Opinion ID: 1760295
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Nicholson's Argument

Text: ¶ 15. Nicholson, on more than one occasion, while objecting to the questioning of C.D., cited to Elmore v. State, 510 So.2d 127 (Miss. 1987), and Mitchell v. State, 539 So.2d 1366 (Miss. 1989), and again cites the cases in the brief of the appellant in support of his argument that the lower court committed reversible error in allowing the highly prejudicial testimony by C.D. In Elmore, this Court held: In the context of sexual crimes, however, we have long recognized a relaxation of that rule [prohibiting evidence of other crimes]... . [W]e have regarded that substantially similar acts with the same person, that is, sexual acts of the same general type as those charged in the indictment, are probative and admissible. Coates, 495 So.2d at 468. Elmore is charged with committing sexual battery upon V.E. It is Elmore's alleged criminal act toward V.E. which the State attempted to prove. Any attempt by Elmore to commit sexual battery on the rest of his family, while arguably relevant, is far less probative and at least equally, if not more, prejudicial. We hold that the admission of evidence of remote instances of sexual misconduct with someone other than the prosecutrix was reversible error. Elmore, 510 So.2d at 131 (emphasis added). ¶ 16. Nicholson additionally cites Mitchell v. State, 539 So.2d 1366, 1372 (Miss. 1989), in which this Court construed whether or not bad acts or wrongs toward children other than the victim were admissible. It should be emphasized that these cases specifically limited evidence of other sexual relations to those between the defendants and the particular victim. In this case, evidence was admitted on Mitchell exposing himself to children other than Shannon. The State would have this Court expand the holding in these cases to include testimony that shows a defendant's character of lustful behavior toward children in general, not just toward Shannon. Such expansion would not be consistent with the purposes of M.R.E. 404(b), nor consistent with the notion that a defendant is on trial for a specific crime and not for generally being a bad person. Therefore, we reverse and remand on this aspect of Mitchell's assignment of error, as well. ¶ 17. Nicholson argues that he was not charged in the indictment of a crime against C.D., only L.T.B., and urges the Court to affirm the holding of Elmore and Mitchell and to exclude the testimony of C.D. and to reverse on the basis of M.R.E. 404(b).