Opinion ID: 1598146
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the court erred in admitting evidence of the defendant's acts prior to the murder.

Text: ¶ 12. Welde's first assignment of error concerns admission of the testimony of Hughes, who testified that on the morning of Gilliard's death, Welde threatened her with his pistol, and then shot the pistol into her couch. Welde contends that this evidence of a prior bad act is irrelevant and inadmissible. ¶ 13. A trial judge enjoys a great deal of discretion as to the relevancy and admissibility of evidence. Unless the judge abuses this discretion so as to be prejudicial to the accused, the Court will not reverse this ruling. Fisher v. State, 690 So.2d 268, 274 (Miss.1996) (citing Shearer v. State, 423 So.2d 824, 826 (Miss. 1982)). ¶ 14. Generally, evidence of any crime other than the one for which the defendant is being tried is not admissible. Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242, 1256 (Miss.1995). Mississippi Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides an exception to this general rule: 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. Miss. R. Evid. 404(b). Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible if the offense being tried and the other act are so interrelated as to constitute a single transaction or occurrence or a closely related series of transactions or occurrences. Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743, 759 (Miss.1984). This Court has held that when dealing with closely related acts, the State has a legitimate interest in telling a rational and coherent story of what happened.... Brown v. State, 483 So.2d 328, 329 (Miss.1986). ¶ 15. This Court has applied a two-part test to determine the admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b). Crawford v. State, 754 So.2d 1211 (Miss.2000). The evidence offered must (1) be relevant to prove a material issue other than the defendant's character; and (2) the probative value of the evidence must outweigh the prejudicial effect. Id. at 1220. The second part of this analysis is required by Mississippi Rule of Evidence 403, as Rule 403 is an ultimate filter through which all otherwise admissible evidence must pass. Id. (quoting Jenkins v. State, 507 So.2d 89, 93 (Miss.1987)). Thus, evidence which passes the two-part test shall be deemed admissible under both Rule 404(b) and Rule 403. ¶ 16. Hughes testified that on the morning of Gilliard's death, Welde and Gilliard came to her house, looking for her fiancé, Powers. After barging into the home, Welde informed Hughes that Powers owed him money, and that if Welde was not paid, he would return and take Hughes's possessionsdvd player, stereo, etc.as compensation. Hughes testified that Welde then pulled out a .380-caliber pistol and said You see this right here? I was told to put it to your forehead and pull the trigger. Hughes further testified that Welde then put the pistol to the couch and fired one shot into the couch. ¶ 17. Itawamba County Chief Deputy Sheriff Steve Wilburn went to Hughes's home and recovered the projectile that had traveled through the couch and into the carpet underneath. The state's forensic expert, Byron McIntyre, matched this projectile and a projectile recovered from the passenger floorboard of the Lumina to the.380-caliber pistol identified as the murder weapon. Several state witnesses testified that they saw Welde carrying a .380-caliber pistol on the morning of the killing. In his own statement to Mississippi Bureau of Investigation Investigator Chris Jones, Welde stated that he shot Gilliard in the back of the head with the .380-caliber pistol. ¶ 18. The trial court found that the events on the morning of Gilliard's death were so interrelated with the incident involving the victim as to constitute a single transaction or occurrence. The court noted that these acts were material to prove knowledge, motive, intent, and planning on Welde's part. The trial court found that the events of that morning were closely related in time and place. The trial court admitted the evidence, finding that it was relevant and that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. ¶ 19. The evidence in this case clearly supports the trial court's finding that the challenged testimony was both relevant and probative. Hughes's testimony establishes that Welde and Gilliard were together less than half an hour before Gilliard's body was discovered. [3] Further, this evidence places the murder weapon in Welde's hands shortly before the shooting, as the projectile recovered from the couch matched the projectile recovered from the Lumina, both determined to have been fired by the .380-caliber pistol recovered by investigators. ¶ 20. The trial court properly employed the two-part analysis for admissibility under Rule 404(b) and the balancing test required by Rule 403. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the evidence admissible.