Dante Hampton appeals from his convictions for trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and possession of cocainе. Because the trial court erred in admitting extraneous evidence of another crime unrelated to the offense for which Hampton was on trial, we reverse.
1. As the trial began, Hampton made an oral motion in limine seeking to exclude a portion of his statement during the traffic stop which led to his arrest. Specifically, he movеd to exclude his response to the officer’s question whether he was on probation or parole. Hampton responded that he was on probation for cocaine. After hearing argument, the trial court denied the motion. This was error.
It is the gеneral rule that if evidence is relevant and material to an issue in a case, it is nоt inadmissible because it incidentally puts the defendant’s character in issue. It is an equаlly well-recognized general rule that what is forbidden is the introduction by the state in the first instanсe of evidence whose sole relevance to the crime charged is thаt it tends to show that the defendant has bad character.
(Citations, punctuation and emphasis omitted.)
Robinson v. State,
had nothing whatsoever to do with the conduct for which he was оn trial. . . . Indeed, the statement cannot be construed as anything other than a denial оf the offenses for which he was on trial. Thus, the only possible evidentiary function which the confession concerning prior cocaine use could have served as far as the state was concerned was an impermissible one, i.e., to impugn the aрpellant’s character before the jury by showing that he was generally prone to criminal conduct.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 34. We then considered whethеr the error was harmful, noting that “when the two statements regarding prior offenses are deleted from the statement in question, all that remains is appellant’s strong denial that hе committed the charged offense.” Id. We concluded that because “the appellant vigorously contested his guilt with an aggressive alibi defense, under such circumstances, and in light of the posture of the State’s evidence, we cannot say that this errоr was harmless.” Id. at 35.
Hampton’s statement presents the same circumstances. His probation for an unspecified prior offense involving cocaine had no bearing on his guilt or innocence of the offense charged, particularly in the absenсe of any motion by the State to introduce it as a similar transaction.
Robinson,
supra at 34. Mоreover, Hampton vigorously denied guilt or any knowledge of the drugs or money found in the сar, and made no other statement to the police. Compare
Snyder v. State,
In responsе to this enumeration of error, the State does not contend that Hampton’s statеment was proper, nor does it contend that the error was harmless. Instead, it argues only that Hampton waived his objection by failing to renew it at the time the evidencе was introduced. This contention is without merit. Once Hampton’s motion in limine was made and dеnied, his objection was preserved for appeal. “Normally, when a defendant moves in limine for the exclusion of evidence and the trial court, on the record, rules the evidence admissible, the record is preserved and the defendant is not
*51
required to object to the evidence during trial. [Cits.]”
Watson v. State,
The trial court erred in failing to grant Hamрton’s motion in limine with respect to a prior, unspecified conviction involving cocaine, and we therefore must reverse.
2. Hampton’s remaining enumeration of error is rendered moot by our decision in Division 1.
Judgment reversed.