Cole v. State
126 So. 3d 880
| Miss. | 2013Background
- Joe Earl Cole was convicted of one count of sexual battery and three counts of gratification of lust based on granddaughters H.M., M.M., K.H., E.C.
- State presented taped forensic interviews of the five granddaughters and live testimony alleging prior unindicted acts by Cole against M.M. and M.H.
- Cole moved in limine to exclude the interviews as hearsay and to exclude prior-bad-acts evidence under Rule 404(b).
- Trial court applied tender-years hearsay exception to the interviews and admitted prior-bad-acts evidence for multiple noncharacter purposes under Rule 404(b) and 403 after weighing probative value and prejudice.
- Jury was instructed that unindicted acts involving M.M. and M.H. were admissible only for specified purposes (motive, opportunity, intent, etc.).
- Appeal contested the admissibility of the unindicted acts and the use of Rule 404(b) and related rules; court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Rule 608/609 require prior-bad-acts to be prior convictions? | Cole argues 608/609 apply to impeachment only. | State contends no merit given impeachment scope and non-applicability here. | Rules 608/609 do not apply to this evidence. |
| Whether prior bad acts against M.M. and M.H. were admissible under Rule 404(b) and 403. | Evidence lacks Rule 404(b) relevance to charged elements and is prejudicial. | Evidence shows motive, opportunity, intent, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake; not substantially prejudicial. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; admissible for noncharacter purposes with proper limiting instructions. |
| Is the absence of accident/mistake a valid Rule 404(b) purpose for prior acts in this case? | No substantial issue of mistake; acts not tied to absence of accident. | Evidence supported absence of mistake or accident as a permissible purpose. | Yes, admissible to show absence of accident or mistake under Rule 404(b). |
| Does the record show legitimate alternative 404(b) purposes beyond motive and absence of mistake? | Arguments rely on unraised or impermissible purposes. | State articulated legitimate noncharacter purposes; Derouen framework satisfied. | Trial court properly admitted for multiple noncharacter purposes under Derouen/Gore framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gore v. State, 37 So.3d 1178 (Miss.2010) (admissibility of prior sex acts for motive under Rule 404(b))
- Green v. State, 89 So.3d 543 (Miss.2012) (overwhelming similarities; motive and common plan under 404(b))
- Derouen v. State, 994 So.2d 748 (Miss.2008) (rejected per se inadmissibility; allowed 404(b) with 403 filtering)
- Young v. State, 106 So.3d 775 (Miss.2012) (admissibility of prior acts for motive and common scheme)
- O’Connor v. State, 120 So.3d 390 (Miss.2013) (reinforces 404(b) purposes in sexual-misconduct cases)