Opinion ID: 1604196
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: the admission of other crimes or bad acts evidence violated chase's rights pursuant to mississippi law and the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution of the united states.

Text: Chase argues that inferences of other crimes allegedly committed by Chase were improperly introduced at trial. This is again an argument in which no objection was raised in the lower court. The State's argument that the claim is frivolous is perhaps an understatement. The first reference to other crimes was during the cross-examination of Robert Washington. Defense counsel himself brought out this testimony and pursued it. Defense counsel raised no objection and did not ask the trial court to instruct the witness or jury in any manner. The second instance occurred during the testimony of Deputy Clower. Clower was testifying as to various items recovered with the help of Chase. Clower testified that Ricky was going to take us and show us where Robert threw out a cash register. This was unrelated to the present case, but Clower said that was just something he [Chase] said that Robert went in a place of business here in Hazlehurst, and we picked it up on the way back to the Sheriff's Office. The testimony was relevant to show the full story of how police authorities recovered important pieces of evidence. More importantly, the testimony showed criminal activity by Washington, not Chase. Again, there was no objection raised to the testimony. Chase's third claim is based on Chase's knowledge of Washington's committing prior burglaries. Chase testified that he knew Washington had been involved in some burglaries, but that he had never actually seen Washington commit a burglary. Chase disputed Washington's testimony that Chase was with him on one of the burglaries. The prosecutor, contrary to Chase's argument, did not accuse Chase of an additional crime  accessory after the fact of burglary. The prosecutor asked, Well, when he [Washington] says you were with him on one of those [burglaries], that's just not true, is it? The question seems anything but accusatory. No objection was raised to this line of testimony. Chase correctly states the rules on evidence of other crimes. This Court has repeatedly held that the admission of evidence of unrelated crimes is reversible error. Rose v. State, 556 So.2d 728 (Miss. 1990). As a general rule, the testimony in a criminal trial should be confined to the charge for which an accused is on trial and the prosecution should not be allowed to aid the proof against the accused by showing he committed other offenses. Davis v. State, 431 So.2d 468, 470 (Miss. 1983). The problem is that the testimony in controversy concerned crimes committed by Robert Washington or was testimony elicited by defense counsel. Chase's counsel was apparently trying to show that Washington had a history of criminal behavior and therefore was acting in conformity with his past. Based on the failure to raise objection, this claim is procedurally barred. Willie v. State, 585 So.2d at 679; Lambert v. State, 574 So.2d 573, 575 (Miss. 1990); Miss.R.Evid. 103(a)(1). Alternatively, considered on its merits, this assignment is not reversible error.