistake by forgetting that the child whom by almost all accounts he loved and cherished was in the back seat.”

However, the opinion went on to say that due to improperly introduced evidence during Harris’ trial, such as his affairs, may have had an effect on the final verdict in the case.

“Much of this evidence was at best marginally probative as to the alleged offenses against Cooper, and much of it was extremely and unfairly prejudicial,” the opinion stated. “We cannot say that it is highly probable that the improperly admitted evidence did not affect the guilty verdicts that the jury returned on the counts involving Cooper. If Appellant is to be found guilty of those crimes, it will need to be by a jury not tainted by that sort of evidence. For these reasons, we reverse Appellant’s convictions for the counts related to Cooper.”

One of the judges, Charlie Bethel, argued in his dissent that he felt information on Harris’ extramarital affairs were relevant to the case.

“Because details relating to the cause and manner of Cooper’s death were largely undisputed, intent (informed by motive) was the only real question in the case.91 I believe the State was entitled to introduce, in detail, evidence of the nature, scope, and extent of the truly sinister motive it ascribed to Harris,” Bethel wrote.