statement implied that, in accordance with his past history before the court, Henton could have intimidated Colston. This is error. Ford v. State, 555 So.2d 691, 695 (Miss.1989) (“[U]nder no circumstances could the jury consider evidence that an act done at one time or on one occasion as any evidence or proof of whatever that a similar act was done at another time.”) ¶ 17. The conviction here at issue was introduced for the limited purpose of impeachment. Where convictions are introduced for such a limited purpose the parties are expected to abide by that purpose. Indeed, it is incumbent upon the court to instruct the jury regarding the limited purpose for the introduction of the evidence and limit the jury’s consideration to that purpose. Smith v. State, 656 So.2d 95, 102 (Miss.1995) (<HOLDING>); Pugh v. State, 584 So.2d 781, 786 (Miss.1991)
holding that a limiting instruction is required where evidence of a prior conviction is admitted over objection holding that the foundational prerequisites are unnecessary where the test result is admitted in evidence without objection when evidence of one of the issues in the case is admitted without objection the party against whom it is offered waives any objection to the evidence and it may be properly considered even if the evidence would have been excluded upon a proper objection holding that trial court is not required to give limiting instruction when defendant did not object at first opportunity because evidence admitted for all purposes holding admission of prior conviction under rule 404b appropriate where it was necessary to prove knowledge and a limiting instruction was given holding defendant who failed to request limiting instruction concerning use of extraneous offenses at the moment the evidence was admitted was not entitled to limiting instructions in jury charge