Opinion ID: 1694339
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the injury of Sammy Franks?

Text: Sammy Franks was injured by one of the stray bullets fired by Powell at the OK Corral. Powell filed a Motion in Limine to exclude Franks' testimony as irrelevant since the Grand Jury did not indict Powell for assault or aggravated assault upon Franks and because his testimony was highly prejudicial. The motion was overruled on the basis of res gestae. The circuit court stated that if Franks was close enough to sustain injuries, he might have been an eyewitness to the incident. Franks' testimony consisted merely of an explanation of why he was at the nightclub that night and the injuries he sustained. Generally, evidence of a crime other than that charged in the indictment is not admissible evidence against the accused. Duplantis v. State, 644 So.2d 1235, 1246 (Miss. 1994). However, where another crime or act is `so interrelated [to the charged crime] as to constitute a single transaction or occurrence or a closely related series of transactions or occurrences,' proof of the other crime or act is admissible. Id.; See also, Hurns v. State, 616 So.2d 313, 321 (Miss. 1993); Wheeler v. State, 536 So.2d 1347, 1352-53 (Miss. 1988) (prosecution allowed to mention that the defendant's bullets also hit another officer in order that a rational and coherent story could be told). Franks' testimony certainly was not critical to establishing Powell's guilt or innocence. Admission of the limited questions asked of him was harmless. Accordingly, this assignment of error is also without merit.