348 So.3d 359
Miss. Ct. App.2022Background
- On January 3, 2020, Sharina Wooten shot her boyfriend, Ernest Jordan; he was struck in the back after running away and identified Wooten as the shooter.
- Witnesses (Upkins, Moak) found Jordan bleeding on Highway 51; they and 911 audio corroborated his statement that Wooten shot him; bystanders observed blood on Wooten’s car.
- Police found a .380 handgun in Wooten’s car and casings matching the weapon at the scene; Wooten made inconsistent statements, was defensive on bodycam, and was Mirandized.
- Wooten claimed self-defense and that she fired warning shots or accidentally hit Jordan; she also admitted firing but at times denied intent.
- The State called Wooten’s ex-husband, John, over objections under M.R.E. 404(b) to testify about prior domestic violence (including an alleged stabbing) to show absence of mistake/accident.
- A Lincoln County jury convicted Wooten of aggravated domestic violence; she appealed arguing erroneous admission of prior-bad-acts evidence and denial of her right to present a defense via three witness-related rulings. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Wooten's Argument | State's/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of ex-husband’s testimony under M.R.E. 404(b) | Testimony inadmissible; not an enumerated exception and prejudicial | Admissible to show absence of mistake/accident/self-defense; probative value outweighs prejudice; limiting instruction given | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence admissible and, if error, harmless given strength of case |
| Remoteness and reliance on an accusation (not a conviction) | Stabbing too remote (13 years) and merely an accusation, so inadmissible | Remoteness is a Rule 403 factor; 404(b) covers crimes/wrongs/acts (no conviction required) | Affirmed: remoteness comparable to precedent; convictions not required for 404(b) evidence |
| Denial of continuance to secure defense witness Charlotte Smith | Denial deprived Wooten of a key witness and right to present defense | Defense failed to use court’s process or explain why another continuance would succeed; prior continuance already granted | Affirmed: denial within trial court’s broad discretion |
| Exclusion of hearsay from Lakesha Smith and failure to enforce subpoena for Antoinette Pryor | Exclusion and witness absence denied right to present defense | Lakesha’s hearsay was not proffered and relevance to state of mind at time of shooting was not shown; Pryor left courthouse and defense did not request enforcement or accept bench-warrant offer | Affirmed: Lakesha issue waived for lack of proffer; Pryor claim waived for failure to pursue enforcement; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 204 So. 3d 763 (Miss. 2016) (admission of prior domestic-violence incidents under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403 analysis)
- Boggs v. State, 188 So. 3d 515 (Miss. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Stone v. State, 94 So. 3d 1078 (Miss. 2012) (discussing harmless-error review and trial-judge discretion on evidentiary rulings)
- Gilmore v. State, 772 So. 2d 1095 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) (defendant’s duty to pursue subpoenaed witnesses and waiver when no enforcement sought)
- Green v. State, 89 So. 3d 543 (Miss. 2012) (requirement to proffer excluded testimony to preserve appellate review)
- May v. State, 524 So. 2d 957 (Miss. 1988) (remoteness of prior bad acts considered under Rule 403)