Opinion ID: 1626797
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion in limine pertaining to certain expected testimony of the state's witness, vincent jenkins, and in allowing this witness for the state to testify concerning threats made by the defendant to him.

Text: ¶ 28. Davis claims the trial judge committed reversible error by admitting evidence that Davis threatened to shoot up Jenkins's apartment if Jenkins did not give the shotgun to him. Davis argues that the evidence was highly prejudicial and not probative on any relevant issue citing Cabello v. State, 490 So.2d 852 (Miss. 1986) (evidence of crimes other than the one for which the accused is on trial is not admissible in a criminal prosecution). The State argued that the evidence proved Davis's motive, intent and possession of a shotgun, a short time before the robbery and murder, citing Williams v. State, 590 So.2d 1374, 1379 (Miss.1991) (State has burden of proving robbery); and M.R.E. 404(b), which allows admission of other crimes, wrongs, or acts to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, and other purposes. ¶ 29. The record revealed that counsel for the defense made a motion in limine to prohibit Jenkins from testifying that Davis had threatened to shoot his place up on this particular occasion if a certain weapon was not released since that did not show plan, motive, absence of mistake, or a common scheme concerning what the defendant was going to do fifteen minutes later. The trial judge denied the motion, ruling that the evidence was relevant and the probative value would outweigh any prejudicial effect. ¶ 30. Evidence of other crimes is admissible when such evidence tends to establish or explain the motive for the crime with which the defendant is charged, particularly in cases involving circumstantial evidence. Ladner v. State, 197 So.2d 257, 264 (Miss.1967). If prior bad acts evidence falls within a 404(b) exception, its prejudicial effect must still be weighed against its probative value to determine admissibility under Miss. R. Evid. 403. Underwood v. State, 708 So.2d 18, 31 (Miss.1998). The judge made the appropriate findings. The gun was obtained prior to the murder. Davis was convicted of capital murder while in the commission of the crime and felony of robbery. Evidence that he obtained a gun by threatening the person who had the gun was relevant to show motive and intent to commit the crime. As the State correctly argued, these actions also show state of mind of the defendant prior to the robbery and murder. These are clearly exceptions that fall within M.R.E. 404(b). This issue is without merit.