Opinion ID: 1861381
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: evidence of separate offense

Text: Prior to trial the circuit judge sustained a defense motion in limine to prevent the state from offering into evidence proof of a previous instance in which Michael had gotten his mother's pistol out when he and Lemon were alone in the apartment, waved it, and told Lemon, I will shoot you, man. Michael's testimony on direct examination is above set forth. The record shows the following cross-examination of Michael: Q. So, when you load the gun you knew the gun was loaded, didn't you? A. No. Q. You didn't know it was loaded. This is not the first time that you ever loaded that gun, is it? A. Yes. Q. It is? A. Yes. Q. It's not the first time you ever showed your friends the gun, is it? A. No. Q. The truth of the matter is you showed James Lemon this gun in the latter part of the summer of 1986, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. You took the gun out and you-all were fussing over some cookies and  BY MR. STANFIELD: If it please the Court, I'm going to object to that. BY THE COURT: All right. Be sustained. Q. Have you ever pointed this gun at anybody else? A. No. Q. When your lawyer asked you some questions you said that you didn't know much about the gun, about the pistol, you didn't know anything, but the truth of the matter is you had handled this gun before, haven't you? A. Yes. Q. In fact, you had pointed this gun at some of your friends before, haven't you? A. No. BY MR. COXWELL: We object, Your Honor. BY MR. WRIGHT: He's on cross examination, Your Honor. It is relevant. BY THE COURT: I overrule the objection. BY MR. COXWELL: I would like for the record to be clear we covered this in pre-trial and the Judge sustained our motion. BY MR. WRIGHT: He's subject to cross examination wide open scope. You opened the door when you asked about his familiarity with  BY MR. COXWELL: Objection. BY THE COURT: I overruled the objection. Q. The truth of the matter is you took this gun out, loaded it and you pointed the gun at James Lemon, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. And, when you told me  what were you doing when this happened? A. We wasn't doing anything. Q. Was your mama at home? A. No. Q. The truth of the matter is you  BY MR. STANFIELD: Objection as to relevancy. We'd like a continuing objection. BY THE COURT: Yes, sir. I continually overrule. Q. You had to go to the bedroom to get the gun, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. And, you had  the police found it in the bedroom, didn't they? A. Yes. Q. Now, when you got the gun out there were only two people there in that house, you and James Lemon. Isn't that right? A. Yes. Q. You pulled the gun out. Did you point it at him? A. No. Q. What did you tell him when you got the gun out? A. I don't remember. Q. The truth of the matter is you said, Man, I'll shoot you. Didn't you? A. I don't remember. Q. You-all were fussing over some cookies. Do you remember that? A. Yes. Q. And, you said, Man, I'll shoot you. And, you got up and pointed the gun and then Lemon said, I'll leave. And, then you said, Well  you started bragging and said, It wasn't loaded. He got real nervous about it and said, That's the kind of gun that kills folks. And, he left your house, didn't he? A. Yes. Q. He got so scared of you he left your house, didn't he? BY MR. STANFIELD: Your Honor, we object and ask to approach the bench. BY THE COURT: Yes, sir. (Conference was had at the bench between the Court and the attorneys.) BY THE COURT: I overrule the objection. BY MR. STANFIELD: May I put it in the record at recess? BY THE COURT: Yes, sir. I will let the jury step out and you can put it in the record now. (At this time the jury was retired from the court room and the following proceedings were had out of their presence and hearing.) BY MR. STANFIELD: The defendant had a continuing objection to this line of questioning on cross examination by the District Attorney, but the defendant feels compelled to object on a question by question basis in that the District Attorney under the guise of trying to show routine or habit is trying to bring in a separate and distinct crime that of pointing a gun and threatening by this defendant on a previous occasion with a party not in  a party not to this lawsuit at a remote time merely to prejudice this jury. The defendant has testified that he did not know how to operate this handgun and the District Attorney through the guise of impeachment is attempting to bring in separate and distinct crimes in order to impeach him on something that is unimpeachable. He's admitted that he knows nothing about the operation of the handgun and the District Attorney by trying to state and testify to this jury that he made a threat does not show that he knows how to operate the handgun. So, it's a ploy by the District Attorney to try to see that Michael Blanks does not receive a fair trial for which the defendant must strenuously object, if the Court please. BY MR. COXWELL: We'd like in addition to object in that it's not relevant in that he's trying to prove some unrelated, remote incident that Michael acted in conformity with that time. That's absolutely in admissible sic] under every Supreme Court ruling. BY MR. STANFIELD: May it please the Court, I would respectfully submit, number one, defense lawyer asked questions of the defendant of what did he know about the pistol, he answered nothing. He's on cross examination and I have a right to impeach him on that. I'm showing that he's had contact with this gun particularly around other people. He's claiming in his defense an accident and no knowledge of the gun. I'm showing to the jury that he did have knowledge of the gun and knew where it was located, he knew how to load it. He also knew that the danger involved with the gun, in addition that he had done the same thing to another person, namely, James Lemon. And, as to the objection of the other crimes rule it goes to the identity of the accused with the gun. It also goes to the knowledge, guilty knowledge, pertaining to the particular gun and also cross examination that lied when he testified to defense counsel that he knew nothing about the pistol. BY THE COURT: Well, I've overruled the objection to the last question you asked him  it was what? BY THE REPORTER: (Reading) Question: He got so scared of you he left your house, didn't he? BY THE COURT: I sustain the objection to that question. BY MR. STANFIELD: Your Honor, we would move for a mistrial. BY THE COURT: Motion for mistrial is overruled.       (Then after a recess the following occurred.) Q. Now, when Mr. Lemon  James Lemon  was at your house and you had this gun out, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. I can't hear you. A. Yes. Q. And, you got it from the closet, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. It was loaded at that time, wasn't it? A. No. Q. Was it on safety or the safety on or off? A. I don't know. Q. And  show me how you did this gun with Mr. Lemon. A. About like that. Q. What did you say to him? A. I don't remember. Q. The truth of the matter is you told him, I will shoot you, man. Didn't you? A. I don't remember. Q. I can't here [sic] you, Mr. Blanks. A. I don't remember. Q. And the truth of the matter is you were arguing over some cookies. Isn't that the truth? A. Yes. Q. Now, once he left did you put the gun back up in the closet? A. Yes. (T-II. 158-165) [Emphasis added] Michael argues that this cross-examination of him as to the previous instance with Lemon was prejudicial error. This brings us to the issue in this case. Was Michael guilty of murder by committing an act eminently dangerous to others, evincing a depraved heart, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to kill Pap? Jones v. State, supra; Neighbors v. State, 361 So.2d 345 (Miss. 1978); Bass v. State, 54 So.2d 259 (Miss. 1951). Michael's defense was that the killing was accidental when he was showing Pap how the pistol worked. According to him, he had put a cartridge in the pistol, pulled a lever back, taken the cartridge back out, and was putting the pistol back on safety when it fired. The State argues that because of Michael's testimony on direct examination he opened the door to this cross-examination. Michael's testimony on direct examination simply stated (1) he had never shot the gun before, (2) his mother had never given him any instruction, and (3) he knew he was not supposed to handle it. On cross-examination he was asked about a past instance in which, following a quarrel with his friend Lemon over some cookies, he had gotten the pistol out, waved it, and threatened to shoot Lemon. Clearly no such line of inquiry was opened by the direct examination. Nothing on Michael's direct examination denied or suggested that the instance with Lemon had never occurred. At the very outside, the most the State should have been permitted to ask him was whether or not on a previous occasion he had handled the weapon in the presence of Lemon. And stopped there. Rule 404(b) Mississippi Rules of Evidence states: (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. Clearly, under the first sentence of this section the instance of waving the pistol at Lemon was inadmissible. The only reason for offering this instance into evidence  as the district attorney himself stated  was an attempt by the State to show that the episode with Pap was a repetition with tragic consequences of precisely what Michael had previously done with Lemon. The first sentence of this rule is a recognition of the well-settled principle of law that generally evidence of other wrongs is inadmissible in the trial of an accused. Davis v. State, 530 So.2d 694 (Miss. 1988); Robinson v. State, 497 So.2d 440 (Miss. 1986); Brown v. State, 483 So.2d 328 (Miss. 1986); Fisher v. State, 481 So.2d 203 (Miss. 1985); Quinn v. State, 479 So.2d 706 (Miss. 1985); Tobias v. State, 472 So.2d 398 (Miss. 1985); Donald v. State, 472 So.2d 370 (Miss. 1985). Offering into evidence proof of other similar crimes for the purpose of showing an accused more likely to be guilty by virtue of having engaged in the same sort of acts before is, and always has been, inadmissible. Offering evidence of previous recklessness with the pistol in an effort to prove or suggest reckless conduct when Pap was killed was no different in principle than offering evidence of a previous accident caused by a defendant's drunken driving to support an indictment of manslaughter arising from culpable negligence in driving while intoxicated. As the rule and comment thereunder state, past conduct may be admissible for some other purpose to show identity, knowledge, intent, motive, or absence of mistake or accident, which limited exceptions have also been consistently allowed by previous decisions of this Court. Carter v. State, 450 So.2d 67 (Miss. 1984). The testimony pertaining to the instance with Lemon did not come under any other purpose under this section, however, and therefore was inadmissible. As in Harveston this was a case in which the jury could very well have returned a verdict of not guilty. Indeed they did reduce the crime to manslaughter. Admission of this evidence in this type of case was prejudicial and we must reverse. As the other errors complained of will not recur on retrial, we do not address them. REVERSED AND REMANDED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., DAN M. LEE, P.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and BLASS, JJ., concur. ANDERSON, J., dissents without written opinion. PITTMAN, J., not participating.