David Lee Lewis v. State of Mississippi, 198 So. 3d 431

On May 11, 2013, David Lee Lewis shot Patrick McQuirter in the leg after an on-street confrontation; Lewis claimed he acted in self-defense because McQuirter was high and threatening.
Lewis testified he was earlier attacked by McQuirter, drove off bleeding, discovered a gun in his glove compartment, and shot when McQuirter approached the driver-side window.
McQuirter testified Lewis drove up, pulled out a gun, and shot him without provocation.
Lewis was indicted, tried, and convicted of aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a felon; sentenced to 10 years and 5 years consecutively.
At trial the court excluded Lewis’s testimony that McQuirter was high on cocaine at the time, reasoning Lewis lacked firsthand knowledge, the testimony was speculative, and its prejudicial effect outweighed probative value.
Lewis appealed, arguing exclusion of that testimony deprived him of the ability to show his state of mind and present a complete self-defense claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether testimony that victim was high on drugs was admissible under M.R.E. 404(a)(2) as evidence of the victim's pertinent character (propensity for violence)	Lewis: testimony of McQuirter's intoxication was relevant to show victim's propensity for violence and support self-defense; exclusion prejudiced his defense	State: Lewis offered no overt-act evidence tying intoxication to increased violence; testimony was speculative and prejudicial	Court: Exclusion proper — intoxication alone is not a pertinent trait without evidence it increased propensity for violence; trial court did not abuse discretion
Whether testimony about victim's drug use is admissible under M.R.E. 404(b) or as evidence of defendant's state of mind (M.R.E. 701)	Lewis: he believed victim was high, and that belief affected his fear and state of mind when he shot	State: Lewis lacked firsthand knowledge and provided no explanation linking intoxication to increased threat; testimony was opinion, speculative, and more prejudicial than probative	Court: Exclusion proper — Lewis had no firsthand basis, failed to explain relevance to his state of mind, and probative value was substantially outweighed by prejudice

Peterson v. State, 37 So. 3d 669 (Miss. Ct. App.) (standard for reversing evidentiary rulings is abuse of discretion)
Edwards v. State, 856 So. 2d 587 (Miss. Ct. App.) (trial court discretion on admissibility)
Shaw v. State, 915 So. 2d 442 (Miss.) (trial judge enjoys broad discretion on relevancy and admissibility)
Anderson v. State, 571 So. 2d 961 (Miss.) (self-defense requires reasonable apprehension of imminent great bodily harm; initial aggressor forfeits right)
Freeman v. State, 121 So. 3d 888 (Miss.) (right to present a complete defense and meaningful opportunity to do so)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S.) (due process aspects of presenting evidence)
Newsom v. State, 629 So. 2d 611 (Miss.) (M.R.E. 404(a)(2) permits inquiry into victim's character after showing victim was initial aggressor)
Rouster v. State, 981 So. 2d 314 (Miss. Ct. App.) (intoxication relevant only insofar as it increases victim's propensity for violence)
Russell v. State, 607 So. 2d 1107 (Miss.) (specific acts of the victim toward the defendant may be admissible to show defendant's state of mind)