James L. Johnson, Jr. v. State of Mississippi, 2016 Miss. LEXIS 487

Background

Defendant James Johnson was convicted by an Alcorn County jury of aggravated domestic violence for assaulting his ex-wife, Vo-lante Jones; he claimed self-defense.
Before trial the State proffered four prior-offense reports describing earlier assaults (1999, early-2000s incidents with prior partners, and a 2012 incident involving his daughter).
Defense moved in limine to exclude prior-bad-acts evidence; the trial court heard the proffer, reviewed the reports, and admitted three reports early and the fourth later (with one certificate redacted).
On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning the trial court had not considered all facts in the reports at the in limine hearing and had improperly admitted the full reports.
The Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari, held the trial judge did review the reports and applied Rules 404(b) and 403 (albeit with imperfect phrasing), reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the conviction and sentence.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Johnson's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior-offense reports (motion in limine)	State: proffered four reports; trial court reviewed exhibits and properly admitted them for non-character purposes and to rebut self-defense	Johnson: reports contained unproffered facts and entire contents were admitted without proper in limine consideration	Court: trial court did review the reports and therefore Court of Appeals erred; admission not an abuse of discretion
Applicability of Rule 404(b) (purpose for admission)	State: prior acts show intent, motive, plan, and rebut self-defense	Johnson: prior acts used as propensity evidence and not covered by Rule 404(b) exceptions; remote in time	Court: trial court permissibly admitted the reports under Rule 404(b) to rebut self-defense and show intent/motive/plan
Rule 403 balancing (prejudice vs probative)	State: prior acts were similar and highly probative; probative value outweighed prejudice	Johnson: tendency to unfairly prejudice the jury and confuse issues	Court: trial court applied Rule 403 balancing and did not abuse discretion (noting the judge misstated the phraseology but reached a permissible result)
Cross-examination / offer of proof re victim’s prior employment	Johnson: should have been allowed to proffer testimony that victim worked as exotic dancer/escort to attack credibility	State: line of questioning irrelevant to credibility; objection sustained	Court: testimony would not bear on credibility under Rule 608 or be relevant under Rule 401; denial of proffer not an abuse of discretion
Prosecutorial remark referencing race in closing	Johnson: statement calling him “a six-foot black man” prejudiced jury (raised on appeal)	State: no contemporaneous objection at trial; issue waived	Court: issue procedurally barred for failure to object; concurrence criticizes statement as inappropriate and close to plain error but declines reversal

Key Cases Cited

Smith v. State, 136 So.3d 424 (Miss. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Young v. Guild, 7 So.3d 251 (Miss. 2009) (standard for review of evidentiary rulings)
Sewell v. State, 721 So.2d 129 (Miss. 1998) (evidentiary rulings affirmed unless they affect substantial rights)
Ivy v. State, 641 So.2d 15 (Miss. 1994) (same)
Green v. State, 89 So.3d 543 (Miss. 2012) (Rule 404(b) exceptions not exhaustive; failure to identify specific exception not reversible per se)
Brooks v. State, 903 So.2d 691 (Miss. 2005) (two-part Rule 404(b)/403 analysis described)
Boggs v. State, 188 So.3d 515 (Miss. 2016) (prior-acts admissible to show common plan/scheme; Rule 403 balancing upheld)
Cole v. State, 126 So.3d 880 (Miss. 2013) (alternative non-character purposes irrelevant once a proper purpose is shown)
Gore v. State, 37 So.3d 1178 (Miss. 2010) (admission of prior bad acts where facts substantially similar upheld)
Derouen v. State, 994 So.2d 748 (Miss. 2008) (prior-act evidence admission subject to Rule 403 balancing)
Newell v. State, 308 So.2d 71 (Miss. 1975) (Court’s authority over evidentiary rules)
Havard v. State, 928 So.2d 771 (Miss. 2006) (failure to object waives prosecutorial-misconduct claim on appeal)
Carr v. State, 873 So.2d 991 (Miss. 2004) (same)
Grayer v. State, 120 So.3d 964 (Miss. 2013) (plain-error standard for bypassed objections)