for the Court:
¶ 1. Clonelle Shields, convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of Madison County of aggravated assault, has appealed his conviction to this Court. In his appeal, he raises five issues that he claims warrant a reversal of his conviction. We find the issues to be without merit and, therefore, affirm the conviction.
I.
Facts
¶ 2. The State presented evidence that Shields, in the early morning hours of September 29, 1996, approached Jimmie Lee Ollie in an effort to collect a debt of ten dollars, and that, upon Ollie’s failure to pay the debt, Shields produced a pistol and shot Ollie one time as he attempted to flee. Shields testified in' his own defense, claiming that he was at his grandmother’s home in bed at the time the shooting occurred. In his direct testimony for the State, the victim claimed that he did not owe Shields any money, but that he had previously
¶ 3. The State opened this line of inquiry with the question, “Mr. Ollie, why was the defendant, Clonelle Shields, claiming you owed him money?” At that point, defense counsel objected, saying only, “Objection as to why, Your Honor.” The trial court overruled the objection and the questioning continued.
¶ 4. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Shields filed a post-conviction motion for JNOV or, in the alternative, a new trial. The trial court denied relief based on the motion and this appeal ensued. We will consider the issues raised by Shields in the same order presented in his brief.
II.
The First Issue: The Admissibility of Evidence of Shields’s Involvement in Drug Sales
¶ 5. Shields claims that evidence of his involvement in drug sales was inadmissible as being evidence of other bad acts admitted for no other purpose than to demonstrate his general bad character — a practice prohibited by Mississippi Rule of Evidence 404(b). We have quoted the contemporaneous objection lodged with the trial court when the State began its inquiry into the circumstances relating to the allegedly disputed debt. We consider that objection, by any fair reading, to have only raised considerations of relevancy. It is essential, when voicing an objection to evidence, to state with some particularity the basis for the objection. See M.R.E. 103(a)(1); Hooker v. State,
¶ 6. It is the opinion of this Court that, in order to fully acquaint the jury with the circumstances surrounding Ollie’s shooting, it was relevant to inquire into the nature of the disputed debt. Brown v. State,
¶ 7. For these reasons, we conclude this issue to be without merit.
III.
The Second Issue: Evidence of Shields’s Self-Help Investigation
¶ 8. Shields wanted to testify that he had done his own investigation of the shooting, apparently at the urging of local police, and that his investigation suggested that Curtis Morment was the actual assailant in Ollie’s injury. The trial court excluded such testimony. The court observed that any accusatory statements of that nature would, of necessity, be based on hearsay information allegedly gathered
IV.
The Third Issue: Refusal to Admit Evidence of Cocaine Levels in Victim’s Blood
¶ 9. During Ollie’s medical treatment after he was shot, a blood test was performed that indicated certain levels of cocaine in his blood. Prior to trial, the State and the defense entered into a stipulation as to the results of that test. The stipulation gave the mathematical determination of cocaine level and indicated that the level was considered a “positive” test for presence of cocaine. However, the stipulation as to the test results did not address the question of admissibility. The written stipulation, in fact, ended with the phrase, “if evidence is relevant.”
¶ 10. After both sides had rested, the court and attorneys were discussing jury instructions when defense counsel asked, for the first time during the trial, to have the stipulation read to the jury. The trial court refused, saying that the receipt of evidence had been concluded, that Ollie had already admitted to cocaine use on the day he was shot, and that the information concerning specific levels of cocaine in Ollie’s blood, without accompanying scientific evidence as to what effect that concentration of drugs might have on Ollie’s cognitive skills, would have no probative value. Shields now complains that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to admit the stipulation. He cites such cases as Pace v. Financial Sec. Life of Miss.,
¶ 11. We conclude that the trial court’s ruling was correct for either of two valid reasons. First, the attempted offer of the stipulation into evidence was too late. Both sides had rested and the receipt of evidence had been closed. While the trial court may have some authority to reopen the trial to admit additional evidence before a case is submitted to the jury (See, e.g., Perkins v. State,
¶ 12. Secondly, we agree with the trial court that the test results, by and large, are uninformative to jury members presumed to have no special skills in matters of pharmacology. Absent some accompanying expert interpretive testimony, a stipulation that Ollie’s “blood contained 504.17 mA/min of cocaine with a cuhoff rate of 432.01” is, to the average layman, essentially meaningless insofar as it touches on the question of Ollie’s observation and recall abilities. It, therefore, fails the test for “relevant evidence” set out in Mississippi Rule of Evidence 401, and is, therefore, rendered inadmissible by Rule 402. Perhaps the jury could have drawn some useful information from the provision of the stipulation “that the qualitative interpretation is ‘positive’....” Nevertheless, it is difficult to envision how this one phrase would have substantially impacted the already overwhelming evidence that Ollie had been smoking a substantial quantity of crack cocaine on the day he was injured.
¶ 13. By our holding, we do not mean to suggest that, had the stipulation been offered on a timely basis and had it been accompanied by expert testimony that would have aided the jury in understanding the degree of Ollie’s impairment and the typical impact of such a level of impairment on cognitive abilities, the stipulation would have been inadmissible. We only conclude that, in the absence of any such predicate to introduction of the stipulation, the trial court appears to have been entirely correct in finding it to have little or no probative value. Therefore, his decision not to reopen the evidence to admit the stipulation was not error.
V.
The Fourth Issue: Improper Limitation on Summation by the Defense
¶ 14. Shields complains in this issue that his counsel was directed by the trial court to refrain from arguing during summation that the State had attempted to conceal Ollie’s possible impairment from cocaine use from the jury. This idea that the State sought to prevent the jury from hearing evidence favorable to the defense was based solely on the proposition that the State did not bring the fact of Ollie’s cocaine use out during its ease in chief. This issue is patently without merit. The defense was well aware of Ollie’s use of cocaine during the day of his injury in advance of the trial. The State did nothing to bar introduction of evidence by the defense of Ollie’s condition during the trial, beyond its resistance to Shields’s efforts to belatedly introduce the above-discussed stipulation — an effort taken long after the jury had learned of Ollie’s abusive use of cocaine. It is not the State’s duty to affirmatively introduce, during its case-in-chief, any evidence that might be exculpatory to the defense. The State’s duty, rather, is to disclose such information known to it to the defense prior to trial. See Brady v. Maryland,
¶ 15. Any attempt to argue, on these facts, that the State had attempted to mislead the jury or to purposely prevent it from hearing evidence damaging to its case would have been without any foundation in fact. The trial court, in our view, acted properly in admonishing defense counsel not to advance such an unfounded argument.
VI.
The Fifth Issue: Improper Summation by the Prosecution
¶ 16. As his final point, Shields alleges that the trial court erred in denying his mistrial motion after the State repeatedly invoked Shields’s status as a drug dealer
¶ 17. Contrary to the holding in Gray, we have already concluded that the evidence was admissible for reasons discussed in Section II above. In order to adequately present its theory of the case to the jury, the State was entitled to discuss all of the evidence in the context of how that evidence pointed to the defendant’s guilt of the particular charge being tried. Wilson v. State,
¶ 18. Nevertheless, we must observe that, shortly before being interrupted by an objection, the prosecuting attorney said, “Clonelle Shields was at his [Ollie’s] house selling drugs. He is a drug dealer in addition to a person that shoots somebody over ten dollars.” We find these remarks by the prosecution to be improper and inflammatory. The evidence of Shields’s activities as a drug dealer was admissible for the limited purpose of permitting the jury to have a complete understanding of the events leading up to Ollie’s injury and for no other purpose. This use of the evidence in summation to generally denigrate the defendant in the eyes of the jury was beyond the bounds of proper prosecutorial zeal and cannot be condoned.
¶ 19. However, we note that, immediately after these remarks, defense counsel objected and there was a conference a the bench after which the prosecuting attorney concluded his summation without further reference to Shields’s status as a possible drug dealer. In view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, and in view of the brevity of these improper remarks, we conclude them to be error, without doubt, but harmless. See Coxwell v. State,
¶ 20. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY OF CONVICTION OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND SENTENCE OF TWELVE YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO MADISON COUNTY.