Opinion ID: 1903593
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING EVIDENCE OF OTHER BAD ACTS IN VIOLATION OF M.R.E. 404(b).

Text: ¶ 12. Pruitt next argues that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence Deputy Bangs's narrative of Pruitt's initial confession. Pruitt argues this admission improperly placed evidence of prior bad acts in the form of his arrest for possession of a firearm before the jury in contravention of Mississippi Rule of Evidence 404(b). In fact, Deputy Bangs's narrative does not refer to his arrest for possession of a firearm at all. Rather, the Rule 404(b) evidence to which Pruitt objected at trial was his alleged statement to Bangs that he broke into a house and stole a gun that he was going to use to kill his ex-wife. ¶ 13. Furthermore, the record reflects that the Bangs narrative was actually offered into evidence by Pruitt himself during his cross-examination of Bangs rather than the State. On redirect, the State then had Bangs read the narrative to the jury in its entirety. Upon Pruitt's objection, the State pointed out the fact that Pruitt was the one who offered the narrative into evidence, which Pruitt's attorney denied having done. The trial court overruled Pruitt's objection. While Pruitt's attorney later indicated that he was under the impression the Bangs narrative would have been redacted to eliminate the prior bad acts as Pruitt's other confessions had been, the record reflects only that Pruitt requested a redaction of prior arrests from his interview with Detective Ruspoli. ¶ 14. As the State notes, the general rule is that a defendant cannot complain of evidence he himself brings out, nor can an attorney inviting error later complain of it. See Singleton v. State, 518 So.2d 653, 655 (Miss.1988); Davis v. State, 472 So.2d 428, 432 (Miss.1985); Jones v. State, 381 So.2d 983, 991 (Miss.1980)(We think an appellant cannot assail as prejudicial his own trial tactics, because it would foster a propensity in litigants to create error to enhance the possibility of reversal and repeated trials. This he is not permitted to do.). The record reflects that Pruitt invited any error by offering the Bangs narrative into evidence in order to impeach Deputy Bangs. Pruitt cannot now complain that the trial court erred in letting the State read aloud what he had already published to the jury. This issue is without merit.