I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 2 - CT - 0 0 7 9 8 - S CT J AM ES W ESLEY SCOTT
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 06/ 2001 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . R IC H A R D W . M cK E N Z IE COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: F ORRES T COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: J AM ES W ESLE Y SCO TT ( PRO SE) AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : BI LLY L. GO RE DI S TRI CT AT TORNEY: J ON M ARK W EAT HERS NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S RE VE RS E D. CO NVI CT I ON OF RO BB E RY AND S E NT E NC E OF F I F T E E N ( 1 5 ) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T ODY OF T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF C O R R E C T I O N S, A FFIRM E D - 05/ 15/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. S M I TH, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. O n A pri l 5, 20 00 , t he F orr es t C ounty G r and J ury i ndi ct ed J ames W es l ey Scot tf or
s im p le ro b b e ry , a tte m p te d k id n a p in g , a n d a tte m p te d s e x u a l a s s a u lt. O n A u g u s t 2 9 , 2 0 0 1 , a jury po o l w as c all ed
. A ft er v o ird ir e, bu t befo re e m p an elm en t, S co ttall eg ed that the s tat e’s
u se o f pe rem p tory ch all en g es w as ra ciall y m o ti v ated in v iolati o n o f B at s on v. K entucky , 476 U . S. 79; 106 S
. C t . 1712, 90 L
. E d. 2d 79 ( 1986)
. T he tr i al j udge r es ponded w i th a br i ef

### 2

di s cus s i on o f

the j ur or s who wer e d i s mi s s e d f orc a us e a nd the n a s ke d: “ N ow t ho s e havi ng been e xcus ed, do you w i s h t o be he ar d on B at s on ? ” D e fe n s e c o u n s e l r e s p o n d e d , “ N o s ir .” T he ci r cui tcourtdi s cus s ed B at s on and t he f

act s of thi s cas e, and concl uded thatScot tf ai l ed t o es t abl i s h a p rim a fa c ie cas e of di s cr i m i nat i on, and ther ef or e a B at

s on hear i ng w as
u n n e c e ss a ry . T h e ju ry w a s e m p a n e led , inc lu d in g th re e A fric a n -A m e ric a n s. T h e a ltern a te ju ro r a ls o w a s A fr ic a n -A m e ri c a n . ¶2. O n A ugus t31, 2001, t he j ury found Scot tgui l ty of s i m pl e r obbery bu t notgui l ty of att empt ed ki dnapi ng. T he j ury w as nota bl e t o r eac h a ve r di cton the thi r d count , att empt ed
s exual ba t t ery. O n Sept ember13, 2001, Scot tf i l ed a mot i on f

orj udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ctor i n t he al t ernat i ve f ora new t r i al , w hi ch w as over rul ed on D ece m ber6, 2001. ¶ 3
. A g g rie v e d , S c o tt rais e d th e fo llo w in g iss u e s o n a p p e a l: I . W HET HER T HE CI RCUI T C OURT ER RE D I N DE NYI NG S COTT ’ S M OTI ON F OR J NOV AND/ OR A NE W TR I AL AND I N R EF USI NG TO G I VE H I S PEREM PT O R Y I N STR U C TIO N S. I I . W HETHER TH E CI RCU I T COU RT PROPERLY OV ERRULED SC O TT ’ S BA T

S ON OB J E CT I ON W I T HO U T R E QU I R I N G T HE P ROS EC UT I ON TO P ROVI DE RACE - NE UT RAL RE AS ONS FO R U SI N G PE R EM PT O R Y C H A LL EN G ES A G A I N ST A F R I C A N -A M E R I C A N J U R O R S . ¶4. T he s t at e f

i l ed i t s br i ef

. Scot tthen f

i l ed a r epl y bri ef, p ro se, an d cl ai m ed that he
r ece i ved i nef

f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el atboth the tr i al and appe l l at e l evel s , thathe w as deni ed a “f

ai r and speedy t r i al , ” and thathi s convi ct i on w as i m pr opers i nce i tw as bas ed pr i m ar i l y on the vi ct i m ’ s eyew i tnes s t es t i m ony. ¶5 . The Courto f

Appe a l s r e mand e d the mat t erf ora B at s on h ear i ng. T he tr i al j udge, R ich a rd W . M c K e n z ie, h a d re tired . C irc u it Ju d g e R o b e rt H e lfric h re c u se d h im se lf, an d th is

### 3

Cour ta pp oi nt e d Spe c i a l J ud ge R. I . Pr i c ha r d, I I I , t o conductthe B as ton h ea ri n g . In
acc or dance w i th the or der , J udge Pr i char d c onduct ed a s peci al he ar i ng a nd a gr eed w i th t he
or i gi nal tr i al courtj udge, f i ndi ng thatS cotthad fa i l ed t o dem ons tr at e a p rim a fa c ie cas e of di s cr i mi na t i on by the pr os e c ut i on ’ s us e of pe r e mpt ory c ha l l e ng e s . A c c or di ng l y, J udge Pr i char d hel d thati tw as unneces s ary fort he pr os ecut i on t o have t o as s erta r aci al l y neutr al bas i s f ori t s us e of

per empt ory chal l enges . T he ca s e w as then r eturned to t he C ou r tof A ppeal s , w hi ch r ever s ed t he convi ct i on of the Forr es tC ounty C i r cui tC our tand r emanded the ca s e f

ora new tr i al , bas ed on the C our tof A pp eal s’ fi ndi ngs thatScot tdi d i n f act demonstr at e a p rim a fa c ie cas e of di s cr i m i nat i on and thatthe pr os ecut i on s houl d have be en
re q u ir e d to o ff

e r r e a s o n in g fo r i ts u s e o f t h e p e re m p to ry c h a lle n g e s . ¶6. T he St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi s ought cert i or ar i r evi ew , w hi ch w as gr ant ed on J anuary 10, 2008. T he s t at e as s ert s thatthe C our tof A ppeal s e rr ed by f

ai l i ng t o gr antpr operdef er ence t o t he l ow ercour t ’ s deci s i on on the B at s on i ssue. W e agree w i th the st at e and thu s r everse th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls d e c isio n a n d re in sta te th e ju d g m e n t o f th e trial c o u rt. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶7 . “O n a p p ell ate rev iew , a tri al co u rt ’s de term ination s u n d er B at s on ar e acc or ded gr eat def er ence because t hey ar e l ar gel y bas ed on cr edi bi l i ty. ” B e rr y v. S ta te , 802 So. 2d 1033, 1037 ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng Mc G ilb e rr y v. S ta te , 741 So. 2d 894, 923 ( M i s s . 1 999) )
. T he
a p p e lla te c o u rt w ill re v e rs e o n ly w h e n s u c h d e c is io n s a re c le a rl y e rr o n e o u s . B erry , 802 So. 2d 1033, 1037 ( ci t i ng W o o dw a rdv. S ta te , 7 2 6 S o . 2 d 5 2 4 , 5 3 0 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 ); L ocket t v. S ta te , 5 1 7 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 4 9 -5 0 (M is s . 1 9 8 7 ))
. A N A L Y S IS

### The re cord ref le ct s a paus e in proc ee dingsfol lowe d by thebenc h conf er enc e quot ed 1 

### bel ow. It i s unc le ar , but

it is as sumed th at M r. Pric e’ s obj ec ti on fe llwithin t his period of time , during the pa

usein t he proce edings but

bef orethejudgere ques te d thesi debar beon there cord. Appare ntly, the j udge r ec ogniz ed that thi s di sc uss ion ne ede d t o beon there cord desp ite the p arties’ failure to requ est it. 4 ¶8. T her e mustbe “a p rim a fa c ie s how i ng of di s cr i m i nat i on bef or e t he party exer ci s i ng the s tr i ke i s r equi r ed t o pr ovi de an expl anat i on f orthe bas i s of

the per empt ory s tr i ke. ” R y a ls
v. S ta te , 7 9 4 S o . 2 d 1 6 1 , 1 6 5 (M is s . 2 0 0 1 ). I . B at s on A . W

hetherScott ’s gener al

B at s on obj ecti on pre s er ved a Bat s on c h a llen g e fo r a

p p e a l. ¶9
. “Fai l ur e t o m ake a cont e mpor a ne ou s o bj e c t i on wai ve s an i s s ue f orpurpos es of appea l
. ” S

p ice r v . S ta te , 9 2 1 S o . 2 d 2 9 2 , 3 0 9 (M is s . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶10. T he dis cuss i on quot ed bel ow r evea l s thatthe B at s on c ha l l e ng e occurr ed dur i ng a b e n c h co n fe re n c e h e ld afte r th e d ra w in g o f th e ju ry w a s c o m p lete a n d a fte r S c o tt h a d v e rb a lly
as s ent ed t o the j ury. 1
T H E C O U R T : . . . M r. S co tt , I w an t t o m ak e a b so lutely ce rt ain. I kn o w there h a s b e e n so m e p o ss ib le p e rso n a lity cla sh b e tw e e n y o u a n d y o u r la w y e r, b u t I w a n t to m a k e a b so lu tely c e rta in o n th is re c o rd th a t y o u h a d th e o p p o rtu n ity to c on f e rwi th yo url a w ye ra s f a ra s the d r a w i ng o f

thi s J ury a nd tha ty ou have p a rticip a ted in th a t? T H E D E F E N D A N T (Jam es S co tt ): Y es, si r. T H E C O U R T : A n d a re y o u sa tisfie d w ith th a t? T H E D E FE N D A N T ( J ames Scott ) : E xcus e me? T H E C O U R T : A r e you s at i s f i ed w i th the J ury?

### 5

T H E D E F E N D A N T (J a m e s S c o tt) : Y e s , s ir
. T H E C O U R T : A l l ri ght , so not ed. L et ’ s getthe J ury i n – ori s ther e anythi ng bef or e w e getthe J ury i n? ( P AUS E I N P RO CE E DI NGS , F OL L OW E D B Y T HE F OL L OW I NG CO NF E RE NC E AT T HE BE NCH, OUT S I DE T HE HE AR I NG OF T HE J U R Y P A N E L .) T H E C O U R T : N ot e f

orthe r ecor d thatatthi s poi nti n t i m e M r . Pr i ce ha s i ndi cat ed thath e w i s hes t o r ai s e the B at s on chal l enge t o cert ai n m ember s of the j ury panel
. W e w i l l hearf r om you. M R . P R IC E [C o u n se l fo r th e D e fe n se ]: Y o u r H o n o r, at th is tim e w e w o u ld ch all en g e the S tat e’s u se o f pe rem p tory ch all en g es, un d er B at s on v. K entucky
. It a p p e a rs th a t th e S tate h a s e x e rc ise d e v e ry p e re m p to ry c h a llen g e in o rd e r to excl ude ce r t ai n m em bers of the J ury. T he def

endanti s of

the A f r i canA m eri can R ace an d is enti t l ed to hi s C on st i tuti on al ri gh t s. W e w oul d a s k tha tthe St a t e b e r e qu i r e d t o s ho w the r a c e n e utr a l r e a s on s f or the ch al l eng es of al l the A fr i can-A m eri can jur ors. T H E C O U R T : N o te fo r th e re co rd th e C o u rto b serv ed the fo ll o w ing m em b ers of the A f r i can- A m er i can Race; 2, C al vi n B oyki ns , 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 24, 25, 2 7 , 3 1 , 3 3 , 3 4 , 3 6 , 3 8 , 4 0 a n d 4 1 , H ill. T h a t is a s fa r a s w e g o t. T he f ol l ow i ng i ndi vi dual m ember s ar e A f r i can- A m er i can mem ber s of the v e n ire p a n e l: 4 3 , 4 7 , 4 8 , 5 1 , 5 4 , 5 8 , 6 2 , 6 3 , 6 5 , e v e n tho u g h w e d id n o t g e t to thos e. I s houl d not e thatof thatnumber , number62, w ho w as the f our th f r om th e las t, w a s e x c u se d b e c a u se sh e w a s e m o tio n a l. A s f aras the ot her s bei ng excus ed f orcaus e ar e as fol l ow s : W oul d be number 14, B ur ket ; 15, T err el l ; L ee, 22: and 27, C r os by. N ow , thos e havi ng been excus ed do you w i s h t o be hea r d on B at s on ? M R . P R IC E : N o , s ir
. ¶11. I n T

h o m a s v . Sta te thi s C our tad op t ed the F i fth C i rcui t ’ s r at i onal e f orr equi r i ng a t i m el y B at

s on obj ect i on w hen i tquot ed: N ow i ti s t oo l at e forapp el l ants t o insi ston an ex planat i on they did not r equ est attr i al
. T he “t i m el y obj ect i on” rul e i s des i gned t o pr eventdef endant s f r om

### 6

“s andbaggi ng” the pr os ecut i on by w ai t i ng unt i l the tri al h as concl uded uns at i s f act or i l y bef

or e i ns i s t i ng on an expl anat i on forj ury str i kes t hatby t hen the pr os ecut orm ay have l ar gel y f or got t en. T h o m a s v . S ta te , 517 So. 2d 1285, 1287 ( M i s s . 1987) ( quot i ng U nited States v. Forbes , 816 F. 2d 1006, 1011 ( 5th C i r . 1987) )
. T hi s r at i onal e i s appl i cabl e t o S c o tt . S c o tt state d h e d id
no tw i sh t o be hea r d on B at s on a nd a s s e r t e d n o f

urthe rf a c t s i n s up po r tof

the ob j ect i on. B eca us e of

Scot t ’ s f ai l ur e t o f

ol l ow thr ough w i th s peci f i c f act s t o es t abl i s h a p rim a fa c ie case of di s cr i m i nat ory use of p er empt ory s tr i kes , the tr i al courtconcl uded thatScot thad not
es t abl i s hed a pr i m a f

aci e cas e. Si nce a p rim a fa c ie cas e w as notes t abl i s hed, the s t at e w as notr equi r ed t o of

f era non- di s cr i m i nat ory bas i s f ori t s us e of

per empt ory s tr i kes
. T hen, w hen the C our tof

A ppeal s r emanded f

ora B at s on hear i ng, the or i gi nal def ens e att orney and pr os ecut orw er e unava i l abl e and the s peci al j udge w as l ef tw i th a r evi ew o f t he re cor d. B eca us e Scot tdi d notr ai s e a p rim a fa c ie Bat s on obj ect i on, t he t r i al cour tdi d notr equi r e that the s t at e of

f ernon- di s cr i m i nat ory r eas ons f ori t s per empt ory s tr i kes , r es ul t i ng i n an i nco m plet e record. T o all ow S cott ’s B at s on obj ect i on now eff

ect i vel y w oul d al l ow the “s andbaggi ng” thatthe T hom as and Forbes c o u rt s s o u g h t to p re v e n t. ¶12. I n B r anch v. State, the C o u rt not ed that , “B r anch has m ade no pr i m a f aci e cas e that the s tr i kes w er e bas ed upon a n i m perm i s s i bl e r eas on, s uch as r ace orge nder
. E ven though [cou n sel] g en era ll y raised the issu e [of Bat s on ] she m ade no s peci f i c cha l l enge. ” B r anch
v. S ta te , 882 So. 2d 36, 59 ( M i s s . 2004)
. Scot tm er el y r ai s i ng a B at s on obj ect i on w as not
s uf f i ci entt o es t abl i s h a p rim a fa c ie case . ¶13. T he r ecor d r ef

l ect s that, af

t err ai s i ng a Bat

s on obj ect i on, couns el f or the def

endant
w i thdr ew the obj ect i on. A s i m i l ars i tuat i on occurr ed i n W ilso n v. S ta te , w h e n th e sta te

### 7

w i thd rew i t s B at

s on obj ect i on af

t erdef ens e couns el count er ed w i th a B at s on obj ect i on of h is o w n . W

ilso n v. S ta te , 775 So. 2d 735, 739 ( M i s s . A pp. 2000)
. E ven though Scottdi d not
s peci f i cal l y us e the t erm “w i thdr aw ” or“w ai ve, ” he r es ponded “no” w hen as ked by t he tr i al j udge i f he w i s hed t o be hea r d on B at s on . T his C ou rtfi nd s that this st atem en t by defense
c o u n s e l c o n s titu te d a w a iv e r. ¶14. T he tr i al court , how ever , i n s pi t e of thi s excha nge, cont i nued t o anal yze the B at s on i s s ues . T he tr i al courto verrul ed the B at s on chal l enge by f

i ndi ng thatScot thad not
es t abl i s hed a p rim a fa c ie c a se . T h e re fo re , th e s tate w a s n o t re q u ire d to g iv e a v a lid , rac ially
neu tral basi s f

or i t s perem ptory st ri kes. ¶ 1 5 . In th e p re s e n t ca se , S c o tt’s c o u n se l in iti a lly ra ise d a g e n e ra l B at s on obj ect i on, and req u ested that the s tat e b e re q u ir ed to sh o w rac ial ly n eu tr al ba ses fo r all o f i ts pe rem p tory str ikes a g ains t A fri ca n -A m erican s. H o w ev er, on ce the ju d g e info rm ed co u n sel o f th e v en ir e p erso n s w h o w ere stru ck for c au se, de fen se c o u n sel th en stated h e d id n o t w ish to b e h ea rd
on B at s on . C ouns el w ai ved hi s re ques tf ora B at s on h e a rin g , a n d d e c lin e d to a ss e rt a n y fa c ts t o supporthi s obj ect i on. B y decl i ni ng t o as s ertany s peci f i c f act s , def ens e couns el m ade a n
uns uppor t ed obj ect i on, and i n doi ng s o, he f ai l ed t o pr oper l y r ai s e a B at s on obj ect i on. B . W h e th e rth e c ir c u it c o u r t p r o p e r ly o v e r r u le d

S c o tt’s B a ts o n o b

je c tio n . ¶1 6. N ot w i t hs t andi ng the p r oc e du r a l b a rd i s c us s e d he r e i n, Scot tas s er t s no f act s t hat i ndi cat e thatthe B at

s on o b je c tio n h a s m e ri t. ¶17. I n R

y a ls v . Sta te , the pr os ecut i on us ed t en of i t s tw el ve per empt ory s tr i kes t o excl ude f emal e veni r e per s ons , butthe C our thel d thatf act oral one w as notenough t o s uppor tan in fe re n c e o f d isc rim in a to ry inte n t. R y a ls v . S ta te , 7 9 4 S o . 2 d 1 6 1 , 1 6 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ).

### 8

R ece nt l y, thi s C our tf

ound “thatexer ci s i ng s even pe rem ptor y str i kes agai ns tA f r i canA m er i cans , s t andi ng al one, abs entany ot herf act s orci r cumst ance s . . . f ai l s t o es t abl i s h a p ri m a f a c ie s h o w in g th a t r a c e w a s th e c ri te ri a f o r t h e e x e rc is e o f t h e p e re m p to ry c h a lle n g e .” S tric k la n d

v. S ta te , 2 0 0 8 M is s . L E X IS 1 3 2 , * 1 9 -2 0 (M is s . M a rc h 6 , 2 0 0 8 ). ¶18. In t he cas e s ub j udi ce , the s t a t e us ed ni ne per empt or y s t r i kes agai ns t A f r i canA m e ric a n v e n ire p e rso n s. D u rin g trial, a t th e sp e c ial B at s on h e a rin g , an d in th e a p p e llate br i ef , the us e of ni ne pere m pt ory s tr i kes agai ns tA f r i can- A m er i can ve ni r e per s ons w as t he
s ol e bas i s Scot t ’ s couns el of f er ed i n s uppor tof es t abl i s hi ng a p r i ma fa c ie ca se u n d er B at s on . St i l l , underStr i c kl

and and R y a ls , thatf

act ora l one i s note nough t o s uppor tan i nf er ence of di s cr i m i nat ory i nt ent . W hen w ei ghed w i t h t he t ot al i ty of the evi dence , the tr i al j udge w as notcl ear l y err oneous i n overrul i ng the B at s on obj ect i on. ¶19. T hi s Courta l s o exami nes otherf act or s m ent i oned i n R

y a ls
. Fi r s t , t he C our ti n R y a ls
n o te d th a t th e s ta te te n d e re d th re e fe m a le v e n ir e p e rs o n s . R y a ls , 794 So. 2d at166. I n t he i ns t antc as e, the empanel ed j ury i ncl uded thr ee A f r i can- A m er i cans . The al t ernat e j ur orw as al s o A f r i can- A m er i can. N ext , the R y a ls C our tnot ed t hatt her e w as onl y one f act ori n f avor
o f discri m inato ry inten t b u t there w ere sev era l fac tors ag ains t th e infe ren ce o f discrim inato ry i nt ent , s peci f

i cal l y, “ nothi ng a boutthe pr os ecut or ’ s c onduct , nothi ng a boutt he h abi tual pol i ci es of

the di s tr i ctatt orney’ s of f i ce, and not hi ng aboutthe natur e of the ca s e s uppor tan i nf er ence of di s cr i m i nat ory i nt ent . ” R y a ls , 794 So. 2d at166. H er e, w e f i nd an i dent i cal
s i tuat i on. T he sol e f

act orhi nt i ng atdi s cr i m i nat ory i nt ent , and t he onl y f act orpoi nt ed t o by Scot torhi s couns el be l ow , i s thatthe pr os ecut i on us ed ni ne of i t s el even pe r empt ory s t r i kes t o excl ude A f

r i can- A m er i can ve ni r e per s ons . A s i n both Str i c kl and and R y a ls , no thi ng a bout

### 9

the p rose cu tor’s co n d u ct, th e h ab itu al po li cies o f th e d istri ct att o rne y ’s office, or the n ature
o f t h e c a s e s u p p o rt s a n in fe re n c e o f d is c ri m in a to ry in te n t. ¶20. I ti s i m por t antt o not e thati n R y a ls , w o m e n c o n stitu ted fifty p e rc e n t o f th e ju ry p o o l,
w h ich d iffe rs fro m the ins tan t ca se , w h e re A fric a n -A m e ric a n s c o n stitu te d a p p ro x im a tely thirty-sev en p erc en t of th e jury p o o l (tw en ty-fi v e o f the sixty -si x , a cc o rdin g to the re co rd). H oweve r , i n t e r ms of

n umbe r s , the t e n pe r e mpt ory s tr i ke s wer e mor e d e va s t at i ng i n R y a ls b e c a u s e th e re w e re o n ly s ix te e n w o m e n in th e j u r y p o o l. R y a ls , 794 So. 2d at169. I n t he i ns t antm att er , ther e w er e tw ent y-f i ve A f r i can- A m er i cans i n the j ury pool
. St r i ki ng t en of
s i xt een ve ni r e per s ons i s f aci al l y m uch more pr ej udi ci al than s tr i ki ng ni ne of tw enty- f i ve. ¶21. T hes e f

act s ar e al l f

act or s w hi ch w er e w i thi n the obs ervat i on of the tr i al j udge. T he abo ve-l i st ed reasons are fi nd i ng s of f act . T his C ou rtdo es not s i tas a f i nd er of factand m ust
re v ie w fin d in g s o f f

a c t w ith g re a t d e fe re n c e . R o b in so n v. S ta te , 7 61 S o. 2d 20 9 at 211 (M i ss. 2000)
. “Thi s de f

er ent i al s t andar d of

r evi ew r ef

l ect s ‘ conf

i dence thattr i al j udges exper i ence d i n s upervi s i ng voirdir e , w i l l be abl e t o deci de i f the ci r cumst ance s concerni ng t he pr os ecut or ’ s use of p er empt ory chal l enges cr eat es a pr i m a f aci e ca s e of

di s cr i m i nat i on agai ns tbl ack j ur or s . ’ ” St r i c k land , at*17- 18 ( quot i ng B at s on , 476 U
. S. at97)
. W hen the t ot al i ty of

the evi dence i s w ei ghed, the tr i al j udge w as notcl ear l y err oneous i n overrul i ng t he B at s on o b je c tio n . ¶22. B eca us e nei ther Scot t nor hi s tr i al couns el pr ovi ded enough f act s , ei ther du ri ng t he tr i al oron appea l , t o s uppor ta p rim a fa c ie B at s on o b jec tio n , the trial c o u rt w a s c o rre c t in
o v e rr u lin g th e o b

je c tio n . II . In e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l.

### 10

¶ 2 3
. S c o tt first m e n tio n e d th e iss u e o f in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l in h is p ro se re p ly br i ef
. I n S a n de rs v. S ta te , thi s C our tadopt ed the F i fth C i r cui t ’ s rul e that“w e w i l l not
cons i deri s s ues r ai s ed f

orthe f i r s tt i m e i n an appe l l ant ’ s r epl y br i ef
. ” S an ders v. S ta te , 678 So. 2d 663, 669 ( M i s s . 1996)
. B eca us e Scottr ai s ed the i s s ue of i neff ect i ve ass i s t ance of
couns el f orthe f i r s tt i m e i n hi s pr o s e r epl y br i ef , w e nor m al l y w oul d appl y the pr ocedur al b a r. B u t b e c a u s e it is a ls o ra is e d in th e s ta te ’s b ri e f, w e a d d re s s th e m e ri ts o f t h e is s u e . ¶24. I n orde rt o s ucce ed on a c l ai m of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el , the def

endanthas the bur den of

s how i ng tw o thi ngs : ( 1) thatthe couns el ’ s per f or m ance w as def

i ci ent , and ( 2) th a t i t w a s s u ff

ic ie n t t o c o n s titu te p re

ju d ic e to th e d e fe n s e . B ra n c h v. S ta te , 882 So. 2d 36, 5 1 -2 ( M is s . 2 0 0 4 ); W

a lk e r v . S ta te , 7 0 3 S o . 2 d 2 6 6 , 2 6 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ). T ria l co u n se l is p re su m e d c o m p e ten t, an d th e b u rd e n o f p ro v in g ine ffe c tiv e as sis tan c e o f c o u n se l re sts w ith th e d e fe n d a n t. B r anch , 8 8 2 S o . 2 d a t 5 2
. ¶25. W e f

i r s tmustde t erm i ne i f

Scot tm ethi s bur den of

pr ovi ng thatcouns el ’ s per f or m ance
w as def i ci ent . I n B r anch , thi s C our tcons i der ed a de f endantw ho cl ai m ed i nef f ect i ve
as s i s t ance o f counse l due t o f ai l ur e t o m ake a B at

s on o b jecti o n d u ri n g the g u il t ph ase o f a tr ia l. B r anch , 882 So. 2d at58. T he B r anch C ou rtcon cl ud ed, “F ai l ure t o rai se a m eri t l ess obj ect i on i s noti nef

f ect i ve l aw yer i ng. ” B r anch , 882 So. 36 at60. A ccor di ng to B r anch , i n or dert o s ucce ed on a c l ai m of i nef f ect i ve ass i s t ance of

couns el bas ed on a B at s on
o b je c tio n , th e o b

je c tio n m u s t b e v a lid
. B r anch , 8 8 2 S o . 2 d 3 6 a t 5 8 . A s w e d isc u ss e d in
s ect i on II above, S cottprovi ded i ns uf f i ci ent , i f any, evi dence thatthe B at s on obj ect i on w as val i d. Si nce Scotthas notm etthe bur den of the f i r s tpr ong, ther e i s no r eas on t o r eac h t he
se c o n d p ro n g o f th e tes t fo r in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l.

### 11

I I I . W het her t he ci rcui t court err ed i n ref usi ng to g i ve h i s pere m pt ory i n st ru cti on s. ¶26. Sco t tw as i nd i ct ed on thr ee c har ges , r obbery, att empt ed ki dnapi ng, and att empt ed
s exua l b a t t e ry. D ur i ng tr i a l , Sc ottp r op os e d thr e e p e r e mpt ory i ns truc t i on s , o ne f orar m ed
r obbery, one f

ors exual batt ery, and one f orat t empt ed ki dnapi ng. A l l thr ee w er e r ef us ed. T h e ju ry fo u n d S c o tt g u ilty o f ro b b e ry , n o t g u ilty o f a ttem p te d k id n a p in g , an d w a s u n a b le to rea ch a v erd icto n the c h arg e o f att em p ted s ex u al ba tt ery . A s S c o tt d id n o t offer a p e re m p to ry in stru c tio n fo r th e c rim e o f sim p le r o b b e ry , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I V. W h e t h e r t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g S c o t t ’ s mo t i o n f o r J NOV. ¶2 7 . A ft er tri al, S co ttm o v ed fo r JN O V o r, in the alt ern ati v e, for a n ew tr ial
. T h e tri al co u rt deni ed the m ot i on. A mot i on f orJN O V c hal l enges the l egal s uf f i ci ency of

t he ev i dence
. Hic ks v . S ta te , 9 73 So
. 2 d 21 1, 2 14 ( M i s s . 2 00 7)
. “ Reve r s a l c a n on l y oc c urw hen t he evi dence of

one orm or e of

the el ement s of

the cha r ged of

f ens e i s s uch thatr eas onabl e and f ai r - m i nded j ur or s coul d onl y f i nd the ac cus ed notgui l ty. ” R a n do lp h v. S ta te , 852 So. 2d 5 4 7 , 5 5 5 (M is s . 2 0 0 2 ). ¶28. T he pr os ecut i on w as r equi red t o prove beyond a r eas onabl e doubt eac h el ementof
r o b b e ry . M i s s i s s i p p i Co d e An n o t a t e d S e c t i o n 9 7
- 3
- 7 3 ( Re v . 2 0 0 6 ) p r o v i d e s th a tth e c r i me of r ob be ry i s c omm i t t e d by a “ pe r s on who s ha l l f e l on i ou s l y t a ke the p e r s on a l p r oper t y of another , i n hi s pr es ence orf r om hi s per s on and agai ns thi s w i l l , by vi ol ence t o hi s per s on or by put t i ng such per s on i n fe arof s om e i m m edi at e i nj ury t o hi s per s on . . . . ” The i ndi ctm ent
a lle g e d th a t th e p ro p e rty w a s ta k e n fro m th e v ictim b y p u tti n g h e r “ in fe a r o f im m e d iate i nj ury t o herper s on . . . . ”

### 12

¶ 2 9
. A t tria l, th e v ictim te stifie d th a t Ja m e s W e sle y S c o tt fo llo w e d h e r to h e r a p a rtm e n t. S h e sa id th a t h e g o t ou t of h is c a r a n d g ra b b e d h e r a n d sa id , “T h is is a ro b b e ry , g iv e m e a ll yourm oney. ” T he vi ct i m t es t i f i ed thatScottthr eat ened t o s hoother , cutherorhi therover the head w i th a beerbot t l e i f s he tr i ed t o getaw ay. T he vi ct i m s ai d s he w as t err i f i ed and tr i ed to g e t aw a y , b u t th a t sh e trip p e d a n d h e g ra b b e d h e r a g a in , tea rin g h e r c lo th e s. T h e v ictim t es t i f i ed t hatshe dr opped herw al l etand keys and thata pas s i ng cars t opped and c has ed the def endantaw ay. T he vi ct i m t es t i f i ed thati ns i de herw al l etw as herchec kbook and al s o a voi ded D om i no’ s chec k. T he vi ct i m i dent i f i ed Scottas heras s ai l ant . O f f i cerShane Tucker t es t i f i ed thatthe vi ct i m ’ s c heckbook and the voi ded D om i no’ s chec k w er e r ecove r ed f r om S c o tt’ s v e h ic le p u rs u a n t to a s e a rc h w a rr a n t. ¶3 0
. C o n seq u en tl y , there is ev iden ce i n the re co rd w h ich is su ffi cien t t o su p p o rtthe ju ry
v e rd ict th a t S c o tt w a s g u ilty o f ro b b e ry . It i s c lea r th a t a re a so n a b le, fa ir-m in d e d ju ro r c o u ld f i nd beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatScot tw as gui l ty of r obbery. T her ef

or e, thi s as s i gnm ent
o f e rr o r h a s n o m e ri t. V . W h e th e r th e c irc u it c o u r t e r r e d in d e n y in g S c o tt’s m o tio n fo r a n e w tr ia l. ¶31. Scot t ’ s pos t - tr i al m ot i on soughtJN O V or, i n t he al t ernat i ve, a new t r i al
. S cott ar gues th a t a n e w trial is w a rra n ted b e c a u se th e sta te im p ro p e rly a m e n d e d h is in d ict m e n t. T h is
ar gum entw as f

i r s tadvanc ed dur i ng tr i al w hen Scottm oved t o di s m i s s the i ndi ctm ent , then agai n i n an obj ect i on duri ng del i ber at i ons overj ury i ns truct i ons , and f i nal l y i n hi s m ot i on f

or JN O V or , i n the al t ernat i ve, f ora new tr i al
. T he crux of Scott ’ s a r gum enti s thatthe or i gi nal i ndi ctm ents t at ed thatthe per s onal pr operty t aken f r om the vi ct i m w as “a w al l et . ” Through
c o u n se l, S c o tt arg u e d , “P ro o f h e re h a s n o t sh o w n the tak in g an d ca rry in g aw a y o f a w a llet.

### 13

I thas onl y s how n atbes tthata che ckbook and a chec k w er e f ound i n M r . S cott ’ s car . ” T he
s t at e r es ponded thatther e w as s uf f i ci entevi dence t o s us t ai n a convi ct i on on eac h of the
c o u n ts c h a rg e d . T h e tr ia l c o u rt d e n ie d S c o tt’ s m o tio n to d is m is s th e in d ic tm e n t. ¶32. D ur i ng del i ber a t i on s ov e rj ury i ns truc t i ons , the s t at e s oughtt o i ntr oduce a n i ns truct i on th a t st a te d th a t th e p e rs o n a l p ro p e rt y ta k e n fr o m th e v ic tim w a s a “ w a lle t a n d c h e c k b o o k .” T h e d e fe n d a n t ar g u e d th a t su c h a n in stru c tio n d id n o t trac k th e lan g u a g e o f th e in d ictm e n t. T he s t at e r es ponded thata w al l eti ncl udes i n i t s cont ent s a chec kbook. T he st at e then moved t o amend t he i ndi ctm entt o co nform t o the pr oof
. T he tr i al courtgr ant ed the mot i on and amended the i ndi ctm entt o s ay “w al l etand che ckbook. ” A f t ertr i al , Scot tf

i l ed hi s m ot i on fo r J N O V o r, i n th e a lte rn a tiv e , fo r a n e w tr ia l, a n d th e tr ia l c o u rt d e n ie d it. ¶3 3
. “ A llow ing an am en d m en t to th e ind ictm en t after th e clo se o f e v id e n c e d o e s n o t,
s t andi ng al one, const i tut e r ever s i bl e err or . A n i ndi ctm entm ay be a m ended w i thoutact i on of the gr and j ury i f

the amendm enti s one of f or m and notof

s ubs t ance . ” G o o din v . S ta te , 2008 M i s s . L E X I S 143, *4 ( M i s s . M ar . 20, 2008) ( ci t i ng S p a n n v. S ta te , 771 So. 2d 883, 898 ( M i s s . 2000) )
. A m endment s ar e perm i s s i bl e i f they do notpr ej ud i ce the def endantby
m at er i al l y al t er i ng the es s ent i al f act s of the of f ens e ora def

ens e underthe ori gi nal in d ic tm e n t. L e e v. S ta te , 9 4 4 S o . 2 d 3 5 , 4 0 (M is s . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶34. I n G re e n lee v. S ta te , t hi s C our thel d t hatam endi ng a m ur deri ndi ctm entf r om “mal i ce
a fo re th o u g h t” to “ d e lib e ra te d e s ig n ” is o n e o f f o rm , n o t s u b s ta n c e . G re e n lee v. S ta te , 725 S o . 2d 81 6 , 82 2 (M iss. 19 9 8 ). In the pres en t ca se, th e o ri g inal ind ictm en t i n clud ed the w o rd “w al l et , ” and the amendm entther et o m er el y added “ and che ckbook. ” The am endmentw as one of f or m and notof

s ubs t ance . I tdi d nota l t erthe es s ent i al f act s of the of f ens e cha r ged,

### 14

nordi d i tal t eran ava i l abl e def ens e. T her ef

or e, Scot tw as notpr ej udi ced by the addi t i on, and th is is s u e h a s n o m e ri t. CO NC L US I ON ¶3 5. Scot tdi d notm eeth i s b ur de n of pr oof on hi s cl ai m of

i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of
couns el
. E ven i f

Scot tdi d no tw ai ve the B at s on chal l enge, he f

ai l ed t o es t abl i s h a p r i ma fa c ie sh o w ing o f discrim ination
. T h ere fore , ev en in the ab sen ce o f w aive r, the trial co u rt
corr ect l y d i sm i ssed Sco t t ’s B at s on c h a llen g e . F u rth e rm o re , the trial c o u rt d id n o t er r in
r ej ect i ng the per empt ory i ns truct i ons of f er ed by Scottnor i n denyi ng Scot t ’ s m ot i on f or JN O V o r, in th e a ltern a tiv e , fo r a n e w trial. ¶ 3 6
. THE J UDGM EN T OF T HE COURT OF AP PEALS I S REVERS ED . CO NV I CT I ON OF R OB B E RY A ND S E NT E NC E OF F I F T E E N ( 1 5 ) YE AR S I N T HE C U STO D Y O F T H E M I SSI SSI PPI DE PA R TM EN T O F C O R R EC TIO N S, AF F I RM ED . W AL LE R, P . J . , EA S LE Y, CARL S ON, DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H AND L A M A R , J J ., C O N C U R . D I A Z , P .J ., C O N C U R S IN R E S U L T O N L Y . G R A V E S , J ., DI S S EN TS W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.