Opinion ID: 1093261
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: did the trial court err in allowing circumstantial evidence of other acts by the defendant?

Text: In the pretrial stage the trial judge overruled defense motions in limine to prevent the state from introducing evidence of other flashing light incidents similar to those allegedly involved in the present crime. During the trial, Marsha Pigott testified that in February 1983 she was driving along U.S. Highway 11/80 when a man flashed his headlights at her. She stopped and pulled over. The man then told her her license plate was falling off, but this turned out not to be true. In court she identified this man as Larry Fisher. On appeal, the defense argues that the admission of this evidence was improper as constituting evidence of other crimes or wrongful acts not necessary to establish Fisher's activity, since the victim clearly identified him as her assailant. Rule 404(b) of the Miss. Rules of Evidence, in effect at the time of the present case, states: 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, or absence of mistake or accident. The evidence of Fisher's modus operandi was not adduced to identify him, but to show his plan for assaulting women. Thus, it was admissible under Rule 404(b). The other assignments of error lack merit. The judgment and sentence of the circuit court are affirmed. AFFIRMED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, SULLIVAN, GRIFFIN and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur. ROBERTSON, J., dissents.