Brooke Mallett v. State of Mississippi

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2024-KA-01091-COA BROOKE MALLETT APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/17/2024 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. M. JAMES CHANEY JR. COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: JOSEPH SCOTT HEMLEBEN ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: DANIELLE LOVE BURKS DISTRICT ATTORNEY: RICHARD EARL SMITH JR. NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 09/22/2026 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: BEFORE WILSON, P.J., EMFINGER AND LASSITTER ST. PÉ, JJ. EMFINGER, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. After a trial in the Circuit Court of Warren County, Mississippi, Brooke Mallett was convicted of culpable negligence manslaughter and two counts of felony child neglect. She was sentenced to serve twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) for culpable negligence manslaughter and five years in MDOC custody on each count of child neglect, with the sentences ordered to run consecutively. Mallett now appeals. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2. Around 9:15 on the morning of April 21, 2023, Lynne Cox, residing at 2419 Old Highway 27 in Vicksburg, was sitting in her living room when she heard a noise inside her house. When she turned around, she discovered a little boy in the room with her. Cox testified that the child had come in through the front door, closed the door, and was just standing there. She described the young boy as being barefoot, dirty, and covered in bug bites. She asked the boy where his mother was and took him outside to try and find her. Cox told the jury that she had a hard time understanding anything the boy was saying, and based on her background as an educator, she believed he was autistic. Cox gave the boy some juice and a snack and told him they would sit out on her front porch to see if anyone came looking for him. After nobody came searching for him, Cox called 911. ¶3. About ten minutes after the 911 call, law enforcement arrived at Cox’s home, along with personnel from the Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services (CPS). Several deputies and the CPS worker attempted to question the boy to determine his name, the name of his parents, and where he lived. The boy could not give much information. The responders decided to put the boy into the CPS vehicle as they drove around to canvass the area and look for his parents or see if he could identify his home. ¶4. Officers found what appeared to be an unoccupied home located at 2400 Old Highway 27 with a front door partially open. Deputy Kinard was the first to arrive at this address, and he approached the door to determine if anyone was inside. While he was at the partially open door, Kinard was able to see two adults in a bed to the left of the door. He knocked on the door and announced himself as a law enforcement officer. The people in the bed woke up, and Mallett answered the door wearing only a bra and panties. Kinard asked if she had a son. 2 Mallett responded that she had two sons and identified the boy with the officers as her oldest son, five-year-old Daniel.1 When asked where her other son was, Mallett went inside the home to look for him. The male adult located in the home with Mallett was identified as Mallett’s boyfriend, John Walker. ¶5. Mallett told the officers that her other child, Kevin, who was non-verbal, was not inside the home, and she did not know where he was. Mallett thought that he had possibly left the property with her mother, Amanda Mallett. After contacting Amanda, it was determined that Kevin was not in her care. Kinard described the home where Mallett was living as being in disarray and unclean. There was no power and no running water. There was waste all around. Upon the realization that Kevin was missing, the officers searched the house and the immediate area surrounding the house without success. ¶6. Lieutenant Stacy Rollison called MBI to start a missing endangered persons report while the sheriff’s department initiated a full search response. The officers returned to Cox’s home to look around again in case Kevin had followed Daniel to her home. The deputies did not find any evidence that Kevin had been there. Officers expanded their search to include the entire area surrounding the property. Sheriff Martin Pace joined the search on foot. A little after noon, as the sheriff was walking on the bank of a small body of water, he saw a basketball floating in the water. As he continued to look at the basketball, the sheriff saw what turned out to be Kevin’s body floating in the algae-covered pond. As captured by Vicksburg Police drone footage, Sheriff Pace entered the water to retrieve Kevin’s lifeless 1 Pseudonyms are used to replace the names of the minor children to protect their identities. 3 body. Once he returned to the bank, he laid Kevin down and attempted chest compressions and to clear the airway; however, Kevin was not responsive. Paramedics arrived shortly thereafter and determined that Kevin was deceased. ¶7. As a result of their investigation into Kevin’s disappearance, officers discovered that Mallett had an outstanding warrant from Copiah County. By the time that Kevin’s body was found, Mallett had already been taken into custody. Walker was also taken into custody for child neglect. Daniel was temporarily placed into CPS custody until an investigation could be completed. ¶8. According to the CPS worker, Daniel had feces caked onto his private areas that had to be gently scrubbed off. After being checked out by local physicians, Daniel was transferred to Batson Children’s Hospital in Jackson for further evaluation. Daniel tested positive via urinalysis for methamphetamine and amphetamine while at Batson. ¶9. The following day a search warrant was executed on the residence, curtilage, outbuildings, and vehicles located at 2400 Old Highway 27, where Mallett had been staying with the two boys. The home did not have electricity or running water. Drug paraphernalia, a loaded gun, many cleaning chemicals within a child’s reach, and several other safety hazards were all noted and photographed by police during the initial search for Kevin. Although the home had been partially cleaned prior to the search warrant, the items listed were able to be retrieved. ¶10. After waiving her Miranda rights,2 Mallett revealed that she had been told by CPS in 2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 4 Copiah County that her children were going to be taken away if she failed another drug test. According to Mallett, she was afraid of failing the test, so she left Copiah County and took her children to Warren County.3 Mallett admitted to using methamphetamine, but claimed that she had not used it in front of the children. Mallett told Lt. Rollison that she had passed out from having a seizure the night before the current incident. During her interrogation, the officer brought in several items found in the house during the search for Kevin. One item identified by Mallett appeared to be a child’s toy that had been turned into a bong. Mallett claimed the loaded gun beside her bed was registered in her name. ¶11. Rollison attempted to get a medical history of the two boys from Mallett during the interrogation. According to Mallett, Daniel had been diagnosed with autism. Mallett said that Kevin was born prematurely at six months and had a lung disease that required treatments. Kevin was nonverbal and was in the process of being tested for autism, but he had not yet been officially diagnosed. Rollison also confronted Mallett regarding her prior history of irresponsibility for her boys. Kevin had previously tested positive for methamphetamine after being found wandering down a highway in Crystal Springs wearing nothing but a wet diaper. He had also been treated in an emergency room for ingesting roach poison. These events led to the CPS involvement in Copiah County. Rollison explained to Mallett that her lack of supervision over the boys had led to Kevin’s death; and therefore, she was being charged with first-degree murder and child neglect. Rollison further explained that the district attorney could alter the charges based upon the results of drug testing. Mallett’s hair follicle 3 A warrant for her arrest had been issued on April 6, 2023, for contempt of court for failure to appear in youth court. 5 test conducted post-interview was positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. ¶12. During Kevin’s autopsy, the medical examiner noted water and aquatic plants found inside his nasal and oral cavities, trachea, and stomach. A metal washer was also located inside his stomach contents. Some minor contusions and abrasions to his head and arms were also documented. Kevin’s hair follicle test was positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. The cause of death was ruled to be drowning, and the manner of death was accidental. ¶13. Mallett was indicted on three counts by a grand jury in Warren County on August 31, 2023: Count I: manslaughter by culpable negligence in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-47 (Rev. 2020); and Counts II and III: child neglect in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-5-39(1)(d) (Rev. 2020) (one count for Daniel and one count for Kevin). Prior to trial, Mallett’s counsel filed a motion in limine to preclude the State from introducing or mentioning prior improper-character or “bad acts” evidence. A hearing on this motion was held on June 6, 2024. During the hearing, Mallett’s counsel suggested that Mississippi Rule of Evidence 404(b) prevented the State from mentioning Mallett’s drug use and prior incidents with CPS. The State argued that Rule 404(b)(2) provided an exception based upon a sequence of events leading to Kevin’s death. The court denied the motion upon finding that such proof would tend to show that the April 21 incident was not just a mistake or an accident. Also, Mallett’s prior acts explained why she was in Warren County at the time of the incident and living in an abandoned building with no water or electricity. 6 ¶14. A four-day trial commenced on June 10, 2024. The defense moved for a directed verdict on the third day of trial. After hearing from the defense and prosecution, the motion was denied. On the last day of trial, Mallett chose not to testify. Following closing arguments, the jury was given its instructions, and the jury retired for deliberations. A short time later, the jury returned unanimous verdicts of guilty as to all three counts. ¶15. A sentencing hearing was held on July 17, 2024. Mallett was sentenced to twenty years for Count I, five years for Count II, and five years for Count III. These sentences were ordered to run consecutively. Mallett was also ordered to receive long-term alcohol and drug treatment. Finally, Mallett was required to pay $5,000 in fines and court costs. On appeal, Mallett raises eight issues, which she maintains require reversal of her convictions. ANALYSIS I. Was Mallet’s indictment fatally defective? ¶16. Mississippi Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(a)(1) provides: Elements and Notice. The indictment upon which the defendant is to be tried shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts and elements constituting the offense charged and shall fully notify the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation. Formal and technical words are not necessary in an indictment, if the offense can be substantially described without them. Mallett contends that while Counts II and III purport to charge her with child neglect pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-5-39(1)(d), each count fails to charge an essential element of the crime and, therefore, she asks this Court to reverse her convictions on those counts. While the issue of the legal sufficiency of these counts of the indictment was not raised before the trial court, it may be raised for the first time on appeal. See Payne v. 7 State, 282 So. 3d 432, 436 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2019). ¶17. On appeal, in support of that argument, Mallett quotes the language of section 97-5- 39(1)(d), which, as of July 1, 2024, reads as follows: If the parent has failed to provide the child with food, clothing, or shelter necessary to sustain the life or health of the child, excluding failure caused by financial inability unless relief services have been offered and refused and the child is in imminent risk of harm, or the parent is unwilling to provide reasonably necessary medical care, though that medical care does not include recommended or optional vaccinations against childhood or any other disease, the person may be sentenced to imprisonment in custody of the Department of Corrections for not more than five (5) years or to payment of a fine of not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or both. (Emphasis added). The essential element Mallett contends was missing from the indictment is the portion emphasized above. At the time of the offense for which Mallett is charged, this section read as follows: If the child’s deprivation of necessary clothing, shelter, health care or supervision appropriate to the child’s age results in substantial harm to the child’s physical, mental or emotional health, the person may be sentenced to imprisonment in custody of the Department of Corrections for not more than five (5) years or to payment of a fine of not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or both. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-5-39(1)(d) (Rev. 2020); 2013 Miss. Laws ch. 483, § 1 (H.B. 1259). Notably, the element that Mallett contends is missing from the indictment was not a part of the statute at the time of her offense in 2023 or at the time of her trial on June 10-13, 2024. ¶18. It is well established that the statute in effect at the time of the offense controls the prosecution of the offense. See Flowers v. State, 35 So. 3d 516, 518 (¶5) (Miss. 2010); Wilson v. State, 967 So. 2d 32, 42 (¶22) (Miss. 2007); Cook v. State, 301 So. 3d 766, 774 (¶20) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020); Masters v. State, 285 So. 3d 192, 198 (¶22) (Miss. Ct. App. 8 2019); Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-1 (Rev. 2020). Because the indictment contained all the essential elements of the offense at the time the crime was committed, this issue is without merit. II. Was Mallett’s right to confront the witnesses against her violated? ¶19. Mallett contends that her right to confront the witnesses against her at trial in this case was violated under the United States Constitution and the Mississippi Constitution. The State contends that this issue is barred from consideration on appeal because it was not raised before the trial court. Appellate counsel concedes that “[t]he closest trial counsel came to articulating an objection pursuant to Crawford was stating that ‘It’s a document that [the witness] was not involved in the preparation of . . . .’” See infra ¶22. This statement was made amid counsel’s hearsay objection to the admission of CPS reports at trial. By raising only a hearsay objection, Mallett waived all other grounds. See Triplett v. State, 264 So. 3d 808, 815 (¶25) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (“It is well established that ‘an objection on one or more specific grounds constitutes a waiver of all other grounds.’” (quoting Fleming v. State, 604 So. 2d 280, 292 (Miss. 1992))). This procedural bar has been applied to Confrontation Clause claims not raised at trial. See Ronk v. State, 172 So. 3d 1112, 1134 (¶51) (Miss. 2015). Because Mallett did not raise an objection based upon her right to confront the witnesses against her during pretrial hearings, at trial, or in her post-trial motion, this issue is procedurally barred from consideration on appeal. See Patterson v. State, 422 So. 3d 1062, 1069 (¶32) (Miss. Ct. App. 2025). ¶20. However, just as in Patterson, Mallett’s appellate counsel asks that we conduct a plain 9 error analysis. In Patterson, this Court stated: “For the plain-error doctrine to apply, there must have been an error that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice or seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Conners v. State, 92 So. 3d 676, 682 (¶15) (Miss. 2012); see also Phillips v. State, No. 2023-KA- 01218-SCT, 2025 WL 798347, at *4 (¶22) (Miss. Mar. 13, 2025) (discussing the plain-error doctrine in the Confrontation Clause context). Id. at (¶33). ¶21. Mallett’s appellate argument on this issue is directed at the trial testimony of Shirlene Hill, a CPS employee in Warren County. Hill testified that, as a part of her investigation of the events for which Mallett was being tried, she reviewed CPS records of prior events that occurred in Copiah County concerning Mallett and her children. The CPS reports concerning incidents occurring in Copiah County on February 26, 2022, and March 24, 2023, as well as Hill’s testimony concerning the contents of these reports, were admitted over the objection of Mallett’s trial counsel on other grounds. The issue presented in this assignment of error is not the admissibility of Hill’s testimony and the reports over Mallett’s objection on other grounds, but whether Mallett’s confrontation rights were violated by their admission. ¶22. In Johnson v. State, 155 So. 3d 733, 739 (¶10) (Miss. 2014), the supreme court stated: “In Crawford v. Washington, the United States Supreme Court held that testimonial statements of witnesses absent from trial can be admitted, in accordance with common law, only where the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine.” Smith, 986 So. 2d at 296 (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1364, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004)) (emphasis in original). The Supreme Court distinguished between testimonial and nontestimonial statements, and this Court adopted the distinction: “[n]ontestimonial hearsay is subject to evidentiary rules concerning reliability,” while “testimonial hearsay must be filtered through the Confrontation Clause.” Smith, 986 So. 2d at 296-97 (citing Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68, 124 S. Ct. 1354). 10 (Emphasis added). Thus, we must first decide whether the information from the CPS reports constituted testimonial or non-testimonial statements. ¶23. State’s Exhibit 13 is a copy of the CPS report of an incident that occurred on February 26, 2022, in Copiah County. The report by Copiah County CPS worker Marquita Smith showed that Kevin, Mallett’s then two-year old child, was found walking on Highway 27 in the cold, wearing only a soiled diaper. Mallett told Smith that Kevin had been asleep in the bed with her and that she did not know how he got out of the house. Mallett and her mother, Amanda, who was present in the home, told Smith they believed a visitor may have opened the door for Kevin and allowed him to go outside by himself. Ultimately, the report shows that Mallett and Amanda passed a drug screen and that additional locks and safety gates were installed at the suggestion of CPS. Smith recommended that the investigation be closed and noted that no other services were needed at the time. ¶24. State’s Exhibit 15 is a copy of a CPS report, again by Smith, of an incident that occurred on March 24, 2023, in Copiah County. Apparently, Kevin was at his 85-year-old great-grandmother’s house and ingested a small amount of roach killer. The great- grandmother said she immediately rinsed out his mouth and carried him back to Mallett. Mallett then called an ambulance, and Kevin ended up at Batson Children’s Hospital in Jackson. During Kevin’s treatment, it was discovered that Kevin tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamine. Smith told Mallett about the positive tests after Kevin was back at home with his mother. Mallett told Smith she did not know why Kevin would have tested positive for methamphetamine. Smith advised Mallett that she would have to 11 contact the judge because these were grounds for the judge to order that the children be taken into CPS custody. Smith then advised Mallett and Amanda that they had to appear for a drug screen by 3 p.m. that day, March 28, 2023, or she would have to contact the judge concerning taking the children into CPS custody. After Mallett failed to appear for the drug screen, and after CPS was unable to locate the family for several days, Smith contacted the judge, who then issued a warrant for Mallett’s arrest. Smith’s report concludes by stating that she is substantiating the allegations of abuse and/or neglect. Because the family could not be located and a warrant had been issued, Smith recommended that the investigation be closed. ¶25. Mallett argues that statements contained in the admitted exhibits were “unquestionably testimonial.” She contends that through Hill’s testimony and the exhibits, “the State was able to put before the jury unchallenged allegations that, on historical occasions outside the charge in the indictment, Mallett, was a bad mother, addicted to drugs, let her child eat poison, let her child wander away from the house, was ordered to take a drug test and that a warrant was issued for her arrest.” Therefore, Mallett concludes that the admission of such evidence in violation of her right of confrontation cannot be harmless error and that her convictions must be reversed. ¶26. The State maintains that the statements in the CPS reports were non-testimonial because they were not generated to be used in a criminal prosecution against Mallett; therefore, their admission did not violate Mallett’s confrontation rights. The State argues that the purpose of CPS, pursuant to section 43-15-5, is to “administer or supervise all public child welfare services.” In other words, CPS has a duty to protect and provide care for 12 children in need. ¶27. In our determination of whether the statements at issue are testimonial or non- testimonial, we are guided by the words of the United States Supreme Court in Ohio v. Clark, 576 U.S. 237, 245-46 (2015): In the end, the question is whether, in light of all the circumstances, viewed objectively, the “primary purpose” of the conversation was to “creat[e] an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.” Thus, under our precedents, a statement cannot fall within the Confrontation Clause unless its primary purpose was testimonial. “Where no such primary purpose exists, the admissibility of a statement is the concern of state and federal rules of evidence, not the Confrontation Clause.” (Citations omitted). Based upon our review of the reports, we find that the statements contained in the CPS records were non-testimonial statements because the primary purpose of CPS’s actions during their investigations was to protect children, not to prosecute potential criminal offenses. These nontestimonial statements did not trigger the Confrontation Clause. See Garlington v. State, 349 So. 3d 782, 807-08 (¶90) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022). III. Did the trial court err by admitting improper character evidence? ¶28. Mallett contends that the CPS reports from Copiah County and Hill’s testimony were erroneously admitted into evidence. Mallett makes several arguments to support her contention that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of her prior acts pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Evidence (MRE) 404(b)(2). She first argues that such evidence was not relevant and should have been excluded pursuant to MRE 401. She then argues that should this Court find that the evidence was relevant, then the trial court should have excluded the evidence pursuant to MRE 403 because the probative value of such evidence was 13 substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Mallett. She then argues that the evidence complained of was improper character evidence pursuant to MRE 404(a)(1). She contends the State used such evidence to show that she had been a bad mother in the past and that, therefore, she was a bad mother on the date of the crimes for which she was being tried. Mallett also argues that the trial court improperly admitted the evidence pursuant to MRE 404(b)(2) to show an absence of mistake or accident and in order to tell the complete story. Mallett concludes by arguing that the trial court erred by failing to conduct an “on-the- record” balancing test pursuant MRE 403. ¶29. The evidence that Mallett contends was erroneously admitted was the CPS reports set forth above and Hill’s testimony concerning the contents of the reports. In some parts of her arguments on this issue, Mallett also points to evidence found at the abandoned house they were staying in when the children wandered away. She contends that this evidence improperly implies that she was using drugs. We address Mallett’s claims below. A. Was the evidence relevant to the issues presented at trial? ¶30. Mallett contends that evidence of her prior conduct set out in the CPS reports is not relevant to the conduct charged to have occurred on April 21, 2023. She argues that “while it may be intuitive in child neglect cases to consider conduct and conditions over a range of time, here, the grand jury limited the charge to a single day.” Whether there was evidence that Mallett was a “bad mom” in the past “is not ‘of consequence’ in determining whether Mallett committed culpable negligence manslaughter and child neglect on April 21, 2023.” Mallett concludes by stating “any argument that it is relevant is merely propensity evidence 14 in poor disguise.” Mallett cites no authority in support of this portion of her argument. ¶31. In any event, MRE 401 provides: Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the case. Polk v. State, 422 So. 3d 1072, 1078-79 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2025), addressed the admission of evidence under the rule: Issues regarding “[t]he relevancy and admissibility of evidence are well within the trial court’s discretion, and reversal may be had only where that discretion has been abused.” [Davis v. State, 399 So. 3d 966, 970 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2025)] (quoting Ross [v. State], 308 So. 3d [885] 889 (¶10) [Miss. Ct. App. 2020]). “Evidence is relevant if . . . it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence[,] and the fact is of consequence in determining the case.” MRE 401. “Rule 401 is construed broadly in favor of admitting evidence with even slight probative value.” Pugh v. State, 270 So. 3d 949, 958 (¶34) (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Ross v. State, 954 So. 2d 968, 993 (¶44) (Miss. 2007)). ¶32. The State argued before the trial court, and here on appeal, that the evidence of these prior events tends to show that what happened on April 21, 2023, was not the result of a simple mistake or mere accident. These prior events support the State’s claim that Kevin died as a result of Mallett’s culpable negligence. As stated in the jury instructions, this evidence aids in showing that Mallett’s actions on April 21, 2023, constituted “negligence of a degree so gross as to be tantamount to a wanton disregard, or utter indifference to, the safety of [Kevin’s] life.” ¶33. The trial court heard these same arguments and ruled that the evidence was admissible 15 to show that what happened in Warren County on April 21, 2023, was “not just a mistake or accident” and to show the complete story of how they were living in Warren County in an abandoned house, without water and electricity. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the CPS reports and testimony concerning the reports. B. Were the CPS reports improper character evidence pursuant to MRE 404(a)(1)? ¶34. Mallett contends that the CPS reports and testimony concerning the reports should have been excluded pursuant to MRE 404(a)(1). In Tate v. State, 331 So. 3d 57, 62 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021), this Court found: With limited exceptions, the Mississippi Rules of Evidence prohibit the use of “[e]vidence of a person’s character or character trait” to prove that “the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.” MRE 404(a)(1). The circuit court determined the evidence of Tate’s prior conviction was admissible under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2), which provides, “This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” While Mallett contends that the reports constitute improper “propensity” evidence, the trial court found that the evidence was admissible under MRE 404(b)(2). As will be discussed below, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting this evidence. C. Did the trial court err by admitting the reports pursuant to MRE 404(b)(2)? ¶35. The CPS reports show that within fourteen months of Kevin’s death, Mallett had been investigated twice for a failure to properly supervise her young children. The first time she was investigated, she was asleep with Kevin, and, somehow, he got out of bed in his diaper, left the house, and was found wandering down a highway, unsupervised. Mallett was 16 instructed to take additional safety measures in her home, and the case was closed. The second time Mallett was investigated was when Kevin ingested roach poison while in the care of his great-grandmother. However, during his treatment at the hospital he tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. When Mallett was told that this test result was a basis to remove her children from her custody and that she was required to take a drug screen, Mallett fled, with her children, to an abandoned house in Warren County that did not have electricity or running water. ¶36. On April 21, 2023, after both her boys wandered away from the dilapidated residence, Mallett was found asleep in bed with her boyfriend, and a meth pipe was found in the bed with them. The older child, Daniel, was taken to the hospital for treatment and tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. The younger child, Kevin, was found dead in a pond. As part of the autopsy, Kevin tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. Both Mallett and her boyfriend tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. ¶37. The trial court found that the CPS reports concerning prior incidents where Kevin was not properly supervised and tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine were admissible to show that Mallett’s failure to supervise the boys on April 21, 2023, was not just a simple mistake or accident. The court further found that the admission of the reports was necessary to tell the complete story. In Hunter v. State, 411 So. 3d 125, 129 (¶20) (Miss. 2025), the supreme court explained: “This Court has held that ‘proof of another crime or act’ is allowed ‘when it is so interrelated to the charged crime that it constitutes either a single transaction or occurrence or a closely related series of transactions or occurrences.’” Anderson v. State, 359 So. 3d 637, 644 (Miss. 2023) (quoting 17  Brown v. State, 890 So. 2d 901, 912 (Miss. 2004)). “Evidence of other bad acts is admissible in order to tell a complete story to avoid confusion among jurors.” Simmons v. State, 805 So. 2d 452, 481 (Miss. 2001) (citing Ballenger v. State, 667 So. 2d 1242, 1256 (Miss. 1995)). “[W]hen dealing with closely related acts, the State ‘has a legitimate interest in telling a rational and coherent story of what happened[.]’” Newell v. State, 175 So. 3d 1260, 1276 (Miss. 2015) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Welde v. State, 3 So. 3d 113, 117 (Miss. 2009)). We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the CPS reports and testimony concerning those reports. D. Did the trial court err by failing to exclude evidence of the prior bad acts pursuant to MRE 403? ¶38. Mallett contends that the trial court should have excluded the questioned evidence pursuant to MRE 403, which states: The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Our standard of review of a trial court’s admission or exclusion of evidence under MRE 403 is set forth in Wallace v. State, 369 So. 3d 83, 89 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023): Furthermore, relevant evidence should not be excluded under Rule 403 unless its “probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” MRE 403 (emphasis added). “Even then, exclusion is permissive, not mandatory. That decision is committed to the broad discretion of the trial judge, and our standard of review is highly deferential.” Curry v. State, 202 So. 3d 294, 298-99 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (ellipsis omitted). “Rule 403’s scope is narrow, [and] it is an extraordinary measure that should be used very sparingly.” Id. at 298 (¶13) (quotation marks omitted). ¶39. Mallett argues that evidence of prior incidents in which CPS conducted investigations and evidence of her prior drug use and positive drug screens were irrelevant to the charges 18 here and were prejudicial to her case. While Mallett’s counsel never mentioned MRE 403 during his arguments before the trial court, he was clearly arguing that any relevance her prior conduct may have to the present case was unfairly prejudicial to Mallett. It is equally clear from the trial transcript that the trial judge considered Mallett’s arguments yet found that evidence should be admitted. After hearing all the arguments by Mallett and the State, the trial court found that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Mallett. Under our “highly deferential” standard of review, we find that the trial court did not abuse its “broad discretion” by admitting the evidence. ¶40. Mallett also asserts on appeal that her convictions should be reversed because the trial court failed to perform an “on-the-record” balancing test required by Rule 403. However, in Jones v. State, 920 So. 2d 465, 476 (¶34) (Miss. 2006), the supreme court reasoned: In asserting that his due process rights were violated when the trial court judge failed to perform an on-the-record Rule 403 balancing test, Jones has misapprehended the nature of our rules of evidence and the discretion afforded to trial judges when applying these rules. Accordingly, while we clearly interpret the rules of evidence as requiring that all otherwise admissible evidence be “filtered” through the balancing test set forth in Rule 403, we do not interpret this requirement to be a regimented procedure that must be explicitly performed on pain of reversal. Though this Court certainly expects trial judges to have considered Rule 403 in making their evidentiary rulings, we certainly do not predicate the soundness of these determinations on the express use of magic words. From a practical standpoint, even though this issue in today’s case was initially addressed at a motion hearing, quite often the trial judge is required to make Rule 403 rulings from the bench with a witness on the stand, a jury in the box, and a lawyer on the floor making an objection. It follows that our review depends on the evidence and not the judge, and while a judge’s on-the-record analysis is recommended as it serves to fortify the judge’s position for purposes of review, the lack of such analysis is harmless unless we deem the evidence to be patently 19  prejudicial. The judge’s failure to perform an on-the-record Rule 403 analysis in no way affected Jones’s rights. Moreover, the evidence of the September 6 incident was properly admitted as its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. Miss. R. Evid. 403. We, therefore, find this issue to be without merit. (Emphasis added). Because we find that the trial court did not err by admitting the complained-of evidence, the failure of the trial judge to express his balancing of interests on the record is harmless. E. Did the trial court err by failing to give a contemporaneous limiting instruction pursuant to MRE 105? ¶41. Mallett contends that the trial court erred by failing to follow MRE 105, which states: If the court admits evidence that is admissible against a party or for a purpose—but not against another party or for another purpose—the court, unless expressly waived or rebutted, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope, contemporaneously instruct the jury accordingly, and give a written instruction if requested. The record shows that Mallett did not request a limiting instruction, either at the time the evidence was admitted or during the jury instruction conference. In any event, in a similar situation in Durr v. State, 385 So. 3d 776, 787 (¶31) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023), this Court stated: Durr’s trial counsel did not reques