for the Court:
¶ 1. Before the Court is a direct appeal of the conviction of Donald Mitchell for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and his habitual-offеnder sentence. Finding that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of Mitchell’s prior convictions for possession of marijuana and cocaine, wе reverse Mitchell’s conviction, vacate his sentence, and remand for a new trial.
¶ 2. Detective Kevin Dear of the Jackson Police Department (“JPD”) received an anonymous call that a person known as “Black” was selling crack cocaine from a brick apartment complex on Capitol Street. Detective Dear identified Donald Mitchell as “Black,” conducted a preliminary investigation, and obtained a search warrant fоr the apartment.
¶ 3. JPD Sergeant Richard McGahey and other officers executed the search warrant. Upon entering the apartment, McGahey sаw Mitchell run by and followed him into the bathroom, where he saw Mitchell shake a bag upside down, emptying its contents into the toilet. Mitchell then flushed the toilet, but McGahey was able to grab some of the substance before it all was flushed away. The substance later was sent to JPD’s laboratory and determined to be cocaine.
¶ 4. The officers searched Mitchell and found approximately $1,000 in cash and a small digital scale that appeared to have cоcaine residue on it. They found another scale on the kitchen counter and additional stashes of cocaine around the apartment.
¶ 5. Mitchеll was indicted as a habitual offender for possession of cocaine with intent to sell, based on previous convictions for possession of cоcaine, possession of marijuana, and manslaughter.
¶ 6. Mitchell filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of his prior convictions for possession of controlled substances
When considering other crime evidence concerning drug activity and drugs being found in the possession of the defendant, as well as the fact that the police was familiar with the defendant because of the prior matters, probative value of the relevant evidence was not substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice. And, thus, the trial judge did [not] abuse his discretion in allowing it.
¶ 7. During the testimony of its first witness, the State presented evidence оf Mitchell’s prior possession convictions. Mitchell did not testify. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, and Mitсhell received a life sentence as a habitual offender.
ISSUES
¶ 8. Mitchell raises numerous issues, only one of which we address today, as it is dispositive:
Whether thе trial court committed reversible error by admitting evidence of Mitchell’s prior convictions for possession of marijuana and cocaine.
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of review
¶ 9. We apply an abuse-of-discretion standard when reviewing a trial judge’s decision regarding the admission or exclusion of evidence. Hargett v. State,
¶ 10. Mississippi Rule of Evidence 404(b) governs the аdmissibility of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts. Under Rule 404(b), “evidence of a crime other than the one for which the accused is being tried generаlly will not be admissible.” Hargett v. State,
¶ 11. We find that the evidence of Mitchell’s prior possession convictions satisfies none of the other purposes listed in the nonexclusive provisions of Rule 404(b). The State replied to Mitchell’s motion to exclude this evidence that it would offer the evidence to prove absence of mistake— an assertion never advanced by Mitchell, nor otherwise placed at issue by any witness. As mistake was not at issue, аbsence of mistake is a non sequitur. As we have recognized, “[t]he theory of the case can’t be we know he’s a drug dealer ... unless he alleges a mistake, therе is no reason to prove absence of mistake.” Hargett,
[vigorous prosecution does not require, and fairness does not permit, that one charged with аn offense in this area be loaded with prejudicial irrelevancies. The commendable zeal of the District Attorney to convict those he believеs guilty must never be allowed to blind either him or the courts to the necessity of affording every man a fair trial.
Hargett,
¶ 12. Having concluded that no other purpose would аllow admission of the evidence of Mitchell’s prior convictions, we are left with the general rule that character evidence is not admissible to prove conduct on a particular occasion. Miss. R. Evid. 404. To allow a party to attempt to prove that a person acted in accоrdance with a certain character trait “is to prejudice the person, to render him in the eyes of jurors liable, not because of what he did or did nоt do in the instant case, but because of what he has done or failed to do in the past.” Miss. R. Evid. 404 cmt.
¶ 13. The trial court’s reliance on Givens v. State,
CONCLUSION
¶ 14. We conсlude that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the admission of evidence of Mitchell’s prior possession convictions. As Mitchell was prejudiced by this inadmissible evidence, we reverse Mitchell’s conviction and vacate his sentence. The case is remanded to the Hinds County Circuit Court for a new trial consistent with this opinion.
¶ 15. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Notes
. Mitchell’s prior convictions were for possession of controlled substances — they were not, as the State’s brief asserts, for the "sale of cocaine and marijuana.”