I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - KA - 0 0 7 6 1 - CO A J AI RUS COLL I NS A/ K/ A J AI RUS J . COLL I NS AP P EL LA NT
v. STATE O F M I SS I SS I PPI APP ELLEE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 27/ 2013 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. ROBER T B. HEL F RI CH CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: F ORRES T COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT : M I CH AE L ADE L M AN 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 : M E L ANI E DOT S ON T HOMAS DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : PATRI CI A A
. THO M AS BU RCH ELL NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY T RI AL CO UR T DI S P OS I T I ON: CO NVI CT E D OF M UR DE R A ND SENTENC ED A S A H AB I TUA L OFFEND ER T O L I F E 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 CO RRECTI ON S, W I THO UT PO SS I BI LI TY O F PA RO LE O R E A RL Y RE LEA SE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 10/ 07/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E I R V I N G , P . J. , B A R N E S A N D C A R L T O N , JJ. CAR LTON, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. A For r es tCount y j ury f ound J ai rus C ol l i ns gui l ty of m ur der pur s uant t o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 97- 3- 19( 1) ( a) ( R ev. 2006)
. C ol l i ns now appea l s hi s convi ct i on and
ra ise s th e fo llo w in g iss u e s: (1 ) w h e th e r th e c ir c u it co u rt e rre d b y d e n y in g h is m o tio n to
s uppr es s hi s s t at ementt o pol i ce; ( 2) w hetherthe D oubl e J eopar dy C l aus e bar s hi s re tr i al on th e c h a rg e o f m u rd e r; (3 ) w h e th e r th e c irc u it co u rt e rre d b y re fu sin g h im th e o p p o rtu n ity to

### 2

chal l enge hi s s t at ementdur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent s ; (4) w hetherthe ci r cui tcourterr ed by al l ow i ng a w i tnes s t o t es t i f y as an expe r toverhi s obj ect i ons ; ( 5) w hetherhe w as
un con st i tuti on al l y sentenced as a h abitual of fender; and (6) w hetherhis con vict i on i s agai nst th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e . F in d in g n o e rr o r, w e a ff ir m . FACTS ¶ 2
. O n D e c e m b e r 9 , 2 0 1 1 , E b o n y Je n k in s’ s b o d y w a s d isc o v e re d b e h in d a b u ild in g in H att i es bur g, M i s s i s s i ppi
. D ur i ng the cour s e of t hei ri nves t i gat i on, pol i ce of f i cer s i dent i f

i ed C ol l i ns a s a s us pecti n J enki ns ’ s murde r . I n N ovember2012, a gr and j ury i ndi ct ed C ol l i ns
as a h ab itu al offen d er fo r C o u n t I , the m u rde r of Je n k ins, an d C o u n t I I, p o sses sion o f a
w eapon by a convi ct ed f el on. T he ci r cui tcourtgr ant ed C ol l i ns ’ s m ot i on t o s everthe
o ff e n s e s c h a rg e d in h is in d ic tm e n t. ¶3. A tC oll i ns’s m urder tri al , the S t at e cal l ed L ou i s D i xo n, Jenkins’ s f at her, as a w i tness. D i xon t es t i f

i ed thathe dr ove t o H att i es bur g and f i l ed a mi s s i ng per s on’ s r eportaf t er
r ece i vi ng a t el ephone c al l thath i s dau ght erf ai l ed t o r eportt o w or k. O n the s ame day that D ix o n filed th e re p o rt, th e H a tti e sb u rg P o lice D e p a rtm e n t re c e iv e d a p h o n e c a ll ab o u t a hom el es s pe r s on s l eepi ng be hi nd a da ycar e. W hen pol i ce of f i cer s arr i ved atthe s cene , they dis cov ered the p ers on w as actuall y Jenkins, w ho had died as a res ultof tw o g un shot w ou nd s. ¶4. T he j ury a l s o he ar d t es t i m ony f r om Cra i g M i t chel l , w ho l i ved i n a hous e behi nd the d a y c a re . M itch e ll t e stifie d th a t o n th e n ig h t o f D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 1 , h e w a s s m o k in g a c ig a re tte
o n h is p o rc h w h e n h e h e a rd th re e o r fo u r g u n sh o ts. M itch e ll t e stifie d th a t th e g u n sh o ts
s ounded very cl os e, and he i m m edi at el y l ocked hi m s el f i ns i de hi s hous e and pe er ed outthe
w i ndow
. A ccor di ng t o M i t chel l ’ s t es t i m ony, he saw a m an runni ng aw ay f r om the ar ea.

### 3

M i t chel l t es t i f

i ed thatthe man w as of

m edi um bui l d and w or e a “hoodi e- type s w eat er ” that
w a s “ [e ]ith e r b lu e o r l ig h t g ra y o r b la c k .” ¶5. T h e S tat e show ed M i t chell a gray sw eat er belonging t o C oll i ns that po l i ce off i cers di s cover ed i n the w oods
. A s l at ert es t i m ony r evea l ed, pol i ce of f i cer s f ound the s w eat er
w r apped a r ound the s us pect ed murde rw eapon i n a bag hi dden i n the w oods
. U pon s eei ng th e g r a y s we a t e r , M i t c h e l l t e s t i f i e d th a the wa s “ [ p ] r e t ty p o s i t i v e ” th a ti twa s th e s a me
s w eat erhe s aw the man w ear i ng the ni ghtof D ece m ber7, 2011. ¶6. T he St at e al s o cal l ed J enki ns ’ s f r i end, J es s i e M i l es , as a w i tnes s . M i l es t es t i f i ed that he and J enki ns s poke ar ound 9: 30 p. m . on D ece m ber7, 2011, aboutr i di ng t o w or k t ogether the nextmorni ng. H ow ever , M i l es t es t i f i ed thatJ enki ns f

ai l ed t o s how up atw or k the next day. M i l es al s o pr ovi ded t es t i m ony r egar di ng a gun thathe bough ti n February 2010. A cc o rdin g t o M il es’s testi m o n y , h e b eg an ex p erien cing p rob lem s w ith the g u n an d C o ll ins’s br other , J os hi a, t ol d M i l es thatC ol l i ns coul d f i x the gun. M i l es t es t i f

i ed thathe gave the gun t o C ol l i ns ar ound N ovember2011 af t er C ol l i ns conf

i r m ed thathe coul d r epai rthe gun. D ur i ng M i l es ’ s t es t i m ony, t he St at e show ed hi m an exhi bi t , w hi ch M i l es i dent i f i ed as the gun he boughtand g ave t o C ol l i ns t o r epai r . A l though the gun’ s s er i al num berw as no l onger vi s i bl e att he t i m e of

t r i al , M i l es t es t i f

i ed t hatt he se r i al num berhad bee n cl ear l y vi s i bl e w hen he gave the gun t o C ol l i ns i n N ovember2011. ¶7
. C ol l i ns ’ s f

at her , M el vi n, al s o pr ovi ded t r i al t es t i m ony aboutt he t i m e per i od
s urr oundi ng J enki ns ’ s m ur der
. M el vi n t es t i f i ed thathi s s ons s t opped by hi s hous e on ei ther D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 1 , o r D e c e m b e r 8 , 2 0 1 1 . M e lv in te stifie d th a t h e p ick e d u p a b a g in sid e h is
s ons ’ vehi cl e and not i ced thatthe bag f el t“a l i t t l e bi tw ei ghty. ” A l though M el vi n di d not

### 4

know w hatthe bag c ont ai ned, he t ol d hi s s ons thatthe bag made hi m f eel uncomfort abl e. A f t erM el vi n i ns truct ed hi s s ons t o t ake the bag and i t s cont ent s aw ay f r om hi s hous e, C ol l i ns
a n d Jo sh ia to o k th e b a g a n d lef t. ¶8. T he j ury hear d addi t i onal t es t i m ony f r om C oll i ns’s br other , J os hi a, w ho s t at ed that both he and Col l i ns had bee n f r i ends w i th J enki ns . J os hi a t es t i f i ed thathe l i ved atan apart m entcom plex l ocat ed w i thi n w al ki ng di s t ance of the pl ace w her e the pol i ce f ound J enki ns ’ s body. J os hi a t es t i f i ed thathi s br otherc al l ed hi m a r ound 10: 54 p. m . on D ece m ber 7, 2011, f

r om thei rs i s t er ’ s phone. C ol l i ns arr i ved atJ os hi a’ s apar t m entcom pl ex l at erthat ni ght
. A ccor di ng t o J os hi a’ s t es t i m ony, C ol l i ns w or e a gr ay hoodi e w hen he a rr i ved atthe
a p a rt m e n t c o m p le x a n d a p p e a re d to b e o u t o f b re a th
. ¶9. J os hi a t es t i f

i ed that he and hi s br other s t opped by thei r fa ther ’ s hous e the nextday. Jo sh ia c o n firm e d th a t h is fa th e r to ld h im a n d h is b ro th e r to g e t rid o f th e b a g th e y h a d in th e ir
car . J os hi a mai nt ai ned dur i ng hi s tr i al t es t i m ony thathe nei therl ooked i ns i de the bag nor
sa w h is b ro th e r w ith a w e a p o n a t an y p o in t in tim e . A c c o rd in g to th e sta tem e n t h e g a v e to pol i ce of

f i cer s , how ever , J os hi a s ai d that , upon f eel i ng the bag , h e coul d t el l the bag
co n tai n ed a w e a p o n . Jo sh ia also to ld o ffi ce rs th at, w h en h e a n d C o ll ins lefttheir father’s h o u s e , th e y d ro v e a lo n g H ig h w a y 5 9 , a n d C o llin s h id th e b a g in th e w o o d s . ¶10. T he St at e cal l ed tw o det ect i ves as w i tnes s es , and bo t h m en t est i f i ed that J os hi a l ed them and a notherof

f i cert o the l ocat i on w her e C ol l i ns hi d the bag i n the w oods. T he det ect i ves f

ur thert es t i f

i ed thatthe bag c ont ai ned a gray hoodi e w r apped a r ound a gun. A l though the gun’ s s er i al num berw as part i al l y s cr at ched of f, a cri m e s cene i nves t i gat or exami ned the gun and de t erm i ned i tw as the gun r egi s t er ed t o M i l es . A f t erper f or m i ng

### Through his c ounse l, Coll ins subm itte d a l ette r t o thi s Cour t on June 30, 2014, 1 

### as se rting t

hat theUnited State s Supre meCour t’ s rec ent dec is ion in Riley v. C

alifo rnia , 134 S. Ct . 2473 ( 2014), prohibit s the s earc h of a ce llphone of

a pe rs on who i s arr es te d. In the pre se nt c as e, however , off ic er s only se arche d cel l phones belonging to Col lins’ s f ather and to J enkins. Further

more, Coll ins fa iled to objec t at t ri alto t he a dmi ss ion into e vide nceof the cell-phonere cords. He inst ea d only obj ec te d to Of fi ce r Ca se y Sim s’ s t es timony expl aining t

he c el l- phone r ec ords , c laim ing t hat the te stim ony constit

ute d expert t es timony. The r ec ord ther ef

orere fl ec ts that Col lins f ai le d to pres er

ve f or appe alany obj ec ti on regard ing the searchof h is fathe r’s cell p ho ne o r the admissioninto evid ence o f the cellph on e record s. 5 addi t i onal t es t s , a f

or ens i c s ci ent i s tconcl uded thatt he gu n fi re d the s hel l cas i ng pol i ce of f i cer s f ound nearJ enki ns ’ s body. ¶1 1
. In a d d it ion to fi n d ing the s h ell casin g at the c ri m e sc en e, officers d isco v ere d Jen k ins’s cel l phone and c arkeys on herbody. J enki ns ’ s phone re cor ds r evea l ed thatthe l as tcal l s he
r ece i ved ca m e f

r om a phone ow ned by Col l i ns ’ s f ather
. Pol i ce l earned thatC ol l i ns ’ s s i s t er
nor m al l y u sed the phone butthats he al l ow ed C ol l i ns t o us e the phone a r ound the t i m e of J enki ns ’ s m ur der
. W hen D et ect i ve J oey Scotti nt ervi ew ed C ol l i ns , C ol l i ns conf i r m ed that h e h ad p o sses sion o f th e p h o n e a rou n d the tim e o f Jen k ins’s m u rde r. 1 ¶1 2. D et ec t i ve Sc ott t e s t i f i e d tha t Col l i ns i ni t i a l l y t ol d of f i c e r s he di d no t kn ow Je nki ns
v ery w ell an d w as w o rkin g the n igh t of D ec em b er 7 , 2 0 1 1
. O ffi ce rs su b p o en ae d C o ll ins’s
w or k sche dul e, how ever , w hi ch show ed t hatC ol l i ns w as notatw or k on D ece m ber7, 2011. A f t erof f i cer s s how ed C ol l i ns s om e phone r ecor ds f orD ece m ber7, 2011, C ol l i ns admi t t ed to h a v in g c o n tac t w ith Je n k in s th a t n ig h t. D e tec tiv e S c o tt t e stifie d th a t C o lli n s th e n to ld
o ffic e rs th a t Je n k in s c a lled h im a n d a sk e d fo r a rid e . H o w e v e r, as D e tec tiv e S c o tt state d in hi s t es t i m ony, of

f i cer s had al r eady l earned thatJ enki ns ’ s carw as w or ki ng w hen s he w as ki l l ed, thathercarw as pa r ked w i thi n w al ki ng di s t ance of he rl ocat i on, a nd thats he had he r

### 6

carkeys i n herpocket
. A ft er f urt herques t i oni ng, C ol l i ns t ol d of f i cer s thathe arr i ved at J e n k in s ’s lo c a tio n o n D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 1 , to p ic k h e r u p b u t c o u ld n o t f in d h e r. ¶13. B as ed on the phone r ecords they o btai ned , o ff i cers d et erm i ned thatC ol l i ns and J enki ns excha nged s ever al phone ca l l s and t extm es s ages the ni ghtof D ece m ber7, 2011. D et ect i ve C as ey Si m s t es t i f i ed thathe us ed the ce l l
- phone r ecor ds t o cr eat e a map s how i ng the coor di nat es of

eac h phone ca l l and t extm es s age. D et ect i ve Si m s furthert es t i f i ed thatthe
m ap i ndi cat ed thatJ enki ns ’ s and C ol l i ns ’ s cel l phones m oved geogr aphi cal l y cl os ert o eac h otheras the ni ghtpr ogr es s ed. D et ect i ve Si m s furthert es t i f i ed t hat , att he t i m e of

the l as tf ew
comm uni cat i ons , C ol l i ns and J enki ns w er e both i n the ar ea w her e of fi cers lat erf

ound J enki ns ’ s body. ¶1 4. A f

t er he a r i ng the e vi de nc e a nd t e s t i mony pr e s e nt e d a t tr i a l , the j ury f ound C ol l i ns gui l ty of J enki ns ’ s m ur der
. F i ndi ng C ol l i ns t o be a ha bi tual of f enderpur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C o d e A n n o tate d se c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -8 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ), th e c irc u it co u rt ju d g e se n ten c e d C o lli n s to life in p riso n in th e cu sto d y o f th e M iss iss ip p i D e p a rtm e n t o f C o rre c tio n s, w ith n o p o ss ib ili ty of par ol e orear l y r el eas e. Fol l ow i ng hi s convi ct i on and sent enci ng, C ol l i ns fi l ed a mot i on for a jud g m en t no tw ith stan d ing the v erd icto r, in the alt ern ati v e, a n ew tr ial
. T h e c ir cu itco u rt ju d g e d e n ied C o lli n s’s m o tio n , an d C o lli n s n o w a p p e a ls to th is C o u rt. DI S CU S S I ON I. W h eth er th e c ircu it co u rt e rr ed b y d en y ing C o ll ins’s m o tio n to s upp res s hi s s t at em ent t o pol i ce. ¶15. C ol l i ns cont ends thatpol i ce of f i cer s vi ol at ed hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o couns el dur i ng a pr etr i al i nt err ogat i on and, ther ef or e, the ci r cui tc our tj udge s houl d have gr ant ed hi s m ot i on

### 7

to su p p re ss h is s tate m e n t. ¶16. T he M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C our thas pr evi ous l y s t at ed:

Fi ndi ngs by a tr i al j udge thata def endantconf

es s ed vo l un t a r i l y, and that s uch conf

es s i on i s adm i s s i bl e[ , ] ar e f i ndi ngs of

f act . A s l ong as the tr i al j udge appl i es the corr ectl egal s t andar ds , hi s de ci s i on w i l l notbe r ever s ed on appe al unl es s i ti s m ani f

es t l y i n err or , ori s contr ary t o the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence
. N e a l v. S ta te , 57 So. 3d 1271, 1276- 77 ( ¶14) ( M i s s . 2011) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i on
m ark s o m itted). ¶17. I n B a rn e s v . S ta te , 3 0 S o. 3 d 31 3, 3 16 -17 (¶8) (M i ss. 2 01 0), ou r s up rem e cou rtal so pr ovi ded the f

ol l ow i ng gui dance : T his C ou rtw i l l rever se a tri al cou rt ’s den i al of a m oti on t o sup press onl y i f t he rul i ng i s m ani f

es terr ororcontr ary t o the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the e v iden ce . U n d er Mi r anda v. A r iz ona , 38 4 U
. S
. 43 6, [ 47 9] (19 6 6 ), cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on m us tbe pr ece ded by advi s i ng the def endantof hi s r i ght to re m a in sile n t an d h is rig h t to a n a tto rn e y . U p o n in v o c a tio n o f th e rig h t to r emai n s i l ent , the i nt err ogat i on m us tcea s e. I f t he def endanti nvokes hi s r i ght t o couns el , the i nt err og at i on m us tcea s e unt i l an att orney i s pr es ent . I f the in ter ro g a tio n c o n tin u e s w ith o u t th e p re se n c e o f a n a tto rn e y a n d a sta tem e n t is t aken , a hea vy bur den r es t s on the governm entt o demonstr at e thatthe defend ant know i ng l y an d int el l i gen t l y w ai ved his pri vil ege ag ai nst s el f
- i ncr i m i nat i on an d his r i ghtt o r et ai ned orappoi nt ed couns el
. O nce a def endantas ks f

orcouns el , he ca nnotbe i nt err ogat ed f ur therunt i l c ouns el has b e e n m a d e a v a il a b le , unl es s t he accus ed hi m s el f i ni t i at es f

urt her com m uni cat i on, exchanges , or conver s at i ons wi t h t he pol i ce . (E m p h asis ad d ed an d interna l ci tat ion s an d q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). ¶18. I n the pr es ent cas e, pol i ce of f i cer s i dent i f

i ed C ol l i ns as a s us pect i n J enki ns ’ s m ur der and br oughthi m i n f

orques t i oni ng. D et ect i ve Si m s and D et ect i ve Scot tw er e both pr es ent dur i ng C ol l i ns ’ s i nt err ogat i on, w hi ch w as r ecor ded by both audi o and vi deo. A f t erD et ect i ve S i m s read C oll i ns his Mi r anda ri ght s , C ol l i ns w ai ved hi s r i ght s . D et ect i ve Si m s pr ocee ded

### 8

t o ques t i on C ol l i ns unt i l C ol l i ns s t at ed thathe w oul d “ r athers peak t o a l aw yer . ” Fol l ow i ng C ol l i ns ’ s decl ar at i on, the qu est i oni ng i m m edi at el y cea s ed, and the det ect i ves exi t ed the
r o o m. ¶19. A s the re cor d r ef l ect s , about f

i ve m i nut es elapsed, and t hen C ol l i ns knocked on t he door
. W hen D et ect i ve Scottopened the door , C ol l i ns began s peaki ng t o hi m . T he f ol l ow i ng excha nge t ook pl ace : D et ect i ve Scott : I ’ l l be m or e than happy t o t al k t o yo u, bu t I can’ tr i ght

n o w. C o lli n s: R ig h t. D e tec tiv e S c o tt: Y o u k n o w , b u t y o u k n o w if y o u w a n t to talk [,] m a n , I’ll

s i tr i ghther e and l i s t en. Co l l i n s : W h e n c a n th e y , h o w l o n g th e y g o i n g [ t o ] h a v e t o h o l d me

f or. . . ques t i oni ng and t al ki ng? D et ect i ve Scot t : W el l [ , ] I m ean r i ght now l i ke I s ai d, w e can’ t do nothi ng

b ec au se y o u said y o u w an ted y o u r l aw y er.

. . . . D et ect i ve Scott : T hat ’ s yourr i ghtyou know , you don’ tw antt o t al k. C o lli n s: Y o u a sk [ed ] m e a b o u t g u n s a n d a ll o f th a t. D etec ti v e S co tt : L e t m e a sk y o u so m ethin g . If I d idn ’t ask y o u ab o u t a

gun[ , ] w oul d you t al k t o m e?

. . . . D et ect i ve S cott : L et m e ask yo u this
. W ou l d yo u t alk to m e [ i f] w e j ust

s i ther e and t al k? C ol l i ns : Y eah, yeah[ , ] I can t al k.

. . . .

### 9

Co l l i n s : I c a n t e l l y o u wh a tI k n o w. D et ect i ve Scott : W ai t now , hol d up[ , ] m an[ , ] bef or e w e— I can’ t

— l i ke I s ai d, I have t o do the Mi r anda fo rm o v e r.

. . . . De t e c t i v e S c o t t : He y , i f y o u wa n tt o d o t h a t , l e tme g e ta n o t h e r f o r m, w e’ l l t al k[ , ] and I ’ l l l etyou t al k. C o lli n s: A lrig h t[, ] I’ll d o th a t. T he i nt ervi ew tr ans cr i ptr ef l ect s thatD et ect i ve Scot tthen l ef tthe r oom . W hen he r eturned, D et ect i ve Scottas ked, “So you s ay you’ l l t al k t o m e w i thoutyour l aw yer [ ?] ” C ol l i ns then
r es ponded aff

i r m at i vel y, and the i nt ervi ew cont i nued. O n appea l t o thi s C our t , C ol l i ns
assert s that D et ect i ve S cott ’s fai l ure t o re- adv i se hi m of hi s Mi r anda r i ght s a nd obt ai n a new
w a iv e r o f t h o s e ri g h ts p ro v e s fa ta l to th e S ta te ’s c a s e . ¶20. A t the hear i ng on C ol l i ns ’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s hi s s t at ement , the ci r cui t courtj udge f ound the f

ol l ow i ng: W hi l e i tw oul d pr obabl y be a be t t erpr act i ce f orthe of f i cert o r e- Mi rand ize the [ D ] ef endant , the f

actthats uch a s hor tp eri od of t i m e di d el aps e, the [ D ] ef endantw as w el l a w ar e of hi s r i ght s . I n f

act , the [ D ] ef

endantexerci s ed hi s r i ght s . C om m uni cat i on ended. T he of f i cerl ef tthe r oom , and then the [D ]efe n d a n t in iti a ted c o n tac t w ith th e o ffic e r. U n d e r th o se fac ts, I’m g o in g to d e n y y o u r m o tio n [to s u p p re s s ]. ¶2 1
. B ase d o n a rev iew o f the rec o rd, w e fi n d n o ab u se o f d iscreti o n in the circu itco u rt ’s fi nd i ng that Col l i ns r ece i ved a Mi r anda w a rni ng a ndthe n know i ngl y and i nt el l i gent l y w ai ved h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts. A s th e in ter v iew tra n sc rip t re fle c ts, D e tec tiv e S im s re a d C o lli n s h is
r i ght s , and C ol l i ns s i gned a f or m acknow l edgi ng thi s f act . C ol l i ns then r ead a l oud and s i gned
a w ai verof

hi s r i ght s . T he w ai ver st at ed thatC ol l i ns under s t ood hi s r i ght s ; thathe w as

### Seeals o Neal , 57 So. 3d at 1280 (¶28) ( “Thetria l c ourt conc lude d that Neal ha d 2 

### ini ti at ed the c onta ct s. [Thesuprem e c ourt ] dis ce rn[ ed] no bas is to overr ulethecourt’ s fa ct ualfinding. A trans cript of the s uppre ss ion he aring reve al [e d] that t he tri alcourt wa s awareof the c as el aw involve d and a ppropriate ly e xam ine d and a ppli ed the l aw. ”)
. 10 w i l l i ng t o mak e a s t a t e menta nd t o a ns w e rqu e s t i on s w i tho utc ou ns e l pr e s e nt ; tha the
u n d e rsto o d h is a c tio n s; a n d th a t n o p ro m ise s, p re ss u re , o r th re a ts h a d b e e n u se d to in d u c e h im to talk . A t th e h e a rin g o n C o lli n s’s m o tio n to su p p re ss , D e tec tiv e S im s a n d D e tec tiv e S c o tt both t es t i f

i ed thatCol l i ns di d notappea ri nt oxi cat ed orunaw ar e of hi s ci r cumst ance s dur i ng the i nt ervi ew . B oth det ect i ves a l s o t es t i f i ed thatCol l i ns w as a bl e t o s peak i nt el l i gent l y, and nei therone not i c e d a n i mpai rmenttha tw ou l d h a ve pr event ed C ol l i ns f r om f r eel y, know i ngl y,
a n d v o lu n tar ily p ro v id in g a sta tem e n t. ¶22. T he r ecor d f

ur ther r ef

l ect s no abus e of di s cr et i on i n the ci r cui t court ’ s det erm i nat i on that, after i n v o k ing h is r igh t t o co u n sel, C o ll ins in it iat ed a n ew co n tact w ith p o li ce o ffi ce rs
a n d th e n fr e e ly a n d v o lu n ta ri ly p ro v id e d a s ta te m e n t to th e o ff ic e rs . See Barne s , 30 So. 3d at316- 18 ( ¶¶8, 15)
. A s r evea l ed by t es t i m ony and the i nt ervi ew tr anscr i pt, af t erC ol l i ns 2 i n v o k e d h i s r i g h tt o c o u n s e l , De t e c t i v e S i ms a n d De t e c t i v e Sc o t te x i t e d t h e i n t e r v i e w r o o m. A ppr oxi m at el y f

i ve m i nut es l at er , Col l i ns r os e f r om hi s chai rand knocke d on the door
. T he
r ecor d r ef

l ect s that , w hen D et ect i ve Scottopened the door , C ol l i ns i ni t i at ed a ne w
conver s at i on w i th D et ect i ve Scott . M or e than once, D et ect i ve Scottr emi nded C ol l i ns that h e w a s u n a b le to fu rth e r d isc u ss the inv e stig a tio n sin c e C o lli n s h a d inv o k e d h is ri g h t to
c o u n se l. H o w e v e r, th e rec o rd ref lec ts th a t C o lli n s p e rsis ted in sp e a k in g to D e tec tiv e S c o tt
a n d a g re e d to s it b a c k d o w n a n d c o n tin u e th e ir c o n v e rsa tio n w ith o u t th e p re se n c e o f c o u n se l. ¶2 3
. A fte r r e v iew in g the re co rd a n d ap p li ca b le ca selaw , w e c an n o t f ind that the circ u it

### See B ush v. Sta te , 895 So. 2d 836, 843 (¶16) (Mi ss . 2005)
. 3 

### 11 court ’ s deni al of

C ol l i ns ’ s m ot i on t o s uppres s hi s s t at ementw as contr ary t o the
o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e o r r e s u lte d in m a n if e s t e rr o r. See Barne s , 30 So. 3d
a t 3 1 6 -1 7 (¶ 8 ). T h e re c o rd su p p o rts a fi n d in g th a t C o lli n s k n o w in g ly a n d in tellig e n tly
w ai ved hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s and thathe f r eel y a nd vol unt ar i l y ga ve a s t at ementt o pol i ce
o ff ic e rs . See i d. a t 3 1 8 (¶ 1 5 ). A s a re su lt, th is iss u e lac k s m e rit. I I . W he t he r t he D oubl e Je opa r dy Cl aus e bar s C ol l i ns ’ s r e t r i alon t he charge of

m urder. ¶ 2 4
. In h is n e x t as sig n m e n t of err o r, C o lli n s c o n tin u e s to c h a lle n g e th e a d m is sio n in to
e v id e n c e o f h is p re trial s tate m e n t. C o lli n s a ss e rts th a t, w ith o u t h is s tate m e n t, no re a so n a b le juro r co u ld h av e fou n d tha t sufficient e v iden ce e x ist ed to co n v icth im o f Jen k ins’s m u rde r. C ol l i ns f urthe ra r gu e s tha t“ the g r a nt [ ] o f a n e w tr i a l b a s e d on the i ns uf f i c i ency of

t he
ev iden ce tr igg ers the [D ] o u b le [ J] eo p ard y [C ] laus e o f th e U n it ed S tat es C o n sti tuti o n an d b ars [h is ] re tr ia l” fo r J e n k in s ’s m u rd e r. ¶ 2 5
. A s p re v io u sly sta ted , w e fin d n o a b u se o f d is c re tio n o r m a n ife st e rro r in th e c irc u it
court ’ s admi s s i on of

C ol l i ns ’ s s t at ementi nt o evi dence
. T her ef or e, t hi s ass i gnm entof e rr or is m o o t sinc e w e fi n d no ne w tri al i s w arran ted. R elati v e to C o ll ins’s arg u m e n t, ho w ev er,
w e ac know l edge the overw hel m i ng evi dence i n the r ecor d thats uppor t s C ol l i ns ’ s gui l t . E ven
w i thoutthe pr etr i al s t at ementt o pol i ce of f i cer s , the r ecor d r ef

l ect s thatthe St at e pr es ent ed
s uf f i ci entevi dence t o s uppor tC ol l i ns ’ s m ur derconvi ct i on. 3 ¶2 6
. A cc o rdin g t o M it ch ell ’s t esti m o n y , o n th e n ig h t o f D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 1 , h e h e ard
s ever al guns hot s and then s aw a man w ear i ng a hoodi e runni ng aw ay f r om the ar ea. T he

### SeeNeal , 57 So. 3d at 1277 (¶ 14). 4 

### 12 s ame ni ght , C ol l i ns arr i ved athi s br other ’ s apart m entcompl ex outof br eath and w ear i ng a gr ay hoodi e. A s J os hi a, C ol l i ns ’ s brother , t es t i f i ed, he l i ved i n an apa r t m entcompl ex l ocat ed
w i thi n w al ki ng di s t ance of the ar ea w her e pol i ce di s cover ed J enki ns ’ s body. J os hi a al s o l ed pol i ce t o a s pot i n the w oods w her e C ol l i ns hi d a gun. W hen pol i ce of f i cer s s ear ched the area, they found the gu n used t o k i l l Jenkins w rapped i n a g ray hoo die bel on ging t o C oll i ns. Fur therm or e, J enki ns ’ s f r i end, M i l es , t es t i f

i ed thathe gave the gun t o C ol l i ns s ever al w eeks pr i ort o Jenki ns ’ s m ur derso C ol l i ns coul d r epai rthe w eapon. T he j ury al s o hear d t es t i m ony f r om D et ect i ve Si m s t hat , on the ni ghtof D ece m ber7, 2011, C ol l i ns and Je nki ns excha nged
s ever al cel l
- phone comm uni cat i ons and thatthei rcel l phones m oved geogr aphi cal l y cl os er t o eac h otheras the ni ghtpr ogr es s ed. ¶ 2 7
. T h e c irc u it c o u rt ju d g e f o u n d th a t C o lli n s k n o w in g ly a n d in tellig e n tly w a iv e d h is
c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t s a n d t h e n f r e e l y a n d v o l u n t a r i l y g a v e a s t a t e me n tt o p o l i c e o f f i c e r s . As pr evi ous l y di s cus s ed, the r ecor d r ef l ect s no m ani f

es terr ori n the ci r cui tcourt ’ s deni al of C o lli n ’s m o tio n to su p p re ss h is s tate m e n t. In a d d iti o n , the re c o rd re fle c ts th a t th e S tate 4 pr es ent ed s uf

f i ci entevi dence , otherthan C ol l i ns ’ s s t at ement , upon w hi ch a r eas onabl e j ur or
co u ld fi n d C o ll ins g u il ty o f Jen k ins’s m u rde r. A s a re su lt, w e find n o m eritto C o ll ins’s arg u m en t th at th e D o u b le Jeo p ard y C laus e b ars h is r etri al for the ch arg e o f m u rde r. III. W h eth er th e c ircu itcou rt erred b y re fu sing C o ll ins th e o p p o rtu n it y to cha l l en ge h i s st atem en t du ri n g closi n g a rgu m en ts . ¶28. C ol l i ns nextar gues thatthe ci r cui tcourtj udge err ed by r ef us i ng t o l ethi m f

ul l y ar gue bef or e the j ury thatpol i ce of f i cer s f ai l ed t o honorhi s re ques tforcouns el
. C ol l i ns as s ert s that

### As our c a s e l aw ho l ds , “ [ o] nc e thej udge[ ha s ] m a deh i s d e c i s i on , thei s sue of 5 

### adm is sibil it

y [is ] no longe r a ques ti on.” Ma lon e v. Sta te , 82 9 S o. 2 d 1 25 3, 1 25 9 (¶1 6) (M iss. Ct. App. 2002)
. 13 the cir cuitcou rtj ud ge’s ruli ng p rej ud i ced his ab i l i ty t o presenta fai r and c om plet e defense
an d co n sti tuted rev ersible e rror. In a d d ress in g C o ll ins’s arg u m en t th at th e c ir cu itco u rt i m pr op e r l y r e s tr i c t e d h i s a t t orne y’ s c l os i ng a r gu ment , w e a pp l y a n a bu s e - of
- di s c r et i on
s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w . S e e E a ste rlin gv . S ta te , 2010- K A
- 02075- C O A , 2012 W L 159217 6, at
* 3 (M iss. C t. A p p . M ay 8 , 2 0 1 2 ). ¶29
. D uri ng cl osi ng argum ent, C oll i ns’s at t orney m ade the fol l ow i ng com m ents : N ow , . . . you have the opportuni ty t o t ake thi s r atherl engthy tr ans cr i ptof the [D ]efe n d a n t’s s tate m e n t b a c k w ith y o u . . . . I w a n ted to p o in t o u t th a t in th is s t at ementyou w i l l s ee a tPage 12 w her e the [ D ] ef endantasks t o spea k t o a law y er tw ice. T h at on P ag e 1 3 h e a g a in req u ested to sp ea k w ith a law y er. Page 14, [ he] agai n asked t o s peak w i th a l aw yer . Y ou hear d the t es t i m ony. T h e re n e v e r w a s a la w y e r p re s e n t . . . . ¶30
. A t this po i nt du ri ng the defense’ s cl osi ng argum ent, the Stat e obj ect ed. In r espon se t o the obj ect i on, the ci r cui tcour tj udge st at ed, “[ C ol l i ns ’ s ] s t at ement , as pr evi ous l y rul ed by thi s [ c] our t , i s admi s s i bl e. ” Fol l ow i ng the ci r cui tcourtj udge’ s s t at ement , C ol l i ns ’ s att orney
r es um ed his cl os i ng ar gum ent , dr aw i ng the j ury’ s att ent i on t o di f f er entpor t i ons of

the i nt ervi ew tr ans cr i ptan d usi ng t hos e port i ons t o bol s t erhi s ar gum ent . O n appea l , C ol l i ns
ar gues thatthe ci r cui tcourtj udge’ s rul i ng pr event ed hi m f r om f ul l y chal l engi ng the truthf ul nes s and vol unt ar i nes s o f hi s st at ement . T he St at e, how ever , cont ends thatthe def ens e w as att empt i ng t o i m pr oper l y “comm enton t he [ ci r cui t ] court ’ s pr etr i al rul i ng
re g a rd in g th e a d m is s ib ility o f [ C o llin s ’s ] c o n fe s s io n .” 5 ¶31. I n W

ilso n v . S ta te , 451 So. 2d 724, 726 ( M i s s . 1984) , our s upr eme court pr ovi ded the

### 14

fo llo w in g g u id a n c e re g a rd in g a d e fe n d a n t’s p re trial s tate m e n t:

T he adm i ss i bi l i ty of

a conf es s i on i s f

orthe det erm i nat i on of a tr i al j udge. T he admi s s i bi l i ty of the conf es s i on, how ever , i s t o be di s t i ngui s hed f r om the i ssue of

i t s cr edi bi l i ty and i t s w ei ght
. T he di s t i nct i on has been enunci at ed by thi s C our t . I n McN e a l v. S ta te , 40 5 S o. 2d 90 [ , 92 ] (M i ss. 1981) , thi s C our ts t at ed that“ the compet ency of a conf es s i on as evi dence i s f

or the c o u rtto d ec ide a s a m att er o f la w , w h il e the w eigh t and cre d ibil ity o f a conf es s i on i s f

orthe j ury t o deci de al ong w i th othert es t i m ony and phys i cal e v id e n c e .” O n c e a c o n fe ss io n is a d m itt e d in to e v id e n c e , a d e fe n d a n t is e n tit led to s ubm i tevi dence and have the j ury pass upon the f actual i s s ues of i t s truth and vol unt ar i nes s and up on it s w ei ghtand cr edi bi l i ty. T he def endantm ay of

f er pr oof t o s how thatthe conf es s i on i s untrue an d expl ai n w hy he made the u n tru e s ta te m e n t. O n ce this rebu tt al or im p ea ch m en t t estim o n y is offere d , then the ju ry m ay conc l ude thatt he conf es s i on, though f

ound by the courtt o be vol unt ary, i s untrue and notent i t l ed t o any w ei ght
. C onf es s i ons ar e notconcl us i ve and m ay be w ei ghed as t o thei rcr edi bi l i ty underthe cir cum st ance s by the j ury. T h is is a m a tter f

o r th e ju ry a n d n o t th e c o u rt. (Intern al cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶32
. In th e p resen tcase, the ci rcui tcourtj ud ge’s st atem en t r esp o n d ed to the S tat e’s
o b jection a n d em p h asize d the c ir cu itco u rt ’s prior ru li n g o n the a d m issi b il ity o f C o ll ins’s
s t at ement . A s the r ecor d re f l ect s , t he ci r cui tcour t ’ s st at ementfa i l ed t o r ef er ence any f

actual i s s ues w i thi n the j ury’ s det erm i nati on . B y s peci f i cal l y r emi ndi ng the def ens e thatthe admi s s i bi l i ty of

C ol l i ns ’ s s t at ementhad pr evi ous l y been det erm i ned, the ci r cui tcourtj udge l i m i t ed hi s rul i ng and r ender ed no comm entupon the truth, vol unt ar i nes s , w ei ght , or
cre d ibil ity of C o ll ins’s st atem en t. F u rth erm o re, the rec o rd reflects th at, after th e S tate’s obj ect i on and the ci r cui tcourtj udge’ s r es pons e, the def ens e cont i nu ed t o att ack the tru th fu ln e ss a n d c re d ib ili ty o f C o lli n s’s p re trial s tate m e n t.

### 15

¶33. T he r ecor d als o ref l ect s t hat t he ci rcui tco urtjudge gave the j ury the f ol l ow i ng i ns truct i on: Y ou[ , the j ur or s , ] ar e t he sol e j udges of the f act s i n thi s cas e. Y ourexcl us i ve pr ovi nce i s t o det erm i ne w hatw ei ghtand cr edi bi l i t y w i l l be as s i gned t o the test im o n y an d su p p o rt ing ev ide n c e o f ea ch w itn ess in this case
. Y o u are re q u ire d a n d e x p e c ted to u se y o u r g o o d co m m o n se n se an d so u n d ju d g m e n t in c o n sid e rin g a n d w e ig h in g th e tes tim o n y o f e a c h w itn e ss w h o h a s te stifie d in th is c a s e . Y ou m ay consi der [ t he] D ef endant’ s st at em ent i n t he l i ght of t he m anner by whi c h yo u f

i nd t hat i t was o bt ai ne d, and [ yo u m ay ] gi ve [ i t ] s uc h wei ght and c r e di bi l i t y a s yo u t hi nk i t i s e nt i t l e d. (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶34. B as ed on ourr evi ew of the record an d app l i cable casel aw , w e f i nd no abus e of di s cr et i on i n the ci r cui tcourt ’ s r es pons e t o the St at e’ s obj ect i on t o the cl os i ng- ar gum ent
c o m m e n ts o f C o llin s ’s a tto rn e y . See Easter l i ng , 2 0 1 2 W L 1 5 9 2 1 7 6 , at *3
. A s the rec o rd
r ef l ect s , the ci rcui tcourtj udge pl ace d no pr ohi bi t i on on the def ens e’ s abi l i ty t o att ack the
w ei ghtand cr edi bi l i ty of Col l i ns ’ s pr etr i al s t at ement , a nd he pr oper l y i ns truct ed j ur or s that it w a s th e ir d u ty to d e ter m in e th e se fa c tu a l i s s u e s w h e n c o n sid e rin g C o lli n s’s sta tem e n t. T h e re fo re , w e fin d th a t th is a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r la c k s m e rit. I V . W het her t he ci rcui t court erre d by al l ow i ng a w i t nes s to t es t i f y as an exp ert over C oll i n s’ s ob ject i on s. ¶ 3 5
. C o lli n s n e x t a rg u e s th a t th e c irc u it c o u rt ju d g e e rre d b y a llo w in g D e tec tiv e S im s to t es t i f y a s a c el l
- phone experta nd by ove rrul i ng C ol l i ns ’ s obj ect i ons t o the exhi bi t s admi t t ed i n t o e v i d e n c e d u r i n g De t e c t i v e S i ms ’ s t e s t i mo n y . As o u rc a s e l a w e s t a b l i s h e s , we r e v i e w a
c ir c u it c o u rt ’s d e c is io n to a d m it o r e x c lu d e e v id e n c e fo r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . M a lo n e v . S ta te , 7 3 S o . 3 d 1 1 9 7 , 1 2 0 1 (¶1 2 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 1 1 ).

### 16

¶ 3 6
. D u rin g C o lli n s’s tria l, th e S tate c a lled D e tec tiv e S im s to tes tify a s a lay w itn e ss . R u le 70 1 o f the M i ssi ssi pp i R ules o f E vidence, w hich go verns t est i m on y by l ay w i tnesses, st at es:

If th e w itn e ss is n o t tes tify in g a s a n ex p e rt, th e w itn e ss ’s te stim o n y in the f or m of opi ni ons ori nf

er ence s i s l i m i t ed t o thos e opi ni ons ori nfer ence s w h ich a re (a ) ra tio n a lly b a se d o n th e p e rc e p tio n o f th e w itn e ss , (b ) h e lp fu l to the cl earunder s t andi ng of the t es t i m ony orthe det erm i nat i on of a f acti n i s s ue, and ( c) notbas ed on s ci ent i f i c, t echni cal , orothers peci al i zed know l edge w ith in th e s c o p e o f R u le 7 0 2 [o f t h e M is s is s ip p i R u le s o f E v id e n c e ]. ¶37. A ttr i al , D et ect i ve Si m s t es t i f i ed thathe a t t ended a s i xteen- ho ur course abou t the cel l ul art echnol ogy used i n l aw enf or cement . D et ect i ve Si m s s t at ed thatthe cour s e t aught part i ci pant s how t o deal w i th t el ephone compani es , i nt erpr etphone r ecor ds , and ent erphoner ecor d i nf

or m at i on i nt o a mappi ng sof tw ar e pr ogr am. U s i ng the s of tw ar e he r ece i ved f

r om hi s cel l ul ar - t echnol ogy cour s e, D et ect i ve Si m s t es t i f i ed thathe w as abl e t o cr eat e a map of J e n k in s ’s a n d C o llin s ’s c e ll- p h o n e c o m m u n ic a tio n s fo r t h e n ig h t o f D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 1
. ¶38. A ccor di ng t o D et ect i ve Si m s ’ s t est i m on y, t he cell -phon e records i nd i cat ed that J enki ns and C ol l i ns exchange d s ever al cal l s and t extm es s ages the ni ghtof D ece m ber7, 2011. D et ect i ve Si m s us ed the ce l l
- phone r ecor ds t o pl ot t he l at i tude and l ongi tude
c o o r d i n a t e s o f

th e s e c o mmu n i c a t i o n s a n d t o s h o w t h e l o c a t i o n o f th e c e l l p h o n e s a tth e t i me
eac h comm uni cat i on w as m ade. D et ect i ve Si m s t es t i f i ed t hatt he r es ul t i ng m ap i ndi cat ed that J enki ns ’ s and C ol l i ns ’ s cel l phones moved geogr aphi cal l y c l os ert o eac h otheras the ni ght progressed. D et ect i ve S i m s f urther t est i fi ed t hat, atthe t i m e of the las tfew com m un i cat i on s, C o ll ins’s an d Jen k ins’s ce ll ph o n es w ere bo th i n th e are a w h ere po li ce lat er fo u n d Jen k ins’s body. ¶39. C ol l i ns obj ect ed t o D et ect i ve Si m s ’ s t es t i m ony, ar gui ng that D et ect i ve Si m s had not

### 17

b een est abli shed as an expertw i tness qual i fi ed “t o exp l ai n or r each an y kind of ex p ert
c o n c lu sio n s re g a rd in g [th e ] p h o n e rec o rd s . . . .” C o lli n s a lso o b jec ted to th e a d m iss io n in to evi dence of

the map D et ect i ve Si m s cr eat ed w i th hi s comput er - s of tw ar e pr ogr am. C ol l i ns
a ss e rte d th a t th e S tate fa ile d to s h o w th a t D e tec tiv e S im s p o ss e ss e d th e e x p e rtise to
ac cu rately c rea te su ch a d o cu m en t. In o v erru li n g the d efe n se’s o b jecti o n s, the c ir cu itco u rt j udge not ed thatD et ect i ve Si m s cr eat ed hi s m ap “by s i m pl y put t i ng i n the l ocat i on i n a
s of tw ar e pr ogr am. ” ¶40. In R us s v. Saf

eco I ns ur ance Co. of

A m er i ca , No. 2 : 11 CV 19 5- K S- M T P, 2013 W L 1 3 1 0 5 0 1 , at * 2 9 (S .D . M is s . M a r. 2 6 , 2 0 1 3 ), th e d istric t co u rt d isc u ss e d w h e th e r c e rta in test im o n y ab o u t cell -ph o n e re co rds c o n sti tuted lay testi m o n y o r ex p ert t esti m o n y . In addr es s i ng the i s s ue, the di s tr i ctcourtj udge w r ot e: N um er ous court s have f ound t es t i m ony re gar di ng cel l [
- ] phone r ecor ds and the l ocati on of cel l [ -] ph on e t ow ers t o fal l ou t side the scope o f expert [ -] w i tness tes tim o n y . A s n o ted b y o n e d istric t co u rt: A r eas onabl y compet entl ayper s on, gi ven a s m al l amount of i nf or m at i on, coul d eas i l y exami ne a c el l
- phone r ecor d and det erm i ne the i dent i ty of the cel l t ow erthathandl ed a pa r t i cul ar cal l
. T hats ame l ayper s on, gi ven a map of cel l t ow er s i n the ar e a , c ou l d i de nt i f

y the a pp r ox i mat e l oc a t i on o f the c e l l phone atthe t i m e the ca l l w as m ade orr ece i ved. (Intern al cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶41. O ne of

the ca s es ci t ed by the R uss cou rtw as U ni t ed Stat es v. B aker , 496 F
. A pp’ x 201 ( 3d C i r . 2012)
. I n B aker , the Thi r d C i r cui tC our tof A pp eal s di s cus s ed a l aw enf or cement of f i cer ’ s t es t i m ony t hat he used comput ers of tw ar e t o cr eat e a map of the def endant ’ s and
a n o th e r p e rs o n ’s lo c a tio n s f ro m r e c o rd s o f th e irc e ll- p h o n e u s a g e . I d. a t204. T he def

endant

### 18

a rg u e d o n a p p e a l th a t “th e ag e n t’s tes tim o n y re q u ire d sp e c ializ e d k n o w led g e th a t w a s n o t in the j ury’ s pos s es s i on a nd, ther ef or e, the age nt ’ s t es t i m ony w as i nadmi s s i bl e. ” I d. H o w ev er, “[ g] i ven the omni pr es entnatur e of comput er [
- ] m appi ng s of tw ar e i n t oday’ s s oci ety[ , ] ” the T hi r d C i r cui tf

ound that“the age nt ’ s t es t i m ony abouthi s use of the mappi ng s of

tw ar e w as notexpertt es t i m ony[
. ] ” I d. See al

s o U ni t ed Stat es v. Hender

s on , No
. CR 1 0
- 1 1 7 BDB, 2011 W L 6016477, at*5 ( N
. D
. O kl a. D ec. 2 , 2 01 1) (f i ndi ng an age nt ’ s t es t i m ony thathe
s i mp l y r e v i e we d th e d e f e n d a n t ’ s c e l l
- p h o n e r e c o r d s wi th th e k n o wl e d g e th a t“ o n e c o l u mn

. . . i dent i f

i ed the ce l l t ow erthatw as near es tt o the l ocat i on of the ce l l phone atthe t i m e a part i cul arcal l w as m ade orr ece i ved” a nd “cr eat ed and t es t i f i ed abouta map show i ng the
a lleg e d lo c a tio n o f [th e d e fe n d a n t’s] ce ll p h o n e w h e n it m a d e o r re c e iv e d c a lls” fa iled to
co n sti tute ex p ert t esti m o n y ). ¶4 2. A f

t e rr e vi e w i ng t he r e l e va ntca s e l a w , w e f i nd t ha tD e t e c t i ve Si ms f a i l e d t o pr ovi de
a n y e x p e rt te stim o n y “ b a se d o n sc ien tific, tec h n ica l, or o th e r sp e c ializ e d k n o w led g e w ith in th e sc o p e o f R u le 7 0 2 .” M .R .E . 7 0 1 . In ste a d , the re c o rd re fle c ts th a t D e tec tiv e S im s s im p ly
r evi ew ed the ce l l
- phone r ecor ds obt ai ned dur i ng the i nves t i gat i on of J enki ns ’ s m ur derand
e n ter e d in fo rm a tio n fro m th o se re c o rd s in to h is c o m p u ter -m a p p in g so ftw a re . A s o th e r c o u rts have pr evi ous l y f

ound: A re a so n a b ly c o m p e ten t lay p e rso n , g iv e n a sm all am o u n t of i n form ati o n , co u ld eas i l y exami ne a c el l
- phone r ecor d and det erm i ne the i dent i ty of the cel l t ow er that h an d led a pa rt icular ca ll
. T h at sam e lay p erso n , g iven a m ap o f ce ll tow ers i n the ar ea, coul d i dent i f y the appr oxi m at e l ocat i on of the ce l l phone atthe t i m e the ca l l w as m ade orr ece i ved. R uss , 2013 W L 1310501, at*29 ( quot i ng Hender s on , 20 11 W L 60 16 47 7, at*5 ). B ecause D et ect i ve Si m s ’ s t es t i m ony f ai l ed t o c ons t i tut e expertt es t i m ony unde rR ul e 702, w e f i nd no

### 19

abus e of di s cr et i on by the admi s s i on i nt o evi dence of D et ect i ve Si m s ’ s t es t i m ony orthe map h e c re a te d d u ri n g th e c o u r s e o f h is i n v e s tig a tio n . See M al one , 7 3 S o . 3 d at 12 0 1 (¶1 2 ). A c c o rd in g ly , this iss u e lac k s m e rit. V . W het her C ol l i ns was unconst i t ut i onal l y s ent enced as a habi t ual of f ender. ¶ 4 3
. In h is n e x t as sig n m e n t o f e rro r, C o lli n s a ss e rts th a t th e c irc u it co u rt u n c o n stitu tio n a lly
s e nt e nc e d hi m as a h a bi tua l o f f e nd e ru nd e rs e c t i on 9 9- 19
- 83
. W hi l e r e c og ni zi ng t hat M i s s i s s i ppi court s have pr evi ous l y uphel d the cons t i tut i onal i ty of s ect i on 99- 19- 83, C ol l i ns
ar gues thatourcas el aw ei therf ai l ed t o cons i derori s i ncons i s t entw i t h casel aw fr om the U n ite d S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt. C o lli n s a lso c o n ten d s th a t se c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -8 3 v io late s R u le 404( b) of

the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence
. a. U ni t e d St at e s Supr e m e C our t Pre c e de nt ¶44. C ol l i ns ci t es t o Appr e ndiv. N ew Jers ey , 530 U
. S. 466 ( 2000) , and B l akel y v. W ashingt on , 54 2 U. S. 29 6 ( 20 04 ) , t o s up po r thi s a r gu menttha thi s s e nt e nc e a s a ha bi tual of f enderi s uncons t i tut i onal
. I n ci t i ng Appr endi , C ol l i ns ar gues thatthe ca s e s t ands f orthe pr opos i t i on that“ the Four t eenth A m endmentof the U ni t ed St at es Const i tut i on r equi r es that any f actt hati ncr eas es t he penal ty fora st at e cr i m e beyond t he s t atut ory m axi m um [ m us t ] be
su b m itt e d to a ju ry a n d p ro v e d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t.” C o lli n s a ls o a s s e rts th a t in B la ke ly the S u p rem e C o u rth eld th at “ an e x tend ed sen tenc e, be y o n d the m ax im u m statu tory p e n a lty , c o u ld o n ly b e im p o s e d b y a ju ry .” ¶45. O ur r evi ew of thi s i s s ue s how s that C oll i ns’s r el i ance on thes e cas es i s m i s pl ace d. C oll i ns ’ s ar gum entas t o the hol di ngs i n Appr endiand B la ke ly f a i l s t o c on s i de rpe r t i nent

### 20

l anguage us ed by the Supr eme C our ti n both cas es . W hen r ead i n i t s ent i r ety, the Appr endi
rul e r ef er ence d by C ol l i ns s t at es the f ol l ow i ng: O t her t han the f

act of a pri or convi ct i on , an y fa c t th a t i n c re a se s th e p e n a lty f ora cr i m e beyond the pr es cr i bed s t atut ory m axi m um m us tbe s ubm i t t ed t o a ju ry , a n d p ro v e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. W i t h t hat exce pt i on , we endor s e the s t at ementof the rul e s etf

or th i n the conc urr i ng opi ni ons i n [Jones v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 2 6 U .S . 2 2 7 , 2 5 2 (1 9 9 9 ) (S tev e n s, J., co n c u rrin g )]: “ It is uncons t i tut i on a l f

ora l e gi s l a tur e t o r e move f r om the j ury the a s s e s s mentof f act s thati ncr eas e the pr escr i bed r ange of penal t i es t o w hi ch a c r i m i nal def endanti s expos ed. [ ”] Appr endi , 530 U
. S. at490 ( emphasi s added)
. In B la ke ly , the Supr eme C our tr ei t er at ed the Appr endirul e and f

ound uncons t i tut i onal a s t at e s ent enci ng pr ocedur e that , af t erthe def endantpl ed gui l ty, al l ow ed a t r i al j udge t o engage i n addi t i onal f act - f i ndi ng f orthe p u rp o s e o f e n h a n c in g th e d e fe n d a n t’ s p u n is h m e n t. B la ke ly , 5 4 2 U .S . a t 2 9 6
. ¶46. I n the pr es ent cas e, the ci r cui t court j udge f ound dur i ng C ol l i ns ’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng th a t C o lli n s h a d se v e ra l p rio r c o n v ictio n s. B a se d s o lely o n th e se p rio r c o n v ictio n s, th e c irc u it
co u rtjud g e se n tenc ed C o ll ins a s a h ab itu al offen d er. T h e rec o rd reflects th at th e c ir cu itco u rt j udge made no addi t i onal f i ndi ngs of

f act . I ns t ead, the s ent enci ng hear i ng r emai ned l i m i t ed to p roo f of C o ll ins’s p ri o r co n v ict ion s. B ec au se th e c ir cu itco u rtjud g e u sed o n ly C o ll ins’s p rio r c o n v ictio n s to e n h a n c e th e p e n a lty o f th e m u rd e r c o n v ictio n , an d b e c a u se th e c irc u it
courtj udge di d notengage i n addi t i onal f act - f i ndi ng w i th r es pectt o the c r i m e cha r ged, Col l i ns ’ s e nh a nc e d s e nt e nc i ng f a i l s t o vi ol a t e the h ol di ngs i n Apprendiand B la ke ly
. A s a
re su lt, w e fin d n o m e rit to C o lli n s’s a rg u m e n t th a t, ba se d o n S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t, his
se n ten c e a s a h a b itu a l o ffe n d e r is u n c o n stitu tio n a l.

b. M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of Evi de nc e 40 4( b)

### Co llins cites Mo ore v. State , 85 9 S o. 2 d 3 79 (Miss. 2 00 3); Flo wers v. State , 773 So. 6 

### 2d 309 (Mi ss . 2000) ; and Ro bin son v. Sta te , 49 7 So . 2d 44 0 (Miss. 19 86 ). As no ted, th ese ca se s di sc uss theadm is si on int o evi denc e of othe r- crim es evi denc e during a jur y tria l. None of th ese cases standfor th e pro po sitionargu ed b y C ollin s onapp eal to th is Co urt. 21 ¶47. C ol l i ns al s o ar gues thathi s s ent ence as a habi tual of f e nd e rvi ol a t es R ul e 404( b) , w hi ch st at es: E vi dence of othercr i m es , w r ongs , oract s i s notadmi s s i bl e t o pr ove the char act erof

a per s on i n or dert o s how thathe ac t ed i n conf or m i ty ther ew i th. I tm ay, how ever , be admi s s i bl e f orotherpurpos es s uch as pr oof of m ot i ve, oppor tuni ty, i nt ent , pr epar at i on, pl an, know l edge, i dent i ty, orabs ence of m ista k e o r a c c id e n t. ¶4 8
. T h e c ase law C o ll ins c it es in s u p p o rt o f h is a rg u m en t discu sses the o ffer of o therc rim e s e v id e n c e d u rin g a ju ry trial. C o lli n s fa ils to p ro v id e a n y re lev a n t ca se law to 6 demonstr at e thatR ul e 404( b) al s o appl i es t o a s ent enci ng hear i ng bef or e a ci r cui tcourtj udge. C ol l i ns ’ s fa i l ur e t o ci t e any r el evantauthor i ty obvi at es thi s C our t ’ s obl i gat i on t o r evi ew the is s u e . S e e S im m o n s v . S ta te , 805 So. 2d 452, 487 ( ¶90) (M i s s . 2001). T her ef or e, thi s i s s ue i s notpr oper l y bef

or e thi s C our tand i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed f r om ourcons i der at i on. V I . W het he r C ol l i ns ’ s c onv i c t i on i s ag ai ns t t he ov e r whel m i ng wei ght o f t h e e v id e n c e . ¶4 9
. In h is f

inal assig n m en t of e rro r, C o lli n s a rg u e s th a t h is c o n v iction for Jen k ins’s
m u rd e r is a g a in st th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e . T h is C o u rt re v iew s a c irc u it
c o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f a m o tio n fo r a n e w tr ia l f o r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . G riffith v . S ta te , 123 So. 3d 472, 475 ( ¶15) ( M i s s . Ct
. A pp. 2013)
. “W hen r evi ew i ng a de ni al of a mot i on f

ora new tr i al bas ed on an obj ect i on t o the w ei ghtof the evi dence , [ thi s C our t ] w i l l onl y di s turb a
v e rd ict w h e n it is s o c o n tra ry to th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e th a t to a llo w it t o

### 22

s t and w oul d s anct i on a n uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ” B u sh v . S ta te , 895 So. 2d 836, 844 ( ¶18) (M i ss. 20 05 ) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed). In addit i on , w e w ei gh the ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost fa v o ra b le to th e v e rd ic t. I d. ¶5 0. A s p r ov i de d by s e c t i on 9 7- 3- 19 ( 1) ( a ) , “ [ t ] he k i l l i ng o f a human bei ng w i t hout t he
a u th o rity o f la w b y a n y m e a n s o r in a n y m a n n e r sh a ll b e m u rd e r . . . [w ]he n d o n e w ith del i ber at e des i gn t o ef

f ectt he death of the per s on ki l l ed, orof any human bei ng . . . . ” I n the pr es entcas e, C ountI of C oll i ns’ s i ndi ctm entchar ged that , “betw een[ , ] on[ , ] orabout D ece m ber7, 2011, and D ece m ber9, 2011, [ C ol l i ns ] di d w i l l f ul l y, f el oni ous l y[ , ] and w i thout the author i ty of

l aw ki l l a nd murde rEbony J enki ns , a human bei ng, w i th del i ber at e des i gn t o ef f ectthe dea th of

E bony Jenki ns . . . . ” The ci r cui tcourti ns truct ed the j ury on the el ement s of

m ur der
. T o pr ove i t s cas e, the St at e had t o pr ove the f ol l ow i ng beyond a
re a so n a b le d o u b t: “ (1 ) [C o lli n s] k ill e d [Je n k in s], (2 ) w ith o u t au th o rity o f la w , an d (3 ) w ith del i ber at e des i gn t o ef

f ectherdeath. ” H

o g a n v . S ta te , 89 So. 3d 36, 38 ( ¶8) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2 0 1 1 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). ¶51. A s pr evi ous l y di s cus s ed, dur i ng C oll i ns’s tr i al the S t at e pr es ent ed overw hel m i ng
e v id e n c e o f C o lli n s’s g u ilt . T h e S tate ’s e v id e n c e s h o w e d th a t C o lli n s k n e w Je n k in s, w a s in cl os e geogr aphi cal pr oxi m i t y t o J enki ns pr i ort o herdeath, and exc hanged s ever al
co m m u n icati o n s w ith Jen k ins p ri o r t o h er d ea th. A s tr ial test im o n y rev ea led, po li ce o ffi ce rs di s cover ed a gun hi dden i n the w oods , a nd t es t s c onf i r m ed thatthe gun f

i r ed the s hel l cas i ng f ound atthe cr i m e s cene ne arJ enki ns ’ s body. Fur thert es t i m ony r evea l ed that , w hen pol i ce off i cers found the gu n i n the w oo ds, i tw as w rapped i n a gray hoo die belonging to C oll i ns. I n addi t i on, the j ury hear d t es t i m ony thatCol l i ns ha d pos s es s i on of the gun f ors ever al w eeks

### 23

pr i ort o J enki ns ’ s death and thatC ol l i ns ’ s br otherl ed pol i ce of fi cer s t o the l ocat i on i n the
w oods w her e C ol l i ns hi d t he gun. A s ourcas el aw pr ovi des , a det erm i nat i on of the w ei ght and cr edi bi l i ty t o gi ve t o eac h w i tnes s ’ s t es t i m ony l i es w i thi n the s ol e pr ovi nce of the j ury. G riffith , 1 2 3 S o . 3 d at 47 6 (¶1 7 ). ¶52. V i ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ght m os t f avor abl e t o t he verdi ct , w e cannot s ay that C o lli n s’s g u ilty v e rd ic t “ is s o c o n tra ry to th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e th a t to al l ow i tt o s t and w oul d s anct i on an uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ” B ush , 8 9 5 S o . 2 d a t 84 4 (¶1 8 ). A s a re su lt , w e find n o ab u se o f discre ti o n b y th e c irc u it co u rtjud g e’s d en ial o f C o ll ins’s
m o tio n fo r a n e w tr ia l. S e e G riffith , 123 So. 3d at475 ( ¶15)
. T her ef or e, thi s i s s ue l acks
m e ri t. ¶ 5 3
. T HE J UD GMEN T OF T HE F OR RE S T CO UN T Y C I RC UI T CO UR T OF CO NV I CT I ON OF M UR DE R A ND S E NT E NC E AS A H AB I T UA L OF F E ND E R O F LI FE I M PRI S ON M ENT, W I THO UT POS S I BI LI TY OF PARO LE OR EAR LY RE L E AS E , I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M E NT OF CO RRECTI ON S , I S AFF I RM ED. ALL CO S TS OF THI S APP EAL ARE ASS ES S ED TO TH E APP ELLANT. L E E , C .J ., I R V I N G , P .J ., B A R N E S , I S H E E , M A X W E L L A N D F A I R , J J ., CO NC UR . GR I F F I S , P . J . , AN D R OB E RT S , J . , CO NC UR I N P AR T AN D I N T HE R E S U L T W IT H O U T S E P A R A T E W R IT T E N O P IN IO N . JA M E S , J. , C O N C U R S IN P ART AND DI S S EN TS I N P ART W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.