Opinion ID: 2533183
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: admission of evidence concerning prior bad acts

Text: ¶ 121. Pitchford next argues the State improperly introduced evidence of a prior crime. Pitchford was indicted for two crimes: (1) capital murder of Rubin Britt in the course of armed robbery, and (2) conspiracy to commit a crime arising out of his previously thwarted attempt to rob Britt's store. The charges were not consolidated into a multicount indictment, nor were they consolidated into a single trial. ¶ 122. Citing Mississippi Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, Pitchford moved to exclude this evidence. The Court allowed Pitchford's counsel to reserve his objection. During a bench conference at trial, the prosecutor requested a Rule 403 balancing test. The trial court ruled as follows: As I understand from the motions last week, approximately a week before this alleged crime occurred there was a plan where Mr. Pitchford and others were present intending to go in and rob the. . . Crossroads Grocery. And somehow that plan was thwarted. And a week later the exact same crime was allegedly committed. That seems to me to be under the heading of plans, preparation, motive and the  and admissible as evidence. And so the Court finds that to be highly probative. And the probative value would substantially outweigh any prejudice. So that is testimony the Court will allow. ¶ 123. Pitchford concedes that evidence of other crimes may be admissible under Rule 404(b) in order to show intent, preparation, plan, or knowledge, or where necessary to tell the complete story so as not to confuse the jury. However, Pitchford disputes the trial court's ruling that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect. ¶ 124. The two evidentiary rules at issue are as follows: 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. [73] and Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. [74] ¶ 125. As an initial matter, we note that this Court has, in previous cases, erroneously implied that Rule 404(b) exceptions are not subject to Rule 403 analysis. [75] Today, we clarify those cases and hold that Rule 404(b) exceptions are, indeed, subject to a Rule 403 balancing test. ¶ 126. The trial court found the evidence admissible under Rule 404(b). Furthermore, the trial court conducted a Rule 403 balancing test, and found the probative value would substantially outweigh any prejudice. ¶ 127. A trial court must exercise sound discretion in determining whether the proffered evidence is relevant under Miss. R. Evid. 401 and even if relevant, whether such relevant evidence is admissible applying the Miss. R. Evid. 403 criteria. [76] Furthermore, this Court has held that the admission of evidence is well within the sound discretion of the trial court, subject to reversal on appeal only if there be an abuse of that discretion. [77] ¶ 128. We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence under Rules 404(b) and 403. The trial judge should have stated that he found the evidence was admissible because the probative value [was] not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, [78] rather than the probative value would substantially outweigh any prejudice. But even though the trial judge did not utter the magic words of Rule 403, he clearly performed a Rule 403 analysis and thus did not abuse his discretion in admitting the evidence, [79] and this assignment of error has no merit.