Opinion ID: 1759699
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court erred by admitting a towel as evidence of an alleged prior bad act pursuant to m.r.e. 401, 402, 403 and 404(b).

Text: ¶ 11. Relying on M.R.E. 404(b), the State argues that the towel was admitted because as evidence to a similar, prior offense it corroborated the charges in the indictment; showed Walker's lustful disposition toward M.M.; and showed the probability that he committed the crime. Further, the State maintains that the probative value outweighs any prejudicial effect and that therefore there is no M.R.E. 403 violation. ¶ 12. A trial judge enjoys a great deal of discretion as to the relevancy and admissibility of evidence. Unless the judge abuses this discretion so as to be prejudicial to the accused, the Court will not reverse this ruling. Jefferson v. State, 818 So.2d 1099, 1104 (Miss.2002) (quoting Fisher v. State, 690 So.2d 268, 274 (Miss.1996)). See also Hill v. State, 774 So.2d 441, 444 (Miss.2000); Crawford v. State, 754 So.2d 1211 (Miss.2000); Gilley v. State, 748 So.2d 123, 126 (Miss.1999); Hughes v. State, 735 So.2d 238, 269 (Miss.1999). ¶ 13. M.R.E. 404 provides, in part: (b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. ¶ 14. The decision of the trial court to admit the towel was based on Crawford v. State, 754 So.2d 1211, 1220 (Miss.2000); Hicks v. State, 441 So.2d 1359 (Miss.1983); and Barbetta v. State, 738 So.2d 258 (Miss.Ct.App.1999), which stand for the general rule that in the prosecution of sexual offenses, evidence of prior sexual acts between the accused and the victim is admissible to show the accused's lustful, lascivious disposition toward the particular victim, especially in circumstances where the victim is under the age of consent. See Crawford, 754 So.2d at 1220; Hicks, 441 So.2d at 1361; Barbetta, 738 So.2d at 260. ¶ 15. Though M.M. testified regarding how she retrieved the towel, the prosecution's failure to positively connect the semen on the towel to Walker renders the towel inadmissible. To simply admit such a towel, without employing the available scientific means for authentication, fails the unfair prejudice standard set forth in M.R.E. 403, infringed upon Walker's right to a fair trial, and served only to bolster the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses. See generally Crawford, 754 So.2d at 1220 (Rule 403 is an ultimate filter through which all otherwise admissible evidence must pass). With no direct link to the accused, a soiled towel would tend to mislead, confuse, and incite prejudice in the jury, especially in a capital rape trial involving a 13-year-old victim. ¶ 16. Furthermore, the towel was not properly authenticated. M.R.E. 901(a) provides: (a) General Provision. The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. Under M.R.E. 901, authentication and identification are conditions precedent to admissibility. Generally these serve simply to establish that a matter is what it is claimed to be. Jones v. State, 798 So.2d 592, 593 (Miss.Ct.App.2001); See also Robinson v. State, 733 So.2d 333, 335 (Miss.Ct.App.1998)(Testimony that a particular material is a controlled substance is of no relevance unless the State also proves the defendant's connection to that particular substance.) Without confirming whether the semen on the towel indeed belonged to Walker, the prosecution submitted the towel as a towel stained with his semen. ¶ 17. Not addressed by either party or the trial court was this Court's opinion in Winston v. State, 754 So.2d 1154 (Miss.2000). On certiorari, this Court affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part a decision by the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of capital rape. See also Winston v. State, 726 So.2d 197 (Miss.Ct.App.1998). Relevant to the instant appeal is that though there was no physical evidence collected by the rape kit or otherwise linking Winston to the victim, the conviction was affirmed based on the testimony of the victim, her relatives, the responding policeman and the examining doctor. Winston, 754 So.2d at 1156. [1] Like our decision in Winston, we do not suggest today that physical evidence is needed to uphold a conviction of capital rape. Winston, 754 So.2d at 1156. ¶ 18. In Winston, the child testified she stopped by Winston's home because he was supposed to provide her lunch. While eating, Winston began fondling her and carried her off to his bedroom, where he forced her to engage in various sexual acts. At some point, members of the victim's family, including her mother, came to his home looking for the child. Winston initially claimed that the child was no longer there, however after the child's voice was heard from the back of the house, he produced the girl. Because she was crying and her clothes were disheveled, the mother was suspicious and asked the victim if Winston had touched her. Though she initially denied it, after being slapped by her mother the victim admitted to her family members that he had molested her. At this time, the police were called to Winston's home. As did the members of the victim's family, the officer later testified that the victim's pants and shirt were open and that her breasts were exposed. The officer drove the victim to the hospital where the emergency room physician administered a rape examination kit. The doctor testified that from the examination he determined that the victim had engaged in intercourse within the two preceding hours. ¶ 19. In Winston, the results from the crime lab tests on the rape kit did not link Winston to the victim. Winston, 754 So.2d at 1155. Unlike Winston, no rape kit was conducted on M.M. because of the time lapse between the alleged molestation and the time it was reported. Other than the testing for semen, no lab tests were conducted on the towel. ¶ 20. Detective Kim Harrison, the lead investigator, testified that the Jackson Police Department Crime Lab received both the towel and samples of blood taken from Walker. Detective Harrison testified that no blood samples were taken from other individuals. Katina Robins, who specializes in forensic serology at the JPD crime lab, testified that she secured a sample of the semen present on the towel and placed it in a freezer pack to be preserved for further serological testing. However, neither witness could provide a reason why, despite their efforts to obtain and preserve samples from the defendant and the towel, that no further serological testing was conducted. ¶ 21. We are not faced with a situation where the victim was found in the suspect's house under suspicious conditions, coupled with his suspicious conduct, and then immediately driven by a police officer to the hospital where a rape kit was administered. Though the rape kit did no disclose physical evidence to link Winston to the rape, the physician concluded, based on his examination, that the victim had engaged in intercourse within the preceding two hours. See id. Here there was no immediate investigation of the reported incidents. ¶ 22. In the instant case, the need for scientific testing is clear. First, there was testimony that at one point the child claimed to have been sexually assaulted by her older brother. Second, the sexual attacks charged in the indictments allegedly occurred in June and August 2000. However, the semen on the towel resulted from a sexual attack in August of 1999. ¶ 23. Because the prosecution failed to link the semen on the towel to Walker, we find that the admission of the towel violated M.R.E. 403 and reverse. In accordance with the suggestions of the prosecution's criminologist, further scientific testing is necessary.