Opinion ID: 1695207
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: did the district attorney wrongfully allude to other illegal acts or conversations and was the defendant prejudiced by this action?

Text: The defendants' argument centers around the following direct testimony of Magee: Q: And what did you talk to her about? A: I told her that I'm sorry for bothering her because they was moving in and stuff, I told her that the other rocks that I had purchased from her was very powerful and I wanted to get two more  BY MR. OTT: Object to the statement as being irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, hearsay and move to strike. BY THE COURT: Overrule the objection. The defendants cite Sumrall v. State, 272 So.2d 917 (Miss. 1973), as the basis for reversing on this issue. Sumrall held that it was reversible error for the jury to be presented evidence of other crimes of immorality (which) destroyed the possibility of a fair trial upon the charge in the indictment. Id. at 919. Sumrall appears applicable at first glance but is distinguishable from the case sub judice. Sumrall resulted in a reversal because of four or five prejudicial comments made regarding other alleged crimes of the defendant which he was not charged with, as well as two statements about his living immorally with a fifteen year old girl. Id. at 917-919. The prejudicial comments were made subsequent to the court sustaining the defense's objections. The case sub judice only involved one incident in which the witness alluded to another possible crime for which the defendants were not charged. It should also be noted that the prosecution did not deliberately ask or infer about whether the defendants had been involved in any other offenses, which is clearly distinguishable from the intentional and repeated acts in Sumrall. The defendants point out that the trial judge was aware that crimes committed by the defendants which were not being tried could not be commented on by a witness. However, this ruling was regarding a time discrepancy in the witnesses' testimony and whether Troy had previously been to the defendants' trailer, not whether he had previously purchased additional drugs. Additionally, these discussions between counsel and the judge were done outside the presence of the jury. Therefore, the defendants were not prejudiced in any way by these particular comments. The basis for appeal here is that the statement was so prejudicial as to deprive the defendants of their right to a fair trial. MRE 403 states that Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice .... Assuming arguendo that the statements in this case were prejudicial, they were not continuously repeated to arise to the level of abuse found in Sumrall so as to warrant a reversal. Therefore, the alluding alleged here was not more prejudicial than probative, making Sumrall and MRE 403 favorably applicable to the State. The lower court's ruling will not be disturbed on this point.