I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CT - 0 0 9 5 8 - S CT HAR OL D DONEL L HAR GE T T a / k / a J UNIOR
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 14/ 2008 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. M I CH AE L M . T AYL OR COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: P I KE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T : H A R O L D D O N E L L H A R G E T T (P R O S E ) AT T ORNE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L BY : J EFFR EY A
. K LI N G FU SS DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : DEE B ATES NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 05/ 26/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. CH AND LER, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. H ar ol d H ar gettw as i ndi ct ed by a Pi ke C ounty g rand jury forthe s al e of l es s than thi r ty gr a ms of

mar i j ua na a nd the s a l e o f

t e n do s a ge u ni t s o f

h yd r oc od on e i n vi ol a t i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 41- 29- 139. A j ury f ound H ar gettgui l ty on both char ges , and he
w as s ent ence d a s a ha bi tual of f endert o s i x ye ar s f

orthe s al e of

mar i j uana and s i xty ye ar s f

or the s al e of

hydr ocodone. T hes e s ent ence s w er e s ett o run concurr ent l y i n the cus t ody of the M issi ssipp i D ep artm en t o f C o rrecti o n s (M D O C ). T h e C o u rto f A p p ea ls affi rm ed H arg ett ’s

### 2

c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . H a rg e tt v. S ta te , 2 0 1 0 W L 3 4 6 7 1 7 4 , at * 1 (M iss . C t. A p p . S e p t. 7 , 2 0 1 0 ). ¶2
. T hi s Courtg r a nt e d H a r ge t t ’ s p e t i t i on f orc e r t i or ar i t o cons i derw hether admi t t ed t es t i m ony r ef

er enci ng H argett ’ s pr i orbad ac t s s houl d have be en exc l uded. W e l i m i tour di s cus s i on t o thi s i s s ue. W e r ever s e the deci s i ons of the C our tof

A ppeal s and the Pi ke C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt a n d re m a n d fo r a n e w trial, fin d in g tes tim o n y re fe re n c in g p rio r b a d a c ts
s houl d have been e xcl uded, as i tdoes notf i tan exc ept i on underR ul e of E vi dence 404( b) and i s over l y pr ej udi ci al underR ul e 403. FACTS ¶3
. G abe Brumf

i e l d ( Brumf

i e l d) a nd h i s wi f

e Car l a B rum f

i el d ( C ar l a) , conf

i dent i al i nform ants , con t act ed the M i ssi ssi pp i B ureau o f N arcot i cs (M B N ) and arr ang ed to purchase drugs f r om H ar gett . B rum f

i el d as s ur ed M B N A gent s Chad G r i f f i n a nd Shel don J ol l i f

f that he had s poken t o H ar getta nd w as c onf i dentH ar gettw oul d s el l mar i j uana a nd hydr ocodone t o hi m . A f

t ers peaki ng w i th the M B N a gent s and arr angi ng the l ocat i on of the pot ent i al drug sal e, 11 24 W i t t i m er Streeti n M cC om b, M i ssi ssi pp i , B rum fi el d w en t t o H arget t ’s ho use
w e a rin g a n a u d io m o n ito rin g d e v ice . B ru m fie ld m a d e th e p u rc h a se a n d id e n tified H a rg e tt
as the one w ho had s ol d hi m the drugs . T he M B N agent s w er e l ocat ed aboutone bl ock aw ay fro m th e d ru g sa le, a n d a lth o u g h th e y w e re a b le to h e a r th e tra n sa c tio n th ro u g h th e a u d io
r ecor di ng devi ce a t t ache d t o B rum f i el d, they w er e unabl e t o s ee the tr ans act i on. ¶4. B ef

or e tr i al began, H ar gett ’ s couns el argued a m ot i on i n l i m i ne t o excl ude evi dence of H ar gett ’ s pr i orconvi ct i ons , a s the pr ej udi ce w oul d outw ei gh a ny pr obat i ve val ue. The tr i al j udge gr ant ed the mot i on, pr ecl udi ng the St at e f r om i ntr oduci ng evi dence of H ar gett ’ s pr i or

### It is merely co incid ental th at Harg ett’s bro ther an d th e CI h ave th e same last 1 

### nam e. 3 drug convi ct i ons , and i ns truct i ng the St at e t o cons ul tthe benc h bef or e i ntr oduci ng t es t i m ony
r ef er enci ng thes e pr i orconvi ct i ons orbad ac t s . D es pit e the rul i ng on the mot i on i n l i m i ne, th e S ta te c o n tin u a lly e lic ite d in a d m is s ib le te s tim o n y . ¶5. E ar l y i n t he tr i al , af t erbei ng aske d how m any t i m es M B N agent s had bo ug ht drugs at11 24 W i t t i m er Street , A gen tG ri ff i n st at ed, “T his part i cularcase nu m ber i s the second case on H ar ol d. ” A bench confer ence f ol l ow ed thi s t es t i m ony, and the tr i al j udge s us t ai ned a cont i nui ng obj ect i on t o t es t i m ony r ef er enci ng pr i orc onvi ct i ons orbad ac t s . T he tr i al j udge i ns truct ed the St at e, “Jus tdon’tgo ther e. ” B utl at er , w hen as ked aboutpr i ordrug pur chas es fro m 1 1 2 4 W itt im e r S tre e t, A g e n t G riffin sta ted , “I w a s th e c a se a g e n t o n a c a se w ith H a ro ld H a rg e tt’s b ro th e r, Jo e N a th a n B ru m fie ld .” A n o th e r b e n c h c o n fe re n c e w a s h e ld a fte r th is 1 i m pr operus e of

H ar gett ’ s name i n connec t i on w i th hi s br other ’ s pr i orbad ac t s. T he tr i al ju d g e to ld th e S ta te , “ N o n a m e s , n o n a m e s .” ¶6. A f

t ert he St at e w as i ns truct ed not to re fe r t o H a rg e tt in c o n n e c tio n w ith p rio r ba d a c ts
orconvi ct i ons , and af

t ertw o bench c onf

er ence s i ns truct i ng the pr os ecut ort o avoi d r ef er ence to H arg ett ’s prior ba d acts or co n v ict ion s, B rum fi eld w as as k ed ho w he kn e w H a rg e tt. B ru m fi e ld ’s re s p o n s e w a s , “ b e c a u s e I h a v e b o u g h t p ills a n d m a ri ju a n a fr o m h im b e fo re .” B rum f i el d then cl ar i f

i ed he a l s o knew H ar gettbeca us e he w orked w i th hi m . W hen C ar l a w as
as ked how s he knew H ar get t , C ar l a s t at ed thats he l i ved a bl ock f r om H ar gett . She then
u n n ec essa ri ly ad d ed , “the fi rstti m e I m et him w a s w h e n m e an d m y h u sb an d w en t up there

### 4

t o buy drug s f

r om hi m. ” I n t ot a l , f

ou ri mpr op e r , pr e

j ud i c i a l e xc ha ng e s t oo k p l a c e i n tr i al
r ef er enci ng H ar getti n connec t i on w i th a pr i orbad ac torconvi ct i on. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶7. A dm i s s i on orexcl us i on of e vi dence w i l l be vi ew ed on a n abus e- of
- di s cr et i on s t andar d. J o n e s v . Sta te , 904 So. 2d 149, 152 ( M i s s . 2005)
. “A tr i al j udge enj oy s a gr eatdeal of d isc re tio n a s to th e re lev a n c y a n d a d m iss ib ili ty o f e v id e n c e . U n les s th e ju d g e a b u se s th is di s cr et i on s o a s t o be pr ej udi ci al t o the acc us ed, the C our tw i l l notr ever s e thi s rul i ng. ” P r ice
v. Sta te , 898 So. 2d 641, 653 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng W a lk e r v . Sta te , 878 So
. 2d 91 3, 91 5 (M i ss. 2004) ( quot i ng J

e ffe rs o n v. Sta te , 818 S o. 2 d 10 99, 1104 ( M i s s . 2002) ) )
. “W her e err or i nvol ves the adm i ssi on or e xcl us i on of evi dence , thi s C our tw i l l notr ever s e unl es s the err or adver s el y af

f ect s a s ubs t ant i al r i ghtof a party. ” L a dn ierv. S ta te , 8 78 S o. 2 d 9 26 , 93 3 (M i ss. 2004) ( quot i ng W

hitten v. Cox , 799 So. 2d 1, 13 ( M i s s . 2000) ( ci t i ng Floyd v. Cit y of Cr ys tal Springs , 7 4 9 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 , 1 1 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 )))
. DI S CU S S I ON I. P rio r A c ts ¶8. A l though a j udge has br oad di s cr et i on i n admi t t i ng evi dence , evi dence of a cr i m e other th a n th e o n e f

o r w h ic h th e a c c u s e d is b e in g tr ie d g e n e ra lly w ill n o t b e a d m is s ib le
. B al lenger
v. Sta te , 667 So. 2d 1242, 1246 ( M i s s . 1995) ( ci t i ng D u p la n tis v. Sta te , 644 So. 2d 1235, 1246 (M iss . 1 9 9 4 ); L a dn e r v . Sta te , 5 8 4 S o . 2 d 7 4 3 , 7 5 8 (M is s . 1 9 9 1 ), cer t . deni ed , 502 U
. S. 1015, 1 1 2 S . C t. 6 6 3 , 1 1 6 L . E d . 2 d 7 5 4 (M is s . 1 9 9 1 ), R o se v. Sta te , 5 5 6 S o . 2 d 7 2 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 )). E v id e n c e o f p rio r b a d ac ts o r co n v ictio n s w ill b e ad m iss ib le if itm e e ts th e crite ria se t fo rth in
ou r evi den t i ary rules
.

### 5

E vi dence of

othercr i m es , w r ongs oract s i s notadmi s s i bl e t o pr ove the cha r act er of a per s on i n or dert o s how thathe act ed i n conf orm i ty ther ew i th. I tm ay, how ever , be admi s s i bl e f orotherpurpos es s uch as pr oof of m ot i ve, oppor tuni ty, in ten t, pr e p a ra tio n , p lan , k n o w led g e , ide n tity , o r ab se n c e o f m ista k e o r a c c id e n t. M .R .E . 4 0 4 (b ). T e stim o n y w ill b e e x c lu d e d u n d e r R u le 4 0 3 if it i s o v e rly p re ju d icia l. A lth o u g h re lev a n t, ev id e n c e m a y b e e x c lu d e d if its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is s ubs t ant i al l y outw ei ghed by the dange rof unfai rpr ej udi ce, conf

us i on of the i s s ues , orm i s l eadi ng t he j ury or by cons i der at i ons of undue del ay, w as t e of

t i m e, orneedl es s pr es ent at i on of cumul at i ve evi dence
. M .R .E . 4 0 3
. In e ss e n c e , the risk o f u n d u e p re ju d ice m u st n o t su b sta n tially o u tw e ig h its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e . B al

lenger , 667 So. 2d at1257. I n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , the t es t i m ony f i t s no
exce pt i on underR ul e 404( b) and i s over l y pr ej udi ci al underR ul e 403. ¶9. T he C ou rt of A pp eal s s t at es that “ea ch ques t i oned i ns t ance f al l s s quar el y w i thi n the
e x c e p ti o n p ro v id e d in M .R .E . 4 0 4 (b ). H a rg e tt v. S ta te , 2010 W L 3467174, at*2. B ut , the
courtf ai l ed t o expl ai n how any exc ept i on appl i es . A ttr i al , t he S t at e ar gued i tw oul d be of f er i ng evi dence of H ar gett ’ s pri ordrug convi ct i ons t o prove ther e w as no m i s t aken i dent i ty. B utthe def

ens e neve ral l eged mi s t aken i dent i ty. A s the tr i al j udge s t at ed, “The theory of the
c a se c a n ’t b e w e k n o w h e ’s a d ru g d e a ler. . . u n les s h e a lleg e s a m ista k e , th e re is n o re a so n to p ro v e a b s e n c e o f m is ta k e .” ¶ 1 0
. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo u n d th e e licite d tes tim o n y w a s n e c e ss a ry to tell th e c o m p lete sto ry . E v id e n c e o f o th e r c rim e s m a y b e a d m iss ib le to te ll th e c o m p lete sto ry , so th e ju ry w ill
n o t b e c o n fu s e d
. P a lm e r v . Sta te , 93 9 So
. 2d 79 2, 79 5 ( M i s s . 20 06 )
. But , i n thi s c a s e , the
e lic ite d te s tim o n y w a s e x c e s s iv e a n d u n n e c e s s a ry . ¶11. C ar l a f

i r s ts t at ed s he knew H ar gettbeca us e he l i ved dow n the s tr eetf r om he r . She then
unnece s s ar i l y expl ai ned s he had metH ar gettw hi l e buyi ng drugs . W hen A gentG r i f f i n w as

### 6

as ked how m any t i m es he had boughtdrugs atthi s s peci f i c l ocat i on, he unnec es s ar i l y ans w er ed the numberof

t i m es he had boughtdrugs f r om H ar gett . W hen di s cuss i ng a pr i orcas e on H a rg e tt’s b ro th e r, it w a s n o t n e c e ss a ry to re fe r to H a rg e tt as th o u g h h e w a s c o n n e c ted to h is b ro th e r’ s p ri o r d ru g s a le
. ¶1 2. I n B allen ger , thi s Courta l l owed t e s t i m ony t o “compl et e the s t or y, ” bec aus e t he evi dence w as “an i nt egr al partof the s t ory s urr oundi ng E l l i s ’ s death. ” B al lenger , 667 So. 2d at 12 5 7 . T h is C o u rtstat ed , “It sho w s tha t B all en g er h ad the in tent th at E ll is b e k il led . .
. . It
s h o w s B a lle n g e r’ s p la n to c o v e r u p th e ro b b e ry . . . it id e n tif ie s B a lle n g e r a s a p a r ti c ip a n t.” Id
. B utthi s C our tal s o not ed, “Thi s i s notan i ns t ance w her e a j ury hear s aboutanothers i m i l ar
cr i m e w hi ch w oul d l i kel y caus e them t o f i nd gui l tbe caus e s he had done i tbef or e. [ s i c] T he pr ej udi ci al e f

f ectof thi s t es t i m ony di d notoutw ei gh i t s pr obat i ve val ue. ” Id
. H er e, the exa ct type of i m perm i s s i bl e t es t i m ony cont empl at ed by the B al lengerC o u rtw as ad m itted. T h e jury hear d abouta s i m i l arcr i m e, “w hi ch w oul d l i kel y caus e them t o f i nd gui l t . ” Id
. ¶ 1 3
. A s p re v io u sly n o ted , a tria l ju d g e h a s b ro a d d isc re tio n in a d m itt in g tes tim o n y . B u t th is dis cret i on i s subj ectt o som e l i m i t s. V i gor ous p r os e c ut i on d oe s n otr e qu i r e , a nd f a i rne s s d oe s n otp e rmi t , tha tone charged w i th an o ffen se in this area be l oad ed w i th p rej ud i ci al i rr el evan ci es. T he comm endabl e ze al of the D i s tr i ctA t t orney t o convi ctthos e he be l i eves gui l ty m us tneverbe al l ow ed t o bl i nd ei therhi m orthe court s t o the nec es s i ty of a ffo rd in g e v e ry m a n a fa ir trial. S u m ra ll v. S ta te , 2 7 2 S o . 2 d 9 1 7 , 9 1 9 (M iss. 1 9 7 3 ). I I . H arm les s E r r or ¶ 1 4
. A s p re v io u sly n o ted , a “ su b sta n tial rig h t o f a p a rty ” m u st b e a ffe c ted to o rd e r re v e rsa l. T h e p rejud ici al t esti m o n y , co n ti n u all y ad m itted th rou g h o u t tri al, affec ted H arg ett ’s

### 7

c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h tt o a f a i rtr i a l
. Th i s Co u rtwi l l “ d e e m h a rml e s s a n e rr o rwh e r e ‘ th e s a me
r es ul tw oul d ha ve been r eac hed had [ i t ] notexi s t ed. ’ ” P itchf or d v. State, 45 S o. 3d 216, 235 ( M i s s . 2010) ( ci t i ng T

a te v . Sta te , 912 So. 2d 919, 926 ( M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng B urns ide v. S ta te , 882 So. 2d 212, 216 ( M i s s . 2004) )
. T he t es t i m ony that H ar getthad s ol d drugs t o the i nf orm antw oul d nothave ha d the s ame per s uas i ve ef f ectw i t ho ut t es t i m ony thathe had pr evi ous l y s ol d drugs . C ert ai nl y i tcannotbe det erm i ned thata gui l ty ver di ctw oul d have be en reached w i tho ut t est i m on y o f H argett ’s pri or conv i ct i on s. ¶15. I n R o b in so n v . Sta te , thi s C our t r ever s ed the deci s i on of the C our t of A ppeal s , f i ndi ng p ri o r- b a d -a c ts te s tim o n y w a s a d m itte d im p ro p e rl y a t tr ia l. R o b in so n v. S ta te , 35 So. 3d 501, 507 (M i s s . 2010). Q uot i ng the C our tof A ppeal s ’ di s s ent , thi s C our ts t at ed, “bef or e R obi ns on
u ttere d th e first w o rd in h is d e fe n se , the S tate h a d in tro d u c e d th e im p ro p e r p rio r-b a d -a c ts evi dence , and the dam age had be en done. ” Id
. ( ci t i ng R o b in so n v. S ta te , 35 So. 3d 524, 535 ( M i s s C t . A pp. 2009) ( K i ng, C
. J . , di s s ent i ng) )
. T hi s C our tf ur thers t at ed: N o t on ly h a d the d a m a g e b e e n d o n e w ith re sp e c t to th e ju ry b e in g p re se n ted w ith in a d m iss ib le, p reju d icia l ev id e n c e , b u t als o , R o b in so n ’s c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to t es t i f y ( orr ef

r ai n ther efr om ) ha d been c om pr om i s ed .
. . bas ed upon the admi s s i on of

thi s evi dence , R obi ns on w as present ed w i th the opt i ons of ei ther t aki ng the w i tnes s s t and i n an at t em ptt o m i t i gat e the pr ej udi ce c aus ed, or for egoi ng thatr i ghtand perm i t t i ng the j ury’ s cons i der at i on of s uch evi dence w i thoutr es pons e. R obinson , 35 So. 3d at507. ¶16. I n thi s cas e, t he j ury hear d cont i nual re f er ence s t o H ar gett ’ s pri orconvi ct i ons bef or e he h a d a n y o p p o rtu n ity to p re se n t a d e fe n s e . T h e im p ro p e rly a d m itt e d e v id e n c e is o v e rly pr ej udi ci al and meet s no exce pt i on unde rRul e 404( b) , w hi ch r es ul t s i n r ever s i bl e err or . For

### 8

th e se re a so n s, w e re v e rse th e d e c isio n s o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a n d th e P ik e C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt, an d re m a n d fo r a n e w trial. ¶ 1 7 . REVERSED AND REM AND ED . W ALLER, C. J . , CARL S ON AND DI CKI NS ON, P . J J . , RANDOL P H, LA M AR, KI TC HENS AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR. KI NG, J . , NOT P ART I CI P AT I NG
.