I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CT - 0 1 5 7 6 - S CT JO H N N Y M C IN N IS
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 25/ 2008 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. BI L L Y J OE L ANDR UM COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: J ONES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F I ND I GEN T APPEALS BY : J US T I N T
. CO OK LESL I E S. LEE 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 : DE I RD RE M c CR OR Y DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : AN THO NY J
. BU CK LEY NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 04/ 07/ 2011 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s C our t gr ant ed J ohnny M cI nni s ’ s pet i t i on f or cert i or ar i , i n w hi ch he appea l s t he affirm an ce o f his co n v ict ion for bu rglary of a dw ell ing
. M cIn n is argu es th at th e tri al co u rt
c o m m itt e d re v e rsib le e rro r in fa ili n g to g ra n t a tw o -th e o ry in stru c tio n w h e n th e S tate present ed n o dir ectevi den ce that he com m i t t ed t he cri m e of burglary. W e agree and rever se and r emand, as t he tr i al courtf ai l ed t o gr antany ci r cumst ant i al
- evi dence i ns t ruct i on.

### Armstro ng didno t testify at trial. 1 

### 2 FACTS ¶2. O n t he ni ght of O ct ober 8, 2007, ei ght y- f our - year - ol d H i l l ary K i s s enger aw oke t o an unf ami l i arnoi s e and di s cover ed a bl ack m al e i n herbedr oom . S he t es t i f i ed that , w hi l e s he d id n o t ha v e h e r g las se s o n , sh e c o u ld d isc e rn th a t th e in tru d e r h a d a lig h t co m p lex io n w ith
cur l y hai rand w or e a w hi t e t - s hi r tand bel t . K i s s engers aw t he i ntrudergr ab herpur s e and
ru n o u t o f t h e h o u s e . S h e im m e d ia te ly c a lle d th e p o lic e . ¶3. A tappr oxi m at el y 10:55 p
. m . , the po l i ce recei ved K i s s enger ’ s 911 cal l
. Ser geant Shannon Car aw ay w as on patr ol tw o bl ocks f r om K i s s enger ’ s hom e on Thi r t y- s econd Str eet
w h e n sh e re c e iv e d a d isp a tch c a ll t o b e o n th e lo o k o u t f o r a b lac k m a le w e a rin g a w h ite ts hi r t . Car a w a y i mm e di a t e l y p r oc eede d t ow ar d K i s s enger ’ s hom e and ha d turned ont o T hi r tythi r d St r eetw hen s he s aw a bl ack mal e w ear i ng a w hi t e t - s hi r tdr i ve pas ther
. C ar aw ay tur ned ar ound and f

ol l ow ed the ca ras i tpr ocee ded t o t r avel ata hi gh r at e of s peed. A t10: 56 and 37 s econds , t he ca rs t opped appr oxi m at el y s i x bl ocks f r om t he s i t e of

t he bur gl ary, and C a ra w a y id e n tifie d th e d riv e r a s J o h n n y M c In n is. M c In n is a lso h a d a p a ss e n g e r, B o n n ie W oods A r m s t r ong, des cr i bed as a “bl ack hi s pani c f emal e. ” 1 ¶4. C ar aw ay as ked M cI nni s w hy he w as dri vi ng so f as t , and A r m s t r ong ans w er ed that s he neede d t o us e the r es tr oom . C ar aw ay al s o t ol d M cI nni s thathi s desc r i pt i on m at ched thatof
s om eone w ho had j us tcomm i t t ed a bur gl ary. W hi l e C ar aw ay di d nott el l M cI nni s w her e the bur gl ary ha d oc curr ed, M cI nni s vol unt ar i l y r es ponded t hathe “ w as j us ton T hir t y- s econd St r eett ryi ng t o hus t l e s om e M exi cans . ” C ar aw ay then not i ced thatt her e w er e thr ee pur s es

### 3

on the fr on tseatbetw een M cInni s and A rm strong. A rm strong identi fi ed on e p urse as hers, buts he di d notknow w ho ow ned the otherpur s es orw her e t hey had come f r om . C ar aw ay det erm i ned thatone pur s e bel onged t o K i s s enger , be caus e i tcont ai ned s ever al i t ems bea r i ng K i s s enger ’ s name. K i s s enger ’ s w al l et , w hi ch cont ai ned herdr i ver ’ s l i cens e and s oci al
sec u ri ty ca rd, also w as fo u n d i n th e ca r. C ara w ay also d isco v ere d tw o , cru m p led T u stm ark B ank enve l opes appr oxi m at el y ei ghtf eetf r om the dr i ver ’ s s i de of

M cI nni s ’ s c ar . K i s s enger
w ent t o the scene and i den t i fi ed the pu rs e and env el op es as hers
. ¶5. M cI nni s ’ s mothe r , Ruthi e M ae M cI nni s , t es t i f i ed that , on the ni ghtof

O ct ober8, 2007, sh e h ad rece ived a ph o n e ca ll fr o m a fem ale ask ing t o spe ak t o he r son . M rs. M c In n is t es t i f i ed thathers on had s poken t o the f emal e and then had l ef

tthe hous e. ¶6. J ohnny M cI nni s t es t i f i ed t hat A r m s t r ong had cal l ed hi m ar ound 10: 00 p. m . or10: 30 p .m . o n O c to b e r 8 , 2 0 0 7 , an d h a d a sk e d h im to p ick h e r u p a t T h irty -se c o n d S tre e t. M c In n is
s t a t e d tha th e p i c ke d up Ar mstr on g a pp r ox i mat e l y t hi r t y orthi r t y- f i ve mi nu t e s l a t eri n a dr i vew ay and hel ped herputherbel ongi ngs i nt o hi s car . M cI nni s t es t i f i ed thatA r m s tr ong had tw o p urses . ¶7. M cI nni s deni ed bur gl ar i zi ng K i s s enger ’ s home and t el l i ng Ser geantC ar aw ay that he had tr i ed t o hus t l e M exicans form oney. H e al s o s t at ed thatno T rus t m ark envel opes had b e e n o n th e g ro u n d n e a r h is c a r a t th e tim e o f h is a rre st. CO UR T OF AP P E AL S DE CI S I ON ¶8. T he C our tof

A ppeal s found thatt he t r i al cour tpr oper l y had deni ed M cI nni s ’ s t w otheory i nst ruct i on, as t he evi dence w as notpur el y ci r cumst ant i al and the i ns t ruct i on w as

### McIn nis v. S tate , 2010 WL 522692, at *5 (Mi ss . Ct . App. Feb. 16, 2010)
. 2

### Id. at *4. 3 

### 4 c u m u lativ e w ith th e ele m e n ts in stru c tio n . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo u n d the fo llo w in g fa c ts 2 t o be di r ect

evi dence , r equi r i ng a deni al of M cI nni s ’ s tw o- t heory i ns t ruct i on: I n thi s cas e, K i s s engert es t i f i ed thatt he bur gl arw as a bl ack male w ear i ng a w hi t e T-s hi r t . T he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatM cI nni s w as i n t he vi ci ni t y dur i ng the t i m e t he bur gl ary oc curr ed. M cI nni s w as s pot t ed by O f f i cerC ar aw ay l eavi ng th e a re a w ith in s e c o n d s o f th e 9 1 1 c a ll b e in g p lac e d b y K iss e n g e r. M c In n is w as s ubs equent l y chas ed and de t ai ned by t he pol i ce. W hen M cI nni s w as d etaine d , O ffi ce r C ara w ay info rm ed M cIn n is th at he fi t th e d es c rip tio n o f a stoc k y b lack m ale w ea ri n g a w h it e T -shirt , w h o h ad just co m m itted a b u rglary of a dw el l i ng hous e. M cI nni s t ol d O f f i cerC ar aw ay t hathe w as j us ton 32 St r eett r yi ng t o “hus t l e” s om e M exi cans . O f f i cerC ar aw ay t est i fi ed thats he di d nott el l M cI nni s w her e i n the ar ea the bur gl ary had occ urr ed. A l s o, dur i ng thei ri nves t i gat i on, t he of f i cer s found K i s s enger ’ s purs e on t he f r onts eatof

t he cart hatM cI nni s w as dr i vi ng. 3 T he C ou r tof

A ppeal s al s o f

ound t hatthe pr of

f er ed tw o- t heory i ns t ruct i on w as cumul at i ve
w i th the f

ol l ow i ng i ns t ruct i on ( S- 1) , w hi ch the tr i al cour thad gr ant ed: JO H N N Y L
. M C IN N IS, has bee n ch arged i n C ou nt I w i t h the off ense of B ur gl ary of

a D w el l i ng H ous e. I f you f i nd f r om t he evi dence i n thi s cas e beyond a r eas onabl e doubt th a t: 1. J oh nn y L. M c I nn i s , o n ora bo utthe 8 d a y of Oct ob e r , 2 00 7, i n t he S e c o n d Ju d icia l D istric t o f Jo n e s C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i; 2
. D id b rea k an d en ter; 3. T he dw el l i ng hous e of H i l l ary D
. K i s s engerl ocat ed at1438 32 S tre e t, L a u re l, M iss iss ip p i; 4. W i t h t he i nt entt o comm i tthe cr i m e of l ar ceny ther ei n; 5. O nce ther ei n, J ohnny L
. M cI nn i s, di d unl aw f ul l y t ake, s t eal and ca rry a w ay the p erso n al pro p erty o f H il lary K issen g er;

### Id. at *5. 4 

### Th is flawed reason ing is foundin anoth er Court of Ap peals’ d ecision , Mo ses v. Sta te 5 

### 30 So . 3d3 91 , 3 95 (M iss. C t. App . 2 01 0). In structin g the juryth at it must findthe elements of a crime beyond a re as onabl e doubt does not c ureand r ende r harm le ss thetria l c ourt ’s refusal of a circumstantial-ev iden ce in structio n wh ere su ch aninstru ctionis warranted. See Stringfello w v. S

tate ; 59 5 S o . 2 d 1 32 0, 1 32 2 (M iss. 19 92 ); Gil le yl en v. Sta te , 255 So. 2d 66 1, 6 63 (Miss. 1 97 1); Ken da ll v. Sta te , 217 So. 2d 35, 36 ( Mis s. 1968). Da vis v. Sta te , 18 So. 3d 842, 847 ( Mis s. 2009). 6

### Id. 7 

### Ja ckso n v. S

tate , 815 So. 2d 1196, 1200 ( Mis s. 2002). 8 

### 5 T hen you sha l l fi nd t he def endant , Johnny L. M cI nni s , gui l t y i n C ount 1 of B ur gl ary of

a D w el l i ng H ous e. If th e S tate h a s fa iled to p ro v e a n y o n e o r m o re o f th e a b o v e e lem e n ts b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e dou bt , t h e n y o u s h a l l f i n d t h e d e f

e n d a n t , J o h n n y L. M cI nni s , notgui l t y i n C ountI of B ur gl ary of

a D w el l i ng H ous e. 4 ¶ 9
. I ns t r uct i on S- 1 co nt a i ns n o l a ngu a ge t ha ti s t r a di t i on a l l y i nc l ud e d i n any ci r cumst ant i al
- evi dence i ns t ruct i on. Itis a cus t om ary el ement s i ns t ruct i on cont ai ni ng t he
re a so n ab le-do u b t stan d ard
. T h ere fore , w e n ex t an alyz e w h ethe r th e tr ial co u rterred in 5 f ai l i ng t o gr antM cI nni s ’ s t w o- t heory i ns t ruct i on, w hen no ot herci r cumst ant i al
- evi dence i ns truct i on w as gr ant ed. DI S CU S S I ON ¶10. T hi s courtr evi ew s a gr antor deni al of a j ury i ns t ruct i on underan abus e- of
- di s cr et i on
s t andar d. J ur y i ns t ruct i ons m us tbe re ad as a w hol e t o det erm i ne i f they f ai r l y announce t he 6 l aw , and they mustbe s uppor t ed by evi dence
. “[ A ] cour tm ay r ef us e an i ns t ruct i on w hi ch 7 8 i nc orr e c t l y s t a t e s the l a w , i s c ov e r e d f a i r l y e l s e w he r e i n t he i ns t ruc t i on s , o ri s w i t hout

### Jo nes v. State , 797 So. 2d 922, 927 ( Mis s. 2001). 9 

### Keys v. State , 478 So. 2d 266, 268 ( Mis s. 1985). 10 

### Go ff v. Sta te , 14 So. 3d 625, 677- 78 (Mi ss . 2009) (Wa ll er , C. J. , di ss enting) (The 11 

### te rm “‘ two- the ory’ is a m is nome r. A bette r namew ou ld be a ‘two-inte rpr et ation’ ins tr uction[ .] ”) I d . at625, 662- 63 ( f

i ndi ng thatcir cum s t ant i al
- evi dence i ns t ruct i on embodi es 12 esse n ti als o f a tw o -th eo ry in stru cti o n ). S tate v. R og ers , 8 4 7 S o . 2 d 8 5 8 , 8 6 4 (M is s . 2 0 0 3 ). 13 

### 6 fo u n d a tio n in th e e v id e n c e .” B e c a u se w e fin d th e trial c o u rt c o m m itt e d re v e rsib le e rro r in 9 f ai l i ng t o gr anta tw o- t heory i ns t ruct i on as r eques t ed by M cI nni s , w e dec l i ne t o addr es s the
s econd i s s ue r ai s ed on appe al : W hethert he tr i al courterr ed i n gr ant i ng an ac com pl i ce i ns truct i on. ¶11. W e begi n o ur dis cussi on b y defi ning “c i rcum st anti al evi dence
. ” C i r cumst ant i al evi dence i s “evi den ce w hi ch, w i t houtgoi ng di r ect l y t o pr ove the exi s t ence of a f act , gi ves
r i s e t o a l ogi cal i nf

er ence thats uch f

actdoe s e xi s t . ” I n t hi s cas e, M cI nni s s ubm i t t ed a tw o- 10 theory i ns truct i on, w hi ch i s a s peci f i c type of c i r cumst ant i al
- evi dence i ns t ruct i on. A t w otheo ry instruct i on i nst ruct s the jury w hat t o d o w hen the “record sup po rt s tw o o r m o re h y p o th e se s o f th e c rim e c o m m itt e d ” a n d a ll th e e v id e n c e o f th e c rim e is c irc u m sta n tial. 11 T hi s cour tr ece nt l y has hel d t hata tr i al cour tm ay r ef us e a tw o- t heory i ns t ruct i on if i thas gr ant ed a ( gener al ) ci r cumst ant i al
- evi dence i ns t ruct i on. A ci r cumst ant i al
- evi dence 12 i ns truct i on pr ovi des t hatt he St at e m us tprove t he def endantgui l t y beyond a r eas onabl e doubt and t o the exc l us i on of

al lr eas onabl e hypothes es cons is t ent w i th i nnocenc e. I n t hi s cas e, 13

### Id. at 864. 14

### Mo ntgom ery v. Sta te , 515 So. 2d 845, 849 (Mis s. 1987) (Roberts on, J ., conc urring)
. 15 

### Id. 16

### Kirkwo od

v. Sta te , 52 So. 3d 1184, 1187 ( Mis s. 2011) ( quoting Ma ck v. State , 481 17 

### So. 2d 793, 795 (Mi ss . 1985) ). Bla ck’ s Law Dic ti onar

y 562 (7th ed. 2000). 18 

### 7 M c In n is d id n o t re q u e st a c irc u m sta n tial-e v id e n c e in stru c tio n , b u t as p re v io u sly n o ted , h e d id
r eques ta tw o- t heory i ns t ruct i on. ¶12. W hi l e a tw o- t heory i ns t ruct i on i s di f f er en tf r om a c i r c ums t a nt i a l
- e vi de nce i ns t ruct i on, “the rul es f

orw hen they ar e appr opr i at el y gi ven appl y t o both. ” B utour ca s el aw has been 14 les s th a n c lea r a s to th e ap p lica tio n o f th e se “ru les .” A s n o ted b y Ju stic e R o b e rtso n in h is 15
concurr i ng opi ni on i n Mo n tg o m e ry v. S ta te , thi s C our thas “no l es s than ei ght een
ar t i cul at i ons of

the t es tf ordet erm i ni ng whethe ra nd w he n the c i r cumst ant i al evi dence bur den
o f p ro o f r u le s h o u ld a p p ly .” 16 ¶13. E ar l i erthi s ye ar , thi s Courta ddr es s ed a s i m i l ar cas e, and, s peaki ng f or a unani m ous
cour t , J us t i ce K i t chens a gai n a r t i cul at ed a rul e f orc as es i n w hi ch a c i r cumst ant i al evi dence i ns truct i on i s w arr ant ed w hen r eques t ed by the def endant : “W hi l e evi dence does notal w ays f al l neat l y i nt o one ca t egory, exampl es of di r ectevi dence i ncl ude an a dm i s s i on orconf es s i on by t he d e f

e nd a ntt o ‘ a s i gn i f

i c a nte l e mento f

the o f f e ns e , ’ o re ye w i t ne s s t e s t i mony t o t he

‘ gr avamen of

t he of f ens e’ char ged. ” T he t erm “gr avamen” i s def i ned as the “s ubs t ant i al 17 poi ntores s ence of

a cl ai m , gr i evanc e, orcompl ai nt . ” T her ef or e, i f any evi dence pr es ent ed 18

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 97-17- 23 (Re v. 2006)
. 19 

### 8 f i t s th e d i r e c t - e v i d e n c e d e f i n i t i o n f r o m K irkw ood , the t ri al courtm ay pr oper l y r ef us e a ci r cumst ant i al
- evi dence i ns t ruct i on. ¶14. T he gravam en f

or t he of f ens e of bur gl ary of a dw el l i ng ar e t hat : ( 1) M cI nni s br oke i n t o a n d e n t e r e d Ki s s e n g e r ’ s h o me a n d th a t( 2 ) M c I n n i s h a d th e i n t e n tt o c o mmi ts o me c r i me ther ei n. I n t hi s cas e, t he St at e w as r equi r ed t o pr ove ei t herdi r ect l y orc i r cumst ant i al l y t hat

19 McIn n is w a s th e m a n w h o b ro k e into an d en ter e d K iss e n g e r’s h o m e w ith the inte n t t o c o m m it l ar ceny. A nd i n f

act , the j ur y w as i ns t ruct ed t o thate f f ect . B utK i s s engerdi d nott es t i f y that
s h e s a w McIn n is comm i tany ac tin her h om e, nori s ther e any otherdi r ectevi dence t hat id e n tifies M c In n is a s th e p e rp e tra to r. T h e g ra v a m e n fo r th is o ffe n se is ti e d to a sp e c ific def endant
. Fur t herm or e, M cI nni s neverconf es s ed orm ade a ny admi s s i on t o a s i gn i fi cant el ementof

t he cr i m e. W hi l e the C our tof A ppeal s i dent i f

i ed vari ous t es t i m ony as di r ect
e v id e n c e th a t a c rim e w a s c o m m itt e d , this w a s n o t d ire c t ev id e n c e th a t McIn n is comm i t t ed the c ri m e o f bu rglary
. T h ere fore , th e tr ial co u rtab u sed it s d iscreti o n b y d en y ing a tw o -th eo ry i ns truct i on, beca us e i tgave no otherci r cumst ant i al i ns t ruct i on. CO NC L US I ON ¶1 5
. T h e tr ial co u rtab u sed i ts dis c re tio n in re fu sin g to g ra n t M c In n is a tw o -th eo ry i ns truct i on, as t he Stat e pr es ent ed no di r ectevi dence thatM cI nni s comm i t t ed the cr i m e of bur gl ary. T her ef

or e, w e r ever s e and r emand f ora new tr i al cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on. ¶ 1 6
. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D.

### 9

W AL L E R, C. J . , CA RL S ON AN D D I CK I NS ON , P . J J . , RA ND OL P H, KI T CH E NS , CH AN DL E R AND P I E RC E , J J . , CO NC UR . KI NG , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .