I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 2 - KA- 0 1 4 9 6 - S CT RICKY FRANKLI

N a / k / a RICKY L EVERT F RA N K L IN a/k/ a R IC K Y L . F RA N K L IN
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 01/ 2012 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J EF F W EI LL , S R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F S TATE PUB LI C D EFENDER BY : H U N TER N O LA N A I K EN S G EO RG E T. H O LM ES BRI CE RA SHO D W HI TE 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 : ELL I O TT G EO RG E FLA G G S DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : RO BERT SHU LER SM I TH NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY DI S P OSI TI ON: AFF I RM ED I N PART ; REVE RS ED I N PART A N D R E M A N D E D - 02/ 20/ 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 W A L L E R , C . J. , L A M A R A N D P I E R C E , JJ. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. R i cky Fr a nk l i n a pp e a l s a j ud gmen to f c on vi c t i on f

r om the Ci r c ui tCour tof H i nds C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi , Second J udi ci al D i s tr i ct . Fr ankl i n w as co nv i ct ed on one c ountof ki dnappi ng and on one c ountof aggr avat ed as s aul tw i th a dea dl y w eapon. H e w as s ent ence d t o thi r ty year s and tw enty year s , re s pect i vel y, t o run cons ecut i vel y. A m i s tr i al w as ent er ed

### 2

f orone c ountof

f or ci bl e r ape, a nd a not - gui l ty ve r di ctw as ent er ed f orone countof

s exual b a tte ry . ¶2
. F ran k li n w as d en ied h is m o ti o n for jud g m en t no tw ith stan d ing the v erd ict(JN O V ) o r, i n the al t ernat i ve, f

ora new tr i al
. H e appe al s , al l egi ng the f ol l ow i ng f

i ve i s s ues : ( 1) the tr i al
courterr ed i n r ef

us i ng t o i ns tructthe j ury on s i m pl e as s aul tas a l es s er - i ncl uded of f ens e of aggr avat ed as s aul t , ( 2) the tr i al courterr ed i n al l ow i ng i m pr operopi ni on t es t i m ony f r om
num er ous w i t nesse s conce r ni ng w hethera bott l e coul d caus e s er i ous bodi l y i nj ury, ( 3) t he trial c o u rt e rre d in a llo w in g p re ju d icia l h e a rsa y sta tem e n ts th a t R a n d o lp h W h ite a lleg e d ly
m a d e to p o li ce , (4) F ran k li n ’s ri g h t t o a fa irtr ial w as v iolated b y infl am m atory stat e m e n ts in the p ros e c u tio n ’s c losing arg u m en t, an d (5) the tr ial co u rterred in d en y ing F ran k li n ’s
m ot i on t o di s m i s s f

orvi ol at i on of

hi s r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al
. The s uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence
re g a rd in g th e k id n a p p in g a n d a g g ra v a ted -a ss a u lt co n v ictio n s w a s n o t ra ise d o n a p p e a l. ¶3
. W e re v erse an d rem an d the c o n v ict ion o f agg ravat ed assaultun der i ssue one ; therefo re
w e w i l l notdi s cus s the mer i t s of i s s ue tw o. W e af

f i r m the convi ct i on of

ki dnappi ng under is s u e s th re e , fo u r, a n d fi v e . S TATEM ENT OF THE FACTS ¶4. R i cky Fr ankl i n and J es s i ca N ol an metf orthe f i r s tt i m e ata barbeque on the day of the al l eged i nci dent s . T hey w er e t her eaf t ersee n t ogetheratD i ck’ s P ool H al l and R i chi e’ s O ne S top S h o p . A ft er l ea v ing th e p o o l h all , N o lan a n d F ran k li n w en t to F ran k li n ’s ho m e, w h ere the as s aul tand ki dnappi ng occurr ed. I ti s undi s put ed thatN ol an had numer ous i nj ur i es f r om th e a lte rc a tio n a n d th a t b lo o d s p a tte r w a s fo u n d o n th e fl o o r a n d w a lls o f t h e h o m e .

### 3

¶5. A ttr i al , N olan w as t he S t at e’s k ey w i t ness t o the eve nt s thattr ans pi r ed. N ol an
c laim e d tha t F ra n k lin w a s a c tin g lik e a “ b ig sh o t” a t th e b a rb e q u e b y h a n d in g o u t m o n e y to peopl e, and thathe ha d pr om i s ed t o gi ve heratl eas tone hundr ed dol l ar s . H e had a l s o gi ven h er fif ty d o ll ars to p u rch ase m arij u an a. N o lan s tat ed that, w h il e the y w ere at F ran k li n ’s hous e, he tr i ed t o gi ve herf or ty- f i ve dol l ar s , buts he r ej ect ed the mon ey because he had pr om i s ed t o gi ve herm or e. She cl ai m ed thatthe money w as notf orsex, but i nst ead, he
m e r e l y pr omi s e d he rthe mone y f orn o r e a s on . A f

t e rs he r e f

us e d t o a c c eptt he money, Fr ankl i n began t o beatherand bega n t o cl ai m thats he had s t ol en hi s m oney. A m ong ot her
a lleg a tio n s, N o lan tes tified th a t h e ra p e d h e r s e v e ra l tim e s th a t n ig h t an d th a t h e b e a t h e r w ith h is fi s ts a n d a b o ttle
. ¶6. D arr el l D avi s and R andol ph W hi t e bot h t es t i f i ed t o goi ng t o the home and s eei ng that Fr ankl i n and N ol an had been i n a physi cal al t er cat i on. D avi s st opped by t he home f i r s tand al ert ed W hi t e, F rankl i n’ s uncl e, thathe s houl d chec k on the s i tuat i on. B oth w i tnes s es t es t i f i ed t o bei ng c oncerned w i th w hate xact l y w as t aki ng pl ace betw een Fr ankl i n and N ol an,
a n d it ap p e a re d th a t th e y h a d b e e n fig h tin g . N o lan cla im e d tha t sh e as k e d b o th m e n to h e lp herw hen they w er e atthe home, butD avi s and W hi t e bot h t es t i f i ed t hatshe di d notas k t hem f orhel p. W hi t e i ns truct ed hi s s i s t er , D ebor ah R obi ns on , t o cal l 911 af t erFr ankl i n r ef

us ed t o l etW hit e take N ol an home. R obi ns on t ol d the 911 di s pat cherthata w om an had be en beat en and thatthey coul d heari t . A ttr i al , R obi ns on cl ai m ed s he di d nothearanythi ng t hat
n igh t no r did sh e se e N o lan; instead , sh e w as o n ly relay ing w h at he r bro ther h ad told h er.

### 4

S h e tes tified to g o in g to th e h o u se w ith W h ite, b u t sh e sa w F ra n k lin o n ly , w h o a p p e a re d to h a v e a k n o t o n h is fo re h e a d
. ¶7 . T he St at e pr e s e nt e d t e s t i mony f r om s e ve r a l of the of

f i c e r s w ho w e r e pr e s e nt a tt he
s cene and ent er ed the home. T es t i m ony desc r i bed t he bl ood spatt erfound on t he w al l s and f l oorand the over al l appea r ance thata n a l t er cat i on ha d t aken pl ace . T es t i m ony r evea l ed that N ol an w as f

ound unr es pons i ve on a c ouch i n one of the back r oom s . O f

f i cer s L eggett e and M ahaf f ey w er e among t he t es t i f yi ng of f i cer s w ho w er e pr es entatthe s cene . ¶8. N ur s e R egi na M or gan, w ho t r eat ed N ol an i n t he em er gency r oom , t es t i f i ed that N ol an had s t at ed s he had be en bea t en w i th f i s t s and a bott l e. N ol an’ s m edi cal r ecor ds al s o r ef l ect ed this st atem en t. M o rga n a lso testi fi ed tha t N o lan told h er F ran k li n h ad rap ed h er, ch o k ed h er, and tr i ed t o ki l l her
. N ur s e M or gan and D r . A ndr ew A nder s on, N ol an’ s tr eat i ng phys i ci an, i dent i f i ed N ol an’ s i nj ur i es : a fr actur ed nose ; brui s i ng and sw el l i ng of the f ace , nos e, l ef

teye,
an d b o tt o m li p ; ab rasion s t o he r r igh t k n ee , bo th elbo w s, an d n ec k ; sm all ab rasion s to h er left chee k; and r ednes s on herr i ghtchee k. ¶ 9
. Ka th r y n Ro d g e r s , a f o r e n s i c DNA a n a l y s t , t e s t i f i e d t o th e b l o o d s a mp l e s a n d DNA. R o d g e rs e sta b lish e d th a t th e b lo o d sp a tter f o u n d o n th e w a lls a n d flo o r w a s a m a tc h to N ol an’ s bl ood s ampl e. She pr ovi ded thatone of the l i quorbot t l es f

r om Fr ankl i n’ s hom e had
s m al l s pl att er s of

bl ood on the bot t om of the bott l e, w hi ch mat ched N ol an’ s bl ood, and the D N A on the nec k of

the bott l e coul d notexcl ude Fra nkl i n’ s D N A
. R odger s expl ai ned that th e b lo o d o n the b o ttl e co u ld b e p re se n t fro m d ire c t co n tac t w ith N o lan o r fro m th e b o ttl e otherw i s e comi ng i nt o cont actw i th the bl ood, s uch as fr om bl ood spatt er . S he al s o pr ovi ded

### 5

thatthe D N A on the neck of the bott l e coul d be pr es entf r om hol di ng the bott l e f ordr i nki ng p u rp o s e s , fr o m h o ld in g it to h it s o m e o n e , o r o th e rw is e . ¶10. Subse quent l y, a m i s tr i al w as ent er ed f or the char ge of r ape, and Fr ankl i n w as f ound
n o t g u ilty o f s e x u a l b a tte ry . H e w a s fo u n d g u ilty o f k id n a p p in g a n d a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt. A N A LY SI S I . W het her t he t ri al court err ed i n ref usi ng t o i nst ruct the j ury on sim p le as sa u lt a s a lesser -i n clu d ed o ffen se o f ag g ra v a ted a ssa u lt . ¶11. T he tr i al court ’ s deni al of a l es s er - i ncl uded- of f ens e i ns truct i on i s r evi ew ed de novo. G ilm o re v. S ta te , 119 So. 3d 278, 286 ( M i s s . 2013) ( ci t i ng D o w n s v . S ta te , 962 So. 2d 1255, 12 58 (M i ss. 20 07 ))
. T his C ou rthas dec i de d , ti m e aft er t i m e, that l esser -i ncluded -of fense i ns truct i ons s houl d notbe “i ndi s cr i m i nat el y gr ant ed; ” i ns t ead, the j ury s houl d notbe pr es ent ed w i th a les s er - i ncl uded- of f ens e i ns truct i on unl es s the r ecor d pr ovi des an

“ e v id e n tia ry b a s is ” fo r t h e in s tr u c tio n . L ee v. S ta te , 469 So. 2d 1225, 1230 ( M i s s . 1985) ( ci t i ng R u

ffin v. S ta te , 4 4 4 S o . 2 d 8 3 9 , 8 4 0 (M iss . 1 9 8 4 ); Co lb u rn v. S ta te , 431 So. 2d 1111, 1114 ( M i s s . 1983) )
. A ddi t i onal l y, l es s er - i ncl uded- of f ens e i ns truct i ons s houl d notbe gr ant ed
o n m e re s p e c u la tio n . Mo o d y v. S ta te , 841 S o. 2d 1067, 1097 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng McG ow an
v. S ta te , 541 S o. 2d 1027 ( M i s s . 1989) ( ci t i ng Me a se v. S ta te , 539 So
. 2d 13 24 , 13 29 (M i ss. 1 9 8 9 )) ). A l es s er - i ncl uded of f ens e i ns truct i on s houl d be gr ant ed unl es s t he t r i al j udge and ul t i m at el y thi s Courtc an s ay, t aki ng the evi dence i n the l i ght m o st fa v o ra b le to th e a c c u se d a n d c o n sid e rin g a ll th e re a so n a b le i nf er ence s w hi ch may be dr aw n i n f avorof the ac cuse d f

r om the ev iden ce , that n o rea so n ab le ju ry co u ld fi n d the d efe n d an t gu il ty o f a

### 6 l es s er - i ncl ud ed off

ens e ( conver s el y, notgui l ty of atl eas tone es s ent i al elem en t of th e p ri n cipa l cha rge ). Moo dy , 8 41 S o. 2 d at1097 ( ci t i ng H a rp e r v . S ta te , 4 7 8 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 7 , 1 0 2 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ); Fa irc h ild

v. S ta te , 4 5 9 S o . 2 d 7 9 3 , 8 0 0 (M is s . 1 9 8 4 ); L ee , 469 So. 2d at1230- 31) )
. “A d e fe n d a n t m u st p o in t to so m e e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd fro m w h ich a ju ry re a so n a b ly c o u ld fin d h im n o t g u ilty o f th e c rim e w ith w h ich h e w a s c h a rg e d an d at th e sa m e ti m e fin d h im gui l ty of a l es s er - i ncl uded of f ens e. ” G il

m ore , 119 So. 3d at286 ( quot i ng G o o dn ite v . S ta te , 7 9 9 S o . 2 d 6 4 , 6 9 (M is s . 2 0 0 1 ))
. ¶12. Fr ankl i n w as i ndi ct ed purs uant t o the l anguage of M i s s i s s i ppi C od e S ect i on 97- 3- 7(2)( a)( i i ), w hich provides: A per s on i s gui l ty of

aggr avat ed as s aul ti f

he .
. . (i i ) at t empt s t o caus e or purpos el y orknow i ngl y caus es bodi l y i nj ury t o anotherw i th a de a dl y w eapon o r o th e r m e a n s lik e ly to p ro d u c e d e a th o r s e ri o u s b o d ily h a rm . . . . M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-7 (2)(a)(ii ) (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶13. Fr ankl i n ar gu es t hat the tr i al cou rt , i n d eny i ng t he si m pl e- as s aul t i ns truct i on, i m pr oper l y pr es um ed t hat t he bot t l e w as a dea dl y w eapon; thus the j ury w as notal l ow ed t o consi dersi m pl e as s aul t . A tt r i al , F r ankl i n ass ert ed t hati tw as fort he j ury t o w ei gh and deci de w hetherN ol an w as hi tw i th a f i s tora bott l e orboth; ther ef or e, the l es s er - i ncl udedo ffe n se in stru c tio n w a s w a rra n ted in th e e v e n t th e ju ry fo u n d sh e w a s n o t h it w ith th e b o ttl e
o r t h a t th e b o ttle w a s n o t a d e a d ly w e a p o n . U n d e r t h e fa c ts o f t h is c a s e , w e a g re e . ¶14
. T he jury w as gi ven the fol l ow i ng i nst ruct i on s: (1 ) If y o u fin d fro m th e e v id e n c e in th is c a se b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t:

. . . R i cky Lever tFr ankl i n . . . di d w i l f ul l y and unl aw f

ul l y, caus e oratt empt ed

### 7

t o caus e bodi l y i nj ury; t o J es s i ca Renee N ol an . . . w i th a dea dl y w eapon. T hen you sha l l fi nd t he def endant
. . . gui l ty of

aggr avat ed as s aul tas char ged.

. . . (2 ) It is a q u e stio n o f fa c t fo r y o u to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e b o ttl e cla im e d to h a v e b e e n u se d b y th e d e fe n d a n t . . . w a s a d e a d ly w e a p o n in th e m a n n e r in w hi ch i tw as cl ai m ed t o have be en us ed t o s tr i ke the vi ct i m i n thi s cas e. ( 3) A deadl y w eapon i s def i ned as any obj ect , art i cl e orm eans w hi ch, w hen us ed as a w eapon undert he exi s t i ng ci r cumst ance s i s r eas onabl y capa bl e of pr oduci ng orl i kel y t o pr oduce death ors er i ous bodi l y harm upon w hom the obj ect , art i cl e orm eans i s us ed. ¶ 1 5 . F ra n k lin w a s d e n ied th e fo llo w in g sim p le- a ss a u lt i n stru c tio n : If y o u f in d f ro m th e e v id e n c e in th is c a se b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t: R ick y L . F ra n k lin . . . d id p u rp o se fu lly , k n o w in g ly o r re c k les sly ; ca u se b o d ily h a rm to Je ss ica N o lan ; th e n y o u sh a ll find R ick y L . F ra n k lin g u ilty o f S im p le A s s a u lt. ¶ 1 6
. In p ro v in g a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt, th e S tate c h o se to c e n ter its c a se so lely o n th e b o ttl e bei ng a dea dl y w eapon. T he j ury w as noti ns truct ed thatFr ankl i n coul d be gui l ty of
a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt b y o th e r m e a n s , a s is p ro v id e d in th e la n g u a g e o f t h e s ta tu te . ¶17. T hus , because o f t he subst anti al cr edi bl e evi dence thats om e type of as s aul t had
o c c u rre d a n d b e c a u se d e fe n se c o u n se l to o k th e p o sitio n th a t F ra n k lin h it N o lan w ith h is fists al one, the j ury s houl d have been gi ven the l es s er - i ncl uded- of f ens e i ns truct i on i n the eve nt
o f a fi n d in g th a t th e b o ttle w a s n o t a d e a d ly w e a p o n o r th a t t h e b o ttle w a s n o t u s e d
. L ee v. S ta te , 4 6 9 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 5 , 1 2 3 1 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 ) (T h e ju ry ’s f in d in g s m a y b e a ltere d w ith o u t a l es s er - i ncl uded- of

f ens e i ns truct i on w her e the onl y other opti on w oul d be t o f i nd t he d e fe n d a n t n o t g u ilty ).

### 8

¶18
. T h is C o u rtstan d s fi rm o n the lo n g -st an d ing p ri n ciple tha t i t i s the jury ’s
re s p o n s ib ility to d e c id e if a n in s tru m e n t c o n s titu te s a d e a d ly w e a p o n . D u c k w o rth v . S ta te , 477 So. 2d 935, 938 ( M i s s . 1985) ( ci t i ng J a c ks o n v . S ta te , 4 0 4 S o . 2 d 5 4 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 1 ); S h a n k lin v. S ta te , 2 9 0 S o . 2 d 6 2 5 (M iss . 1 9 7 4 ); J o h n so n v. S ta te , 23 0 S o. 2d 81 0 (M i ss. 1 9 7 0 ); Co b b v. S ta te , 2 3 3 M iss . 5 4 , 1 0 1 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 (1 9 5 8 ); G o lde n v. S ta te , 233 M i s s . 649, 7 8 S o . 2 d 7 8 8 (1 9 5 5 )) (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). ¶19. W hen det erm i ni ng w hethert o al l ow t he l es s er - i ncl uded- of f ens e i ns truct i on, the tr i al
courti m pr oper l y s t at ed thatther e w as evi dent i ary s uppor tthatN ol an’ s head i nj ury w as
caus ed by the bott l e al one. W hetherheri nj ur i es w er e ca us ed by the bot t l e w as an i s s ue of f actt o be det erm i ned by the j ury. T he tr i al courtexpr es s l y s t at ed i tbe l i eved ther e w as no
ev iden ti ary su p p o rtfor the lesser-inclu d ed -offen se in stru cti o n b y refere n cing N o lan’s iso late d tes tim o n y d u rin g th e S tate ’s d ire c t e x a m in a tio n , w h e n sh e d e sc rib e d b e in g h it i n the hea d by onl y the bot t l e. H ow ever , an exa m i nat i on of the r ecor d r evea l s that , dur i ng t he St at e’ s r edi r ect , N ol an expr es s l y s t at ed thats he w as hi tw i th both a f i s tand a bott l e. A l s o, N u rse M o rg a n tes tif

ie d th a t N o lan to ld h e r a t th e h o sp ital th a t sh e h a d b e e n h it w ith b o th fists a n d a b o ttl e . A c c o rd in g ly , itw a s fo r th e ju ry a lo n e to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e b o ttl e
a c tu a lly w a s u s e d
. ¶2 0
. W e find that the tri al co u rterr e d b y n o t a ll o w ing the ju ry to co n side r th e lesseri ncl uded- of

f ens e i ns truct i on of

s i m pl e as s aul t , b ecause w e ca nnots ay thati tw oul d be im p o ss ib le f

o r a re a so n a b le ju ro r to fin d th a t F ra n k lin d id n o t u se th e b o ttl e o r th a t th e b o ttl e
w a s n o t a d e a d ly w e a p o n . Moody , 841 So. 2d at1097 ( ci t i ng H ar per , 478 So. 2d at1021;

### 9

Fa irc h ild , 4 5 9 S o . 2 d a t 8 0 0 ; L ee , 4 6 9 S o . 2 d at 12 3 0 -31 ). T h ere fore , w e re v erse in p art
a n d re m a n d th is c a s e fo r a n e w tr ia l. I I . W he t he r t he t r i alc our t e r r e d i n al l owi ng s t at e m e nt s t ha t Rand o l ph W hi t e al l egedl y m ade t o pol i ce. ¶ 2 1
. F ra n k lin a rg u e s th a t th e tri a l co u rt err e d b y allo w in g in a d m iss a b le h e a rsa y sta tem e n ts f r om O f f i cerL adni er . O verthe obj ect i on of def ens e couns el , O f

f i cer L adn i ers t at ed that once he arr i ved on the s cene, h e spoke w i th R andol ph W hi t e, Fr ankl i n’ s uncl e, w ho i ns truct ed them t o “.
. . getdow n ther e bef or e he ki l l ed her
. ” O f

f i cerL adni eral s o pr ovi ded th a t W h ite s tate d h e sa w F ra n k lin h o ld in g N o lan b y th e h a ir a n d th a t N o lan h a d a sk e d h im forhelp. R an d o l ph W hit e t est i fi ed at tri al , st at i ng that he di d n ot com m un i cat e t ho se
s ta te m e n ts to O ff

ic e r L a d n ie r. ¶22. A dm i s s i on ors uppr es s i on of e vi dence i s bas ed on the di s cr et i on of the tr i al court , but the tr i al court ’ s di s cr et i on m us tb e co nsi s t entw i th the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence
. Clem o n s v . S ta te , 7 3 2 S o . 2 d 8 8 3 , 8 8 7 (¶ 1 8 ) (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ) (c itatio n s o m itte d ). R e v e rsa l is
r equi r ed onl y w here ab use of thatdi s cr et i on can be s how n t o caus e pr ej udi ce t o t he d e fe n d a n t. I

d . a t 8 8 8
. ¶2 3. H ear s a y i s a n ou t - of
- c ou r ts t a t e mento f

f e r e d i n c ou r tby s om eone othert han t he d ec laran t t o p rov e the tru th o f th e m att er a sserted
. M iss. R . E v id. 80 1 (c). T h e tri al co u rt
overrul ed def

ens e couns el ’ s obj ect i ons on the bas i s thatthe s t at ement s w er e of f er ed t o s how
w h y th e o ffic e r a c ted a s h e d id
. F ra n k lin d isa g re e s, su b m itt in g th a t th e sta tem e n t w a s to p ro v e th e tru th o f th e m a tter a ss e rte d : (1 ) th a t R a n d o lp h th o u g h t F ra n k lin w a s g o in g to k ill

### 10

N ol an; ( 2) thatR andol ph s aw Fr ankl i n hol di ng N ol an by herhai r ; and ( 3) thatFr ankl i n as ked R an d o lph fo r h e lp . A ft er a clos e ins p ec ti o n o f th e re co rd, w e a g ree w ith the tri al co u rt ’s
rul i ng thatthe s t at ementw as notof f er ed t o pr ove the truth of the mat t eras s ert ed butt o pr ove
w h y O ff ic e r L a d n ie r a c te d a s h e d id
. ¶24. W hen the St at e el i ci t ed thes e s t at ement s f r om O f f i cerL adni er , the r ecor d r ef l ect s that the St at e w as unf

ol di ng the se r i es of eve nt s t hatt r ans pi r ed t hatni ght
. P r i ort o tr i al , a mot i on hear i ng w as hel d r egar di ng s uppr es s i on of evi dence f

r om Fr ankl i n’ s hom e, b eca us e the
o ffi ce rs en tered the h o m e w ith o u t a w arran t ba sed o n e x igen t circum stan ce s. T h e tri al co u rt
rul ed s uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e e xi s t e d t o s up po r ttha ta n e xi ge ntc i r c ums t a nc e ha d e xi s t ed. A lth o u g h W h ite d e n ied m a k in g th e a lleg e d h e a rsa y sta tem e n ts to O ffic e r L a d n ie r, h e d id pr ovi de thathe w as concerned thatthe s i tuat i on coul d es cal at e w i thouti nt ervent i on. O f f i cer L adni er ’ s s t at ement s w er e us ed t o sho w h ow t he eve nt s pr ogr es s ed thatni ghtand t o s how the u rge n cy o f th e situ ati o n , w h ich b o th w ere im p o rt an t atthe tri al st ag e to e x p lai n to the jury
w hy and h ow the of

f i cer s ent er ed the home, w her e they s ubs equent l y f ound N ol an
u n c o n s c io u s . ¶25. T he St at e corr ect l y poi nt s t o the f actthatO f

f i cerL adni er ’ s s t at ement s conce rned w hat
w as s ai d t o hi m dur i ng hi s i nves t i gat i on. I n G a y ten v. S ta te , t hi s C our trul ed t es t i m ony by a pol i ce of

f i cerr epea t i ng s t at ement s m ade overa w i r e t ap by an under coveragentw as not hear s ay, s i nce the onl y purpos e of t he st at ement s w as t o pre s entthatthey w er e, i n f act , s ai d. Cle m ons , 7 3 2 S o . 2 d at 88 8 (¶2 0 ) ( ci t i ng G a y ten v. S ta te , 59 5 S o . 2d 4 0 9 , 4 1 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 )). F urther, the st at em ents provided “the natur e of the tr ansact i on ” and “t hat there w as a

### 11

tr ans act i on. ” I

d . ( ci t i ng G ayten , 5 9 5 S o . 2 d a t 4 1 4 ). See a l so S w in dle v . S ta te , 502 So. 2d 652, 657- 58 ( M i s s . 1987) ( “an i nf or m ant ’ s t i p i s admi s s i bl e t o the ext entr equi r ed t o s how
w h y a n o ffic e r a c ted a s h e d id a n d w a s a t a p a rticu lar p lac e at a p a rticu lar ti m e . . . . ” ); Sm ith
v. S ta te , 984 So. 2d 295, 300 (M i s s . C t . A pp. 2007) ( s t at ement s ar e nonhea r s ay w hen of f er ed to s h o w th e c o u rs e o f i n v e s tig a tio n ). ¶26. W hen det erm i ni ng w hether a s t at ement i s prej ud i ci al , thi s C our t has es t abl i s hed an obj ect i ve t es tas ki ng “.
. . h ow a rea s onabl e obj ect i ve obs erverw oul d underthe ci r cumst ance s be l i kel y t o per cei ve the s t at ement . ” Cle m ons , 732 So. 2d at888 ( ¶22) ( quot i ng Tu rn e r v . S ta te , 5 7 3 S o . 2 d 1 3 3 5 , 1 3 3 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 )). B y ap p ly in g this ru le, th is C our tf ound: T he St at ementt es t i f

i ed t o by Sher i f

f M cK ee thathe had he ar d thatC l emons a n d h is b ro th e r w e re in p o ss e ss io n o f a p isto l th a t m a y h a v e b e e n inv o lv e d in the m ur derw hen hear d by the j ury w oul d be per cei ved as a s t at ementpr ovi ng thatC l emons di d i n f

acthave pos s es s i on of

the m ur derw eapon, the truth of the m att eras s ert ed. T her e i s no r eas on f orSher i f f M cK ee t o expl ai n w hy he w ent t o D avi s ’ s hom e. Cle m ons , 732 So. 2d at888 ( ¶22)
. E ven though thi s C our tf ound the admi s s i on o f

the
s ta te m e n ts to b e in e rr o r, w e fi n d th e e rr o r h e re to b e h a rm le s s . I d . a t 8 9 9 (¶ 2 3 ). ¶ 2 7 . T h e c a s e a tb a rd i f f e r s f r o m Cle m ons , b ecause i tis u nd i s put ed thatN ol an w as
as s aul t ed by F r ankl i n. T he crux of the ca s e ques t i oned w hetherFr ankl i n as s aul t ed N ol an
w i th a dea dl y w eapon. N one of the s t at ement s c oncerned w hetherFr ankl i n had pos s es s i on of the bott l e. A ddi t i onal l y, t he st at ement s do notcr eat e t he per cept i on thatN ol an w as bei ng

### Mis si ss ippiRuleof Evi denc e 403 s tate s, “Although rel evant, evi denc e m ay be 1 

### exc lude d if

it s probativevalueis subs tanti al ly outwe ighe d by thedanger of unfa ir pre judi ce , con fusio n o f the issu es, or mislead ing the jury, o r bycon sideratio ns o f un du e d elay, w aste of time, o r need less presentationof cumulativ e evid ence.” M iss. R. E vid . 40 3. 12 ki dnapped by Fr ankl i n. Rat her , the s t at ement s e xpl ai n the r eas on f orthe of f i cer s ’ bel i ef

t hat
a d a n g e ro u s a n d e m e rg e n c y s itu a tio n e x is te d in s id e F ra n k lin ’s h o m e . ¶28. T her ef

or e, O f f i cer L adni er ’ s s t at ement s r epea t i ng w hat W hi t e had t ol d hi m w er e not t o pr ove thatW hi t e w as af r ai d Fr ankl i n w oul d ki l l N ol an, thatFr ankl i n w as hol di ng N ol an b y th e h a ir, n o r th a t N o lan h a d as k e d W h ite fo r h e lp . C o n se q u e n tly , w e fin d th e se sta tem e n ts
w ere no t h ea rsay an d th ere fore w ere ad m issi b le. F u rth er, O ffi ce r L ad n ier’s st atem en ts w ere
m or e pr obat i ve i n val ue than pr ej udi ci al and ther ef or e w er e admi s s i bl e underthe R ul e 403 b a lan c in g tes t. 1 ¶29. A ddi t i onal l y, Fr ankl i n ar gues that the s t at ement s w er e us ed i m pr oper l y t o bol s t ert he St at e’ s cas e and r el i es on B rid g e fo rth v. S ta te , condemni ng tr i al court s f oral l ow i ng
s ta te m e n ts o b ta in e d d u ri n g th e c o u rs e o f i n v e s tig a tio n . B rid g e fo rth v. S ta te , 498 S o. 2d 796, 800 ( M i s s . 1986)
. T he St at e pr oper l y r ef ut es thi s a r gum entby not i ng thatthi s C our tbas ed i t s f i ndi ng of i m pr operbol s t er i ng i n B rid g e fo rth o n “
. . . th e lac k o f d ire c t ev id e n c e . . .” to
s u p p o rt th e c a s e . Id
. C om par at i vel y, ther e i s ext ens i ve di r ectev i den ce in t he ca s e s ub j udi ce ; th e re fo re , F ra n k lin ’s c la im o f i m p ro p e r b o ls te ri n g is w ith o u t m e ri t. ¶30. L as t l y, ther e i s f

ur ther s uppor t f

or the tr i al court ’ s deci s i on t o al l ow the t es t i m ony of O f f i cerL adni erbeca us e W hi t e hi m s el f t es t i f i ed t o the s t at ement s attr i al
. Fr ankl i n w as gi ven ampl e opportuni ty t o cr os s - exami ne O f f i cerL adni erand W hi t e aboutt he s t at ement s , w hi ch

### 13

re su lted in W h ite c laim in g h e h a d n e v e r m a d e th o se sta tem e n ts. T h e S tate a rg u e s th a t, b e c a u se W h ite te stifie d a t trial, the ju ry w a s a b le to c o n sid e r b o th te stim o n ies a n d fu lfill th e ir duty “.
. . t o re s ol ve t he conf l i cti n the t es t i m ony they hea r . T hey may bel i eve ordi s bel i eve,
acc eptorr ej ectthe utt er ance s of any w i tnes s . ” G ro se c lo se v . S ta te , 440 So. 2d 297, 300 ( M i s s . 1983) ( quot i ng G a n d y v. S ta te , 373 So. 2d 1042, 1045 (M i s s . 1979) ( ci t i ng Shan non
v. S ta te , 321 So. 2d 1 ( M i s s . 1975) ) )
. W e agr ee. Ther ef or e, w e f i nd no err ori n the tr i al
c o u rt ’s a d m is s io n o f t h e te s tim o n y . I I I . W he t he r Fra nkl i n’ s r i ght t o a fai r t r i alwas vi ol at e d by inflam m a tor y state m en ts i n th e p ro sec u ti o n ’s closin g a rg u m en t. ¶31. W hen e va l ua t i ng pr os e c ut or i a l s t a t e ment s c a l l e d i nt o ques t i on beca us e of thei r al l eged i m pr opr i ety, w e mustas k “ w hetherthe natur al and pr obabl e ef f ectof the i m pr operar gum ent
o f th e p ro se c u tin g a tto rn e y is to c re a te a n u n ju st p re ju d ice a g a in st th e a c c u se d a s to re su lt i n a dec i s i on i nf

l uence d by the p rej ud i ce so cr eat ed. ” D a n c e r v . S ta te , 721 So. 2d 583, 589 ( M i s s . 1998) ( quot i ng D a v is v . S ta te , 530 So. 2d 694, 701 ( M i s s . 1988) )
. A ny s uppos ed i m pr opers t at ement s m us tbe cons i der ed w i thi n cont extw hi l e al s o t aki ng i nt o account t he fa c ts s u rr o u n d in g th e p a rt ic u la r c a s e . D ancer , 721 So. 2d at589 ( ci t i ng D a v is v . S ta te , 660 So. 2d 1228, 1248 ( M i s s . 1995) ( ci t i ng A h m a d v. S ta te , 6 0 3 S o . 2 d 8 4 3 , 8 4 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 )). ¶32. Fi r s t , Fr ankl i n cont ends thatthe pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ement s dur i ng hi s cl os i ng ar gum ent excl ai m i ng t hatFr ankl i n’ s f ami l y w as s car ed of

hi m , thatFr ankl i n i s ar ous ed by bea t i ng
w om en, and thath e b eatN olan “b ecause that’ s w hat he do es, ” un fai rl y p rej ud i ced h i s case b e c a u s e th e y a p p e a le d to th e ju ry ’s p a s s io n s a n d w e re n o t b a s e d o n fa c ts in th e e v id e n c e .

### 14

Second, Fr ankl i n ar gues the pr os ecut orunf ai r l y vi l i f i ed hi m by cal l i ng hi m a “pr edat or ” and

“ d a n g e ro u s ,” w h ic h a ls o a p p e a le d to th e ju ry ’s p a s s io n s a n d p re ju d ic e s . ¶ 3 3
. F ra n k lin a d m its th a t “ a tto rn e y s a re a llo w e d a w id e latitu d e in a rg u in g th e ir c a se s to the j ury. H ow ever , pr os ecut or s ar e notperm i tt ed t o us e t act i cs w hi ch ar e i nf l amm at or y, hi ghl y pr ej udi ci al , orr eas onabl y c al cul at ed t o undul y i nf l uence the j ury. ” S h e

p p a rdv. S ta te , 77 7 So
. 2d 65 9, 66 1 ( ¶7 ) ( M i s s . 20 00 ) ( qu ot i ng Hite r v . S ta te , 66 0 S o. 2d 96 1, 96 6 (M i ss. 1995) )
. Fur ther , the j ury’ s deci s i on m us tbe bas ed on the evi dence , thus any ver di ctbas ed
o n “ b ia s , p a s s io n , o r p re ju d ic e ” w ill b e o v e r tu r n e d
. S h epp ard , 777 So. 2d at662( ¶10) ( ci t i ng F u se lierv. S ta te , 4 6 8 S o . 2 d 4 5 , 5 3 (M is s . 1 9 8 5 ))
. ¶34. W e m us tde t erm i ne i f the tr i al court , i n overrul i ng def ens e couns el ’ s obj ect i ons t o the pr os ecut or ’ s al l eged i m pr opers t at ement s , al l ow ed err ort o s t and; a nd i f s uch err ori s f

ound to sta n d , is th a t e rr o r r e v e rs ib le
. S h epp ard , 777 So. 2d at661- 62 ( ci t i ng W ill ia m s v. S ta te , 4 4 5 S o . 2 d 7 9 8 , 8 0 8 -0 9 (M is s . 1 9 8 4 ))
. ¶35. T he def

ens e r el i es on the r eas oni ng i n S h epp ard , w hi ch i n turn r el i es on Wil lia ms , but both ar e di s t i ngui s habl e f r om the pr es entcas e. I n both W il liam s and Sheppard, the
s t at ement s i n cont r over s y had no bas i s i n t he evi dence and w er e cl ear l y m eantt o pr ej udi ce th e d e fe n s e . Wil

lia ms 4 4 5 S o . 2 d a t 8 0 9 ; S h epp ard , 777 So. 2d a t 6 6 1
. W il liam s pr ovi ded thaterr orexi s t ed i n the pr os ecut i ons ’ st at em ents , becaus e they al l ow ed the j ury t o bel i eve thatthey w o u ld b e a c c o u n ta b le to e x p la in th e ird e c is io n a ft e r th e tr ia l c o n c lu d e d
. S h epp ard , 777 So. 2d at661 ( ci t i ng Wil lia ms , 445 So. 2d at808)
. Si m i l ar l y i n S h epp ard , t he prosecuti on ’s st at em ents w ere i n err or bec ause they all ow ed the j ury t o b el i eve that , un l ess

### 15

they convi ct ed the def

end ant, “.
. . the pr os ecut orw as goi ng t o s ubj ectthem t o per s onal
r i di cul e, embar r as s m ent , and ques t i oni ng. ” S h epp ard , 777 S o. 2d at662. B eca us e the tr i al
c ou r ts us t a i ne d de f

e ns e c ou ns e l ’ s o bj e c t i ons i n W illia ms , the err orw as deemed cur ed;
w her eas , the tr i al courti n S h epp ard overrul ed def

ens e couns el ’ s obj ect i ons ; thus a new t r i al
w a s g ra n te d
. Wil

lia ms , 4 4 5 S o . 2 d a t 8 0 8 -8 0 9 ; S h epp ard , 7 7 7 S o . 2 d a t 6 6 2
. ¶36. A ppl i ed t o the cas e at bar , the tr i al court di d s us t ai n an obj ect i on t o one s t at ement
w hi l e overrul i ng the obj ect i ons t o al l otheral l eged i m propers t at ement s . R egar dl es s , t he
s t at ement s i n thi s part i cularcas e w er e deduc ed and i nf err ed f r om the evi dence , unl i ke the
s t at ement s i n both W

il liam s and S h epp ard
. Fra n k lin v. S ta te , 7 2 S o. 3d 11 29 , 11 44 (M i ss. C t. A p p .), reh’g deni ed (J u n e 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 ), cer t . deni ed , 71 So. 3d 1207 ( M i s s . 2011) (P rose cu tors a re p erm itted to co m m en t on the fa cts p rese n ted in the e v iden ce , an d they are p e rm itte d to d ra w p ro p e r d e d u c tio n s a n d in fe re n c e s fr o m th o s e fa c ts .). ¶37. F r ankl i n ar gues t hatt he pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ement s w er e notbas ed on the f act s pr es ent ed i n t he evi dence orany i nf er ence s ther ef

r om , ci t i ng D a n c e r v . S ta te , 721 So. 2d 583, 589 ¶31 ( M i s s . 1998) ( ci t i ng Tu b b v . S ta te , 2 1 7 M iss
. 7 4 1 , 7 4 4 , 6 4 S o . 2 d 9 1 1 (1 9 5 3 )). F ra n k lin fa ils t o acknow l edge that , w hi l e thi s C our ti n D an cer f ound the pr os ecut i on’ s r emar ks r ef er enci ng the def endantgoi ng f

r ee i n the j ur or s ’ ne i ghborhoods t o be i m pr oper , the s t at ement s di d not
cons t i tut e r ever s i bl e err or , beca us e t he j ury coul d nothave be en i nf l uence d due t o t he
o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e o f D a n c e r’ s g u ilt. I d . a t 5 9 0
. ¶3 8. A s the St a t e c orr e c t l y a s s e r t s , the c a s e a tb a ri s mor e s i m i l art o Ha rr is v . S ta te , in
w h ich th e p ro se c u to r re fe rre d to th e d e fe n d a n t a s a s a v a g e a n im a l, a p re d a to r, an d a p e rv e rt,

### 16

a n d h e a p o lo g iz e d to th e a n im a l k in g d o m f o r c a llin g th e d e fe n d a n t a s a v a g e a n im a l. H a rr is
v. S ta te , 537 So. 2d 1325, 1329 (M i s s . 1989)
. I n H a rr is , th is C o u rtstat ed that p rose cu tors
s houl d r ef

r ai n f r om s t at ement s thatar e “unbe com i ng to di gni f i ed court s of

j us t i ce” and
s h o u ld a v o id p e rs o n a lly a b u s in g o rv ilif y in g d e fe n d a n ts . I

d . at1330. T hi s C our tquot ed B rid g e fo rth v. S ta te , in w h ich w e p re v io u s ly sta ted th a t d isc ip lin e fo r sta tem e n ts encompas s i ng i nf

l amm at ory r emar ks a nd vi l i f i cat i on s houl d be e nf

or ced by the tr i al j udge. H a rr is , 537 So. 2d at1330 ( ci t i ng B rid g e fo rth v. S ta te , 49 8 S o . 2 d 7 9 6 , 8 0 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 )). A n d it i s a ss u m e d th a t ju ro rs fo llo w the ins tru c tio n s o f th e trial c o u rt to d isre g a rd sta tem e n ts b y c o u n s e l. H

a rr is , 537 So. 2d at1330 ( ci t i ng S h o e m a k e r v . S ta te , 50 2 S o. 2d 1 19 3 (M i ss. 1 9 8 7 )) (c ita tio n s o m itte d .) ¶39. T hi s C our t , i n H

a rr is , fou n d tha t, e v en h ad the tr ial co u rto v erru led d efe n se co u n sel’s obj ect i ons and al s o negl ect ed t o i nf or m the j ury t o di s r egar d the comm ent s , the s ubs t ant i al evi dence pr es ent ed t o t he j ur or s c oul d notr es ul ti n pr ej udi ce t o the def endantbas ed on the p ro s e c u tio n ’s s ta te m e n ts . I d . at1331. C om par i ng the ca s e bef or e us , t he St at e ar gues t hat the j ury al s o w as pr ovi ded w i th “ampl e i ncr i m i nat i ng evi dence ” thatcoul d notbe pr ej udi ced b y th e s ta te m e n ts o f t h e p ro s e c u to r. W e a g re e . ¶40. A ttr i al , t he j ury w as prov i ded w i th ext ens i ve evi dence , i ncl udi ng pi ctur es of the vi ct i m ’ s s er i ous i nj ur i es , t he vi ct i m ’ s t es t i m ony, m edi cal per s onnel t es t i m ony des cr i bi ng t he vi ct i m ’ s i nj ur i es , pi ctur es of the i ns i de of

the home show i ng bl ood s patt eron the w al l s and f l oor s , of f i cer s ’ t es t i m ony expl ai ning t he s ever i ty of the s i tuat i on, and t es t i m ony f r om t he def endant ’ s uncl e and f

r i end des cr i bi ng s eei ng Fr ankl i n and N ol an i n an al t er cat i on and

### 17

bei ng conce r ned thatt hi ngs m i ghtesc al at e. T he evi dence pre s ent ed al s o i ncl uded pi ctur es of the al l eged de adl y w eapon, w hi ch di s pl ayed m arks of bl ood m at chi ng N ol an’ s bl ood t ype, and t es t i m ony t hatt he def endant ’ s D N A coul d notbe exc l uded f r om the nec k of

the bott l e. ¶4 1
. A lth o u g h w e fi n d that the stat em en ts b y the p rose cu tor w ere n o t n ec essa ry an d w ere i nappr opr i at e, the i ns ur m ount abl e evi dence pr es ent ed t o the j ury coul d notbe pr ej udi ced by th e s e s ta te m e n ts . I

d . at1330-31. A ccor di ngl y, any er r orl ef ts t andi ng by the tr i al courtdoes
n o t r e q u ir e re v e rs a l. S h epp ard , 7 77 So
. 2d at66 1-62 (c i t i ng Wil lia ms , 445 So. 2d at808- 0 9 ). IV . W h eth er th e tr ial co u rt e rr ed in d en y ing F r a n k li n ’s m o ti o n to

d ism iss fo r v io la tio n o f h is r ig h t to a sp e e d y tr ia l. ¶42
. A n a n alys is of F ran kli n’s const i tuti on al ri gh tt o a spee dy tri al m ustbe m ade ap art fr o m h is s ta tu to ry ri g h t. S im m o n s v . S ta te , 678 So. 2d 683, 686 ( M i s s . 1996) ( ci t i ng B ailey
v. S ta te , 4 6 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 9 , 1 0 6 2 (M is s . 1 9 8 5 ))
.

A . C o n stitu tio n a l R ig h t to a S p e e d y T r ia l ¶43. Fr ankl i n’ s as s ert i on of a vi ol at i on of hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght t o a s peedy tr i al m us tbe eval uat ed i n a ccor dance w i th t he ana l ys i s es t abl i s hed by B arkerv. W ingo . F ou r f

act ors m ust be cons i der ed and w ei ghed: ( 1) the l ength of del ay, ( 2) the r eas on f

orde l ay, ( 3) w hethert he def endantt i m el y as s ert ed hi s r i ght , and ( 4) w hetherthe def endantw as pr ej udi ced by the d e la y . B arkerv. W

ingo , 4 0 7 U . S
. 5 1 4 , 5 3 0 , 9 2 S
. C t. 2 1 8 2 , 2 1 9 2 , 3 3 L . E d
. 2 d 1 0 1 (19 7 2 ). 1. T he L engt h of

D el ay

### 18

¶ 4 4
. F ra n k lin ’s ri g h t to a s p e e d y tr ia l a tta c h e d a t th e m o m e n t o f h is a rr e s t. Sim m ons , 678 So. 2d at686 ( ci t i ng Sm ith v. S ta te , 5 5 0 S o . 2 d 4 0 6 , 4 0 8 (M iss . 1 9 8 9 )). B e c a u se tw e n ty -six
m onths pas s ed betw een Fr ankl i n’ s a rr es ta nd tr i al , the del ay i s pr es um pt i vel y pr ej udi ci al , and th e b u rd e n o f p e rs u a s io n m u s t sh if t to th e S ta te to sh o w g o o d re a s o n fo r t h e d e la y . Johnson
v. S ta te , 68 So. 3d 1239, 1242 ( ¶7) (M i ss. 2011) ( ci t i ng J e n k in s v . S ta te , 947 So. 2d 270, 276- 77 ( M i s s . 2006))
. A del ay of ei ghtm onths or m or e t r i gger s a pre s um pt i on of pr ej udi ce that req u ir es a fu ll an alys is un d er B arker
. Johnson , 68 So. 3d at1242 ( ¶6) ( ci t i ng B arker , 4 0 7 U . S
. at 53 3 , 9 2 S
. C t. 2 1 8 2 ); Sm ith , 550 So. 2d at408. T hi s C our ti n Johnson emphasi zed that“.
. . w hen the del ay i s pr es um pt i vel y pr ej udi ci al , thatdoes n ot mean that actual pr ej udi ce t o the def endantexi s t s . R ather , actual pr ej udi ce i s det erm i ned ata di f f er ent poi nti n the B arker anal ys i s . ” Johnson , 68 S o. 3d at12 42
. T heref ore, as the d i ssentagrees,
w e m us tf

ur there xami ne the del ay ac cor di ng t o B arker , t hus t hi s fa ct orw ei ghs i n f avorof F ra n k lin
. B arker , 4 0 7 U .S . a t 5 3 0
.

2. T he R eas ons f

or D el ay ¶ 4 5 . T h e fo llo w in g se q u e n c e o f e v e n ts tra n sp ire d , attrib u tin g to th e d e lay :

a. N ov em ber 8, 20 09 – A rr est b. D ece m ber15, 2009 – I ndi ctm ent
c. J anuary 26, 2010 – A rr ai gnm ent( tr i al s etf orSept ember20, 2010) d. A ugus t6, 2010 – Fr ankl i n f i l ed mot i on f

orcont i nuance
e. Sept ember16, 2010 – St at e f i l ed mot i on f

orcont i nuance

### The m oti on for continuan ce set tri alfor

Sept em ber 12, 2011, but t

he s ubse quent 2 

### orde r m oving t

he tri aldat e be ca

useof an overcrowded doc ket state d the tria l dat e was being move d from Augus t 8, 2011, t o J anuary 10, 2012. I t is uncl ear f rom there cord and among thepar ti es why thi s di sc repanc y exi st s. Using theagr ee d orde r of continuanceas gui danc e, we w ill use th e Sep tember 1 2, 2 01 1, trial settin g. 19 f. M a rc h 2 4 , 2 0 1 1 – Ju d g e ’s r e c u sa l g . A p ri l 4, 20 1 1 – C ase rea ssign ed (tri al set for Ju n e 6 , 2 0 1 1 ) h. M ay 26, 2011 – A gr eed or derof con t i nuance m oved f

orby def ens e ( tr i al s etf

orSept ember12, 2011) i. Jan u ary 1 0 , 2 0 1 2 – T ri al (m o v e d to this da te be ca u se o f a c ro w d e d d o c k e t)
. ¶4 6. Fr ankl i n fi l ed f

orcont i nu a nc e on A ug us t6, 20 10 , a l l e gi ng tha the ha d j us t been i nf or m ed thatthe tr i al dat e w oul d be Sept ember7, 2010, r atherthan Sept ember20, 2010, as
w as s etatarr ai gnm ent . N othi ng f r om the r ecor d i ndi cat es the mot i on w as gr ant ed orthatt he tr i al w as actual l y m oved f r om Sept ember20 t o Sept ember7. A hear i ng w as hel d r egar di ng the S tat e’s su b seq u en t m o ti o n for c o n ti n u an ce , an d b o th the m o ti o n an d the h e a rin g w ere based o n the tri al set t i ng of Sep t em ber 20. Th eref ore, w e w i l l no tcou nt any t i m e against Fr ankl i n forhi s A ugus t6, 2010, m ot i on forcont i nuance . W e w i l l at tr i but e the del ay t o t he def ens e onl y f

r om the J une 6, 2011, tr i al s ett i ng t o the Sept ember12, 2 01 1, tr i al s ett i ng. 2 V ick e ry v. S ta te , 535 So. 2d 1371, 1375 ( M i s s . 1988) ( cont i nuance s gr ant ed on beha l f of t he d e fe n s e a re d e d u c te d fr o m th e to ta l n u m b e r o f d a y s le a d in g to tr ia l)
. ¶47. T he St at e m oved f orc ont i nuance i n Sept ember2010 because it s key w i t ness and
v ictim w a s re c o v e rin g fro m a g u n sh o t in ju ry a n d c o u ld n o t b e se c u re d in tim e fo r tria l. It is

### 20

al s o i m por t antt o cons i derthat , i n ear l y 2011, J udge M al col m H arr i s on w as s ucceeded by J udge W i l l i am G ow an, w hi ch the St at e as s ert s contr i but ed t o a port i on of the del ay. T h e re a ft e r, J u d g e G o w a n re c u s e d h im s e lf fr o m th e c a s e . ¶48. W hen ana l yzi ng the r eas ons f orde l ay, the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tpr ovi ded the fo llo w in g g u id a n c e : di f f er entw ei ght s shoul d be ass i gned t o di f f er entre as ons . A del i ber at e att empt to d e lay th e trial in o rd e r to h a m p e r th e d e fe n se sh o u ld b e w e ig h ted h e a v ily agai ns tthe governm ent . A m ore ne ut r al r eas on s uch as negl i gence or o v e rc ro w d e d co u rts sh o u ld b e w e ig h ted les s h e a v ily b u t n e v e rth e les s s h o u ld be co nsi dered si nce the ult i m at e res po nsi b il ity forsuch cir cum st ances m ust re st w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t ra th e r th a n w ith th e d e fe n d a n t. F in a lly , a v a lid r eas on, s uch as a mi s s i ng w i tnes s , s houl d s erve t o j us t i f y appr opr i at e del ay. Mu rr a y v. S ta te , 967 So. 2d 1222, 1230 ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng B arker , 4 0 7 U .S . a t 53 1 ). A ccor di ngl y, ther e i s no i ndi cat i on of i nt ent i onal del ay by the St at e, and the l ength of del ay caused by the ab sence o f the S t at e’s key w i tness and vict i m shou l d n ot be w ei gh ed ag ai nst the S t at e, becau se i ti s deem ed a g oo d-cause reas on fordelay un d er B arker v . W ingo . Murr ay , 967 So. 2d at1230 ( ci t i ng B arker , 40 7 U . S
. at 531 )
. A ny del ay ca us ed by the
su c c e ss io n o f ju d g e s a n d th e d e lay c a u se d b y a n o v e rc ro w d e d d o c k e t sh o u ld b e w e ig h e d o n ly
s lig h tly a g a in s t th e S ta te . Id
. ¶ 4 9
. W e fin d th e se c o n d fac to r w e ig h s in fav o r o f F ra n k lin
. H o w e v e r, th e w e ig h t of th is f act ora gai ns tthe St at e s houl d be s l i ght , be caus e a por t i on of the del ay w as bas ed on a good
re a s o n , a n d th e re is n o fi n d in g th a t th e S ta te a c te d in te n tio n a lly in its d e la y . I d a t 1 2 3 1
. 3 . W h e th e r th e d e fe n d a n t t im e ly a s s e r te d h is r ig h t.

### 21

¶5 0. Si nce the St at e musts e e tha tthe d e f e nd a nti s br oughtt o t r i al , i ti s never t he
re sp o n sib ili ty o f th e d e fe n d a n t to b rin g h im se lf to tria l, an d th e d e fe n d a n t’s a ss e rtio n o f h is ri g h t to a sp e e d y tria l w e ig h s in h is fa v o r. B a iley v. S ta te , 78 So. 3d 308, 322 (M i s s . 2012) ( ci t i ng S teve n s v. S ta te , 808 So. 2d 908, 917 ( M i s s . 2002) ( ci t i ng State v. Magnusen , 646 So. 2d 1275, 1283 ( M i s s . 1994)) )
. B ut , “f ai l ur e t o ass ertt he r i ghtw i l l m ake i tdi f f i cul tf or the def endantt o pr ove thathe w as deni ed a s peedy tr i al
. ” Bailey , 78 S o. 3d at322 ( ci t i ng B arker , 4 0 7 U .S . a t 5 2 8 ). ¶51
. F rankl i n con t end s that his r i gh tw as f i rs tass ert ed on Sep tem b er 3 0 , 2 0 1 0 , alm o st el even mont hs af

t erhi s arr es t . Fur ther , he ar gues that , w hi l e hi s as s ert i on m ay be unt i m el y, f i f t een mont hs r emai ned betw een the as s ert i on and the t r i al , t hus hi s spee dy- tr i al ri ghtw as still v io late d . H o w e v e r, F ra n k lin a lso a lleg e s h e a ss e rte d h is rig h t th ro u g h h is m o tio n to di s m i s s f orf ai l i ng t o pr ovi de a s peedy tr i al
. T his C our thas es t abl i s hed thatas s ert i ng t he
r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al a nd f i l i ng f ordi s m i s s al f

orvi ol at i ng thats ame r i ghta r e notone and the
s a m e . I d . at323 ( ci t i ng B re n g e ttcy v. S ta te , 794 So. 2d 987, 994 ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng P erry
v. S ta te , 637 So. 2d 871, 875 ( M i s s . 1994) )
. T he di s s entf i nds thi s t o be a di s t i nct i on w i thout
a d if fe re n c e . W e d o n o t. ¶52. A s t he Fi f

th C i r cui tC our tof

A ppeal s has hel d, “an a s s ert i on thatchar ges be di s m i s s ed for a sp ee d y tr ial v iolati o n is no t a va lue p rotec ted u n d er B arker
. ” Co w a rt v . H a rg e tt , 16 F .3 d 6 4 2 , 6 4 7 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 )) , cer t . deni ed , 513 U
. S. 886, 115 S. C t . 227, 130 L
. E d. 2d 153 (1 9 9 4 ). Co w a rt w a s a h a b e a s c o rp u s a c tio n , in w h ic h th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt, Sout hern D i s tr i ctof

M i s s i s s i ppi , gr ant ed L l ew yn Cow art ’ s pe t i t i on f orhabea s corpus r el i ef

### 22

fo llo w in g th is C o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f p o s t- c o n v ic tio n re lie f. Id
. at644. T her e, as the di s s entdoes here, the f

ederal dis tri ctcou rtbroadly con strued t he d efendan t ’s pr o s e m ot i on t o “s quas h” th e in d ic tm e n t f

o r s p e e d y -t ri a l v io la tio n s , a s a d e m a n d fo r a s p e e d y tr ia l. Id
. at 647
. T he Fi f th C i r cui tf

ound t hati tw as notan ac cept abl e demand, and hel d thatthe B arkerf act oras t o w hetherthe def

endantt i m el y as s ert ed hi s r i ghtt o a s peedy tri al “is g i ven ‘ s tr ong evi dent i ary w ei ght ’ i n f avorof the [ S] t at e. ” Id
. ¶53. T he Fi f

th C i r cui texpounded on Cow art i n U . S. v. Fr ye , 48 9 F . 3 d 2 0 1 (5th C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ). T her e, J ames Frye ar gued thata mot i on t o di s m i s s s houl d countas an as s ert i on of s peedytr ia l r ig h ts . Frye , 4 89 F . 3d at211. I n s uppor tof hi s ar gum ent , Fr ye r el i ed on Str unk v. U nite d States , 412 U
. S. 434, 440, 93 S. C t . 2260, 37 L
. E d. 2d 56 ( 1973) , i n w hi ch the S u p re m e C o u rtsaid , “In li g h t of th e p o li cies w h ich u n d erli e the ri g h t t o a sp ee d y tr ial, dis m i ssal m ustrem ai n, as B arkernot ed, ‘the onl y pos s i bl e r emedy. ’ ” Id . T h e F ifth C irc u it
res po nd ed as fol l ow s: B y foc u sing o n the re m ed y , F rye lose s sigh t of th e righ t. T h e righ t, in th is ca se, i s the ri g h t to a sp ee d y tri al. A n asse rt ion o f th at ri g h t i s a d em an d for a s peedy tr i al , w hi ch w i l l gener al l y be an obj ect i on t o a cont i nuance ora mot i on as ki ng t o go t o tr i al
. A tthe very l east , a defe ndant ' s as s ert i on of hi s s peedy tr i al r i ght s s houl d mani f es t“ hi s de s i r e t o be tr i ed pr om pt l y. ” U nited States v. L itton Sys . , I

nc. , 722 F
. 2d 264, 271 ( 5th C i r . 1984)
. Fr ye’ s r epea t ed mot i ons f ordi s m i s s al of

the capi t al char ge ar e nota n a s s ert i on of the r i ght , butar e an as s ert i on of

the r emedy. A m ot i on f ordi s m i s s al i s notevi dence thatthe d e fe n d a n t w a n ts to b e tr ie d p ro m p tly
. See, e. g. , B arker , 407 U . S. at534- 35, 92 S. Ct
. 2182 ( “M or e i m por t antthan the abs ence of s er i ous pr ej udi ce, i s the fa c t th a t B a rk e r d id n o t w a n t a s p e e d y trial .
. . . In s te a d th e re c o rd stro n g ly s ugg est s thatw hi l e he hope d t o t ake a dvant age of the del ay i n w hi ch he ha d acqui es ced, and ther eby obt ai n a di s m i s s al of the cha r ges , he def

i ni t el y di d not w a n t to b e tr ie d .” ).

### 23

Id
. at211- 12. ¶54. H er e, the r ecor d cont ai ns f ouratt empt s by Fr ankl i n, f i l i ng pro se , s eeki ng dis m is s al f ornotpr ovi di ng hi m w i th a s peedy tr i al
. Fr ankl i n al l eges i n hi s ow n m ot i on thathe as s er t ed hi s r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al s hor t l y af t erhi s ar r ai gnm ent , butas the t r i al cour tf ound, not hi ng i n the r ecor d supp or t s Fr ankl i n’ s as s ert i on. T he di s s entcont ends thatFr ankl i n di d i n f act demand a s peedy tr i al , beca us e i n hi s M ar ch 2011 m ot i on t o di s m i s s , F r ankl i n st at ed t o t he tr ia l c o u rt th a t h e h a d “ d e m a n d e d a n d o r f ile d fo r a s p e e d y tr ia l a n d w a n ts h is w is h g ra n te d .” C l ear l y, though, the tr i al courti nt erpr et ed Fra nkl i n’ s use of t he w or d “w i s h” t o m ean a pr ayer for d ism issal, b ec au se in it s o rde r d e n y in g F ran k li n ’s m o ti o n to d ism iss, the tri al co u rt
e x p re s s ly fo u n d th a t “ F ra n k lin d id n o t s e e k a n in s ta n t t ri a l, b u t s o le ly m o v e d fo r a d is m is s a l.” T he r ecor d support s t he t r i al cour t ’ s fi ndi ng. T he onl y f i l i ng pert ai ni ng t o Fr ankl i n’ s s peedytr i al r i ght s , pr ece di ng the M ar ch 2011 mot i on , w as one s ubm i t t ed pro se by Fr ankl i n on Sept ember30, 2010, i n w hi ch Fr ankl i n moved f ora di s m i s s al be caus e 270 days had pas s ed si nce h i s arrai gn m ent. T his w as af t er Frankli n’s tri al cou nsel fi l ed, (as m enti on ed) on A ug ust 6 , 2 0 1 0 , a m o tio n fo r a c o n tin u a n c e . T h u s, th e re c o rd d o e s n o t su p p o rt th a t F ra n k lin a c tu a lly
as s ert ed hi s r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al , beca us e Fr ankl i n w as dem andi ng di s m i s s al r athert han d e m a n d in g a n a c tu a l t ri a l. B ailey , 78 So. 3d at323 ( ci t i ng B r engettcy , 794 So. 2d at994 ( ci t i ng P erry , 6 3 7 S o . 2 d a t 8 7 5 )); s ee al s o McB ride v. S ta te , 61 S o. 3d 13 8, 14 4-45 (M i ss. 2011) ( def

endantf i l i ng tw o pr o s e m ot i ons f ordi r ect ed ver di c ta l l e gi ng s peedy- tr i al vi ol at i on d id n o t asse rth is ri g h t, b u t rather, o n ly re q u ested d ism issal) ; B o n d s v . S ta te , 938 So. 2d 352, 357- 58 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2006) ( r el yi ng on t hi s C our t ’ s pr ece dent , the def endantdemanded

### 24

onl y tw o pr etr i al di s m i s s al s f orvi ol at i ng hi s s peedy- tr i al r i ght s; ther ef or e, no s peedy- tr i al ri g h t w as a sserted ). ¶ 5 5 . C o n sid e rin g a ll o f th e fa c ts: (1 ) F ra n k lin filed h is firs t pr o s e di s m i s s al al m os tel even
m o n ths a ft er b eing a rrested ; (2) d efe n se c o u n sel w as g ran ted a co n ti n u an ce after F ran k li n ’s thi r d demand f

ordi s m i s s al ; and ( 3) thi s Court ’ s numer ous rul i ngs thatmot i ons t o di s m i s s f or vi ol at i on of

a s peedy- tr i al r i ghtdo notequat e t o an as s ert i on of thatr i ght ; w e f

i nd thi s f act or
w e ig h s s lig h tly fo r t h e S ta te . S im m o n s v . S ta te , 678 So. 2d 683, 687 ( M i s s . 1996) ( f ai l i ng t o f i l e t o di s m i s s unt i l af

t erone yea rs l i ght l y f

avor ed the St at e bec aus e the “pr i m ary” bur den still rem a in s u p o n th e S tate ); s ee al s o D eL o a c h v. S ta te , 722 So. 2d 512, 518 ( M i s s . 1998) (f ilin g to d is m is s a ft e r o n e y e a r a n d s e v e n m o n th s w e ig h e d s lig h tly in th e S ta te ’s fa v o r)
.

4 . W h e th e r th e d e fe n d a n t w a s p r e ju d ic e d b y th e d e la y . ¶56. T o det erm i ne w hether Fr ankl i n w as pr ej udi ced by the del ay, w e m ust consi dert hat the s peedy- tr i al r i ghti s f or : ( 1) pr event i ng oppr es s i ve pr etr i al i ncar cer at i on, ( 2) m i ni m i zi ng
a n x ie ty a n d c o n c e rn , a n d (3 ) l im itin g im p a ir m e n t o f t h e d e fe n s e . B arker , 4 07 U. S. at532 (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). ¶ 5 7 . F ra n k lin a rg u e s th a t th e se th re e in ter e sts c lea rly w e ig h in h is fa v o r. W ith re g a rd to the f i r s ttw o i nt er es t s , Fr ankl i n ar gues thats om e anxi ety i s pr es um ed, ci t i ng J a ss o v. S ta te , 6 5 5 S o . 2 d 3 0 , 3 5 ( M i s s . 1 9 9 5 )
. He f u r th e ra s s e r t s th a th e wa s i n h e r e n t l y p r e j u d i c e d t o s o me ext ents i nce he w as i ncar cer at ed, and s uch prej ud i ce i m pai r ed hi s def ens e bec aus e he w as
u n a b le ta k e a ll th e s te p s n e c e s s a ry to p re p a re fo r h is d e fe n s e . B arker , 4 0 7 U . S
. at 53 3 (“If a def endanti s l ocked up, he i s hi nder ed i n hi s abi l i ty t o ga therevi dence , cont actw i tnes s , or

### 25

otherw i s e pr epar e hi s def ens e. I m pos i ng thos e cons equences on anyone w ho has notyet b ee n co n v ict ed is seri o u s. ”) ¶5 8. O t her t han l i s t i ng the s e ke y a r gu ment s , Fr a nk l i n do e s no thi ng t o a pp l y the m t o the f act s of hi s ow n case. W hi l e i ti s undeni abl e thatevery def endantm os tl i kel y exper i ence s
s om e anxi ety f

r om bei ng i ncar cer at ed, Fr ankl i n m akes no s how i ng of how he w as hi nder ed i n pr epar i ng hi s def

ens e, and the r ecor d r evea l s no s how i ng of “evi den t i ary ort act i cal di s advant age. ” J

a c o v. S ta te , 574 So. 2d 625, 633 ( M i s s . 1990) ( Fr om exami ni ng the tr i al i t s el f , thi s C our tf

ound no s how i ng thatthe def endantw as s ubj ectt o evi dent i ary ort act i cal d is a d v a n ta g e d u e to th e d e la y ). ¶5 9
. A ccor di ngl y, the f act ors pr otect i ng pretri al op press i ve incarcer at i on and anx i ety w ei gh neutr al l y. W i thouta r ecor d r ef l ect i ng s om e di s advant age pr ej udi ci ng F rankl i n’ s tr i al , or
w i thoutFr ankl i n poi nt i ng outhow h e w as di s advant aged i n pr epar i ng f ortr i al , w e ca nnot
s p e c u la te b a s e d o n g e n e ra liz a tio n s o f p re ju d ic e . R o ss v. S ta te , 60 5 S o. 2d 17 , 23 (M i ss. 1992) ( ci t i ng U

. S. v. Mar i on , 404 U
. S. 307, 325- 26, 92 S. C t . 455, 466, 30 L
. E d. 2d 468 (1 9 7 1 ))
. ¶60. Fr ankl i n l as t l y as s ert s that the del ay r es ul t ed i n the l os s of a w i tnes s w ho w oul d have tes tified to : (1 ) se e in g F ra n k lin a n d N o lan tog e th e r, an d (2 ) N o lan ’s w ill in g n e ss to g o w ith F rankl i n thatnight
. F ran k l i n argue s that the loss of the w i tness’ s t est i m on y p res ents a col or abl e cl ai m of

pr ej udi ce. D el ay can pr es ent“.
. . l os s of evi dence , the unava i l abi l i ty of
w i tnes s es , orthe er os i on of a w i tnes s ’ s m emory. ” B irk ley v . S ta te , 750 So. 2d 1245, 1252 ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng Sk ag g s v . S ta te , 676 So. 2d 897, 901 ( M i s s . 1996) )
. T hes e i ns t ance s

### 26

p re s e n t a s tr o n g s h o w in g th a t p re ju d ic e e x is ts . B irkley , 750 So. 2d at1252 ( ci t i ng B arker , 407 U
. S. at532)
. A s t he St at e poi nt s out , t he def ens e adm i t t ed thatthe w i tnes s coul d notbe fo u n d . A n d n o sh o w in g w a s m a d e th a t th is w a s d u e to a n y d e lay in b rin g in g F ra n k lin to trial. M or eover , the t es t i m ony of A nthony Si ngl et on pr ovi ded thathe had s een Fr ankl i n and N ol an earl i er i n the even i ng , and , ref err i ng to N o lan, he st at ed, “she seem ed h app y. ” H e al so t es t i f i ed thateverythi ng appea r ed t o be pl eas antbetw een N ol an and Fr ankl i n and thats he
n e v e r a s k e d h im to h e lp h e r g e t a w a y fr o m F ra n k lin
. ¶6 1. T he t es t i mony pr ov i de d by Si ng l e t on was tha the had s een Fr ankl i n and N ol an t ogetherthatni ght , and i tdemonstr at ed N ol an’ s w i l l i ngnes s t o go w i th Fr ankl i n. C ons equent l y, the unava i l abi l i ty of the otherw i tnes s t o pr ovi de the s ame ors i mi l a rt es t i m ony d id n o t p re

ju d ic e F ra n k lin in h is d e fe n s e . I d . at1253 ( ci t i ng K

olberg , 704 So. 2d 1307, 1319 (M is s . 1 9 9 7 ))
. ¶62. T her ef

or e, w e f i nd that none of the thr ee i nt er es t s of conce rn under the f our th f act or
w ei gh i n Fr ankl i n’ s f

avort o the ext entthathe has pr es ent ed a c ol or abl e cl ai m of pr ej udi ce; th u s th is fa c to r w e ig h s in fa v o r o f t h e S ta te . ¶6 3. I n c on c l us i on , wei ghi ng t he B arker fa c to rs re su lts in tw o fa c to rs fa v o rin g F ra n k lin
a n d two f

a c t o r s f a v o r i n g th e S t a t e . W h e n v i e wi n g th e t o t a l i ty o f th e c i r c u ms t a n c e s , we
c o n c lu d e th a t th e tria l c o u rt d id n o t er r b y d e n y in g F ra n k lin ’s m o tio n , b e c a u se h e fa iled to demand a s pe e dy tr i a l , a nd mos ti mpor t a nt l y, h e s uf f e r e d no p r e

j ud i c e f r om the d e l a y, nor
w a s th e re a n y p ro o f t h a t th e d e la y b y th e S ta te w a s d e lib e ra te . B ailey , 7 8 S o . 3 d a t 3 2 4
.

B . S ta tu to r y R ig h t to a S p e e d y T r ia l

### 27

¶6 4. M i s s i s s i ppi e ns ur e s the r i gh t t o a s pe e dy tr i a l s t a tut or i l y thr ou gh M i s s i s s i pp i Code Sect i on 99-17- 1, provi di ng “U nl es s good caus e be show n, and a cont i nuance dul y gr ant ed by the court , al l of

f ens es f orw hi ch i ndi ctm ent s ar e pr es ent ed t o the cour tshall b e t r i ed no l at erthan t w o hundre d seve nty (270) days af t ert he acc us ed has been arr ai gned. ” M i s s . C ode A n n . § 9 9 -1 7 -1 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶6 5. Fr a nk l i n a s s e r t s tha t hi s s t a tut ory s pe e dy
- tr i a l r i gh t w a s vi ol a t e d be c a us e 714 days p asse d b etw ee n h is arrai g n m en t and th e tri al da te. T h is C o u rtestab li sh ed that, for a statu tory
s peedy- tr i al vi ol at i on t o st and, t he def endantm us tshow t hathe w as t r i ed more than 270 days
a ft e r h is a rr a ig n m e n t a n d d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e d e la y c a u s e d p re ju d ic e . McB ride v . S ta te , 61 So. 3d 138, 147 ( M i s s . 2011) ( ci t i ng G u ice v. S ta te , 9 5 2 S o . 2 d 1 2 9 , 1 3 9 -40 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 )). ¶ 6 6
. Th e St a t e was g r a n t e d a c o n t i n u a n c e i n o r d e r t o s e c u r e i t s k e y wi tn e s s a n d v i c t i m,
w hi ch i s es t abl i s hed as a good- caus e r eas on f orde l ay and s houl d notcountagai ns tthe St at e. Mu rr a y v. S ta te , 967 So. 2d 1222, 1230 (M i ss. 2007) ( quot i ng B arker , 4 0 7 U . S
. at 53 1 ). A n y d e lay the re a fte r ca u se d b y the su c c e ss io n o f ju d g e s a n d an o v e rc ro w d e d d o c k e t sh o u ld
w e ig h o n ly s lig h tly a g a in s t th e S ta te . Murr ay , 967 So. 2d at1230 (c i t i ng B arker , 40 7 U. S.
a t 5 3 1 ). ¶67. Fur therm or e, as pr evi ous l y di s cus s ed, Fr ankl i n att empt ed t o as s erthi s r i ght237 days af t erhi s arr ai gnm entbutf ai l ed t o do s o i n acc or dance w i th thi s C our t ’ s rul i ng thata mot i on f ordi s m i s s al f

orvi ol at i on of

a s peedy- tr i al ri ghti s nott he sa m e as a m ot i on demandi ng or
re q u e s tin g a s p e e d y t r ia l. B ailey , 78 So. 3d at323 ( ci t i ng B re n g e ttcy v. S ta te , 794 So. 2d

### 28

987, 994 ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng P e rr y v. S ta te , 637 So. 2d 871, 875 (M i s s . 1994) ) )
. T her ef or e, F ra n k lin fa ile d to p ro p e rl y a s s e rt h is ri g h t to a s p e e d y tr ia l. ¶ 6 8
. La s t l y , n o s u p p o r te x i s t s e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a tFr a n k l i n was p r e j u d i c e d
. Th e s a me t es t i m ony t hatw oul d have be en pr ovi ded by the mi s s i ng w i tnes s w as pr es ent ed by another
w i tnes s , A nthony Si ngl et on. A nd Fr ankl i n f ai l ed t o show how pr etr i al i ncar cer at i on p re ju d ic e d h im o th e r t h a n s ta tin g g e n e ra l a lle g a tio n s . R oss , 605 So. 2d at23 ( ci t i ng U . S. v. Mar i on , 4 0 4 U .S . a t 3 2 5 -2 6 , 9 2 S . C t. a t 4 6 6 , 3 0 L . E d . 2 d 4 6 8 ). ¶69. A ccor di ngl y, w e f i nd thatthe St at e es t abl i s hed go od cause for i t s del ay, and no p re ju d ic e w a s d e m o n s tr a te d a s a re s u lt o f t h e d e la y . CO NC L US I ON ¶7 0
. T h is C o u rt rev erse s F ran k li n ’s co n v ict ion o f ag g rav ated assa u lt b ec au se the lesse ri ncl uded- of

f ens e i ns truct i on of

s i m pl e as s aul tsho uld have be en s ubm i t t ed t o the j ury, and
re m a n d s th is c a se to th e H in d s C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt fo r a n e w trial o n a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt
con si st ent w i th thi s opini on . T his C ou rtaf fi rm s F rankl i n’s conv i ct i on of ki dn app i ng becau se
w e f i nd n o e r r orb a s e d on the a dmi s s i on o f Ran do l ph W hi t e ’ s s t a t e ment s o rthe d e ni al of Fr ankl i n’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s f orvi ol at i on of

hi s r i ghtt o a spee dy t r i al , and Fr ankl i n’ s r i ght to a fa irtr ia l w a s n o t v io la te d b y th e p ro s e c u tio n ’s c lo s in g a rg u m e n t. ¶ 7 1
. CO UNT I I I : CO NVI CTI ON OF KI DNAP P I NG AND S ENTENCE OF THI RTY ( 3 0 ) YE AR S 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 AR T M E NT OF CO RRECTI ON S, AFF I RM ED. CO UNT I V: CO NVI CTI ON OF AG GR AVA TED ASS AULT, R EV ER S ED AND REM AND ED. APP ELLANT I S TO BE GI VEN CRE DI T F OR TI M E S ER VE D.

### Jo hn son v. State , 68 So. 3d 1239, 1247 ( Mis s. 2011) ( Dic kins on, P. J. , di ss enting)
. 3 

### Barker v

. Wi ngo , 470 U. S. 514, 92 S. Ct . 2182, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1972)
. 4 

### Id. at 530. 5 

### 29 W AL LE R, C. J . , RANDOL P H, P . J . , L AM AR, CHAN DL ER AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONC UR. DI CK I NSON, P . J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH S EPARATE W RI TTEN O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y K I T C H E N S A N D K I N G , JJ. DI CK I NS ON , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶72. Fort he sa m e r eas ons I s t at ed i n m y di s s enti n J o h n so n v. S ta te – w her ei n I poi nt ed 3
o u t th a t th e rig h t to a sp e e d y trial is d e a d a n d g o n e in th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i – I d iss e n t. ¶73
. In r ecent years , this C o u rth as ero d ed the U nit ed S t at e S up rem e C ou rt ’s B arkerv. W ingo b a la n c in g -t e s t a n a ly s is to th e e x tr e m e . B arkerr equi r es court s cons i der i ng a s peedy- 4 tr i al vi ol at i on t o anal yze a nd balance f ourf act or s : ( 1) the l ength of

the del ay; ( 2) the r eas on f orthe del ay; ( 3) w hetherthe def endantass ert ed hi s ri ght ; and (4) w hetherthe del ay ca us ed actual pr ej udi ce. O ne ca n har dl y cal l i tbal anci ng i n M i s s i s s i ppi , w her e t hree o f t he f our 5 fa c to rs a re o n th e d e fe n d a n t’s s id e o f th e sc a le o f ju stic e , the fo u rth fa c to r is s lig h tly , if at a ll, on the St at e’ s s i de, and the St at e w i ns anyw ay. Length of

delay ¶ 7 4
. T h e m a

jo rity c o n c e d e s th a t tw e n ty -six is m o re th a n e ig h t, a n d th a t, b e c a u se a n e ig h tm onth de l ay i s pr es um pt i vel y pr ej udi ci al , a nd be caus e the tw enty- s i x- m onth del ay betw een

### Perry v. State , 63 7 S o. 2 d 8 71 , 87 4 (Miss. 19 94 ) (hold ing “an eig ht-mo nthdelayis 6 

### pre sum ptively pre

judi ci al ”) (c iting Sm ith v. S tate , 550 So. 2d 406, 408 ( Mis s. 1989))
. Vickery v. Sta te , 535 So. 2d 1371, 1377 (Mis s. 1988) (holding “It is theburden of 7 

### theStateto s eethat a

def endant rec ei ves a s pee dy tria l. ”) (quoting Per ry v. State , 41 9 S o. 2d 194, 199 ( Mis s. 1982))
. 30 F rankl i n’s arres tand his tri al i s m ore tha n three t i m es the num berof mont hs ne ces s ary t o be pr es um pt i vel y pr ej udi ci al , the f i r s tf act orw ei ghs i n f

avorof Fr ankl i n. 6 R eas on f ordelay ¶75. B oth Fr ankl i n and the St at e contr i but ed t o the del ay. B ut under the f act s of thi s cas e, i tcert ai nl y cannotbe ar gued thatFr ankl i n w as m os t l y atfa ul t . A nd si nce the St at e has t he
u lti m a te b u rd e n o f b rin g in g F ra n k lin to trial, th e re a so n s fo r th e d e lay m u st w e ig h , ev e n if 7 onl y s l i ght l y, i n f

avorof Fr ankl i n. A s s er t i on of

the Right ¶76. I ni t i al l y, the r eade r s of thi s di s s ents houl d know that Fr ankl i n di d, i n f act , demand a
s peedy tr i al
. I n f

act , he a ctual l y s t at ed t o the tr i al courtthathe “ dem anded and orf i l ed f or
a s peedy tr i al and w ant s hi s w i s h gra nt ed. ” T he m aj or i ty di s car ds t hi s l anguage f orr eas ons i tf ai l s t o di s cl os e. O ne ca n assum e the r eas on i s beca us e Fr ankl i n’ s m ot i on i s s tyl ed

“ M o tio n to D ism iss C h a rg e s F o r F a ilu re T o P ro v id e A F a st A n d S p e e d y T ria l.” T h e m a jo rity fa ils to tell u s w h y it ab a n d o n s th is C o u rt’s u su a l p ra c tice o f ig n o rin g tit les a n d lo o k in g to the sub st ance o f pl eadings. ¶77. T hi s C our t , i n re centcas es , dra w s an arbi tr ary, unexpl ai nabl e di s t i nct i on bet w een a def endant ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s forl ack of a spee dy t r i al and a de f

endant ’ s m ot i on demandi ng

### Perry , 637 So. 2dat 8 75 ; se e al so Ad am s v. Sta te , 58 3 S o. 2 d 1 65 , 16 9-7 0 (M iss. 8 

### 19 91 )). U . S. v. Fr ye , 489 F. 3d 201, 211- 12 ( 5th C i r . 2007) 

### . 9 

### 31 a sp ee d y tr ial
. A cc o rdin g to the m ajority , o n ly the lat ter w eigh s in the d efe n d an t’ s fav o r. 8 T o expl ai n thi s di s t i nct i on, the maj or i ty l eans on a hol di ng by the U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s f

orthe Fi f th Ci r cui t , w hi ch expl ai ns thata mot i on t o di s m i s s f ora l ack of

a s peedy tr i al i s an as s ert i on of

the r emedy f

ora s peedy- tr i al vi ol at i on – notan as s ert i on of the r i ght t o a s p e e d y tr i a l
. I h a v e two p r o b l e ms wi th th i s d o c tr i n a i r e v i e w. 9 ¶78. Fi r s t , i te s cape s me how one c an f i l e a m ot i on t o di s m i s s a cas e f orvi ol at i ng a r i ght thatthe per s on does notcl ai m t o have. I n es s ence , the maj or i ty t akes the odd vi ew t hat Fr ankl i n w as s ayi ng t o t he t r i al cour tt hathe w as ent i t l ed t o a di s m i s s al bas ed upon a s peedytr ial claim , b u t he w as n o t say ing h e h ad a righ t t o a sp ee d y tri al. T h e m ajority fails t o info rm
us upon w hatbas i s Fr ankl i n ar gued he w as enti t l ed t o di s m i s s al , i f i tw as as s ert i ng thathe h a d a rig h t to a sp e e d y trial. ¶7 9
. S e c o n d , the m ajority fails t o c o n side r tha t m an y d efe n d an ts – inclu d ing F ra n k lin in this case – fi l e t hese m oti on s pro se , an d th eir lack of a l eg al ed u ca ti o n d o e s n o t justi fy d e n y in g th e ir c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts, sim p ly b e c a u se th e y u se d p h ra se o lo g y th a t th e m a jo rity fi n d s u n su itab le. I h a v e se e n m a n y law y e rs p u n ish e d les s fo r fa r m o re e g re g io u s e rro rs in pleadi ng s. ¶80. Fr ankl i n f

i l ed not o ne, but f our , pr o s e mot i ons s eeki ng di s m i s s al f orl ack of a s peedy tr i al
. I n hi s m ot i on t o “di s m i s s , ” Fr ankl i n s t at es thathe “ dem anded and orf i l ed f ora s peedy

### Perry , 63 7 S o. 2 d at 8 74
. 10 

### 32 trial a n d w a n ts h is w ish g ra n ted .” W h e n o n e “ d e m a n d s” a s p e e d y trial, h e g e n e ra lly is thoughtt o be as s ert i ng a r i ghtt o one. C an anyone doubthe w as as s ert i ng hi s ri gh tt o a
s peedy tr i al ? A nd w hata boutthe tr i al c our t ’ s r es pons e t o the m ot i ons ? A tr i al j udge, f ace d
w ith a m o tio n to d ism iss fo r f a ilu re to p ro v id e a s p e e d y tria l, co u ld c e rta in ly b e e x p e c ted to know the def

endantw ant s a s peedy tr i al a nd, i f not , gr antthe m ot i on, oratl eas tt o go ahea d
a n d s e t th e m a tte r f

o r t ri a l. ¶8 1. D ur i ng f

ou r c yc l e s of mot i on s t o di s mi s s f or the St a t e ’ s f

a i l ur e t o pr ovi de a s peedy tr i al , thatcert ai nl y di d nothappen her e. U ndert he m aj or i ty’ s anal ys i s , had Fra nkl i n change d the w o rd “ d ism iss” to “d em an d , ” the n three o f th e fo u r B arkerfa c to rs w o u ld w e ig h in F ra n k lin ’s fa v o r. I d e c lin e to s e iz e o n th is m e a n in g le s s d is tin c tio n . ¶82. T he del ay i n br i ngi ng Fr ankl i n t o tr i al beca m e pr es um pt i vel y pr ej udi ci al af t erei ght
m o n th s. F ra n k lin filed h is m o tio n w ith in th e n e x t n in e ty d a y s. A fte r h e filed h is m o tio n , it
w a s a n o th e r fifte e n m o n th s b e fo re h e w a s fin a lly b ro u g h t to trial. ¶83. T he pr es um pt i on o f prej ud i ce d oes n ot occu r unt i l af t erei ghtm onths of pr etr i al i ncar cer at i on. So, underthe m aj or i ty’ s f r amew or k, a def

endantw ho m us tw ai tei ght 10
m onths t o become pr es um pt i vel y pr ej udi ced, has w ai t ed t oo l ong i f he l et s anothert hr ee
m o n th s g o b y , n e v e r m in d th a t i t i s th e S tate th a t h a s th e b u rd e n a n d d u ty to b rin g h im to tr i al
. I f i nd thi s narr ow , thr ee- m onth w i ndow f ora def endantt o as s erthi s r i ghtt o a s peedy

### Barker , 407 U. S. at 532. 11 

### Un ited S

tates v. M

acD on ald, 456 U. S. 1, 8; 102 S. C t. 1 497, 1502; 71 L. Ed. 2d 12 

### 696 (1982)
. 33 tr i al t o be arbi tr ary, unf ounded, and unexpl ai nabl e. I w ou l d w ei gh thi s f act ori n f avorof F ra n k lin
. P r ej udi ce ¶84. T he B arker c o u rt o u tli n e d th re e in ter e sts th a t th e rig h t to a sp e e d y tr ia l is m e a n t to pr ot ect : ( 1) pr eventoppr es s i ve pr etr i al i ncar cer at i on; ( 2) m i ni m i ze a nxi ety and conc ern of the ac cus ed; and ( 3) l i m i tthe pos s i bi l i ty thatthe def ens e w i l l be i m pai re d. T he U ni t ed 11 S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld tha t m in im izin g o p p re ss iv e p re trial in c a rc e ra tio n a n d a n x iety i s exac t l y w hatthe Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al w as des i gned t o do: T he s peedy tr i al guar ant ee i s des i gned t o m i ni m i ze the pos s i bi l i ty of l engthy in c a rc e ra tio n p rio r to tria l, t o re d u c e th e les se r, b u t n e v e rth e les s s u b sta n tial, im p a irm e n t o f lib e rty im p o se d o n a n a c c u se d w h ile re lea se d o n b a il, a n d to s hor t en the di s rupt i on of l i f e ca us ed by arr es tand the pr es ence of unr es ol ved cri m i nal charges. 12 ¶85. T he maj or i ty, how ever , f i nds thatbeca us e Fr ankl i n’ s pr etr i al a nxi ety di d nothi nder hi s def ens e–a c om pl et el y s epar at e f act orf orcons i der at i on–s uch anxi ety w ei ghs neut ra l l y. F ran k li n w as in ca rce rated for tw e n ty -six m o n ths p ri o r t o h is tri al; h e m issed h is f arthe r’s f uneral ; hi s w i f

e di vor ced hi m ; and he l os thi s hom e. C l ear l y, Fr ankl i n s uf f er ed an im p a ir m e n t o f h is lib e rt y a n d a d is ru p tio n in h is lif e , re s u ltin g in s u b s ta n tia l a n x ie ty . ¶ 8 6
. M o re sig n ifica n tly , ev e n th o u g h F ra n k lin c o u ld n o t lo c a te a w itn e ss , the m a jo rity
s pecul at es thathi s def

ens e w as noti m pai r ed. T he maj or i ty r eac hes thi s dubi ous concl us i on

### Johnson , 68 So. 3d at 1245. 13 

### Id. (c iting Stat

e v . Magnus en , 646 So. 2d 1275, 1285 ( Mis s. 1994))
. 14 

### 34 by f ur thers pecul at i ng thatthe w i tnes s ’ s t es t i m ony w ou l d have been s i m i l art o ot her t est i m on y o ff

ered by defense w i tnesses. ¶87. R ece nt l y, thi s C our t has hel d that “the pos s i bi l i ty of i m pai r m ent of the def ens e i s t he
m os ts er i ous cons i der at i on i n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe def endanthas s uf

f er ed pr ej udi ce a s
a resu lto f the d elay
. ” T h is C o u rtw il l f ind p rejud ice to a d efe n d an t’ s d efe n se w h ere “the re 13
w a s a lo s s o f e v id e n c e , th e d e a th o f a w itn e s s , o r t h e in v e s tig a tio n b e c a m e s ta le .” 14 ¶88. So, notonl y w as F r ankl i n subj ectt o t w enty- s i x m onths of pr etr i al i ncar cer at i on w hi ch unques t i onabl y ham per ed hi s abi l i ty t o def end hi m s el f

, butal s o, becaus e of

t he del ay, he w as
u n a b le to lo c a te a w itn e s s w h o sa w h im a n d th e v ictim o n th e n ig h t o f th e in c id e n t. A t a hear i ng on the mat t er , t es t i m ony i ndi cat ed thata f avor abl e w i tnes s w as no l ongerabl e t o be l ocat ed. T hi s i s pr eci s el y the s i tuat i on i n w hi ch thi s C our thas held itw oul d f i nd actual pr ej udi ce t o a def

endant ’ s cas e. B uti ns t ead of f i ndi ng actual pr ej udi ce, the maj or i ty f i nds
a w a y to m a rg in a lize th e v a lu e o f th e lo st w itn e ss b y sp e c u latin g th a t h is te stim o n y w o u ld have be en i ns i gni f

i cantt o t he def

ens e. ¶8 9. B ec a us e I f

i nd the l os s o f

a wi tne s s i s t he mosts ever e f or m of pr ej udi ce t o a d efe n d an t’ s d efe n se, I w o u ld w eigh this factor in fav o r of F ran k li n , ca u sing all fou r B arker f act or s t o f

avorFr ankl i n. A ccor di ngl y, I w oul d f i nd thathi s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al w as vi ol at ed.

### 35

KI TC HENS AND KI NG, J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.