Palmer v. State
| Docket Number: | 2005-KA-00497-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-12-2006 Opinion Author: Cobb, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Sale of controlled substances - Other crimes’ evidence - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Limiting instruction Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Diaz, Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-03-2004 Appealed from: Pontotoc County Circuit Court Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: Ricky Palmer was convicted on two counts of sale of methadone and one count of sale of morphine. District Attorney: John Richard Young Case Number: CR03-212 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Ricky Palmer |
WILLIAM P. KNIGHT, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JOSE BENJAMIN SIMO |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Sale of controlled substances - Other crimes’ evidence - M.R.E. 404(b) - M.R.E. 403 - Limiting instruction |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ricky Palmer was convicted on two counts of sale of methadone and one count of sale of morphine, both schedule II controlled substances. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Prior to trial Palmer filed a motion in limine to exclude testimony that he had previously engaged in transactions involving schedule II narcotics. He argues that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion in limine and allowing a witness to testify regarding previous narcotics sales between them. The general rule is that evidence of a crime, other than the one for which the accused is being tried, is not admissible. However, evidence of other crimes may be admissible under M.R.E. 404(b) for purposes such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident. Evidence of other crimes or bad acts is also admissible in order to tell the complete story so as not to confuse the jury. In the present case it is clear that the trial court admitted the testimony for the purposes of proving intent, motive and in completing the story of the charged crime. M.R.E. 403 provides for the exclusion of evidence, even if relevant, where the risk of undue prejudice outweighs its probative value. It is clear that the trial court weighed the evidences’ probative value against the potential for undue prejudice. Palmer also argues that the court erred in failing to sua sponte give a limiting instruction to the jury regarding the value of the testimony. The burden now rests on trial counsel, not the trial court, to request a limiting instruction for Miss. R. Evid. 404(b) evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
