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 9 4 4 - CO A D A R E A D E L L (T E R R E L L ) T H O M P S O N A /K /A T E RR E L L T HOMP S ON 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/ 28/ 2013 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. RO BERT W ALTER B AI LEY CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: LAUDERDALE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: CHARLE S W . W RI GHT J R. AT T ORNE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L BY : L I S A L
. BL OUNT DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : BI LBO M I TCH 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 W I RE F RA UD AND S E NT E NC E D T O F I VE YE AR S I N T HE CU STO D Y O F TH E M I SSI SSI PPI DEPA RTM ENT O F CORR ECTI ON S, W I TH F OUR YE AR S S US P E NDE D, ONE YE AR T O B E S E RV E D UNDE R T HE I NT E NS I VE S UP E RV I S I ON P RO GR AM , AND F I VE YE AR S OF S UP E RV I S E D P RO BA T I ON, AN D TO PAY A $2 , 5 0 0 FI NE A ND $ 5 0 0 TO T HE CR I M E VI CT I M S ’ CO M P E NS AT I ON F UND D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D – 01/ 27/ 2015 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. , F A I R A N D JA M E S, JJ. J AM ES , J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. F o llo w in g a ju ry trial in th e C irc u it C o u rt o f L a u d e rd a le C o u n ty , D a re a d e ll “T e rre ll” T hom ps on w as convi ct ed of w i re f raud and s ent ence d t o f i ve yea r s i n the cus t ody of the

### 2

M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm entof C orr ect i ons ( M D O C ) , w i th f ouryear s s us pended, one yeart o be
s erved on hous e arr es t , and fi ve year s of s upervi s ed pr obat i on. T hom ps on appea l s . Fi ndi ng
n o e rr o r , we a f

f i rm. FACTS AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2
. T hom ps on was e mpl oy e d a s a p ol i ce of f i cerw i th the C i ty of

M er i di an Pol i ce D epartm ent( M PD )
. O n January 11, 2008, M PD D et ect i ve R i t a J ack f i l ed a gr i evanc e agai ns tT hom ps on w i th M PD ’ s O f f i ce of I nt ernal A f

f ai r s ( I nt ernal A f

f ai r s )
. The gr i evanc e al l eged thatT hom ps on had f or ged J ack’s si gnatur e, and the s i gnatur e of M uni ci pal J udge R o b b ie Jon es, on a subp oen a that Th om pson i ssued t o A T & T i n o rdert o o btai n cell ulart el ephone r ecor ds
. M PD conduct ed an i nt ernal i nves t i gat i on heade d by L i eut enantD ean H arper , he ad of

M PD ’ s I nt ernal A f

f ai r s D i vi s i on. A ccor di ng t o H arper , he h eaded the i nves t i gat i on up t o a ce rt ai n poi nt , then report ed t o M PD Pol i ce Chi ef B . D . D ubos e, w ho
c o n tin u e d th e in v e s tig a tio n to its c o n c lu s io n . ¶3. O n J anuary 22, 2008, at C hi ef D ubos e’ s r eques t , T hom ps on underw ent a pol ygr aph exami nat i on. T he pol ygr aph exa m i nat i on w as admi ni s t er ed by Feder al B ur eau of I nves t i gat i on A gentT . J . Sypni ew s ki
. Pr i ort o the exami nat i on, A gentSypni ew s ki advi s ed T ho m pson of hi s Mi r anda r i ght s , an d T hom ps on s i gned a Mi r anda r i g h t s wa i v e rf o rm. A ccor di ng t o A gentS yp niew ski , aft er the p olygraph ex am i nat i on, A gentSypni ew s ki advi s ed T hom ps on thathe f

ound T hom ps on’ s re s pons es t o be decept i ve. T hom ps on then t ol d A gent Sypni ew s ki thathe s us pect ed thathi s w i f e w as comm uni cat i ng w i th a man w i th w hom s he had a pr evi ous af

f ai r , and thathe f

or ged the s i gnatur es of both D et ect i ve J ack a nd J udge Jo n es o n the s u b p o en a a n d fax ed th e s u b p o e n a to A T & T in o rde r t o o b tai n h is w if e’s

### At trial, Ag ent Sypn iewsk i onlytestified to what Th omp soncommun icated to him. 1 

### The f ac t t hat a polygra

ph examination wa s c onducted and there sultsof the e xaminati on were ex clud ed fro m evid ence. In summ ariz ing t

he inves ti gation, Chie f Dubos e s tate d that Inves ti gator Knight was 2 

### call ed in to inves ti gate any poss ibl e c riminalconduc t t hat may haveoccur

re d as a re sult of Thomps on’sconduc t. Chie f Dubos e s tate d that “ Inve sti gator Kni ght .
. . inf orm ed usthat [the f orgery inci dent] would bea mis dem eanor c as e. ” 3 t el eph on e records. 1 ¶4. D ur i ng the i nt ernal i nves t i gat i on, C hi ef D ubos e cons ul t ed M i ssi ssi pp i H i gh w ay P atr ol I nves t i gat orD anny K ni ghtaboutthe cr i m i nal nature of T hom ps on’ s act i ons . A f t erbei ng br i ef ed on t he i nci dent , Inve s t i gat orK ni ghtt ol d C hi ef D ubos e that , i n hi s opi ni on, the mat t er shou l d b e han dled i nternall y. A tthe co nclusi on of the int ernal i nv est i gati on , C hief D ub ose
r eport ed the f

or gery of

the s i gnatur es on the s ubpo ena t o the mayorof M er i di an and
r eques t ed thatdi s ci pl i nary act i on be t aken. O n February 26, 2008, C hi ef D ubos e i s s ued a di s ci pl i nary- act i on l ett ert o Thom ps on, i n w hi ch C hi ef D ubos e s um m ar i zed the f i ndi ngs of the in terna l i n v esti g ati o n an di nform ed T ho m pson of M P D ’s i ntentt o term i na te T h o m p so n ’s 2
em ploym ent. In a l ett er t o M eri dian M ayo r J oh n S m i th, dated M arch 10 , 20 08 , C hief D ub ose
r ecomm ended thatdi s ci pl i nary act i on be t aken a gai ns tT hom ps on i n l i eu of hi s t erm i nat i on. O n M ar ch 18, 2008, C hi ef D ubos e i s s ued a r evi s ed di sci pli nary- act i on l ett eri nf orm i ng T h o mp s o n th a tM P D wa s t a k i n g d i s c i p l i n a ry a c t i o n a g a i n s th i m i n l i e u o f t e rmi n a t i o n . As
a r es ul tof

hi s m i s conduct , T hom ps on w as s us pended w i thoutpa y f ora pe r i od of

t en w eeks and demot ed t o the r ank of pol i ce or der l y, w i th a tw el ve- m onth pr obat i onary per i od. T he letter furth er info rm ed T h o m p so n that h e w o u ld n o t be c o n side red for a p ro m o tio n fo r a p eriod o f tw o y ea rs, an d that h e w as re q u ir ed to u n d erg o tw elve m o n ths o f m an d atory

### At a motio n hearin g prio r to trial, Ch ief Shelb ourn testified that he me t w ith 3 

### Thomps on on Januar

y 12, 2010, re garding seven di sc ipl inary i ssues , oneof whi ch wa s the 20 07 forg ery in cident. 4 c o u n s e lin g . ¶5. I n O ct ober2009, Chi ef D ubos e r et i r ed and w as r epl ace d by C hi ef L ee S helbourn. A c c or di ng t o Chi e f

Sh e l bo urn’ s t e s t i mony a ttr i a l , h e metwi th Thomps on o n J a nu a ry 12, 2010, r egar di ng the f

or gery i nci dent
. D ur i ng the meet i ng, Chi e f She l bo urn a s ke d T hom ps on 3 i f he f or ged the s i gnatur es on the s ubpoena, and Thom ps on admi tt ed thathe f or ged the
s i gnatur es. Fol l ow i ng the meet i ng, C hi ef Shel bourn r ef

err ed the f

or gery i nci dentt o the A tt o rne y G en era l’ s O ffi ce for a n ind ep en d en t cri m inal inv esti g ati o n . T h o m p so n ’s empl oym entw i th M PD w as t erm i nat ed on J anuary 27, 2010. ¶6. Fol l ow i ng a cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i on l ed by I nves t i gat or R oger C r i bb of the A tt orney G ener al ’ s O f

f i ce, T hom ps on w as i ndi ct ed f orw i r e f r aud i n vi ol at i on of

M i ssi ssi pp i C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 97- 19- 83 ( R ev. 2006) on A ugus t12, 2011. Pr i ort o tr i al , T hom ps on f i l ed
a m oti on t o d i sm i ss att acking the suff i ci ency of the indi ctm ent and a m oti on t o d i sm i ss argui ng that hi s al l eged crim inal co n d u ct co n sti tuted o n e o f nu m ero u s m is dem eano r of fenses
. T hom ps on al s o f

i l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne se eki ng t o excl ude any e vi dence r el at ed t o the pol ygr aph exa m i nat i on, and a mot i on i n li m i ne s eeki ng t o s uppr es s any s t at ement s thathe
m ade dur i ng the i nt ernal
- af f ai r s i nves t i gat i on, part i cul ar l y s t at ement s m ade t o C hi ef D ubo s e, A gentSypni ew s ki , and C hi ef Shel bourn a dm i tt i ng thathe f or ged the s i gnatur es . L i kew i s e, the St at e f

i l ed s ever al pr etr i al m ot i ons , i ncl udi ng: a mot i on t o pr ohi bi tthe i ntr oduct i on of any t es t i m ony orotherevi dence conce rni ng the pos s i bl e s ent ence thatT hom ps on w oul d be

### 5

s ubj ectt o i f

f ound gui l ty; a mot i on t o excl ude evi dence pert ai ni ng t o any admi ni s trat i ve, p e rso n n el, or disciplinary acti o n t ak en ag ains t T h o m p so n by th e M P D ; an d a m o ti o n to excl ude any opi ni on t es t i m ony by I nvest i gatorK ni ghtas t o w hetherT hom ps on’ s act i ons
c o n s titu te d a fe lo n y o r a m is d e m e a n o r. ¶ 7 . A h e a r i n g o n th e v a r i o u s m o t i o n s wa s h e l d o n Ap r i l 2 3 , 2 0 1 2 , a n d J u n e 1 4 , 2 0 1 2
. On A u g u st 9, 20 1 2 , the tri al co u rtren d ere d it s jud g m en t on the v ariou s m o ti o n s. T h e tri al co u rt deni ed Thom ps on’ s m ot i ons t o di s m i s s and hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s s t at ement s m ade dur i ng the i nt e rna l i nv e s t i ga t i on . Thomps on ’ s mot i on t o e xc l ud e a ny e vi de nc e r e l a t e d t o the pol ygr aph exa m i nat i on w as gr ant ed; how ever , the al l eged s t at ementthatT hom ps on m ade to A g en t Sy p n iew sk i aft er the ex am ination w as n o t exc lud ed
. L ikew ise, th e tri al co u rt gr ant ed the St at e’ s m ot i on t o pr ohi bi tt es t i m ony concerni ng the poss i bl e se nt ence T hom ps on coul d r ece i ve i f

f ound gui l ty, butdeni ed the St at e’ s m ot i on to exc l ude any e vi dence pert ai ni ng t o adm i ni s tr at i ve, per s onnel , ordi s ci pl i nary act i on t aken a gai ns tT hom ps on by the M PD . Fi nal l y, the tr i al courtgr ant ed the St at e’ s m ot i on t o excl ude any opi ni on t es t i m ony by I nves t i gat orK ni ghtpert ai ni ng t o w hetherT hom ps on’ s al l eged c onductcons t i tut ed a f el ony ormi s demeanor ; how ever , the tr i al c ourtrul ed thatI nves t i gat orK ni gh tcou l d gi ve f actual t es t i m ony r egar di ng hi s i nves t i gat i on a nd a ny e vi dence f ound dur i ng t hat i nves t i gat i on. ¶8
. A jury tr ial w as h eld o n Jan u ary 2 8 -29 , 2 0 1 3
. T h o m p so n w as fou n d g u il ty o f w ir e fr aud and w as s entenced t o fi ve years i n the cust od y of the M D O C , w i th fou r ye ars
s us pended, one yea rt o be s erved on hous e arr es t , and f i ve yea r s of

s upervi s ed pr obat i on. T hom ps on now appea l s r ai s i ng the f ol l ow i ng i s s ues : ( 1) w hetherthe tr i al courterr ed by

### Garrit y v . New Jers ey , 385 U. S. 493 ( 1967). 4 

### 6 f ai l i ng t o s uppr es s s t at ement s he made dur i ng the i nt ernal i nves t i gat i on; a nd ( 2) w hetherhe
w a s p ro h ib ite d fr o m p re s e n tin g e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g h is th e o ry o f d e fe n s e . DI S CU S S I ON I. W h eth er th e tr ial co u rt e rr ed b y fail ing to g ra n t T h o m p so n ’s m ot i on t o s upp re s s s t at e m e nt s Thom ps on m ade dur i ng t he i nve s t i ga t i on. ¶9. T ho m pson assert s that the tr i al c ourte rr ed i n d eny i ng his m oti on t o supp res s sta tem e n ts th a t h e m a d e d u rin g th e in ter n a l in v e stig a tio n . T h o m p so n a rg u e s th a t h is
s t at ement s s houl d have be en s uppr es s ed bec aus e the st at ement s w er e us ed i n vi ol at i on of the G a rr ity rul e i n thathe w as com pel l ed t o answ erquest i ons or f ace t erm i nat i on, and pr om i s ed 4 that any st at em ents he m ade w ou l d b e used so l el y for adm i nis trat i ve d i sci pli nary pu rposes. ¶ 1 0
. A tr ia l c o u rt ’s d e ter m in a tio n o f w h e th e r a sta tem e n t o r a c o n fe ss io n is v o lu n tar ily gi ven i s “ es s ent i al l y a f act - f i ndi ng f unct i on. ” Me tteta l v . S ta te , 60 2 S o. 2d 86 4, 86 8 (M i ss. 1992) ( quot i ng S to ke s v . S ta te , 5 4 8 S o . 2 d 1 1 8 , 1 2 2 ( M i s s . 1 9 8 9 ) )
. T h u s , “ [ a ] tr i a l c o u rt 's f i ndi ng thata def

endant ’ s s t at ement s w er e vol unt ar i l y gi ven ca nnotbe r ever s ed unl es s the
c o u rtap p lie d a n e rr o n e o u s le g a l st a n d a rd o r w a s c le a rl y e rr o n e o u s in its fin d in g s o f fa c t.” Fu lg h a m v . S ta te , 46 So. 3d 315, 339 ( ¶77) ( M i s s . 2010) ( ci t i ng Met t etal , 6 0 2 S o . 2 d at 86 8 ). ¶11. I n G a rr ity , N ew J er s ey pol i ce of f i cer s , w ho w er e under i nves t i gat i on f orcorrupt i on,
w e re b e in g q u e s tio n e d b y th e s ta te a tto rn e y g e n e ra l’ s o ff ic e . G a rr ity , 385 U
. S. at494. T he of f i cer s w er e advi s ed thatthey di d nothave t o ans w erany quest i ons , and thatanythi ng they sai d co uld be used againstthem i n a cri m i nal pr oce ed ing ; ho w ev er, the o ff i cers w ere al so

### 7

to ld th a t re fu sa l t o an sw e r th e q u e stio n s w o u ld res u lt i n ter m in a tio n fro m th e ir e m p lo y m e n t. I d. T he o ff

i cers answ ered the qu est i on s and thei r st at em ents w ere s ub sequen t l y u sed aga i nst them attr i al
. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C ourtf ound thatthe s t at ement s w er e coe r ced a nd ther ef or e i nadmi s s abl e, hol di ng: T h e c h o ice g iv e n [th e o ffic e rs] w a s e ith e r to fo rfe it th e ir jo b s o r to in c rim in a te th e m se lv e s. T h e o p tio n to lo se the ir m e a n s o f li v e lih o o d o r to p a y th e p e n a lty o f se lf-in c rim in a tio n is th e a n tith e sis o f fre e c h o ice to sp e a k o u t o r to re m a in s i l ent . T hatpr act i ce . . . i s l i kel y t o exertsuch pr es s ur e upon an i ndi vi dual as t o di s abl e hi m f

r om m aki ng a f

r ee a nd r at i onal choi ce. W e thi nk the s t at ement s w er e i nf

ect ed by the coer ci on i nher enti n thi s s cheme of qu est i on i ng and cann ot be sust ai ned as volunt ary und er our pri or deci si on s. I d. a t 4 9 7 ; s ee al

s o Knebel

v. C i t y of B i loxi , 453 So. 2d 1037, 1040 ( M i s s . 1984) ( ext endi ng G ar r i t y t o i ncl ude pr om i s es as w el l as thr eat s hol di ng that“a s t at ementgi ven underthe prom i se that i tw i l l not be used ag ai nst[ the em ployee] i n a cri m i nal pr oceed i ng i s l i kew i se i nadmi s s i bl e”)
. T her ef

or e, s t at ement s m ade by a pol i ce of f i cer , w hi ch r es ul tfr om ei therthe thr eatof t erm i nat i on i f

he does notansw erora pr om i s e thatthe s t at ement s w i l l notbe us ed in a c rim in a l p ro c e e d in g , are d e e m e d to h a v e b e e n c o e rc e d a n d a re th e re fo re in a d m iss ib le in
a su b seq u en t cri m inal p roc ee d ing
. Itfoll o w s tha t i n o rde r for G a rr ity t o be i m p li ca ted, th ere
m u s t b e s o m e th re a t o r p ro m is e to in d u c e th e s ta te m e n t. ¶1 2. A tt he suppr es s i on hear i ng, T homps on t e s t i f i e d tha tdu r i ng the i nv e s t i ga t i on, he b e liev e d th a t h e w a s re q u ire d to p a rticip a te in th e in v e stig a tio n , an d th a t if h e fa iled to cooper at e he w oul d have bee n s ubj ectt o di s ci pl i nary act i on up t o, and i ncl udi ng, t erm i nat i on fr o m e m p lo y m e n t. ¶13. H ow ever, C hief D ub ose tes t i fi ed that he did not , ei therexpr es s l y or i m pl i edl y, th re a ten T h o m p so n w ith ter m in a tio n fro m e m p lo y m e n t if T h o m p so n re fu se d to c o o p e ra te

### Miranda v. Ari zona , 384 U. S. 436 ( 1966). 5 

### 8 w i th the i nves t i gat i on. C hi ef D ubos e f

urthert es t i f

i ed thathe di d notpromi s e Thom ps on that h e w o u ld n o t b e p ro s e c u te d o r t h a t c ri m in a l c h a rg e s w o u ld n o t b e b ro u g h t a g a in s t h im
. C h ief D u b o se stated that p o li ce o ffi ce rs en joy the s am e c o n sti tuti o n al pro tecti o n s as e v ery
o th e r c itiz e n a n d a re n o t f o rc e d to in c ri m in a te th e m s e lv e s . ¶1 4. D ur i ng the hea r i ng, the St a t e i ntr od uc e d M PD ’ s Gene r al O r der s i nt o evi dence
. S ect i on II . A of the G eneral O rder s provi des: [ M PD ] em ployees enj oy the s ame cons t i tut i onal r i ght s af f or ded any other ci t i zen of

the U ni t ed St at es and s hal l notb e i nt i m i dat ed dur i ng i nt ernal i nves t i gat i ons , nors hal l thei rcons t i tut i onal r i ght s be vi ol at ed i n any manner . . . . D u rin g . . . an inv esti g ati o n , the o ffi ce r . . . sh all n o t be th rea tene d w ith tr ans f er , di s m i s s al [ , ] ordi s ci pl i nary act i on as a resul tof hi s orher c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . T hom ps on t es t i f

i ed thathe w as gi ven a c opy of the M PD ’ s G ener al O r der s upon becomi ng a pol i ce of

f i cer , thathe w as expec t ed t o know thos e or der s , and thathe w as i n f actf ami l i ar
w ith M P D ’s G e n e ra l O rd e rs. T h o m p so n fu rth e r a c k n o w led g e d th a t h e u n d e rsto o d th e rig h ts af f or ded t o hi m by both G a rr ity and Mi r anda
. 5 ¶15. C hi ef

Shel bourn al s o t es t i f

i ed atthe s uper s es s i on he a r i ng. C hi ef Shel bourn s t at ed that he metw i th T hom ps on on J anuary 12, 2010. A ccor di ng t o C hi ef Shel bourn, the purpos e of the m eet i ng w as t o di s cus s seve n di s ci pl i nary i s s ues i n T hom ps on’ s per s onnel f i l e. D ur i ng the meet i ng, C hi ef

Shel bourn w entove re ach di s ci pl i nary m att erw i th T hom ps on and as ked T h o m p so n “d id y o u d o th is, ” a n d ea ch ti m e T h o m p so n an sw ere d “y es.” C h ief S h elbo u rn tes tified th a t he d id n o t t e ll T h o m p so n tha t i f h e d id n o t co o p e ra te th a t h is e m p lo y m e n t w o u ld be t erm i nat ed, a nd di d notmake any pr om i s es t o i nduce Thom ps on t o conf es s . A ccor di ng

### Acc ording to Agent Sypni ews ki, Chie f Dubos e reque sted a ss is tancefrom theFBI 6 

### fi el d off ic e. Agent

Sypniewsk i wasbri ef

ed by another agent

and s ent to c onduct

the examin ation
. 9 to C h ie f S h e lb o u rn , T h o m p s o n w a s fr e e to e n d th e in te rv ie w a n d le a v e a t a n y tim e . ¶1 6. Fur therm or e, T hom ps on adm i t t ed t hathe vol unt ar i l y agr eed t o su bmi tt o the p o ly g ra p h e x a m in a tio n . P rio r to u n d e rg o in g th e e x a m in a tio n , T h o m p so n w a s a d v ise d o f h is Mi r anda rig h ts a n d sig n e d a n a d v ice -o f-rig h ts fo rm . A g e n t S y p n iew sk i tes tified th a t h e d id nothave any cont actw i th anyone f r om M PD pr i ort o admi ni s t er i ng the exa m i nat i on. A gent 6 Sypni ew s ki t es t i f

i ed that , atthe conc l usi on of the pol ygr aph exa m i nat i on, he i nf orm ed T h o m p so n th a t h e fo u n d T h o m p so n ’s a n sw e rs to b e d e c e p tiv e ; T h o m p so n th e n a d m itt e d to
c re a tin g a n d fa x in g a “ b o g u s” s u b p o e n a to A T & T . A g e n t S y p n iew sk i tes tified th a t h e d id
n o t m a k e p ro m is e s o f a n y k in d to T h o m p s o n . ¶17. B as ed on the evi dence and tes t i m on y at the h eari ng , the tr i al cou rtfound that T hom ps on’ s s t at ement s w er e vol unt ar i l y gi ven and made w i tho ut the el ementof coer ci on
nece s s ary t o i nvoke G a rr ity . T he tr i al courtf ound “no cr edi bl e evi dence thatany thr eat s or p ro m ise s, e ith e r e x p re ss o r im p lied , w e re m a d e to [T h o m p so n ] .
. . to in d u c e [h im ] i n to
m aki ng any i ncr i m i nat i ng s t at ement s . . . . ” ¶1 8
. U p o n rev iew ing the re co rd o f th e p ro c e e d in g s, w e c a n n o t say that the tri al co u rt
a p p l i e d a n e rr o n e o u s l e g a l s t a n d a r d o rwa s c l e a r l y e rr o n e o u s i n i t s f i n d i n g s o f

f a c t . T h u s , we fi nd that the tri al co urtd i d no tab use it s dis cret i on in den ying T ho m pson ’s m oti on to suppress h is sta tem e n ts to C h ief

D u b o se , C h ief

S h e lb o u rn , a n d A g e n t S y p n iew sk i. A c c o rd in g ly , this is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t.

### 10

I I . W het her T hom pson w as prohi bi t ed fr om pres ent i ng evi dence s u p p o r ti n g h is th e o r y o f d e fe n s e . ¶ 1 9
. T h o m p so n n e x t arg u e s th a t th e tri a l co u rt p ro h ib ited h im fro m p re se n tin g e v id e n c e in
su p p o rt o f h is th e o ry o f d e fe n se . A c c o rd in g to T h o m p so n , h is th e o ry o f d e fe n se w a s th a t h is
a lleg e d c o n d u c t w a s a m isd e m e a n o r th a t w a s h a n d led in ter n a lly b y M P D . T h o m p so n a ss e rts thatby excl udi ng cert ai n evi dence and t es t i m ony, an d perm i tt i ng the St at e t o ques t i on
w i tnes s es out s i de the s cope of r edi r ectexami nat i on, the tr i al courtpr event ed hi m f r om p re s e n tin g th is th e o ry o f d e fe n s e a t tr ia l. ¶20. T hi s C ourt r evi ew s a tr i al court ’ s admi s s i on or excl us i on of evi dence f or an abus e of d is c re tio n . R ich a rd

so n v . S ta te , 74 So
. 3d 31 7, 329 ( ¶39 ) (M i ss. 201 1). T he tri al cou rtm ust
exer ci s e i t s di s cr et i on “w i thi n t he conf i nes of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of Evi dence
. ” I d. We
r ever s e “onl y i f

s uch di s cr et i on has been abus ed and as ubs t ant i al r i ghtof a party has been af f ect ed. ” I d. ¶21. W e f

ai l t o s ee how the f

act that T hom ps on’ s al l eged conduct m ay conf orm t o one of
sev era l m isde m ea n o r offen ses, i n ad d it ion to a fe lon y o ffe n se , is r elev an t t o T h o m p so n ’s th e o ry o f d e fe n s e a t trial. T h o m p so n w a s in d icte d o n o n e c o u n t o f w ire fra u d p u rsu a n t to M iss iss ip p i C o d e A n n o tate d se c tio n 9 7 -1 9 -8 3 . S e c tio n 9 7 -1 9 -8 3 p ro v id e s, in p a rt: W h o e v e r, h a v in g d e v ise d o r in ten d in g to d e v ise a n y sc h e m e o r a rtifice to def r aud, orf

orobt ai ni ng . . . pr operty ors ervi ces , . . . by m eans o f f al s e or f r audul entpr et ens es , r epr es ent at i ons orpr om i s es . . . f orthe purpos e of exec ut i ng s uch s cheme orart i f i ce oratt empt i ng s o t o do, tr ans m i t s orcaus es t o be tr ansm i t t ed by mai l , t el ephone, new s paper , r adi o, t el evi s i on, w i r e, el ectr om agnet i c w aves , m i cr ow aves , orotherm eans of c om m uni cat i on . . . any w riting s, sig n s, sig n a ls, p ictu re s, so u n d s , d a ta , o r o th e r m a tter a c ro ss c o u n ty ors t at e j ur i s di ct i onal l i nes , s hal l , upon convi ct i on, be puni s hed by a fi ne of not m or e than Ten T hous and D ol l ar s ( $10, 000. 00) orby i m pr i s onm ent f ornot m o re th a n fi v e (5 ) y e a rs , o r . . . b o th [.]

### 11

T hom ps on’ s i ndi ctm entr ead, i n part , thatT hom ps on: [B ]e tw e e n th e d a te s o f D e c e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 [,] th ro u g h D e c e m b e r 2 4 , 2 0 0 7 , . .

. di d w i l f

ul l y, unl aw f

ul l y[ , ] and f

el oni ous l y devi s e a s chem e t o obt ai n the pr operty of

A T & T . . . by s ubm i tt i ng a f r audul entC ourtO r der/ Subpoena f or the ce l l phone r ecor ds of St acy Thom ps on . . . t o the A T & T N at i onal C om pl i ance C ent er . Sai d f r audul entC ourtO r der/ Subpoena w as tr ans m i tt ed b y tele p h o n e , v ia f

a c sim ile, fro m M e rid ian , M iss iss ip p i[, ] ac ro ss sta te ju ri s d ic tio n a l lin e s to th e S ta te o f F lo ri d a [.] T hom ps on does notar gue thathi s i ndi ctm entw as def ect i ve ori ns uf

f i ci ent ; i ns t ead, T hom ps on m er el y as s ert s thathi s al l eged conduc tm or e pr oper l y const i tut ed one of s ever al
m i s demeanor s , namel y: i m per s onat i ng a publ i c of fi cer orem ployee, i m personati ng an o ff i cer
o r s ta te -a g e n c y e m p lo y e e , a n d u n a u th o ri z e d u s e o f a n a m e in c o m m u n ic a tio n . ¶22
. O ur casel aw i s w el l s ett l ed that “w here tw o or m ore st atutes go vern a g i ven cou rs e of conduct , the St at e may el ectt o pr ocee d unde re i thers t atut e, s o l ong as the ac cus ed i s gi ven f ai rnot i ce of

the cr i m e cha r ged. ” H

u g h e s v . S ta te , 106 So. 3d 836, 840 ( ¶10) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2 0 1 2 ); see al

so C u m b e st v . S ta te , 45 6 So
. 2d20 9, 22 3 ( M i s s . 19 84 ) ( “ Eve n i f the c r i m i nal
s t atut es coverthe s ame cr i m i nal acti n vi rtual l y the sa m e l anguage . . . and one provi des f or a g rea ter pe n alty than the o ther, the [S]t ate . . . m ay p roc ee d u n d er e ith er.”); Sm ith v . S ta te , 1 0 6 S o . 3 d 8 7 7 , 8 8 1 (¶ 1 1 ) (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 1 3 ) ( “ [T ]he S tate is u n d e r n o o b lig a tio n to p rose cu te un d er the statu te w ith the lesse r p en alty . Itm ay c h o o se to p rose cu te u n d er e ith er,
an d so lon g as th e ch o ice i s clear an d un eq u ivo ca l the d efe n d an t h as n o ri g h t t o co m p lai n . ”); Ke ith v . S ta te , 999 So. 2d 383, 392 ( ¶26) ( M i s s . Ct
. A pp. 2008) ( “W hen a def endant ' s act i ons
cons t i tut e a c r i m e underm or e than one s t atut e, the St at e i s notobl i gat ed t o pur s ue cr i m i nal charges un der the st atute w i th the l esserpen al ty, bu tm ay ch oo se any a pp l i cable s t atute so lo n g a s its c h o ic e is c le a r.” ).

### 12

¶2 3. N e ve rthe l e s s , a d e f e nd a nte nj oy s “ a n a bs ol ut e r i gh tt o ha ve the j ury i ns truct ed on l es s eri ncl uded of

f ens es i f the evi dence s upport s s uch an i ns truct i on. ” L e a g e a v . S ta te , 138 So. 3d 184, 188 ( ¶11) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2013) ( quot i ng D o w n s v . S ta te , 962 So. 2d 1255, 1260 ( ¶22) ( M i s s . 2007) )
. H er e, the tr i al courtpr oper l y i ns truct ed the jury as t o pos s i bl e l es s er i ncl uded of

f ens es . T he j ury w as gi ven i ns truct i ons on the l es s erm i s dem eanorof f ens es of i m per s onat i ng a publ i c of f i cerorempl oy ee an d un author i zed us e of the name of

another per s on t o a t el egr am, pe t i t i on, orr el at ed comm uni cat i on. Thus, w e f i nd thatT hom ps on w as
n o t d e n ied h is rig h t to p re se n t h is th e o ry o f d e fe n se a t trial. T h a t n o tw ith sta n d in g , w e w ill
a d d re s s th e m e ri ts o f T h o m p s o n ’s c la im s . ¶24. A ccor di ng t o T hom ps on, the tr i al court “cr i ppl ed” hi s abi l i ty t o pr es ent hi s theory of def ens e by: gr ant i ng the St at e’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne t o prohi bitI nves t i gat orK ni ghtf r om test if y ing that T h o m p so n ’s all eg ed co n d u ct w as a m isde m ea n o r; su stai n ing the S tat e’s obj ect i ons t o the admi tt ance of a l ett erf r om C hi ef

D ubos e t o T hom ps on; and al l ow i ng the St at e t o negat e hi s def

ens e by i m pr oper l y ques t i oni ng w i tnes s es out s i de the s cope of r edi r ect
e x a m in a tio n . W e d is a g re e .

A . I nve s t i ga t or K ni ght ¶2 5. T hom ps on c on t e nd s tha tthe tr i a l c ou rte rr e d i n pr oh i bi t i ng hi m f r om pr es ent i ng
su p p o rtin g e v id e n c e o f h is th e o ry o f d e fe n se b y g ra n tin g th e S tate ’s m o tio n in lim in e to
exc l ud e the op i ni on t e s t i mony o f I nv e s t i ga t orK ni gh ta s t o whethe rThomps on ’ s a l l e ged
c o n d u c t c o n s titu te d a fe lo n y o r a m is d e m e a n o r. ¶26. “The admi s s i on of expert t es t i m ony i s addr es s ed t o the sound di s cr et i on of the tr i al j udge. U nl es s w e conc l ude thatthe d i s c r e t i on w a s a rbi tr ary and cl ear l y err oneous , amount i ng

### 13

t o an abus e of

di s cr et i on, thatdeci s i on w i l l s t and. ” H o lli da y v . S ta te , 758 So. 2d 1078, 1080 ( ¶5) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2000) ( quot i ng R ober t s v. G r af e Aut o C o. I

nc. , 701 So. 2d 1093, 1098 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 )). ¶27. H er e, I nves t i gat or K ni ght w as t es t i f yi ng as a l ay w i tnes s and w as not t ender ed as an
e x p e rt w itn e ss . H o w e v e r, T h o m p so n so u g h t to e licit In v e stig a to r K n ig h t’s o p in io n a s to
w hetherThom ps on’ s c onductc ons t i tut ed a m i s demeanororthe f el ony c r i m e of

w i r e f r aud. M iss iss ip p i R u le o f E v id e n c e 7 0 1 p ro v id e s: If th e w itn ess is n o t t esti fyin g a s a n e x p ert, the w itn ess' s testi m o n y in th e fo rm o f op inion s o r i n feren ce s is l im it ed to tho se o p inion s o r i n feren ce s w h ich a re ( a) r at i onal l y bas ed on the per cepti on of the w i tnes s , ( b) hel pf

ul t o the cl ear under 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 fi c, techni cal , orothers peci al i zed know l edge w i thi n the s cope of R ul e 702. I n gr ant i ng the St at e’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne, the tri al co urtexcl uded any opi ni on t es t i m ony by Inv esti g ator K n igh t as t o w h eth e r T h o m p so n ’s co n d u ct co n sti tuted a fe lon y o r a
m i s demeanor
. H ow ever , the tr i al courtrul ed that“[ I nves t i gat or ] K ni ght[ coul d] gi ve f actual tes tim o n y re g a rd in g h is in v e stig a tio n a n d th e e v id e n c e fo u n d in th e c o u rse o f h is i nves t i gat i on. ” ¶28. W e f

i nd thatthe tr i al court ’ s e xc l us i on of I nves t i gat orK ni ght ’ s opi ni on t es t i m ony w as notan abus e of

di s cr et i on. A ttr i al , Inve s t i gat orK ni ghtt es t i f i ed thathe neve rconduct ed an i nves t i gat i on i nt o the f

or gery i nci dent
. Invest i gat orK ni ghtt es t i f i ed thathi s know l edge of T ho m pson ’s con du ctw as based solel y o n w hat C hief D ub ose t old hi m . D uri ng cross e x a m in a tio n , the fo llo w in g e x c h a n g e o c c u rre d b e tw e e n th e S tate a n d In v e stig a to r K n ig h t: Q
. So you neverexpl or ed i tcr i m i nal l y?

### 14

A
. N o , sir
.

. . . . Q
. A nd [ I nves t i gat orK ni ght , ]
. . . di d y ou b as e [ your ] opi ni on s ol el y on w hatyou hear d f

r om [ C hi ef

] D ubose .
. . o r di d you bas e i ton your i nves t i gat i on? A
. N o , just solely [on ] w h at I h ea rd from the ch ief an d h is assist an t chief. T hus , I nves t i gat orK ni ght ’ s opi ni on w as notba s ed on hi s ow n pe r cept i on buton i nf orm at i on g iven to h im b y C h ief D u b o se. A d d it ion all y , w e d o n o t see h o w Inv esti g a to r K n igh t’ s opi ni on w ou l d b e he l pf ul t o the f

a c t - f i nd e r . The i s s ue of

w he the rthe c r i me of

w i r e f r aud
o c c u rr e d w a s a n is s u e f

o r th e ju ry to d e c id e . See H ol l i day , 758 So. 2d at1081 ( ¶8) ( hol di ng that “[t ] h e issu e o f w h ethe r [ the c rim e] oc cu rred w as a n issue for the jury to the d ec ide” ). T hus , even i f

T hom ps on t ender ed I nves t i gat orK ni ghta s a n e xpertw i tnes s , the tr i al courtw as
w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on i n e xcl udi ng hi s opi ni on t es t i m ony be caus e no s peci al know l edge w as neede d t o ai de the j ury i n det erm i ni ng w hetherT hom ps on comm i tt ed w i r e f r aud. Fi nal l y, thi s i s s ue i s m ootbecause, attr i al , I nves t i gat orK ni ghtt es t i f i ed thati n hi s opi ni on, the i ncident“w as a per s onnel m att er. . . and my di s tr i ctcomm ander
. . . agr eed. ” Thus, the
e x c lu d e d tes tim o n y th a t T h o m p so n c o m p lain s o f w a s u lti m a tely p re se n ted to th e ju ry . T h is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t.

B . L et t er f

rom C hi ef

D ubose t o T hom pson ¶ 2 9
. T h o m p so n n e x t a rg u e s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in su sta in in g th e S tate ’s o b jec tio n to the admi s s i on i nt o evi dence of a l ett erf r om the M PD t o T hom ps on. T hom ps on ar gues that thi s excl us i on prohi bi t ed hi m fr om pre s ent i ng hi s theory of def ens e, as thi s l ett ercont ai ned in fo rm a tio n p e rt a in in g to th e a d m in is tr a tiv e p u n is h m e n t th a t h e re c e iv e d fr o m M P D .

### 15

¶3 0. D ur i ng T hom pson’s cross -exam i nat i on of M ark M cD onal d, the C i ty’ s chi ef
a d m in istra tiv e o ffic e r, C h a rle s W rig h t, T h o m p so n ’s tria l co u n se l, pr e se n ted M c D o n a ld w ith a l et t e r , pu rpo rt e dl y s e ntby Chi e f D ub os e t o Tho mps on on M a r c h 1 8, 20 08 , c on c erni ng d isc ip lin a ry a c tio n tak e n a g a in st T h o m p so n b y M P D . U p o n p re s e n tin g th e lette r to M cD onal d, the f

ol l ow i ng excha nge occurr ed betw een W r i ght ; M cD onal d; St anl ey A lex a n d e r, co u n se l fo r th e S tate ; an d th e trial c o u rt: [ W r i ght ] : A r e you aw ar e thaton M ar ch 18th .
. . C hi ef D ubos e s ent a let t er c oncerni ng di s ci pl i nary act i on against [ T hom ps on] on M ar ch 18, 2008? [M c D o n a ld ]: T o b e sp e c ific o n a ll o f th e iss u e s th a t a re in

[T h o m p s o n ’s ] file
. . . .

. . . . [ W r i ght ] : I am aski ng you, ar e you f ami l i arw i th thi s l ett erbei ng s entt o [ T hom ps on] on M ar ch the 18th? [ M cD onal d] : N o, s i r , nots peci f i cal l y. [ W r i ght ] : O kay .
. . . I w oul d l i ke thi s m arked f ori dent i f i cat i on. [ A l exande r ] : Y ourH onor , I am goi ng t o obj ect. . . . H e sa ys he i s not

a w a re o f t h e le tte r. [ T r i al C ourt ] : I w i l l s us t ai n the obj ect i on. [ W r i gh t ] : I w oul d s t i l l l i ke t o h a ve i t[ marke d] f ori de nt i f

i c a t i on onl y. [T ria l C o u rt] : N o sir. H e . . . sa id h e d id n ’t k n o w a b o u t it
. [ W r i ght ] : O kay. [T ri a l C o u rt ]: Y o u c a n a s k C h ie f D u b o s e . M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of

E vi dence 901 governs the r equi r ementof authent i cat i on ori dent i f i cat i on

### 16

of evi dence
. R ul e 901 pr ovi des thatauthent i cat i on ori dent i f i cat i on i s a condi t i on pr ece dent to a d m iss ib ility . M .R .E . 9 0 1 (a ). T h e a u th e n tica tio n o r id e n tifica tio n re q u ire m e n t is

“ sa tisfie d b y e v id e n c e su ffic ien t to su p p o rt a fin d in g th a t th e m a tter in q u e stio n is w h a t it s pr oponentcl ai m s . ” I

d. ¶31. H er e, i t i s cl ear that M cD onal d di d not have s uf f i ci ent know l edge of the l ett er f orthe purpos es of

authent i cat i on ori dent i f i cat i on. T hus , the tr i al courtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on by s us t ai ni ng the St at e’ s obj ect i on t o the l ett erbe i ng marked f ori dent i f i cat i on a tthatt i m e. A s the tr i al courtnot ed, no thing p re vent ed Thom ps on f r om i ntr oduci ng the l ett erdur i ng C hi ef D ubos e’ s t es t i m ony, w hi ch T hom ps on di d, and the l ett erw as admi tt ed i nt o evi dence
a t th a t tim e . C . R e di r e c t Exam i nat i on ¶32. Fi nal l y, T hom ps on ar gues thatthe tr i al c ourte rr ed by perm i tt i ng the St at e t o “nega t e” hi s theory of

def ense by i m pr oper l y ques t i oni ng w i tnes s es out s i de the s cope of r edi r ect
e x a m in a tio n . ¶33. “The s cope of r edi r ect exami nat i on, w hi l e l ar gel y w i thi n the dis cret i on of the tr i al
court , i s l i m i t ed t o m att er s br oughtoutdur i ng cr os s - exami nat i on. ” L lo y d v . S ta te , 755 So. 2d 12, 14 ( ¶9) ( M i s s . Ct
. A pp. 1999)
. H ow ever , “ w e w i l l notdi s turb a tr i al court ' s rul i ng on
m a tte rs p e rt a in in g to re d ir e c t e x a m in a tio n u n le s s th e re h a s b e e n a c le a r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n .” I d. ¶34. T he l i ne of

ques t i oni ng thatT hom ps on compl ai ns of i nvol ved hypothet i cal ques t i ons thats oughtt o e l i ci tthe f actthata pe r s on’ s mi s conductmay r es ul ti n both t erm i nat i on f r om empl oym entand cr i m i nal char ges. F ori ns t ance , dur i ng the r edi r ectexami nat i on of

### A s imil ar hypothetic alque stion wasus ed during the redire ct examination of

Chie f 7 

### Dubo se andCh ief Sh elbo urn . 17 M c D o n a ld , the fo llo w in g e x c h a n g e o c c u rre d b e tw e e n th e S tate a n d M c D o n a ld : Q
. [ I ] f

an empl oyee [ w ho] w orks forthe C i ty . . . embezzl es s om e money f r om the C i ty . . . w oul d thatper s on be s ubj ectt o t erm i nat i on? A
. Y es, si r. Q
. W o u ld y o u a ls o tu rn th a t p e rs o n o v e r t o th e p o lic e . . . ? L i kew i s e, dur i ng the r edi r ectexami nat i on of I nves t i gat orC r i bb, the f ol l ow i ng excha nge
occurr ed: Q
. A l l r i gh t . If

you got a D U I dr i ving ho m e, w hat do yo u thi nk yo ur boss

. . . . W hatw oul d he do t o you? A
. H e’ d f

i r e me. Q
. N ow , w oul d thats t op the [ pol i ce departm ent ]
. . . f r om pr os ecut i ng you for a D U I? 7 ¶35. W e di s agr ee w i th T hom ps on’ s a s s ert i on thatthes e ques t i ons w er e out s i de the s cope
o f re d ire c t ex a m in a tio n . In e a c h in sta n c e , this lin e o f q u e stio n in g w a s in re sp o n se to T ho m pson ’s qu est i on s duri ng cross -exam i nati on . F or i nst ance, duri ng T ho m pson ’s cross exami nat i on of

M cD onal d, Thom ps on que s t i oned M cD onal d r egar di ng the C i ty’ s deci s i on t o r ef erthe mat t ert o the A tt orney G ener al ’ s O f f i ce a nd as ked: “N ow , w er e you aw ar e i n your inv esti g ati o n in the C ity ’s disp o sit ion o f [ T h o m p so n ] that .
. . thes e a ll eg ed forg eries . .
. w ere handl ed admi ni s tr at i vel y?” L i kew i s e, dur i ng the cr os s - exami nat i on of I nves t i gat orC r i bb, T hom ps on as ked: “A r e you aw ar e that[ T hom ps on] w as di s ci pl i ned by [ M PD ] i n M ar ch of 2010 f orthi s R obbi e J ones / R i t a J ack s ubpoena? ” ¶36. I t i s cl ear that T hom ps on, thr ough hi s ques t i on i ng , w as att empt i ng t o es t abl i s h that

### 18

T h o m p so n w as a lr ea d y p u n ishe d ad m inistrati v ely fo r his m isc o n d u ct. T h u s, the S tat e’s att emptt o bl untthi s f

acton r edi r ectexami nat i on by demonst rat i ng tha tadmi ni s tr at i ve puni s hm entdoes notpr ecl ude cr i m i nal charges w as pr oper l y w i thi n the s cope of r edi r ect
e x a m in a tio n . A c c o rd in g ly , th is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. CO NC L US I ON ¶3 7 . W e fi n d that the tr ial co u rt d id n o t ab u se it s d iscretio n w h e n it d en ied T h o m p so n ’s
m ot i on t o s uppr es s s t at ement s thatT hom ps on m ade dur i ng the i nt ernal i nves t i gat i on. T he tr i al court ’ s f

i ndi ngs of factw er e notcl ear l y err oneous , nordi d the tr i al courtappl y an
err oneous l egal s t andar d i n f i ndi ng thatThom ps on’ s s t at ement s w er e vol unt ar i l y gi ven and
m ade w i thoutthe el ementof coer ci on nece s s ary t o i nvoke G a rr ity . L i kew i s e, w e f i nd that the tr i al courtdi d notabuse i t s di s cr et i on i n the adm i s s i on and exc l us i on of evi dence and that T h o m p so n w a s n o t im p ro p e rly p ro h ib ited fro m p re se n tin g h is th e o ry o f d e fe n se a t trial. A c c o rd in g ly , th e ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ic tio n is a ff irm e d
. ¶ 3 8
. THE J UDG M ENT OF THE CI RCU I T COU RT OF LAUD ERDALE CO UNTY OF CO NV I CT I ON OF W I RE F RA UD AN D S E NT E NC E OF F I VE YE AR S I N T HE CUSTODY O F THE M I SS I SS I PP I DEPARTM ENT OF CO RRECTI ON S , W I TH F OU R Y E AR S S US P E ND E D, ON E YE AR T O B E S E RVE D UND E R T HE I NTE NSI VE S UPERVI S I ON PROG RAM , AND FI VE YEARS OF S UPERVI S ED PR O BA TIO N , A N D TO PA Y A $2 , 50 0 FI N E A N D $5 00 TO TH E C R I M E V I C TIM S’ COM P EN S AT I ON F UND, I S AF F I RM ED . AL L C OS TS O F THI S AP P EA L A RE A S S E S S E D T O L A U D E R D A L E C O U N T Y . LE E, C. J . , I RVI NG AND GRI F F I S , P . J J . , I S HEE , ROBE RT S , CARL TON, M A X W E L L A N D F A IR , JJ. , C O N C U R . B A R N E S , J. , C O N C U R S IN P A R T A N D IN THE RE S UL T W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.