Opinion ID: 1791456
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the circuit court erred in allowing evidence concerning other crimes, wrongs or acts.

Text: ¶ 6. Rule 404(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence provides 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. Usually, evidence of another crime or prior bad act is not admissible. Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242, 1256 (Miss.1995). However, evidence or proof of a prior crime or bad act is admissible where it is necessary to show identity, knowledge, intent, motive or to prove scienter. Simmons v. State, 813 So.2d 710, 716 (Miss. 2002); Wheeler v. State, 536 So.2d 1347, 1352 (Miss.1988). ¶ 7. Where a trial court determines that potentially prejudicial evidence possesses sufficient probative value, it is within that court's sound discretion whether or not to admit same, since M.R.E. 403 does not mandate exclusion but rather provides that the evidence may be excluded. Baldwin v. State, 784 So.2d 148, 156 (Miss. 2001). The task of an appellate court in reviewing such a determination is not to conduct its own de novo Rule 403 balancing, but simply determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in weighing the factors and in admitting or excluding the evidence. Foster v. State, 508 So.2d 1111, 1117-18 (Miss.1987), overruled on other grounds, Powell v. State, 806 So.2d, 1069, 1080 (Miss.2001). ¶ 8. In the present case, the State introduced evidence of Jones' prior convictions for burglary and attempted burglary solely for the purpose of proving his intent to commit larceny in the Voyles' home. The prosecutor called the clerk of the circuit court as a witness and had him identify records of Jones' prior guilty pleas to charges of burglary and attempted burglary. The prosecutor than asked the witness if the records indicated whether the offenses charged that the crimes were carried out with the intent to commit larceny. The witness responded affirmatively. The Court of Appeals reversed because the State did not introduce the particulars of each prior conviction so as to show relevance. The State asserts that to do so would have risked reversal on grounds that the details not related to intent would have improperly prejudiced the jury. Further, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that the convictions were admissible for the purpose of proving intent but held, without citation to authority, that having the circuit clerk read them to the jury was improper. ¶ 9. We find that evidence regarding the underlying facts of each conviction is irrelevant in this case. The convictions were introduced to show intent. Intent was shown by the fact that Jones admitted (by pleading guilty) to five prior burglaries and to one attempted burglary. Jones argued that the only reason he was at the Voyles' house was to obtain help after his vehicle broke down. The prior convictions tend to prove, along with other facts, that Jones' intent was to burglarize the house, not to obtain help. The underlying facts of the six prior convictions were irrelevant to the issue of intent, and the circuit court would have erred if it had admitted such evidence. ¶ 10. Under Rule 403, the admission of evidence of prior crimes is allowed when proving intent. This principle is illustrated in cases where a person is arrested for possession of two or more precursors with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine. Each precursor may be a consumer product which can be bought at any store, so the possession with the intent to manufacture is the critical issue. There, evidence of a prior conviction of possession with intent to manufacture is very relevant to the issue of intent. See, e.g., Holland v. State, 656 So.2d 1192, 1196 (Miss.1995) (evidence of prior crimes admissible to prove intent). The circuit judge did not err when he admitted such evidence here. ¶ 11. More importantly, defense counsel did not challenge the introduction of the evidence on the basis that the underlying facts were not admitted also. In fact, the only argument on direct appeal Jones made in this regard was that the evidence should not have been admitted because he did not place his character into issue. The record also shows that the circuit court, even when defense counsel did not request one, gave a limiting instruction on the evidence, and that the circuit court fulfilled its duty by balancing the probative value of the evidence against the prejudicial effect and found that the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect. Finally, the standard of review regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence is abuse of discretion. Herring v. Poirrier, 797 So.2d 797, 804 (Miss.2000). The Court of Appeals erred when it found that the circuit judge abused his discretion, especially when it cited absolutely no authority in support of such a finding.