Stone v. State, 2012 Miss. LEXIS 325

Stone was convicted of aggravated assault of Carolyn Stone and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment with 4 years suspended and a $4,000 fine; the conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal.
Indictment issued July 26, 2010; trial began October 5, 2010, in Itawamba County; June 7, 2010 entry into Carolyn’s house despite a restraining order.
Stone entered Carolyn’s house, beat her with a metal walking cane, and was witnessed by Seretha Stone and Kay Hill; 911 call by Kay alerted police.
Carolyn had prior threats/abuses by Stone (2002–2005) and a restraining order from January 2005; these prior acts were admitted to show motive, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, and absence of mistake.
The State sought to admit prior-bad-acts evidence;Stone’s counsel moved for directed verdict; the court admitted the evidence; the jury found Stone guilty; post-trial, issues included sufficiency of evidence and admissibility of prior acts; some pro se claims were deemed outside the record; Miranda claim was procedurally barred.
The majority affirms conviction and sentence; a concurrence criticizes the 404(b) ruling as overbroad; a dissent would reverse and remand for a new trial on evidentiary grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated assault	Stone argues the State failed to prove a deadly weapon or extreme indifference.	Stone contends the evidence does not support elements of aggravated assault.	No reversible error; evidence supports elements including deadly-weapon use and intent.
Admission of prior bad acts under Rule 404(b) and 403	Evidence of prior threats/assaults is probative of motive/intent/plan and admissible.	Trial court abused discretion by admitting broad 404(b) evidence without proper exception-specific analysis.	No reversible error; balancing under Rule 403 favored admission; evidence sufficient to sustain verdict.

Brooks v. State, 360 So.2d 704 (Miss. 1978) (deadly weapon characterization and sufficiency distinguishable by facts)
Simmons v. State, 568 So.2d 1192 (Miss. 1990) (deadly-weapon use can be inferred from dangerous instrumentality)
Rushing v. State, ? () (jury decides if an item not normally deadly becomes deadly)
Welde v. State, 3 So.3d 113 (Miss. 2009) (two-step Rule 404(b) analysis; relevance and probative value balanced against prejudice)
Hargett v. State, 62 So.3d 950 (Miss. 2010) (Rule 404(b) exceptions must be stated and applied, otherwise error; harmless if overwhelming evidence)
Gore v. State, 37 So.3d 1178 (Miss. 2010) (remoteness in Rule 404(b) analysis; admissibility not automatic)
Robinson v. State, 35 So.3d 501 (Miss. 2010) (invalid 404(b) use can be nonharmless if it forces defendant to testify)
Tate v. State, 912 So.2d 919 (Miss. 2005) (limiting instruction under 404(b) is strategy-dependent)
McKee v. State, 791 So.2d 804 (Miss. 2001) (Rule 403 balancing framework)
Irby v. State, 49 So.3d 94 (Miss. 2010) (evidence error not reversible absent prejudice)