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 7 - CT - 0 2 2 0 2 - S CT FL OYD RO BI

NS ON
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 : 02/ 01/ 2007 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. LE E J
. HOW ARD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: OKTI BBE HA COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F I ND I GEN T APPEALS BY : LESL I E S. LEE J US T I N T AYL OR CO OK GLEN N S. SW AR TZFAGER LATI SHA NI CO LE CLI NK SCALES 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 : LAU RA HO GA N TED DER DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: F OR RE S T AL L GOOD 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/ 13/ 2010 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. Fl oyd Robi ns on w as i ndi ct ed f orthe m ur derof

hi s on-agai n, off

-agai n gi r l f

r i end, B rid g e t M o o re . F o llo w in g a ju ry tria l in th e C irc u it C o u rt o f O k tib b e h a C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i, R obi ns on w as f

ound gui l ty as c har ged and s ent ence d t o l i f e i m pr i s onm enti n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof Corr ect i ons ( “M D O C ”)
. Fol l ow i ng deni al of hi s “M ot i on f

or J udgm entN otw i ths t andi ng the V er di ct , ” R obi ns on fi l ed not i ce of appeal
. T he M i s s i s s i ppi

### JudgeMaxwe ll , not parti cipating. 1 

### A morecompl et e ver si on of the f oll owing di sc uss ion c an befound in thedis se nting 2 

### opini on in Robins on . See Robins on , 2009 WL 1524913, at *7- 8 (King, C. J. , di ss enting)
. 2 C our tof A ppeal s , i n a f

i ve- f ours pl i t , af

f i r m ed. See R o b in so n v. S ta te , 2009 W L 1524913,

1 at*1 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. J une 2, 2009)
. T hi s C our tgr ant ed R obi ns on’ s “Pet i t i on f orW ri tof C e rt io ra ri .” FACTS ¶2
. O n t he af

t erno on of N ov e mber 30 , 20 05 , M oo r e ’ s bo dy w a s di s c ov e r e d i ns i de he r hom e. M oor e had a guns hotw ound, a brui s e on herhead, a brui s e and mi nors cr at ches on herr i ghtarm , s cr ape mar ks on t he backs of hercal ves , and a s cr at ch and dr i ed gr as s on her ri g h t k n e e . O ff

ic e rs fr o m th e S ta rk v ille P o lic e D e p a rt m e n t f o u n d , in tera lia , an unus ed . 25 cal i bers hel l cas i ng i n M oor e’ s f r ontyar d. O n the r i ghtsi de of M oor e’ s f r onts t eps , t he off i cers found tw o o f M oo re’ s broken fi ng ernai l s. ¶3. T hats ame eveni ng, R obi ns on w as arr es t ed athi s hom e i n C ol um bus , M i s s i s s i ppi , and t aken t o the i nt ervi ew r oom atthe C ol um bus Pol i ce D epart m ent . A s ubs equentf our - andone- hal f
- houri nt err ogat i on s panned i nt o t he ear l y m orni ng hour s of D ece m ber1, 2005, and part s w er e vi deor ecor ded. T he i nt err ogat i on i ncl uded pr i or dom es t i c- vi ol ence al l egat i ons agai ns tR obi ns on by M oor e and a notherf or m ergi r l f

r i end, M ar i l yn M cK i nney. For exampl e: 2 D et ect i ve 1 : . . . L e t m e re a d th is o n e to y o u . . . . I , O f f i cerW i l l i ams, t ook a r eportfr om [ M cK i nney]
. . . . Itsai d .
. . her b o y fr ie n d , [R o b in s o n ], . . . con stan t l y keep s threateni ngher ab ou tki l l i ngher. He’s alw ays . . . taki ng heri n the m i ddl e of now her e put t i ng a gun t o herhead and thr oatand t el l i ng herw hathe w ould do t o her
. O n the l as teveni ng 5- 24-

### 3

03 atappr oxi m at el y 16: 30 t o 17: 00 hour s , he t ook hert o hi s hous e and s t art ed w as hi ng di s hes
. A nd w hen s he told hi m thats he w as goi ng hom e, he w ent bal l is t i c, and s tar t ed to pus h, ki ck and pul louther hai r . He pul l ed a gun on herthen, and once he s et t l ed dow n he j us tt old hert o l eave .

. . . D et ect i ve 1 : O k a y , you’ ve got tw o w om en s ayi ng they f el tl i ke y ou w er e goi ng t o k i l lth e m a to n e p o i n to rt i me . T w o s epar at e w om en.

. . . D etect i ve 1 : . . . I g o t tw o di f f er ent w om en sayi ng . . . yo u are do i ng these thi ngs t o them. W hatdo you s ay t o them? .
. . Fi r s t– t el lus w hathappened w i th [ McK i nney]? She s ai d y ou were washi ng dis hes
. She s ai d s he w as goi ng h o m e a n d

y o u g o b a llistic . Y

o u ta ke h e r to th e m idd le o f n o w h e re , yo u p u ll a gun on her, thr eat en her
. (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) ¶4
. D u rin g th e interrog ati o n , R o b in so n sig n e d a sta tem e n t, w h ich h e su b se q u e n tly supp l em ented. O n D ecem ber 2, 20 05 , R ob i nson si gn ed a seco nd st at em ent. T hese
s t at ement s pr ovi ded that , af t er an ar gum entatM oor e’ s hom e, M oor e had pul l ed a gun on R obi ns on and, i n the ens ui ng s truggl e, they had f al l en t o t he gr ound, the gun had di s char ged, and the bul l ethad s truck M oor e. ¶5
. O n J anuary 18, 2006, R obi ns on w as i ndi ct ed f or“unl aw f

ul l y, w i l f

ul l y, and fe lo n io u s ly , w ith d e lib e ra te d e s ig n t o e f f e c t d e a th , k ill[i n g ] a n d m u rd e r[ in g ] . . . [M o o re ],
w i thoutauthor i ty of

l aw and noti n neces s ary sel f def ens e, i n vi ol at i on of

[ M i s s i s s i ppi C ode] § 97- 3- 19 .
. . . ” Tri al comm ence d on J anuary 29, 2007.

### Whil e the inte rrogation l as te d four -and-one -half hours , theDVD re cording included 3 

### on ly three of tho se h ours. H ow ever, th e prio r do mestic-vio lence alleg ation s, se e ¶ 3 sup ra , wer e included on the DVD r ec ording. Spec if ic al ly, “[ t] her e i s e vide nceof a c ri minalproce eding involving anothe r young 4 

### lady , wh ich h ad n oth ing to d o w ith [M oo re].” 4 ¶6. D ur i ng the St at e’ s cas e- i n- chi ef , a D V D r ecor di ng of

R obi ns on’ s N ov e mber30, 2005, in ter ro g a tio n w a s te n d e re d a s a n e x h ib it. C o u n se l fo r R o b in so n o b jec ted a n d m o v e d to 3
su p p ress the D V D rec o rdin g . A cc o rdin g to co u n sel for R o b inso n , o u tsi d e the jury ’s pr es ence , “[ t ] her e i s i nadmi s s i bl e i nf or m at i on concerni ng a poss i bl e cr i m i nal backgr ound of [ R obi ns on]
. [ ] I don’ tknow i f w e ca n r edac tthos e port i ons . ” T he ci r cui tcourtoverrul ed 4 R obi ns on’ s obj ect i on and mot i on t o s uppr es s , s t at i ng that“[ t ] he compl et enes s of the i s s ue thatI have, that ’ s w hatthey’ r e doi ng i s i nt err ogat i ng a homi ci de. T hati s di f f er entt han
e licitin g e v id e n c e o f a p rio r c rim e o r c rim in a l a c t.” T h e D V D re c o rd in g w a s re c e iv e d in to evi dence and pl ayed be f or e the j ury i n i t s ent i r ety. ¶7. A ft er t he S t at e rest ed and R obi ns on’ s m ot i on f ordi r ect ed ver di ctw as overrul ed, R obi ns on t ook t he w i tnes s s t and. O n di r ectexami nat i on, R obi ns on acknow l edged thathe h a d a p r i o rp h y s i c a l c o n f r o n t a t i o n wi th M o o r e i n 2 0 0 4 whe n “ s h e s tu c k h e rf i n g e rn a i l i n my eye . . . . ” D es pi t e thata l t er cat i on, Robi ns on c ont i nued t o l i ve w i th M oor e unt i l J ul y 2005,
w h e n sh e “ c a lled th e p o lice o n m e to c o m e an d g e t m y clo th e s o u t o f h e r h o u se .” D u rin g th is in c id e n t, R o b in so n a d m itt e d to p u s h in g M o o re . T h e re a fte r, R o b in so n m o v e d b a c k to h is hom e i n C ol um bus , al though he cont i nued t o st ay atM oor e’ s hom e “[ t ] w o orthr ee t i m es out
o f a we e k
. . . . ” On th e e v e n i n g o f No v e mb e r2 9 , 2 0 0 5 , Ro b i n s o n t e s t i f i e d th a tth e s a me M cK i nney br oughtf

ood t o hi s hom e and s t ayed f ora f ew mi nut es w hen “[ t ] he phone r ang,

### Regarding hi s probati on, Robins on t es ti fi ed that it aros e from t

he dom es ti c- viol enc e 5 

### inc idents involving Moore and McKinney, to whi ch hehad pl ea ded gui lt y. In expl aining tho se gu ilty p leas, ho wev er, Ro bin sonstated th at the “o nlyreasonI p le dgu ilty [w as] bec aus e Ihad j ust

start ed working at

Weye rha use r. And I s ai d, we ll , . . . sinceI c an’ t t ake off work t o be c oming bac k to c ourt , . . . I’l l go ahea d and pl ea d guilty and pay t he f ineand be throu ghwithit.” As t o why his probati on c ompe ll ed him to l eave Moor e’ s hom e, Robins on expl ained on cross -e xam inati on

that hi s prob ati on

proh ibi te d him

from s ee ing Moore, eve n though t hey wer e s ti llin a

re lati onship. Robins on s t at ed thatM oor e w as notbl eedi ng w hen he l ef therhom e. H e coul d not 6 expl ai n how M oor e gotback i nt o herhom e f ol l ow i ng the s hoot i ng. 

### 5 and i tw as [ M oor e] cal l i ng. ” R obi ns on w entove rt o M oor e’ s home. A ccor di ng t o R obi ns on,
w hi l e i n bed, w at chi ng t el evi s i on w i th M oor e: I sa id [re fe rrin g to a tele v isio n c h a ra c ter ] th a t’s a n u g ly lad y the re , a n d sh e sa id p ro b a b ly l ik e y o u r [ b itc h ] lo o k lik e . . . . A n d I s a id , o h L o rd , h e re w e g o . I s ai d, w el l , w e ai n’ tfi xi ng t o s t artal l thi s . She s ai d no, that ’ s w her e you w er e. T h a t’s w h y y o u re a lly d id n ’t w a n t t o co m e o v e r h e re b e c a u se y o u ju st w a n t to b e w ith h e r. I n m y m in d I s a id , y e a h , I d id , b u t . . . w e ju s t k e p t o n ta lk in g . I s a i d , we l l , I d o n ’ tk n o w. A fte r a n a rg u m e n t en su e d , R o b in so n c laim e d th a t h e g o t up to le a v e , a n d M o o re stru c k h im i n the back. A s R obi ns on pr ocee ded t o l eave , he r eal i zed he had f or got t en hi s keys , and as he turned ar ound, he s aw “s he had the gun. ” A ccor di ng t o R obi ns on:
s he gotup cl os e t o me. T hat ’ s w hen I gr abbed herha nd , and w e st ar t ed w r es t l i ng w i th the gun. A nd w e f el l out s i de the hous e[ , ]
. . . and that ’ s w hen the gun w entof

f
. . . . I thoughtI w as s hot , a nd s he s ai d s he thoughtshe w as s hot
. . . . I w al ked herback up t o the s t eps . A nd s he t ol d me,
. . . s he w as ki nd o f tire d
. . . . I sa id , I’m fix in g to g o . I se e n th e g u n . I g ra b b e d th e g u n . I sa id I ’ m f i xi ng t o go. Y ou know , the pol i ce co m e around he r e. I ’ m al r eady on p ro b a tio n .[ ] . . . A n d I s a id I’ ll c a ll y o u b a c k .[ ]

5 6 In c lai m ing that M o o re’s d ea th w as th e re su lto f a n a c cide n t ari sing o u t of h is act of se lf
d efe n se, R o b inso n m aintaine d that h e lov ed M o o re a n d h ad n o rea so n to h arm h er.

### 6

¶8. O n c r os s - exami nat i on , t he p rosecut or w as w arned b y the ci rcui tcou rtfor t he f ol l ow i ng ar gum ent at i ve ques t i ons , “[ g] otany s cr at ches on you f ace , no s e bl eedi ng? D i d you l ook l i ke M

ar i l yn M cK i nney ? ” (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) ¶9. T he j ury f

ound R obi ns on gui l ty of m ur der , and he w as s ent ence d t o l i f e i m pr i s onm ent by the ci rcui tcourt . Fol l ow i ng deni al of hi s “M ot i on f

orJ udgm entN otw i ths t andi ng t he V e rd ict,” R o b in so n filed n o tice o f a p p e a l. CO UR T OF AP P E AL S P RO CE E DI NG S ¶ 1 0
. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a ffirm e d R o b in so n ’s c o n v ict io n . See R obinson , 2 0 0 9 WL 1524913, at*6. R egar di ng “I s s ue I I
. Pr i orB ad- A ct s E vi dence , ” the C our tof A ppeal s f

ound th a t: th e c h a llen g e d p o rtio n o f th e D V D a t issu e w a s th a t R o b in so n h a d p re v io u sly b e e n v io le n t w ith [M c K in n e y ], ra th e r t h a n [M o o r e ]. Thatevi dence does not tend to dem on strat e a co nti nu i ngor escal ati ngpa t t ern of vi olence ag ainst [ Moor e]
. I

ns t ead, i tt ends t o pers uade the j ur y that , because R obi ns on w as vi ol ent w i th [ McK i nn ey] on May 24, 2003, he w as m or e l i kel y to have be en vi ol ent w i th [ Moor e] on N

ovem ber 3 0, 2 005, and – by ex t ens i on – he w as m o re like ly to h a v e b e e n g u ilt y o f th e a lleg a tio n s a g a in st h im . A ccor di ngl y, w e fin d th a t th e c irc u it co u rt e rr e d w h e n it a llo w e d

th e p ro se c u tio n to su b m it tha tevi den ce t o the j ury . Id
. at*3 (em phasi s added)
. H ow ever , bas ed upon R obi ns on’ s t es t i m ony, the C our tof A ppeal s hel d t hatthi s err orw as harm l es s . Speci f i cal l y: R obi ns on s ai d he .
. . t ol d [ M oor e] thathe w as goi ng t o l eave beca us e he w as on pr obat i on. R obi ns on’ s ow n att orney then as ked R obi ns on t o el abor at e on hi s pr i orconvi ct i ons thatl ed t o hi s be i ng on pr obat i on. R obi ns on r es ponded and t es t i f

i ed t hathe had pr i ordom es t i c vi ol ence convi ct i ons f orabus i ng [M o o re ] and

[M c K in n e y ]. B ecaus e Robi ns on t es t i f i ed as t o his pr i or convi ct i on f

ordom es t i c vi ol ence against[McK i nney], and us ed thatpr i or convi ct i on as his j us t i

f i cat i on f orl eavi ng [

Moo r e’s ] hous e af

t er[ s he] w as

### The Cour t of Appea ls late r st at ed that “Robinson int er je ct ed on hi s s tatus as a prior 7 

### convi ct ed dom es ti c- viol enc e of fe nder on probati on, whi ch l ogic ally prohibit ed hi m f rom po ssessing a weap ono r b ei n g p resent at [Mo ore’s] ho me, as a strategic trial d ecisionto atte mpt to e xplain hi s other

wis e une xplaina

blefl ight .” Id . at *4. 7 sh o t, [ ] w e fi nd thatR obi ns on di d notexpe r i ence any pr ej udi ce bas ed on the

7 re v e latio n d u rin g th e in ter ro g a tio n th a t h e h a d a p rio r c o n v ictio n fo r d o m e stic a s s a u lt a g a in s t [M c K in n e y ]. Id
. at *4 (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶11. T he C our tof

A ppeal s ’ di s s entcount er ed: [ i ] ti s Robi ns on ’ s e f

f ort s a tbl un t i ng the pr e j ud i c i a l e f

f e c tof the i mprope r pr i or - bad- act s t es t i m ony thatthe maj or i ty now c l ai m s turns the admi s s i on of th a t im p ro p e r e v id e n c e in to h a rm les s e rro r. S u c h a c laim c a n o n ly b e th e re su lt of s yl l ogi s t i cal l y f

aul ty ci r cul arr eas oni ng. T he pr os ecut i on’ s pr i or - ba d- act s evi dence w as admi t t ed pr i ort o any t es t i m ony f r om Robi ns on. The damage f r om thi s i m pr operpr i or - bad- act s evi dence w as compl et ed pr i ort o any t es t i m ony fr om R obi ns on. T he t es t i m ony by R obi ns on as t o pr i orbad ac t s w as pr es ent ed i n an ef f or tt o pl ace i nt o p ers pect i ve the i m pr operpr i or - bad- act s evi dence thatw as pr evi ous l y i ntr od uced by the pr os ecut i on. B eca us e the damage w as done bef or e R obi ns on’ s att empt at m iti g a tio n , I w o u ld re v e rse a n d re m a n d fo r a n e w trial.

. . . T he fa l l acy i n the maj or i ty’ s att empt atbl ami ng R obi ns on i s s i m pl e and stra ig h t fo rw a rd
. R o b in so n d id n o t pr e se n t an y d e fe n se u n til afte r th e S tate had r es t ed i t s cas e i n chi ef
. T he i m pr operpr i or - bad- act s evi dence w as in tro d u c e d b y th e S tate in its c a se -in -c h ie f. T h e S tate ’s s o le p u rp o se in i ntr oduci ng thi s i m pr operpr i or - bad- act s e vi dence w as t o pr ove thatR obi ns on k ille d [M o o re ]. B e

fo re R o b in so n u tter e d

the fi rs t w o rdin h is d e

fen se , th e S ta te had i ntr oduced the i m

pr operpr i or - bad- act

s evi dence, and the dam age had been done
. C ontr ary t o the opi ni on of the m aj or i ty, once the damage has been d o n e , it c a n n o t b e u n d o n e . It e sp e c ia lly c a n n o t b e u n d o n e b y a ttem p tin gto blam e Robi ns on f

orthe i m pr operact i ons of

the pr os ecutor . Id
. at *1 1 (K ing , C
. J. , d issen ti n g ) (em p h asis ad d ed ).

### Rule404(b) al so l is ts se veralexc eptions to th is rule, provi ding t hat suc h evi denc e 8 

### “may . . . b e admissib le for o ther p urp oses su ch as p ro o f o f mo ti ve, o pp ortunity , intent, preparation, plan, knowl edge , i dentit y, or abs enc e of

mi st akeor a cc ide nt. ” Miss . R. Evi d. 8 I S S UE ¶1 2
. T h is C o u rtw il l con side r: W hetherthe cir cuitcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n admi t t i ng evi dence of R ob i nson ’s pri or bad a ct s. A N A L Y S IS ¶13. “The r el evanc y and admi s s i bi l i ty of evi dence ar e l ar gel y w i thi n the di s cr et i on of t he tr i al courtand r ever s al m ay be ha d onl y w her e thatdi s cr et i on has been a bus ed.
. . . T he di s cr et i on of

the tr i al courtm us tbe exer ci s ed w i thi n the boundar i es of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence
. ” J

o h n sto n v. S ta te , 5 6 7 S o . 2 d 2 3 7 , 2 3 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶14. R obi ns on ar gues that “i t ’ s i m pos s i bl e t o un- r i ng a bel l [ , ] ” and “i t w as i m pos s i bl e f or the j ury t o di s r egar d the hi ghl y pr ej udi ci al pr i or - bad- act s evi dence
. ” A ccor di ng t o R obi ns on, the C our tof

A ppeal s ’ “harm l es s err orde t erm i nat i on c r eat es a ‘ pr e- i m peac hm ent ’ exce pt i on t o the [ R ul es ’ ] pr ohi bi t i on on the admi s s i on of pr i or - bad- act s evi dence [ , ] ” s uch that defend ants are l eftw i th tw o u nd esi rabl e op t i on s: ei thert ake the s t and and at t empt t o expl ai n aw ay and/ orm i t i gat e the pr ej udi ce alread y ca u sed b y the e v iden ce , o r, sito n o n e ’s h a n d s, ign o re o n e’s C ons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o t es t i f y, as s ur e one’ s ow n convi ct i on bas ed on the p re ju d icia l p rio r-a c ts-e v id e n c e , an d h o p e th a t th e [a]p p e llate c o u rt ru les in h is o r he r fav o r. ¶15. M i ssi ssi pp i R ule of Evi dence 404( b) pr ovi des that“ [ e] vi den ce of ot her cri m es,
w r ongs , oract s i s notadmi s s i bl e t o pr ove the char act erof a pe r s on i n or dert o s how thathe
a c te d in c o n fo rm ity th e re w ith . . . .” M is s . R . E v id . 4 0 4 (b ). See al s o E u b a n ks v . S ta te , 419 8

### 40 4(b ). Reg ardin g th e disp utedpo rtion s o f th e D V D reco rdin g, h ow ever, n on e of th ese

excep tion s app lies. 9 S o . 2 d 1 3 3 0 , 1 3 3 1 ( M i s s . 1 9 8 2 ) ( “ M i s s i s s i p p i f o l l o ws th e g e n e r a l ru l e th a tp r o o f o f a c r i me di s t i nctf rom thatal l eged i n the i ndi ctm ents houl d notbe admi t t ed i n evi dence agai ns tt he
acc us ed. ”)
. “T hi s rul e exi s t s t o pre ventthe St at e f r om s ugges t i ng that , s i nce a def endanthas
comm i t t ed other cr i m es pr evi ous l y, the pr obabi l i ty i s gr eat erthathe i s al s o gui l ty of t he of f ens e f orw hi ch he i s present l y char ged. ” J a sp e r v . S ta te , 75 9 S o. 2d 11 36 , 11 41 (M i ss. 1 9 9 9 ). See al

so Flo y d v. S ta te , 166 M i s s . 15, 148 So. 226, 230 ( 1933) ( “[ s ] uch evi dence t e n d s t o d i v e r tth e mi n d s o f th e j u r y f

r o m th e t ru e i s s u e , a n d t o p r e j u d i c e a n d mi s l e a d t h e m,
a n d , w h ile th e a c c u s e d m a y b e a b le to m e e t a s p e c ific c h a rg e , h e c a n n o t b e p re p a re d to d efe n d ag ains t al l othe r ch arg es th at m ay b e b rou g h t aga inst him
. ”). ¶16. W e agr ee w i t h t he C ou rto f A pp eal s t hat t he ci r cui tcourterr ed i n admi t t i ng the d is p u te d p o rt io n s o f t h e D V D re c o rd in g . See R obinson , 2009 W L 1524913, at*3, *6 ( K i ng, C
. J
. , di s s ent i ng)
. R obi ns on w as i ndi ct ed onl y f orM oor e’ s m ur der , ar i s i ng outof t he N ovembe r 29, 2005, i nci dent
. N onethel es s , the ci r cui tcourtadmi t t ed evi dence t hat R obi ns on pr evi ous l y had “c ons t ant l y ke[ pt ] thr e a t e ni ng [ M c K i nn e y] a bo utki l l i ng her [ , ] ” and t hat“[ h] e ’ s a l w a ys . . . t a ki ng h e ri n the mi dd l e o f n owher e p utt i ng a g un t o he rh e a d a nd thr oatand t el l i ng herw hathe w oul d do t o her
. ” M or eover , r egar di ng the s peci f i c i nci dent of M ay 24, 2003, i nvol vi ng M cK i nney, t he j ury w as pre s ent ed w i th evi dence t hatR obi ns on “w entbal l i s t i c, and s t art ed t o pus h, ki ck and pull o ut [ M cK i nney’ s ] hai r . H e pul l ed a gun on her
. . . . ” A s s t at ed by the C our tof A ppeal s , “[ t ] hatevi dence
. . . t ends t o per s uade the j ury that , beca us e R obi ns on w as vi ol entw i th [ M cK i nney]
. . . , he w as m or e l i kel y t o have

### 10

b e e n v io len t w ith [M o o re ] on N o v e m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 , an d – b y ex ten sio n h e w a s m o re lik e ly to have be en gui l ty of

the al l egat i ons agai ns thi m . ” Id
. at*3. G i ven the f act s of thi s cas e, the evi dence cl ear l y w as i nadmi s s i bl e underR ul e 404( b)
. T her ef or e, i t s adm i s s i on w as out s i de th e b o u n d a ri e s o f th e c ir c u it c o u rt ’s d is c re tio n . See M iss . R . E v id . 4 0 4 (b ); Jas per , 759 So. 2 d a t 1 1 4 1 ; Johnston , 5 6 7 S o . 2 d a t 2 3 8 ; Floyd , 148 So. at230. ¶17. T he ques t i on then becomes , i s thi s err or harm l es s ? T hi s C our t rej ect s t he C ou r tof A p p e a ls’ re a so n in g th a t R o b in so n ’s s u b s e q u e n t te stim o n y c u re d th is e rro r. A s c o g e n tly
e x p lain e d b y th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls d iss e n t, “[b ]efo re R o b in so n u ttere d th e first w o rd in h is def ens e, the St at e had i ntr oduced the i m pr operpr i or - bad- act s evi dence , and the damage had been done
. ” R obinson , 2009 W L 1524913, at*11 ( K i ng, C
. J
. , di s s ent i ng)
. N otonl y had the damage be en done w i th r es pectt o the j ury be i ng pr es ent ed w i th i nadmi s si ble, prej udi ci al evi dence , butal s o, R obi ns on’ s const i tut i onal r i ghtt o t es t i f y ( orr ef r ai n ther ef

r om ) had bee n
c o m p r o m is e d
. See U
. S. Cons t . a mend
. V ( “ [ n] o pe r s on s ha l l
. . . b e c ompe l l ed i n any
c rim in a l ca se to b e a w itn e ss a g a in st h im se lf . .
. . ” ). B a s e d u p o n th e a d m iss io n o f th is evi dence , Robi ns on w as pr es ent ed w i th the opt i ons of ei thert aki ng the w i tnes s s t and i n an att em p t t o m it igate the p rejud ice c au sed , o r fore g o in g tha t r igh t and p erm itti n g the ju ry’s
c o n sid e ra tio n o f su c h e v id e n c e w ith o u t re sp o n se . S u b se q u e n t t e stim o n y d o e s n o t cu re th is
erro r. ¶ 1 8
. In su m , th e d isp u ted p o rtio n s o f th e D V D re c o rd in g w e re in a d m iss ib le u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b ). See M iss . R . E v id . 4 0 4 (b ); Jas per , 7 5 9 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 4 1 ; Floyd , 148 So. at230. T he ci r cui tcourt ’ s err ori n ad m i t t i ng s uch pr ej udi ci al evi dence w as notr ender ed harm l es s by R obi ns on’ s s ubs equentt es t i m ony. T her ef or e, t he ci r cui tcour t ’ s adm i s s i on of s uch evi dence

### 11

cons t i tut ed an abus e of di s cr et i on, r equi r i ng thatthi s Courtr ever s e and r emand f or a new trial. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 1 9
. W e re v e rse th e c irc u it co u rt a n d th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a n d re m a n d fo r a n e w trial. ¶20. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON AND GRAVE S , P . J J . , DI CKI NS ON, LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR.