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 1 - KA- 0 0 6 8 4 - S CT DON ALD M I TCHEL L a

/ k / a DON ALD K. M I TCH ELL
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 15/ 2010 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. W I LL I AM A. GOW AN, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F S TATE PUB LI C D EFENDER BY : G EO RG E T. H O LM ES P HI L L I P BR OADHE AD 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: LAURA HOG AN TEDDER DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : RO BERT SHU LER SM I TH 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 - 01/ 31/ 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:

EN BA NC. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. B ef

or e t he C our ti s a di r ectappea l of the convi ct i on of

D onal d M i t chel l f

or pos s es s i on of cocai ne w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e and hi s habi tual
- of f enders ent ence . Fi ndi ng thatthe tr i al
courterr ed by admi t t i ng evi dence of M i t chel l ’ s pri orconvi ct i ons forposs es s i on of m ar i j uana and coc ai ne, w e r ever se M i t chel l ’ s convi ct i on, vaca t e hi s s ent ence , and r emand f ora new tr ia l.

### Mit che ll ’s pri or c onvic ti ons we refor poss essi on of co ntro lled substanc es– they were 1 

### no t, as the S tate’s brief asserts, fo r the “sale o f cocain e andmarijuan a.” 2 F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2
. D et ect i ve K evi n D earof t he J acks on Po l i c e D epar t m ent( “J PD ”) r ece i ved an anonymous ca l l thata per s on know n as “B l ack” w as s el l i ng cr ack c ocai ne f r om a br i ck
a p a rt m e n t c o m p le x o n C a p ito l S tr e e t. D e te c tiv e D e a r id e n tif ie d D o n a ld M itc h e ll a s “ B la c k ,”
c o n d u c ted a p re lim in a ry in v e stig a tio n , an d o b tain e d a se a rc h w a rra n t fo r th e a p a rtm e n t. ¶3. J PD S er geantR i char d M cG ahey a nd otherof f i cer s exec ut ed the s ear ch w arr ant . U pon
e n t e r i n g th e a p a r t me n t , M c Ga h e y s a w M i t c h e l l ru n b y a n d f o l l o we d h i m i n t o th e b a th r o o m,
w h e re h e sa w M itch e ll sh a k e a b a g u p sid e d o w n , em p ty in g its c o n ten ts in to th e to ilet. M it ch ell then fl u sh ed the to il et, b u t M cG ah ey w as a b le t o g rab so m e o f th e su b stan ce b efo re it all w a s flu sh e d a w a y . T h e s u b sta n c e la ter w a s se n t to J P D ’s lab o ra to ry a n d d e ter m in e d to be coc ai ne. ¶ 4
. T h e o ffic e rs s e a rc h e d M itch e ll a n d fo u n d a p p ro x im a tely $ 1 ,0 0 0 in c a sh an d a s m a ll di gi t a l s c a l e tha ta pp e a r e d t o ha ve c oc a i ne r e s i du e o n i t . The y f ou nd a no the rs c al e on t he k itch e n c o u n ter a n d a d d iti o n a l sta sh e s o f c o c a in e a ro u n d th e a p a rtm e n t. ¶ 5
. M itch e ll w a s in d icte d a s a h a b itu a l o ffe n d e r fo r po ss e ss io n o f co c a in e w ith in ten t to
s el l , base d on pr evi ous convi ct i ons forposs es s i on of coc ai ne, pos s es s i on of m ar i j uana, and
m a n s la u g h te r. ¶6. M i t chell fi l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne t o e xc l ud e e vi de nc e of hi s pr i orc on vi ct i ons f or pos s es s i on of

contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s f r om bei ng admi t t ed attr i al
. T he tri al co urthel d a 1

### 3

hear i ng, atw hi ch t i m e the St at e as s ert ed thati tpla nned t o of f erevi dence of

the pr i or pos s es s i on convi ct i ons t o “show t hathe under s t ands t he drug game . . . that ’ s j us ta pr i orbad actt o s how hi s i nvol vementw i th drugs . . . nott o s how thathe di d thi s , butj us tt o s how t hat he under s t ands , ‘ N o, i t ’ s nota mi s t ake. ’ ” The t r i al j udge deni ed the mot i on i n l i m i ne , p a r a p h r a s i n g l a n g u a g e f r o m G ive n s v . S ta te , 96 7 S o. 2d 1 (M i ss. 20 07 ), as f oll ow s: W hen cons i der i ng ot hercr i m e evi dence conce rni ng drug act i vi ty and drugs bei ng f ound i n the pos s es s i on of the def end ant, as w el l as the f actthatthe pol i ce w as f

ami l i arw i th the def

endantbe caus e of

the pr i orm att er s , pr obat i ve val ue of the r el evantevi dence w as nots ubs t ant i al l y outw ei ghed by dange rof u n fa ir p re

ju d ic e . A n d , thu s, th e trial ju d g e d id [n o t] a b u se h is d isc re tio n in a llo w in g it. ¶7
. D u ri n g the testi m o n y o f it s firstw itn ess, the S tat e p rese n ted ev iden ce o f M itch e ll’ s p rio r p o ss e ss io n c o n v ictio n s. M itch e ll d id n o t tes tify . T h e ju ry re tu rn e d a v e rd ict o f g u ilty of pos s es s i on of

cr ack c ocai ne w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e, and M i t chel l r ece i ved a l i f e s ent ence
as a h ab itu al offen d er. I S S UES ¶8
. M itch e ll rais e s n u m e ro u s is su e s, o n ly o n e o f w h ich w e ad d ress tod ay , as it is d isp o sitiv e : W hetherthe tr i al courtcomm i t t ed r ever s i ble er rorby admi t t i ng evi dence of M itc h e ll’ s p ri o r c o n v ic tio n s fo r p o s s e s s io n o f m a ri ju a n a a n d c o c a in e . DI S CU S S I ON I . St andard of r evi ew

### 4

¶9. W e appl y an abus e- of
- di s cr et i on s t andar d w hen revi ew i ng a t ri al j udge’ s deci s i on
r egar di ng the admi s s i on orex cl usi on o f evi dence
. H

a rg e tt v. S ta te , 62 S o. 3d 95 0 (M i ss. 2 0 1 1 ). I I . T he t ri al court com m i t t ed revers i bl e er ror by adm i t t i ng evi dence of M i tchel l ’s p ri or co n vict i on s f or p ossess i on of con trol l ed sub st an ces. ¶10. M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 404(b) go verns t he adm i s s i bi l i ty of evi dence of other
cr i m es , w r ongs , oract s . U nderR ul e 404( b) , “evi dence of a cr i m e ot her t han t he one f or
w hi ch the ac cus ed i s bei ng tr i ed gene r al l y w i l l notbe admi s s i bl e. ” H a rg e tt v. S ta te , 62 So. 3 d 9 5 0 , 9 5 3 (M iss . 2 0 1 1 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). H o w e v e r, “[e ]vid e n c e o f a p rio r o ffe n se is admi s s i bl e i f

of f er ed, nott o s how the ac cus ed’ s cr i m i nal t endenc i es , butt o pr ove i dent i ty, know l edge, i nt ent , comm on cr i m i nal s cheme orpl an, ora bs ence of mi s t ake” – none of

w hi ch
w as cont es t ed i n the ca s e s ub j udi ce . W h ite v . S ta te , 842 So. 2d 56 5, 5 73 (M i s s . 2003) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. “The r eas on f orthe rul e i s t o pr eventthe St at e f r om r ai s i ng the i nf

er ence that the acc used h as com m i t t ed o ther cri m es and is ther efor e li kely t o be gu i l ty of t he o ff ense char ged. ” I

d. (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶11. W e f

i nd thatthe evi dence of

M i t chel l ’ s pr i orpos s es s i on convi ct i ons s at i s f i es none of th e o th e r p u rp o se s liste d in th e n o n e x c lu siv e p ro v isio n s o f R u le 4 0 4 (b ). T h e S tate re p lied to M i t chel l ’ s m ot i on t o excl ude thi s evi dence thati tw oul d of f erthe evi dence t o pr ove abs ence of m i s t ake – a n as s ert i on neveradvanc ed by M i t chel l , norotherw i s e pl ace d ati s s ue by any
w i tnes s . A s m i s t ake w as notati s s ue, abs ence of m i s t ake i s a non s equi t ur . A s w e have
r ecogni zed, “[ t ] he theory of the ca s e ca n’ tb e w e k no w h e’ s a drug deal er. . . unl es s he

### 5

al l eges a mi s t ake, ther e i s no r eas on t o pr ove abs ence of m i s t ake. ” H

a rg e tt , 62 So. 3d at953. A s w e pr evi ous l y have pr ovi ded: [ v] i gor ous pr os ecut i on does notr equi r e, and f ai rnes s does notpe r m i t , thatone charged w i th an o ff

ense i n thi s ar ea be loaded 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 conv i ctthos e he be l i eves g u ilty m u st n e v e r b e a llo w e d to b lin d e ith e r h im o r th e c o u rts to th e n e c e ss ity o f a ff o rd in g e v e ry m a n a fa irtr ia l. H a rg e tt , 62 So. 3d at954 ( quot i ng S u m ra ll v. S ta te , 2 7 2 S o . 2 d 9 1 7 , 9 1 9 (M is s . 1 9 7 3 ))
. ¶12. H avi ng concl uded t hat no other purpos e w oul d al l ow admi s s i on of the evi dence of M i t chel l ’ s pr i orconvi ct i ons , w e ar e l ef tw i th the gene r al rul e thatchar act erevi dence i s not
a d m iss ib le to p ro v e c o n d u c t o n a p a rticu lar o c c a sio n . M iss . R . E v id . 4 0 4 . T o a llo w a p a rty to a ttem p t to p ro v e th a t a p e rs o n a c te d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith a c e rta in c h a ra c ter tra it “is to pr ej udi ce the per s on, t o r enderhi m i n the eye s of j ur or s l i abl e, notbeca us e of w hathe di d or d id n o t d o in th e in s ta n t c a s e , b u t b e c a u s e o f w h a t h e h a s d o n e o r f a ile d to d o in th e p a s t.” M iss . R . E v id . 4 0 4 c m t. ¶ 1 3
. 

### Th e trial court’s relian ce on Given s v. S ta te , 9 67 So
. 2d 1 ( M i s s . 2007) 

### , wa s mi spl ac ed. At

Gi vens ’s tri al , evi denc e of his prior ba d ac ts wasdee me d adm is sibleto reve al thecom ple tepic ture of

thecrim e o f w hichh e wa s c harged. Poli ceoff ic er s ha d re sponde d to an anonym ous ca llreporting drug ac tivit y at a c ertain l ocati on. G i v e ns , 967 So. 2d at3. 

### Upon ar ri ving at t he l ocati on, an off

ic er spokewith Give ns and anothe r indivi dual , Coope r, andsearchedthe two men, fin din g tw o “n ickel b ags” o f marijuan a onGiv ens. Id. An off ic er gaveGive ns a

ti cke t for pos se ss ion of

mari juana. Id. The of

fi ce rs al so f

ound a . 22 pis tolthat Co op er claimed b elon gedto h im un der a n earbypo rch. Id. Ab out fifteen mi nute s late r, a

### 6

pol i c e o f f i c e r dri vingb y thel oc at i onf ound C oo pe r ’ s b ody onthes i deo f theroa d, but Giv en s w as go ne. Id. At Gi vens ’s tria l f or Coope r’ s murde r, thetria l c ourt adm itte d te stim ony that pol ic e of

fi ce rs had r es ponded t o an anonymous report of drug ac tivit y and ha d foundmarijuana in Giv ens’s p ossessio n. Id. at 8. This Court f ound that

the t es t i m ony “w as pr operR ul e 404( b) evi dence beca us e i tt ol d the j ury ‘ the w hol e s t ory’ as t o w hy .
. . pol i ce off i cers and a . . . depu ty sheri ff w ent t o the scene, w here they hap pen ed u po n G i ven s. 

### ” Id. at 9. In contra st , Mi tc hel l’ s pos se ss ion conv ic ti onsoc cur re d ye ar s – not m inut es – bef orethe
events for wh ich Mitch ell was on trial; prior po ssessionconv iction s were not necessaryto present the jury “th e wh ole sto ry” o f ho w M itchell came to be ch argedwithpo ssessionwith intent to d istribute onthe d ate allegedin th e ind ictment. CO NC L US I ON ¶14. W e concl ude that the tr i al court abused i t s di s cr et i on by al l ow i ng the admi s s i on of
e v id e n c e o f M itch e ll’s p rio r p o ss e ss io n c o n v ictio n s. A s M itc h e ll w a s p re ju d ice d b y th is i nad m i ssi ble evidence, w e r everse M i t chell ’s con vict i on and vacate hi s sent ence. Th e case i s r emanded t o the H i nds Count y Ci r cui tCourtf ora ne w tr i al cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. ¶ 1 5
. R E V E R S E D A N D R E M A N D E D . W AL LE R, C. J . , DI CKI NS ON, P . J . , LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER , P I ER CE , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.