SULLIVAN, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
In the fall of 1981, Reginald Gage was engaged in undercover operations in Laurel, Jones County, Mississippi, for the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics. On October 21, 1981, Gage purchased from Hernando Barnette some alleged cocaine for $45.00. The purchase took place at the Union Club, a nightclub in Jones County, Mississippi.
This purchase resulted in Barnette being indicted in the fall of 1982 for selling cocaine. The trial was had on April 12, 1983, and resulted in the conviction of Barnette and his sentence of twelve years in the state penitentiary and a fine of $5,000.00 and court costs. Barnette has appealed and filed two assignments of error.
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN ALLOWING THE STATE TO ELICIT TESTIMONY FROM A STATE'S WITNESS IN REGARD TO ANOTHER ALLEGED OFFENSE COMMITTED BY BARNETTE OVER THE OBJECTION
On direct examination, Gage testified that he had approached Barnette in the Union Club and advised him that he had come to purchase a quantity of drugs. The following is an excerpt from the record:
A. I simply stated that I wanted to buy some coke or D's, coke is street language for cocaine and D's is street language for Dilaudid. . . .
Q. What was Mr. Barnette's response to your question about buying some drugs, if he made a response?
A. Mr. Barnette stated that he had some coke and some D's.
Barnette objected to the testimony of anything other than cocaine and asked the court to instruct the jury to disregard what was just said. The trial court responded:" Overruled, but the defendant is being tried for selling cocaine only, and that is the only question the jury has to decide as far as guilt or innocence. "
Continuing his direct examination, the prosecutor then asked,
Q. All right, sir, and what did you do after he advised you that he had some coke and maybe some D's?
Barnette again objected and again he was overruled. Gage then testified that he purchased from Barnette for $45.00 a package allegedly containing cocaine.
On redirect Gage was allowed to testify as follows:
A. If I had of arrested him on that occasion, we wouldn't have had but one purchase from Mr. Barnett, or we wouldn't have had - I couldn't have gone back to that area to purchase drugs from other individuals.
" The general rule is that testimony in a criminal trial should be confined to the charge for which an accused is on trial, and the prosecution should not be allowed to aid the proof against the accused by showing he commited
other offenses. "Tucker v. State, 403 So. 2d 1274, 1275 (Miss. 1981). See also, Mills v. State, 304 So. 2d 651 (Miss. 1974); Sumrall v. State, 257 So. 2d 853 (Miss. 1972).
We have reversed criminal convictions where the state improperly injected into the trial proceedings evidence that the defendant may have committed or been involved in other illegal activities for which he had not been convicted. Walker v. State, 473 So. 2d 435, 442 (Miss. 1985); Tobias v. State, 472 So. 2d 398, 400 (Miss. 1985); Hughes v. State, 470 So. 2d 1046, 1047-48 (Miss. 1985); Galhon v. State, 469 So. 2d 1247, 1249-50 (Miss. 1985).
There are, however, well recognized exceptions to this rule. These exceptions were stated in ...