Opinion ID: 1586247
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior bad acts.

Text: ¶ 9. Long asserts that the trial court erred in allowing the district attorney to put on testimony of Rogers that he had witnessed fifteen to twenty cocaine sales by Long. Long cites Burrell v. State, 727 So.2d 761 (Miss.Ct.App.1998), as authority. However, as discussed below, Burrell does not support Long's assertion. In Burrell, the trial court found that a confidential informant's testimony that he had purchased drugs from Burrell on previous occasions was admissible to show identity, not for the purpose of `identifying [the appellant] just as Freddie Burrell,' but for ` identifying him as Freddie Burrell who sells drugs.' Id. at 767 (emphasis original). The Court of Appeals found that the testimony was impermissible prior-bad-acts testimony, noting that there was no need to establish intent, as the distribution of illegal drugs had indeed taken place. The Court of Appeals further found that the trial court had erred in failing to give a limiting instruction, stating: Even when other-crimes evidence is admissible under M.R.E. 404(b), it must pass through the `ultimate filter' of M.R.E. 403. ... When Rule 404(b) evidence is admitted and an objection to the admission is overruled, that objection is to be considered an invocation to the right of a Rule 403 balancing analysis by the court.... Burrell, 727 So.2d at 768-69. ¶ 10. Rule 403 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence allows for the exclusion of certain relevant evidence and states that: 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. Miss. R. Evid. 403. However, such evidence may be admissible pursuant to Rule 404, which provides, in relevant part: 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. Miss. R. Evid. 404(b). ¶ 11. In the instant case, the trial court considered Rogers' testimony regarding Long's prior bad acts pursuant to the Rule 403 balancing test outside the presence of the jury and found that the evidence was admissible. Specifically, the trial court found: Okay. Well, of course, this matter, according to the Defendant's wishes, has not been severed where possession with intent and sale are both counts that are against him in this particular case. The State can't prove the entire case with one witness. The case law is clear that this testimony is admissible where one of the charges is that he was possessing drugs with the intent, with the intent to sell them. But it is limited by the fact that it must pass the 403 test, and then there must be a limiting instruction to the jury. The court finds that the probative value in this case outweighs the prejudicial effect, and the court is going to allow it. But it will grant a limiting instruction that limits the consideration of this to the count that it is a possession count. Now should this not be all tied together at the end, you can, you may have another motion. That limiting instruction was given, as Instruction 11 included the following language: You are not, however, under any circumstances, to consider any evidence of alleged prior cocaine sales in reaching a verdict as to the charge of Sale of Cocaine as charged in Count I of the indictment, or for any other purpose not specifically authorized by this instruction. ¶ 12. Long has failed to establish that the trial court erred in admitting Rogers' testimony. Accordingly, we find that this issue is without merit.