State of Mississippi v. Lary Levi, Jr.

Brookhaven, Mississippi criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with felony possession of drugs.

Following a jury trial, Larry Levi Jr. was convicted of possession of more than two grams but less than ten grams of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and possession of more than one-tenth of a gram but less than two grams of cocaine with intent to distribute.



* * *



CRIMINAL LAW. EVIDENCE. The court addressed the admissibility of evidence of prior convictions under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove intent and knowledge in a drug distribution case.



CRIMINAL LAW. APPEALS. The court affirmed the conviction despite finding that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a prior conviction for simple possession, ruling the error as harmless due to overwhelming evidence against the defendant.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. PROCEDURAL BAR. Issues raised for the first time on appeal, such as objections to evidence of prior sentences, were procedurally barred because they were not objected to during the trial, preventing redress by the trial court.



CRIMINAL LAW. HARMLESS ERROR. The court found the error in admitting evidence of a prior simple possession conviction to be harmless given the admissible evidence, including convictions for possession with intent to distribute and sale of drugs, ensuring no undue prejudice.



Key Phrases Possession with intent to distribute. Prior convictions admissibility. Simple possession error. Harmless error doctrine. Mississippi Rule of Evidence 404(b).

Generally speaking, "[e]vidence of prior involvement in the drug trade is admissible uunder Rule 404(b)] to prove intent to distribute." Holland, 656 So.2d at 1196 (emphasis added). Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Levi's prior convictions for selling cocaine, possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, and transferring marijuana. However, trial courts should be wary of admitting prior convictions for simple possession, which serve no similar purpose. Mitchell, 110 So.3d at 734 (¶11); McDonald, 130 So.3d at 111 (¶28). In the present case, the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of Levi's prior conviction for simple possession. However, for the reasons explained above, that error was clearly harmless.