Calvin Giles v. State of Mississippi, 282 So.3d 519

Defendant Calvin Giles, neighbor who sold snacks, was convicted of fondling an 8‑year‑old girl after she testified and a forensic interviewer relayed disclosures that included one incident on July 18, 2015 and an unobjected-to statement referencing additional prior exposures.
Forensic interviewer Meredith Rawl testified about the August 12, 2015 interview and opined the child’s behavior was consistent with sexual abuse; the State had been warned pretrial not to elicit testimony about incidents beyond the indictment date.
Giles testified denying the allegations; the jury convicted and the trial court denied his JNOV motion challenging Rawl’s opinion testimony and the sufficiency of the evidence.
On appeal Giles raised two issues: (1) admission of Rawl’s statements recounting prior instances of exposure (purported Rule 404(b) prior‑bad‑acts evidence and Rule 105 limiting‑instruction error), and (2) the circuit court’s nonstandard method of selecting alternate jurors (using all peremptory strikes up front and drawing alternates from the impaneled pool).
Giles did not object at trial to Rawl’s specific prior‑acts statements nor to the jury‑selection procedure; the court reviews both issues for abuse of discretion and, because of the lack of contemporaneous objections, considers plain‑error analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of Rawl’s testimony recounting prior exposures	State: testimony was admissible as part of the child’s disclosure and non‑prejudicial; no contemporaneous objection	Giles: testimony constituted impermissible prior‑bad‑acts evidence under MRE 404(b) and required a contemporaneous limiting instruction under amended MRE 105	Court: No reversible error — Giles waived by failing to object; plain‑error not shown because no prejudice and defense counsel could have requested limiting instruction
Expert opinion that the child’s behavior was consistent with abuse	State: expert may testify about interview techniques and consistency findings	Giles: opinion testimony improperly bolstered the child and was prejudicial	Court: Admission within trial court’s discretion; defense failed to preserve objection; no plain error shown
Jury‑selection procedure for alternates (using all strikes up front; drawing alternates from empaneled jurors)	State: court has discretion and statute historically treated procedural jury provisions as directory	Giles: procedure violated new Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rules 18.3/18.4) and prejudiced defense	Court: Procedure deviated from the new rules (error) but not plain error — Giles used few peremptories and offered no proof of juror bias or prejudice; conviction affirmed

Tunica County v. Matthews, 926 So. 2d 209 (Miss. 2006) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Baldwin v. State, 784 So. 2d 148 (Miss. 2001) (appellate review limited for Rule 403 balancing; trial court discretion)
Derouen v. State, 994 So. 2d 748 (Miss. 2008) (probative vs. prejudicial balancing and need for limiting instruction for prior‑act evidence)
Curry v. State, 202 So. 3d 294 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (amended MRE 105 requires offering a limiting instruction but defendant may waive request; harmless error analysis)
Stone v. State, 188 So. 3d 593 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (no contemporaneous objection to nonstandard alternate selection waives claim)
Burrell v. State, 183 So. 3d 19 (Miss. 2015) (failure to object to jury‑selection method at voir dire waives appellate review)
Carr v. State, 190 So. 3d 1 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (plain‑error framework for alternate selection challenges; absent bias or partiality defendant not prejudiced)
Simmons v. State, 805 So. 2d 452 (Miss. 2001) (peremptory challenges not constitutionally guaranteed; need to show prejudice)