Opinion ID: 1366593
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State's Assertions

Text: In response to the Appellant's contentions, the State maintains that the Appellant alleged that the incident in which his son-in-law was killed was essentially an accident and that evidence of prior acquaintance with the use of firearms was therefore appropriate. [3] Furthermore, the State emphasizes that the lower court properly required the State to provide a detailed written notice of its intention to utilize Rule 404(b) evidence and the specific purposes for which the evidence would be offered. The lower court thereafter made findings consistent with the requirements of McGinnis that the acts alleged by Mr. Blevins, Mr. Rhodes, and Mr. Hunley actually occurred, that such evidence was relevant, and that the probative value of such evidence outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice under Rule 403. [4] The lower court further ruled that the State could use evidence of three of the five incidents initially offered by the State [5] as tending to prove the absence of mistake or accident and intent. The lower court also provided the jury with an appropriate limiting instruction on two separate occasions.