Opinion ID: 1099668
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the court erred by excluding evidence of the alleged victim's tattoos.

Text: ¶ 7. In order to maintain a defense of self-defense, Hodge attempted to introduce evidence of a tattoo stating Gang$ta found on Thomas's arm. Hodge contends that this evidence shed light on Thomas's propensity for violence under Miss. R. Evid. 404(a)(2) and 405 in that Thomas was the aggressor. Hodge attempted to introduce evidence of the tattoo via the testimony of Dr. Haynes and crime scene investigator Ken Magee and by an autopsy photograph of Thomas's arm. The trial court denied admission on the basis that evidence of the tattoo was irrelevant. ¶ 8. We review a trial court's ruling on the relevance and admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion. Simmons v. State, 805 So.2d 452, 487-88 (Miss.2001) (citing Burns v. State, 729 So.2d 203, 218 (Miss.1998)). In this case, the trial judge properly denied admission of evidence of Thomas's tattoo. ¶ 9. Under Miss. R. Evid. 404(a)(2), a defendant can offer [e]vidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime ... that the victim was the first aggressor. However, in order to introduce that evidence, a defendant must introduce evidence of an overt act of aggression by the victim. Miss. R. Evid. 404(a) cmt.; Robinson v. State, 566 So.2d 1240, 1241 (Miss.1990). See Victoria C. Ferreira, Mississippi Evidence 64 (4th ed.2001); Steven J. Allen, Evidence, in 4 Jeffrey Jackson & Mary E. Miller, Encyclopedia of Mississippi Law § 34:63, at 514 (2001). In the instant case, Hodge offered no evidence of an overt act of violence by Thomas. The only evidence proffered which would even give any indication of such a disposition was the Gang$ta tattoo on the premise that Thomas was a member of a gang and that gangs have a propensity for violence. Hodge also elicited testimony from Chief Johnson that he removed a handgun from Thomas on a prior occasion. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence of an overt act of violence by Thomas, therefore, pursuant to Robinson, evidence of the tattoo was inadmissible. This assignment of error is without merit.