I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 2 - KA- 0 0 5 6 6 - S CT J OE EAR L CO LE a/

k / a J OE CO LE
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 23/ 2012 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . W IL L IA M E . C H A P M A N , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: RANKI N COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: BOBBY T. VAN CE AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : SCOTT STUA RT D I STR I CT A TTO RN EY : M I CH A EL G U EST 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 : A FFIRM E D - 10/ 17/ 2013 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E D I C K I N SO N , P . J. , K I T C H E N S A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ. DI CK I NSON, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . Fol l ow i ng hi s convi ct i ons forone countof s e xu a l ba t t e ry a nd thr e e c ou nt s of gr at i f i cat i on of

l us t , J oe Ear l C ol e ar gues on appea l thatthe tr i al courterr oneous l y admi t t ed h e a rsa y a n d e v id e n c e o f a lleg e d p rio r u n in d icte d a c ts o f s e x u a l m isc o n d u c t w ith tw o o f h is mi n o rg r a n d d a u g h t e r s . F i n d i n g n o e rr o r , we a f f i r m. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2 . J oe Ear l C ol e’ s gr andchi l dr en r egul ar l y vi s i t ed h i s h om e i n R anki n C ount y. G r anddaught er s H . M . , M . M . , K . H . , M . H . , and E. C . al l al l eged thatthei rgr andf athert ouched them i nappr opr i at el y. T he R anki n C ounty gr and j ury i ndi ct ed C ol e f orone countof

s exualGo re v . S tat e , 3 7 S o. 3d

11 78 (Mi ss. 20 10 ). 1 

### 2 batt ery, i nvol vi ng the di gi t al penetr at i on of H . M . , and t hr ee count s of gr at i f i cat i on of l us tf

or t ouchi ng the vagi nas of H . M . , K . H . , and E. C . T he St at e di d nots eek a n i ndi ctm entf orany c o n d u c ti n v o l v i n g M . M . a n d M . H. ¶3 . P rio r to trial, C o le’s co u n sel f il ed a m o ti o n i n l im ine to e x c lu d e tap e d fo re n sic i nt ervi ew s of

the al l eged vi ct i m s as i nadmi s s i bl e hear say and – be caus e they cont ai ned
r ef er ences to unchar ged al l egat i ons i nvol vi ng a di f f er entvi ct i m – as i m pr operchar act er evi dence . ¶4. O n the day of

t r i al , the j udge hel d a hea r i ng on C ol e’ s m ot i on and det erm i ned that the t ender
- year s exce pt i on t o t he rul e agai ns thear s ay w oul d over come C ol e’ s hear s ay obj ect i on to the tape d interview s. C o le’s co u n sel also a rgu ed that ad m issi o n o f ev iden ce o f C o le’s pr i or , uni ndi ct ed ac t s of al l eged s exual m i s conductw oul d vi ol at e R ule 404( b) of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of Evi dence , w hi ch pr ohi bi t s t he use of othercr i m es or w r ongf ul conduct

– o fte n re fe rre d to a s “ p rio r b a d a c ts” –to p ro v e the d e fe n d a n t’s c h a ra c ter , a n d to sh o w th a t,
w h e n th e d e fe n d a n t co m m itt e d th e a c ts fo r w h ich h e w a s in d ic ted , h e w a s a c tin g in conf or m i ty w i th thatchar act er . U s i ng the sam e ar gum ent , C ol e al s o obj ect ed t o any l i ve t es t i m ony f

r om al l eged vi ct i m M . M . , f orw hom no i ndi ctm entw as f i l ed. ¶ 5 . In re sp o n se , th e S ta te a rg u e d th a t e v id e n c e o f C o le’ s p rio r b a d a c ts w a s a d m iss ib le th ro u g h M iss iss ip p i R u les o f E v id e n c e 4 0 4 (b ) a n d 4 0 3 , an d u n d e r th is C o u rt’s o p in io n in G o re v. S ta te . 1 ¶6 . A t th e c o n c lu sio n o f th e h e aring , th e tr ial j u d g e fou n d th a t th e tap e d fo re n sic in ter v iew s fe ll w ith in th e ten d e r-y e a rs h e a rsa y e x c e p tio n , b u t w ith h e ld ru lin g o n th e R u le

### 3

404( b) obj ect i on. T hen, be f or e openi ng s t at ement s , the tr i al j udge f ound thatthe l i ve te s tim o n y o f H .M ., M .M ., K .H ., E .C , a n d A m a n d a H a lle r – m o th e r o f K .H . a n d M .H . – r egar di ng uni ndi ct ed ac t s w as admi s s i bl e f oral l of the purpos es a r gued by the St at e, and that the evi dence w as nots ubs t ant i al l y m or e pr ej udi ci al than pr obat i ve. ¶7. A t tr i al , al l of C ol e’ s gr anddaught er s exce pt M . H . t es t i f i ed, al l egi ng that m os t of the to u c h in g o c c u rre d w h e n p lay in g g a m e s, su c h a s “ fin d K a y K a y ’s h e a d ” a n d “ h o rse s” w ith thei rgr andf

ather . W hen pl ayi ng “f i nd K ay K ay’ s head, ” the chi l dr en w ou l d get underthe
cover s on the bed, turn outthe l i ght s , and then try t o f i nd K . H . ’ s head. K . H . , w ho w as t en y e a r s o l d a tth e t i me o f

th e tr i a l , t e s t i f

i e d th a tCo l e h a d t o u c h e d h e r“ c o o k i e , ” a n o th e rn a me fo r h e r v a g in a , o n m o re th a n o n e o c c a sio n . S h e sta ted th a t, w h ile p lay in g th is g a m e , C o le tou ch ed h er u n d er h er p an ts bu t on top o f he r un d erw ea r. ¶8. T o pl ay “hor s es , ” they w oul d pr et end thatthe cl osetw as a st able and o ne of the gr andchi l dr en w as the hay i n the s t abl e f orgr andpa J oe ( the hor s e) t o e at . H . M . t es t i f i ed that
w hi l e they w er e i n the cl os etpl ayi ng thi s game, Col e had i ns ert ed hi s f i ngeri nt o hervagi na. She t es t i f

i ed C ol e had t ouched he rs ever al t i m es ei theron t op of orunderhercl othes . She al s o t es t i f

i ed thatC ol e t ouched herw hi l e she w as l yi ng i n a bed w i th s ever al otherpeopl e, i ncl udi ng hergr andmot her . She t es t i f i ed thatC ol e had t ouched K . H . atl eas tf i ve t i m es that sh e c o u ld rem em b er. ¶9 . E .C . tes tifi ed that C o le h ad tou ch e d h er m o re than o n ce , inclu d ing instan ce s w h ile pl ayi ng “f

i nd K ay K ay’ s head” and aga i n w hen s i t t i ng on the couch w at chi ng T V . E . C . w as e lev e n y e a rs o ld a t th e tim e o f th e trial.Hag gerty v. Foster , 8 38 So . 2 d 9 48 , 9 58 (Mi ss. 20 02 ). 2 

### 4 ¶ 1 0 . M .M ., a g e n in e a t th e tim e o f tr ia l, tes tified th a t C o le h a d to u c h e d h e r p riv a te p a rts
w hil e they w ere s i t t i ng on the co uch w at ching t el evis i on w i th h er gr and m other . C o l e al so w oul d c ome i nt o M . M . ’ s b e dr oo m w hi l e s he was s l e e pi ng a nd t ou c h he r , s he s a i d. W hen C ol e t ouched he r , i tw as al w ays overhercl othes , s he t es t i f i ed. S he al s o s t at ed that , w hen th e y w o u ld p lay “ fin d K a y K a y ’s h e a d ,” C o le w o u ld to u c h K .H . the m o st. ¶1 1 . M . H . , w h o w a s th re e y e a rs o ld a t th e tim e , d id n o t t esti fy a t tri al. H er m o ther, A m a n d a , tes tified th a t sh e h a d in fo rm e d M .H . ab o u t “b a d ” a n d “ g o o d ” to u c h e s w h ile changi ng herdi aper , atw hi ch poi ntM . H . t ol d herthatG r andpa J oe had t ouched he rther e. T he St at e i ntr oduced i nt o e vi dence t aped f or ens i c i nt ervi ew s of

a l l f i ve gr anddaught er s . T he in ter v iew e rs te stifie d a s w e ll. ¶12 . T h e tri al j ud ge i nstruct ed the j ury that any act s i nv olvi n g M . M . an d M . H . w ere uni ndi ct ed ac t s , and w er e admi s s i bl e onl y t o s how “mot i ve, oppor tuni ty, i nt ent , pr epar at i on, pl an, know l edge, i dent i ty orabs ence of m i s t ake oracc i dent . ” A j ury f ound C ole guil ty of al l count s . C ol e r ece i ved s ent ence s of t w enty year s f

ors exual batt ery and f

i f t een ye ar s f

or eac h c ountof

gr at i f i cat i on of

l us t , t o run concurr ent l y. C ol e appe al ed, ar gui ng thatthe tr i al ju d g e c o m m itte d re v e rs ib le e rr o r b y a llo w in g e v id e n c e o f t h e a c ts in v o lv in g M .M . a n d M .H ., f orw hi ch he w as noti ndi ct ed. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶13. W e m us t empl oy tw o s t andar ds of r evi ew w hi l e r evi ew i ng thi s cas e. I n det erm i ni ng w hethera tr i al j udge made an err oneous rul i ng on the admi s s i on ors uppr es s i on of evi dence , w e empl oy an abus e- of
- di s cr et i on s t andar d. B ut even w her e w e f i nd err or , w e do not 2Id. (quoting In re E sta te o f Mask , 7 03 So . 2 d 8 52 , 8 59 (Mi ss. 19 97 )). 3 Green v. St

ate , 8 9 S o. 3d

54 3, 54 9 (M iss . 2 01 2) ( cit ati on s o mitt ed). 4 Mis s. R. Ev id. 80 3(2 5). 5 Mis s. R. Ev id. 40 4(b ). 6 

### 5 r ever s e unl es s “the err oradver s el y af f ect s a s ubs t ant i al ri ghtof the party. ” S t at ed another 3
w ay, tr i al j udges enj oy “a gr eatdeal of di s cr et i on as t o the r el evancy a nd admi s s i bi l i ty of evi dence . U nl es s the j udge abus es hi s di s cr et i on s o as t o be pr ej udi ci al t o the ac cus ed, the C o u rtw ill n o t r e v e rs e [th e ] ru lin g .” 4 A N A L Y S IS ¶1 4 . A t trial, the S tate o ffe re d e v id e n c e , th rou g h l ive testi m o n y a n d tap e d fo re n sic i nt ervi ew s , of

i ns t ance s of

Col e’ s s exual m i s conducti nvol vi ng di f f er entvi ct i m s - - M . M . and M . H . - - than thos e al l eged i n t he i ndi ctm ent . C ol e’ s att orney l odged tw o obj ect i ons t o the evi dence , ar gui ng f

i r s tthatthe t aped f

or ens i c i nt ervi ew s w er e hea r s ay, and al s o thatthe evi dence of

pr i orbad ac t s vi ol at ed R ul e 404( b) , as i nappr opr i at e us e of char act erevi dence . ¶15 . T h e tri al j u d g e c o n d u cted an ex t ensi ve and tho rough anal ysi s of the ch il d ren ’s conduct , demeanor , and l ack of m ot i ve t o l i e i n the t aped i nt ervi ew s , and he f ound the evi dence admi s s i bl e, hol di ng thatthe t ender
- year s hear s ay exc ept i on appl i ed, and thatthe 5 pr i orbad ac t s w ere adm i s s i bl e t o s how m ot i ve, oppor tuni ty, i nt ent , pr epar at i on, pl an, know l edge, i dent i ty, and abs ence of m i s t ake oracc i dent . H e al s o f ound thatthe evi dence 6
w as nots ubs t ant i al l y m or e pr ej udi ci al than pr obat i ve as re qui r ed underM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 403.Mis s. R. Ev id. 60 8(b ). 7 

### 6 ¶1 6. O n app e a l , Col e a r gu e s tha tthe tr i a l c ou r te rr e d by a dmi t t i ng t hi s evi dence under R ul es 404(b) and 4 03 , becaus e no R ul e 404( b) purpos e w as r el evantt o an el ementof the of f ens es c ha r ge d, a nd be c a us e the e vi de nc e w a s s ub s t a nt i a l l y mor e pr e j ud i c i a l tha n pr obat i ve. H e al s o ar gues thatR ul es 608 and 609 r equi r e al l pr i or - bad- act s evi dence t o be pri or conv i ct i on s. I. W h e th e r Miss iss ip

p i R u les o

f E v ide n c e 6 0 8 a n d

6 0 9 re q u ire a ll p rio r-b a d-a c ts evi den ce t o b e pri or con vi ct i on s. ¶17. A s a pr el i m i nary m at t er, w e rej ectC ol e’ s ar gum entthatR ul es 608 and 609 of the M issi ssipp i R u les of E v iden ce l im itall p ri o r-ba d -ac ts ev iden ce to p ri o r co n v ict ion s. C o le’s
c o n ten tio n s o n th is iss u e a re w h o lly w ith o u t m e rit, b e c a u se R u les 6 0 8 a n d 6 0 9 , b y th e ir t erm s, app l y o nly t o ev i den ce used t o im peach a w i tness. ¶ 1 8 . R u le 6 0 8 sta tes in re lev a n t p a rt: Speci f i c i ns t ance s of

the conduc tof

a w i tnes s , fort he purpos e of at t acki ng or s uppor t i ng the w i tnes s ’ s char act erf ortruthf ul nes s , otherthan convi ct i on of cr i m e as pr ovi ded i n R ul e 609, m ay notbe pr oved by extr i ns i c evi dence . T hey m ay, how ever , i n the dis cret i on of the court , i f

pr obat i ve of

truthf ul nes s or untruthf ul nes s , be i nqui r ed i nt o on cr oss- exam i nat i on of the w i tnes s ( 1) conce rni ng the w i tnes s ’ s char act erf ortruthf ul nes s oruntrut hful nes s , or( 2) con cerni ng the ch aract er f or truthful ness or u ntruthf ulness o f another w i tness as t o w hi ch cha r act erthe w i tnes s bei ng cr os s - exami ned has t es t i f i ed. 7 R u le 6 0 9 p ro v id e s in its re lev a n t p a rt: Forthe purpos e of

att acki ng the cha r act erf ortruthf ul nes s of a w i tnes s , ( 1) evi dence that( A ) a nonparty w i tnes s has been c onvi ct ed of a cr i m e s hal l be admi t t ed s ubj ectt o R ule 403 , i f the cr i m e w as puni s habl e by dea th or i m pr i s onm enti n exce s s of one ye arunderthe l aw unde rw hi ch the w i tnes s w as convi ct ed, and ( B ) a party has been c onvi ct ed of s uch a cr i m e s hal l be admi t t ed i f the courtd et erm i nes thatthe pr obat i ve val ue of admi t t i ng thi s evi dence ou tw ei gh s i t s prej ud i ci al eff ectt o the party; and (2) evi den ce that any w i tnessMis s. R. Ev id. 60 9(a). 8 Mis s. R. Ev id. 60 8(b ). 9 Mis s. R. Evid. 60 9(a). 10 Mis s. R. Evid. 40 4(a). 11 

### 7 has been c onvi ct ed of

a cr i m e s hal l be admi t t ed i f i ti nvol ved di s hones ty or fa lse sta tem e n t, reg a rd les s o f p u n ish m e n t. 8 ¶19 . R ul e 608 addr es s es the admi s s i bi l i ty of i m peac hm entevi den ce regardi ng the charac t er and conductof

a w i tnes s , and R ul e 609 pert ai ns t o the us e of a w i tnes s ’ s pr i orconvi ct i ons 9 fo r im p e a c h m e n t p u rp o se s. T h e p ro se c u tio n d id n o t of fe r ev id e n c e o f C o le’ s p rio r b a d a c ts 10 to attack the c red ibil ity o f a w itn ess. C o le did n o t t esti fy, so R u les 6 0 8 an d 6 0 9 w ere i nappl i cabl e t o any evi dence of hi s pr i orbad ac t s . W e f i nd thatR ul es 608 and 609 do not
a p p ly to th e e v id e n c e in q u e stio n a n d th a t th is a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit. II. W h e th e r th e tria l co u rt p ro p e rly a dm itte d

th e p rio r-b a d-a c ts e v ide n c e p u rs u a n t to Mis s is s i ppiR ul es of

E vi dence 404(

b) and 403. ¶20. R ul es 404( b) and 403 govern the admi s s i bi l i ty of i ns t ance s of

a def endant ’ s pr i or bad
co n d u ct. W ith on ly th ree ex ce p ti o n s no t ap p li ca b le i n th is ca se, a pe rson ’s prior b ad ac ts are notadmi s s i bl e “f

orthe purpos e of

pr ovi ng t hat he act ed i n conf orm i ty ther ew i th on a part i cul aroccas i on. ” St at ed anotherw ay, the pr os ecut ori n thi s cas e w as pr ohi bi t ed f r om 11
us i ng C ol e’ s pr i orbad ac t s t o s ugges tt o the j ury thatC ol e had a bad cha ract er orbad char act ertr ai t ; and thath e w as a ct i ng i n conf orm i ty w i th thatbad cha r act erw hen he
comm i t t ed the ac t s f

orw hi ch he w as on tr i al . St at ed st i l l anotherw ay, t he pr os ecut i on m ay n o t in tro d u c e p rio r b a d a c ts fo r th e p u rp o se o f sh o w in g tha t th e d e fe n d a n t h a s a p ro p e n sityId. ; see also Miss. R. Evid. 404(b) ( “E vi de nc e of other c rimes, wrongs, or acts is not 12 admiss ibl e toprove the ch ara cter of a p ers on

in o rder tosh owthat heact ed in c on fo rmity therew ith .” ). Dero uen v

. S tat e , 994 So. 2d 748, 756 (Mi ss. 2008) (ci ting Lambert v . S tat e , 724 So. 2d 13 392, 394 (Miss. 1998) (citi ng Mit ch ell v. St ate , 5 39 So . 2 d 1 36 6, 13 72 (Mi ss. 19 89 ))) . Dero uen , 994 So. 2d at 756. 14 Mit ch ell v. St ate , 1 10 So . 3 d 7 32 , 7 34 (Mi ss. 20 13 ). 15 

### 8 to e n g a g e in su c h c o n d u c t, th a t is, b e c a u se h e h a d d o n e th in g s lik e th is b e fo re , h e p ro b a b ly di d i tthi s t i m e. 12 ¶21. C ol e ar gues thathi s al l eged pr i orbad ac t s w er e i nadmi s s i bl e bec aus e “no Rul e 404( b) purpos e w as r el evantt o an el ementof the of f ens es char ged. ” W e di s agr ee. ¶2 2. Pr i or t o D e ro u e n v . S ta te , thi s Courtc on s i de r e d e vi de nc e of pr i ora c t s of s exual
m i scond uct i nv olvi ng dif fer ent vi ct i m s t o b e so p rej ud i ci al that w e held i tw as per s e i nadmi s s i bl e, even f

orotherpurpos es such as t ho se l i s t ed i n M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 404( b) . T hen, i n D er ouen , w e rej ect ed the no ti o n tha t such ev i den ce w as per s e

13 i nadmi s s abl e, f

i ndi ng i ns t ead thati tc oul d be a dm i t t ed f ora l t ernat i ve purpos es , s o l ong as the
ev i de nc e was f

i l t e r e d thr ou gh Rul e 4 03 , a nd was a c c ompa ni e d by a n a pp r op r i a t e l i m i t i ng in stru c tio n . W e n o w m u st a n a ly z e w h e th e r th e trial ju d g e c o m m itte d m a n ife st e rro r in

14 fi nd i ng that the S t at e had a non charact er pu rpose f or the evidence of C ole’ s pri or bad acts . ¶23. T he tr i al j udge i ns truct ed the j ury that i t coul d cons i der C ol e’ s pr i or bad act s t o s how – among ot herthi ngs – t he abs ence of mi s t ake oracc i dent . W her e a de f endantdoes notput
m i s t ake or accident a ti s s ue – orw her e a r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d notconcl ude f r om the evi dence thatthe def

endant ’ s c onductw as a n a cci dentormi s t ake – pr i or - bad- act s evi dence
m ay notbe admi t t ed f

orthatpurpos e. 15

### 9

¶24. D ur i ng the hear i ng on the admi s s i bi l i ty of the evi dence , the St at e ar gued – bas ed on G ore – th a t th e e v id e n c e o f C o le’ s p rio r u n in d icte d a c ts o f s e x u a l m isc o n d u c t w a s a d m iss ib le “f orthe purpos es of

pr oof of m ot i ve, as they s ay i n G ore , t o gr at i f y hi s l us t , 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 a b se n c e o f m ista k e o r ac c id e n t.” T h e S tate
a lso p o in ted o u t th a t, from w h at w e u n d erstan d , the d efe n d an t i s fram ing an ac cide n tal tou ch o r, okay, ora mi s t ake, he mi s t akenl y t ouched. . . . I t ’ s i n the s t at ementf r om [ KH] . S h e s a y s s h e s l a p p e d th e h a n d a wa y , a n d h e s a i d , I d i d n ' tk n o w I t ouched you. C ol e’ s c ouns el made no r es pons e t o thi s a s s ert i on. W e ther ef or e cannots ay that the tr i al j udge abus ed hi s di s cr et i on i n f i ndi ng thatthe evi dence of C ol e’ s pr i orbad act s w as admi s s i bl e f

orthe purpos e of

s how i ng abs ence of

acc i dentorm i s t ake. ¶25 . A s forthe other purpo ses ar gu ed by the S t at e, w e fi nd no thing i n the r ecord t o sugg est that C ole’ s m oti ve, op po rtun i ty, i ntent , preparat i on , plan, or kno w l edg e w ere atis sue. T hese poi nt s neverw er e r ai s ed orar gued by e i thers i de. B utw her e the St at e ar gues any al t ernat i ve purpos e f

orthe ev i dence thatdoes notvi ol at e R ul e 404( b) , the f actthatotheral t ernat i ve purpos es ar e ar gued i s i rr el evant , beca us e R ul e 404( b) r equi r es onl y thatthe evi dence notbe of f er ed f orthe purpos e of

s how i ng thatthe def

endantact ed i n conf

orm i t y w i th hi s bad ch ara cter. ¶2 6 . B ec au se the S tat e arti cu lat ed a legiti m ate, alt ern ati v e ev iden ti ary p u rpo se for C o le’s pr i orbad ac t s , w e f

i nd the tr i al j udge compl i ed w i th thi s C our t ’ s r equi r ement s underDero uen , 994 So. 2d at 756. 16 

### 10 D er ouen . W e al s o f

i nd t hat t he tr i al j udge gave pr operi ns truct i ons on the purpos e f or 16
w hi ch the j ury coul d notcons i derthe evi dence . ¶27. W e t ake thi s oppor tuni ty t o not e that i t w ou l d be a r ar e cas e i n w hi ch every one of R u le 4 0 4 ' s e x a m p les o f a ltern a tiv e p u rp o se s a p p lied . W e a d m o n ish p ro s e c u to rs to re fra in f r om of f er i ng pr i or - bad- act s evi dence bas ed on a r ot e r eci t at i on , s uch as : “the St at e i s not o ffe rin g th e p rio r b a d a c ts a s c h a ra c terev id e n c e to sh o w the d e fe n d a n t ac ted in c o n fo rm ity
w ith h is c h a ra c ter , b u t th e S tate is atte m p tin g to sh o w m o tiv e , o p p o rtu n ity , in ten t, pre par at i on, pl an, know l edge, i dent i ty, orabs ence of m i s t ake oracc i dent . ” I ns t ead, pr os ecut or s s houl d cl ear l y pr es entthe al t ernat i ve purpos e f ort he evi dence , and tr i al j udges sh o u ld state th e p u rpo se fo r w h ich th e e v iden ce is be ing a d m itted, a n d the n p rov ide the ju ry a n a p p ro p ria te lim iti n g in stru c tio n . O n ly th e n c a n w e p ro v id e a fa ir re v iew o n a p p e a l. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 2 8 . W e c a n n o t sa y th a t th e trial ju d g e e rre d b y a d m itt in g ev id e n c e o f C o le’ s p rio r b a d a c ts fo r th e p u rp o se o f d e m o n stra tin g th e a b se n c e o f a c c id e n t o r m ista k e . B e c a u se th e iss u e s C o le pr es ent s on appea l ar e w i thoutm er i t , w e af f i r m hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence . ¶ 2 9 . CO UN T I : C ON V I C T I ON O F S E XU AL B AT T E RY AN D S E NT E NC E OF TW EN TY ( 2 0 ) YE ARS I N T HE CUS TODY OF T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M EN T OF CO RR E CT I ON S , AF F I RMED . CO UN T S I I , I I I , AN D I V: CO NV I CT I ON OF GR AT I F I CA T I ON OF L US T A ND S E NT E NC E OF F I F T E E N ( 1 5 ) Y E AR S , EA CH CO UN T , I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RRECTI ON S , AFF I RM ED. S ENTENCES I N CO UNTS I I , I I I , AND I V SHALL RU N CO NC UR RE NT L Y W I T H E AC H O T HE R B UT CO NS E CU T I VE L Y T O T HE SE N T E N C E I M P O SE D I N C O U N T I . T H E EX E C U T I O N O F T H E L A ST T E N ( 10) Y E A R S O F T H E C O N C U R R E N T S E N T E N C E S IN C O U N T S II, III , A N D IV ISDero uen v . S tat e , 9 94 So . 2 d 7 48 (Mi ss. 20 08 ); Go re v . S tat e , 3 7 S o. 3d

117 8 (Mi ss. 20 10 ); 17 Green v. St

ate , 8 9 S o. 3d

54 3 (M iss . 2 01 2); You ng v. St ate , 1 06 So. 3d 77 5 (Mi ss. 20 12 ); O’Connor v. St ate , 1 20 So . 3 d 3 90 (Mi ss. June20 , 2 01 3). Go re , 37 S o. 3 d 1 17 8; Green , 8 9 S o. 3d 54 3; Young , 1 06 So . 3 d 7 75 ; O’Connor , 2 01 3 WL 18 3067546. Dero uen , 994 So. 2d at 753 (det ailing the overwhelming weight of authority a llowing 19 evidence of priorsexual acts against chi ldren to be a dmissible) (cit ing Mit ch ell v. St ate , 539 So. 2d 1366, 1374-75 (Miss. 1989) ( Hawkins, P.J., dissenti ng), overruled by Dero uen , 99 4 S o. 2d 74 8. ). 

### 11 S TAYED AN D T H AT PORTI ON OF THE SE NTENCES I S S USP ENDED, W I TH TH E A PPE LL A N T T O BE R EL EA SED , W I TH C O N D I TIO N S. KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR. RAN DO LPH, P. J . , CO NC URS I N PART AND I N RESULT W I TH SEP ARA TE W R I T T E N O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y W A L L E R , C . J. , L A M A R A N D P I E R C E , JJ. R A N D O L P H , P R E S ID IN G JU S T IC E , C O N C U R R IN G IN P A R T A N D IN RES ULT: ¶ 3 0 . T h e S tate a rg u e d th a t C o le’ s p rio r se x u a l m isc o n d u c t a g a in st m in o rs w a s a d m iss ib le “f orthe purpos es of pr oof of m ot i ve, as they s ay i n G ore , t o gr at i f y hi s l us t , oppor tuni ty, i nt ent , pr epar at i on, pl an, know l edge, i dent i ty orabs ence of m i s t ake oracci dent . ” T he tr i al
c o u rtth e n a d m itte d th e e v id e n c e “ b e c a u s e o f a ll th e re a s o n s a rg u e d b y [th e S ta te ] . . . .” ¶31. I concuri n re s ul t , observi ng t hatt he tr i al cour tprope r l y adm i t t ed evi dence of the pr i or bad ac t s , f

orthe r eas ons ar gued by the St at e. T hi s com por t s w i th R ul e 404( b) and a s er i es of cas es i n w hi ch var i ous tr i al cour t s w er e af f i r m ed on t he sa m e ornear l y i dent i cal i s s ue. 17 ¶32. Fourdeci s i ons ( thr ee i n the l as tyearal one) s i nce D er ouen s uppor t the rul i ng of the 18 tr i al courti n the ca s e s ub j udi ce . I n D erouen , rec o g n izi n g that o u r trad it ion al ev iden ti ary ru les w e re n o t w o rk a b le in se x -c rim e s-a g a in st-m in o rs- c a se s, M iss iss ip p i jo in e d th e m a jo rity of the nat i on and r ect i f i ed a f l aw ed precedentof

pr ohi bi t i ng R ul e 404( b) evi dence , by 19Go re , 37 So . 3 d at 11 91 ; Green , 8 9 S o. 3d at 5 50 ; Young , 1 06 So . 3 d at 77 9; O’Connor , 20 120 So. 3d at 397-98. 

### 12 h o lding that ev iden ce o f a p ri o r sex u al a ct m ay b e a d m itted in to ev iden ce u n d er R u le 40 4 (b). D er ouen , 994 So. 2d at756 ( M i s s . 2008) . T w o year s l at eri n G ore , thi s C our tr eaf f i r m ed D er ouen a n d c la ri fi e d R u le 4 0 4 (b ) a p p lic a tio n . G ore , 37 So. 3d at1187. T hi s C our ti n G ore hel d thatevi dence of

pr i ors exual m i s conductagai ns tm i nor s i s admi s s i bl e underthe mot i ve p u rpo se o f R u le 40 4 (b) if th e m isco n d u ct de m o n str ates a sim il ar m o du s o p e r a n d i. I n G r een , th is C o u rt fu rth e r h e ld th a t, w h e re the p rio r se x u a l ac ts b e a r “ o v e rw h e lm in g sim ilaritie s” to th e d ev iant co n d u ct at i ssu e, th ey are “u n d en iably ” a d m issi b le un d er R u le 40 4 (b) a s b o th
m ot i ve and a s evidenc e of a “c om m on pl an, s cheme, ors ys t em. ” G r een , 89 So. 3d at550
n .1 9 (c itatio n o m itt e d ). T h is C o u rt re c e n tly re a ffirm e d e a c h o f th e se p rin c ip les in b o th Y oung and O ’ Connor . Y oung , 1 0 6 S o . 3 d a t 7 8 0 ; O ’ Connor , 120 So. 3d at396- 98. ¶33. I n short , “overw hel m i ng s i m i l ar i t i es ” betw een the pr i ors exual act s and the l i cent i ous s exual mi s conductc har ged “undeni abl y br i ng the t es t i m ony of [ the] othervi ct i m s w i thi n the pur vi ew of

a dm i s s i bi l i ty underR ul e 404( b) . ” G r een , 8 9 S o. 3 d at5 50 . P ri or sexual act s al so ar e admi s s i bl e w hen the conduc ti s pr obat i ve of “mot i ve. ” “M ot i ve” i s “an i m pul s e, as an

20 emot i on, de s i r e, orps ychol ogi cal need, act i ng as i nci t ementt o act i on. ” G r een , 89 So. 3d at 5 5 0 n .1 9 (c itatio n o m itt e d ). A n y e v id e n c e th a t ten d s to s h o w a “ ‘se e m in g ly u n c o n tro llab le d e sire to p a rta k e in p e d o p h ili c se x u a l ac tiv itie s w ith y o u n g a n d d e v e lo p in g ju v e n iles ,’ is pr obat i ve r egar di ng m ot i ve . ” Y oung , 106 So. 3d at779 ( quot i ng G r een , 89 So. 3d at550- 51
n .1 9 ) ( e m p h a s is o ri g in a l) .Later in the tr ial, the St ate, once agai n, cited Go re in argum ent th at theunindict ed wi tne ss’ s 21 testimony was admissible “for the purpose of proof of motive, as they say in Go re , togratif y h is lus t

. . . . ” 

### 13 ¶34. T he j ury i s ent i t l ed t o hearevi dence of pr i ordevi antsexua l act s agai ns tm i nor chi l dr en t o co rr ob orat e w hetherm oti ve ex i st s i f the “ d efe nd ant’ s m eans of accom pli shi ng these act i vi t i es on pas tocca s i ons bears ubs t ant i al r es embl ance t o eac h otherand w i th the pr es ent of f ens e. ” Y oung , 106 So. 3d at780 ( quot i ng G ore , 37 So. 3d at1186). Fi nal l y, pr i ors exual act s w hi ch demonstr at e “a com m on plan , s c h e me , o r s ys t em . . . u tiliz e d . . . re p e a ted ly to perpetr at e s eparat e butvery s i m i l arcr i m es , ” s uch thatthe def endant“had a s

ys t em that in v o lv e d ta k in g a d v a n ta g e o f t h e [f a m ilia l] re la tio n s h ip ” a re a d m is s ib le . Y oung , 106 So. 3d at780 ( quot i ng G r een , 89 So. 3d a t550 n. 19) ( emphasi s a dded) . T hus , I w oul d f i nd eac h of th e se w e re re lev a n t to th e c a se to d a y , n o t ju st la c k o f m ista k e o r a c c id e n t. ¶35. I n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , the tria l ju d g e a d m itt e d th e e v id e n c e o f C o le’ s p rio r se x u a l a c ts i n r es pons e t o the St at e’ s ar gum entthati tw as admi s s i bl e f or“pr oper404(b) m ot i ves that ten d to d e m o n stra te th e p e d o p h ili c se x u a l ac tiv iti e s w ith y o u n g a n d d e v e lo p in g fe m a le j uveni l es , def

endant ’ s m eans of

acc om pl i s hi ng . . . t he act i vi t i es and subs t ant i al r es embl ance w i th each other , ” as w el l as t o s how abs ence of m i s t ake. T he tr i al j udge pr oper l y w ei ghed

21 the pr obat i ve and pr ej udi ci al val ue of the evi dence underR ul e 403 bef or e adm i t t i ng the evi dence . ¶36. T he maj or i ty pos i t s thata def endant , b y no ttes t i fyi ng , m ay pr ecl ude R ul e 404( b) purpos es ( m ot i ve, op po rtun i ty, i nt e nt , pr epar at i on, pl an, and know l edge) f r om cons i der at i on. N eith er the fac ts be fore u s, n o r th e law , o ffer sup p o rtfor su ch a find ing . T h e d efe n d an t’ s s ile n c e d o e s n o t p re c lu d e th e u s e o f R u le 4 0 4 (b ) e v id e n c e . See G r een , 8 9 S o . 3 d 5 4 3 ; Y oung ,

### 14

106 So. 3d 775. N ei therof the def endant s i n G r e e n o r Y

oungte s tif

ie d . G r een , 89 So. 3d at 5 4 8 ; Y oung , 130 So. 3d at777. T he def ens e i n G r e e n w a s th e sa m e a s C o le’ s d e fe n se – h is att orney ar gued thathe di d notdo i t . I n both cas es , thi s C our taff i rm ed the admi s s i on of evi dence of

the def endant s ’ pr i ors exual a ct s a gai ns tmi norchi l dr en underR ul e 404( b) f or th e ju ry ’s c o n s id e ra tio n o f m o tiv e a n d a c o m m o n p la n , s c h e m e , o r s y s te m . G r een , 89 So. 3d
a t 5 5 0 ; Y oung , 106 So. 3d at779- 80. ¶37. A def

endant ’ s s i l ence does notco ntr ol the present at i on of evi dence and does not d icta te th e S tate ’s p re se n tatio n o f e v id e n c e (in c lu d in g o th e rw ise -a d m iss ib le p rio r b a d a c ts th a t s a tis fy a R u le 4 0 4 (b ) p u rp o s e ). See G r een , 8 9 S o . 3 d 5 4 3 ; Y oung , 1 0 6 S o . 3 d 7 7 5 . It i s the def endant ’ s s i m i l arand r el evantm i s conductof f er ed by w i tnes s es w i th know l edge that p la c e s a R u le 4 0 4 (b ) p u rp o s e a t is s u e , n o t t h e d e fe n d a n t’ s s ile n c e . I d. Fi r s t , the i s s ues f

or j ury cons i der at i on ar e contr ol l ed by the of f ens e char ged. N ext , t he St at e’ s evi dence of f er ed t o es t abl i s h orpr ove the cha r ge contr ol s the R ul e 404( b) cons i der at i on. Fi nal l y, the def endant ’ s def

ens es , i f any, of the cha r ge may pl ace a R ul e 404( b) purpos e ati s s ue. St at ed d iffe re n tly , the c o n d u c t se ts in m o tio n w h e th e r th e trial c o u rt w ill let th e w itn e ss tes tify to p rio r b a d c o n d u c t. If a R u le 4 0 4 (b ) p u rp o se is m e t, alo n g w ith re lev a n c e a n d sim ilarity to the of f ens e cha r ged, the tr i al j udge may al l ow the i ntr oduct i on of the pr i ors exual m i s conduct ag ains t a m ino r. ¶ 3 8 . T h e m a

jo rity als o o p in e s th a t no R u le 4 0 4 (b ) p u rp o se (o th e r th a n m ista k e o r a c c id e n t)
w as r ai s ed orar gued by ei thers i de. T he r ecor d r evea l s otherw i s e. T hr oughoutthe tr i al , the St at e, thr ough i t s w i tnes s es , f ul l y devel oped mot i ve, i nt ent , a nd c om m on pl an, s cheme, and sy stem w h ich c rea tes th e o p p o rtu n ity (ga m es).Th e ag es o f t hechil dren were al l under nine . Thereco rd re ve alsthat eac h g irlwa s b etw een 22 the age of six and nine during Cole’s s exual assaul ts. 

### 15 ¶ 3 9 . H. M . , M . M . , K. H. , a n d E. C. a l l t e s t i f i e d t o mu l t i p l e i n s t a n c e s ( s o me i n d i c t e d , s o me not ) of C ole i nappr opr i at el y rubbi ng thei rbr eas torvagi nal ar ea w hi l e they w er e pr epubes cent . T he unindi ct ed ac t s t es t i f i ed t o s ubs t ant i al l y r es embl ed the i ndi ct ed ac t s , as 22 def i ned, and appl i ed i n our s exual
- m i s conduct
- agai ns t - m i nor - chi l dr en cas es s i nce D er ouen . E ach w i tnes s had f

al l en pr ey t o C ol e’ s cr i m i nal l y l ew d act s on m ore t han one oc cas i on, e v in c in g C o le’ s “ u n c o n tro llab le d e sire ” a n d a “ p sy c h o lo g ica l n e e d ” to “ p a rta k e in pedophi l l i c s exual act i vi t i es . ” G r een , 8 9 S o . 3 d a t 55 0 n . 1 9 . T h e y o u n g v ict im s w ere m ere babi es w hen t he devi ants exual as s aul t s began, f ur therevi nci ng C ol e’ s m ot i ve, i nt ent , and
o p p o rt u n ity o f s a tis fy in g h is “ u n c o n tr o lla b le p e d o p h ilic d e s ir e s .” ¶40. T he yo un g chi l dr en al s o t es t i f i ed t o a “com m on pl an, s cheme, and sys t em” ut i l i zed by thei rde vi antgr andf

athert o s exual l y a bus e them. W i th the exce pt i on of a f ew i sol at ed i n s t a n c e s , e a c h mi n o rt e s t i f i e d th a tCol e ’ s mod u s o p e r a n d i wa s th e s a me , d u r i n g th e s a me tw o games – “ hor s es ” and “ f i nd K ay K ay’ s head. ” H e ut i l i zed the games t o cr eat e an o p p o rtu n ity to ru b u p o n a n d p e n e tra te h is o w n g ra n d d a u g h ter s’ g e n italia , rep e a ted ly perpetr at i ng hi s uncontr ol l abl e, pe dophi l i c des i r es . C ol e pl anned a nd pr epar ed hi s l i cent i ous assa u lt s o n the littl e g ir ls th rou g h the u se o f th o se g am es. H e iso lat ed h is victi m s b efo re pl ayi ng “f

i nd K ay K ay’ s head, ” as C ol e w oul d l ock the boys outof the room. A nd then,
w h e n p lay in g “ h o rse s,” h e w o u ld se lec t o n ly o n e little g irl at a tim e to tak e in to th e c lo se t. In c lo sin g , the S tate re m a rk e d ,“[w ]ha t a g re a t plan f orhi m . . . the ki ds m ay have m ade i tup, b u t, bo y , d id h e tak e a d v a n ta g e o f it.” ( E m p h a sis a d d e d .) C o le’ s a tto rn e y c o n c e d e d inThe trial judge is the same trial judge as in Go re . 23 

### 16 cl osi ng that i t“w ou l d m ake sense f or a sexual predat or” t o use “f i nd K ay K ay’s head” as a
s cheme t o m ol es tchi l dr en; but , s i nce Col e di d noti nventthe game, i tc oul d notbe a s cheme. ¶41. A “pl an” i s a “deta i l ed sche m e, pr ogr am, or m ethod w orked out bef or ehand f

orthe
acc om pl i shm entof

an obj ect . ” W

ebst er’s I

I N ew C ollege D i ct i on ary 842 ( 2001) . T he tes tim o n y fro m th e y o u n g g irls d e m o n stra ted a “ d e taile d sc h e m e ” a n d “ m e th o d ” to se c re tly and f ur t i vely accompl i s h hi s s cheme of s exual l y as s aul t i ng hi s def ens el es s , m i nor gr andchi l dr en. A “ s cheme” i s a “ s ys t emat i c pl an of act i on. ” I

d. at987. “H or s es ” and “ f i nd K ay K ay’s head” o ff

ered a syst em at i c w ay t o perpet rat e and sat i sf y h i s pedo ph i l i c desi res . A “ s ys t em” i s de f

i ned as a “method. ” I

d. at1119. C ol e use d the tw o games a s a “method” t o acc om pl i s h hi s l as ci vi ous t ouchi ng. F i nal l y, t he St at e ar gued i n cl os i ng thatC ol e us ed the tw o g am es as hi s “t oo l ” t o eff ectuate hi s “pl an” o f m oles t i ng the v i ct i m s. ¶ 4 2 . I d e tec t n o e rro r w h e n th e le a rn e d tr ia l j u d g e a d m itt e d th e e v id e n c e u n d e r R u le 23 404( b) , tr acki ng thi s C our t ’ s ear l i eropi ni ons . T he St at e pr es ent ed uncontr adi ct ed pr oof of C ole’ s m odus oper andi , inc lu d in g m o tiv e – to u c h in g (“ p e d o p h ill ic s e x u a l a c tiv iti e s” ) h is gr anddaught er s ( “young and de vel opi ng f emal e j uveni l es ”) m ult i pl e t i m es eac h (“ u n c o n tro llab le d e sire ” ). T h e p rio r a c ts c e rta in ly h a d a “ su b sta n tial re se m b lan c e ” to th e a c ts ati s s ue ( al l vi ct i m s w er e t ouched dur i ng “hor s es ” or“f i nd K ay K ay’ s head”) . T he evi dence pr es ent ed i n thi s cas e qual i f i es as R ule 404 (b) exce pt i ons , as i thas been de f i ned i n G ore , G r een , Y oung , and O ’ Connor . ¶43. I n s hor t , thi s i s the exac ts or tof evi dence thi s C our thas hel d admi s s i bl e i n D er ouen , G ore , G r een , Y

oung , and O ’ Connor .

### 17 C oncl usi on ¶44. I j oi n i n the di s pos i t i on of the maj or i ty, butal s o w oul d af f i r m the tr i al courtf

orthe
r eas ons s t at ed her ei n. W AL LE R, C. J . , LA M AR AND P I ER CE , J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.