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 6 - KA- 0 2 0 8 6 - S CT M ARK HICKS
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 27/ 2006 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. RO BE RT G. E VANS CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: S I M P S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT 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: DEI RDRE M c CRORY DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : EDD I E H. BO W EN 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 : A FFIRM E D - 12/ 06/ 2007 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. EAS LEY, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶1. M ark H i cks w as i ndi ct ed by the gr and j ury of Si m ps on Count y, M i s s i s s i ppi , on one countof agg ravat ed as s aul tand one c ountof pos s es s i on of

a f i r earm by a convi ct ed f el on. H i cks w as tr i ed and a cqui t t ed by the j ury on the aggr avat ed as s aul tcountand convi ct ed by the j ury on t he countof

pos s es s i on of

a f i r earm by a convi ct ed f

el on. A f t erthe j ury r etur ned the gui l ty ver di ct , H i cks w as adj udi cat ed a ha bi tual of f enderby the t ri al co urt . H i cks w as

### Eric M cDo naldis Hick s’s andTamb ourine’s n eph ew, an d D onnyis their co usin
. 1 

### 2 s ent ence d by the tr i al court , the H onor abl e R obertG
. E vans , C i r cui tC our tJ udge, pr es i di ng, t o serve a term of three years i n the cust od y o f the M i ssi ssi pp i D epart m ent of C orr ect i on s,
w i thoutt he benef

i tof ea r l y re l eas e orpar ol e. H i cks now appea l s hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence to th is C o u rt. FACTS ¶2. T ambouri ne H i cks T r avi s t es t i f i ed t haton D ece m ber19, 2005, w hi l e s he w as vi s i t i ng herf ather , J os eph H i cks , herbr other , M ark H i cks , came t o thei rf ather ’ s hous e. H i cks w as
u p set. T am b o u rin e s tate d that H icks “w alke d in an d said , ‘S o m eb o d y is go ing to d ie. ’” H i cks cl ai m ed t hats om ebody br oke i nt o the hous e he w as l i vi ng i n and s t ol e s om e br ead, bol ogna, and cr acke r s . T ambouri ne t es t i f i ed thatH i cks then w entovert o the f ars i de of her fa th e r’s b e d a n d p ick e d u p a rifle th a t b e lo n g e d to h e r fa th e r. T h e rifle h a d a sc o p e o n it. H i cks l oaded the r i f

l e w i th bul l et s thatw er e l ocat ed on t he ent ert ai nm entcent erbes i de the b e d . T a m b o u ri n e s ta te d th a t s h e w a tc h e d H ic k s lo a d th e ri fl e . ¶3. T ambouri ne f

ol l ow ed H i cks outof

the bedr oom t ow ar d the ki t chen. H i cks s t at ed that E ri c M cD on al d an d D on ny broke i nto the h ou se and st ole hi s bread, bo l og na, and crackers
. 1 E r i c and Er i c’ s w i f

e, J oyce M cD onal d, l ef

tJ os eph H i cks ’ s house, heade d t ow ar d thei rhous e. T ambour i ne t e s t i f

i e d tha ta s ho r tt i me l a t e r , s he h e a r d thr e e s ho t s f i r e d a nd s a w J oyce run
u n d e r th e c a r p o rc h o f Jo se p h H ick s’s h o u se . Jo y c e c a m e in sid e a n d a sk e d th o se in sid e to cal l 911 beca us e H i cks w as s hoot i ng a tthem. T ambouri ne t es t i f i ed thats he ca l l ed 911 and

### Joyc e Mc Donal d al so t es ti fi ed t o a s im il ar ac count of e vent s a s provide d by 2 

### Tam bourine and Eri c. Je nse n st at ed that

shehad wor

ked in thecirc uit

cl er ks’ off ic e s inc e Nove mbe r of 3 

### 1984, f ir st as a deputy c le rk and the n as thecirc uit cl er k. 3 yel l ed t o H i cks thats he had cal l ed t he pol i ce. H i cks w i ped t he gun dow n w i th a ra g, and he to ld h is g ir lf

ri e n d to c a rr y th e g u n b a c k to h is fa th e r’ s h o u s e . ¶4
. E r i c t e s t i f

i e d t ha t hi s un c l e , H i c ks , c a me i nt o hi s gr a nd f a the r ’ s ho us e a nd made the thr eatthats om ebody w as goi ng t o getki l l ed ordi e. H i cks then w entovert o the bed a nd got
a rifle , g ra b b e d so m e sh e lls, a n d sta rte d lo a d in g th e g u n . H ick s th e n w e n t o u t th e d o o r. E ric
s t at ed thathe and hi s w i f e, J oyce, then l ef

tthe hous e, heade d back t o t heirh ou s e. W hen H i cks f i r ed the f

i r s ts hot , they t oo k coverbehi nd thei rcar . E r i c t ol d J oyce t o go cal l t he pol i ce. A f

t erT ambouri ne t ol d H i cks thats he had cal l ed the pol i ce, H i cks w i ped the gun dow n and had hi s gi r l f

r i end r eturn the gun t o J os eph H i cks ’ s hous e. 2 ¶5. C i ndy J ens en, the C i r cui tC l erk of Si m ps on C ounty, t es t i f

i ed thats he w as s ubpoenae d
a s th e c u sto d ian o f th e c o u rt files to b rin g c o u rt files n u m b e re d 7 5 3 2 a n d 7 6 8 8 w ith h e r to
co u rt . Jen sen v erifi ed that the c erti fi ed co p y o f th e fina l j u d g m en t and sen tenc e o f th e c o u rt

3
as t o def endantM ark H i cks, i n caus e number7532, w as a true and c orr ectcopy. J ens en
s t at ed thatthe j udgm entr ef l ect ed thatM ark H i cks w as c onvi ct ed of gr and l ar ceny on M ar ch 31, 1986. I n caus e number7688, J ens en t es t i f i ed t hatt he t rue and corr ect , cer t i f i ed copy of the j udgm entr ef

l ect ed thatthe def

endant , M ark H i cks , w as c onvi ct ed of bur gl ary on M ar ch 13, 1987. J ens en w as as ked t o l ook thr ough t he ac tual f i l es i n caus e number s 7532 and 7688 t o ver i f y thatther e w as nei thera par don f r om the governorof

the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi norany
r e l i e f f r o m d i s a b i l i ty th a two u l d a l l o w M a r k Hi c k s t o c a rry a f i r e a r m.

### 4

¶6
. O n cros s-ex am ination , Jen sen tes tified th a t in c a u se n u m b e r 7 6 8 8 , the b u rglary
c o n v ictio n , the file c o n tain e d a so c ial s e c u rity n u m b e r o n th e c o m m itm e n t o rd e r th a t g o e s to the peni t ent i ary. She s t at ed thats he di d notper s onal l y know H i cks
. T hen the def ens e as ked J ens en i f ther e w as anythi ng i n the f i l es thatcoul d i dent i f

y H i cks a s thatM ark H i cks
. J ens en
r es ponded that“the onl y t hi ng cont ai ned i s a dat e of bi r th and s oci al , and i thas a pl ace f or
r ace a nd s ex, w hi ch i s bl ack m al e. B utther e i s no pi ctur e. ” The def ens e as ked J ens en, “do you know i f

ther e’ s pos s i bl y anotherM ark H i cks outther e?” J ens en r esponded, “I do not k n o w th a t.” O n re -d ir e c t, J e n s e n s ta te d , “ I d o n ’t k n o w o f a n o th e r M a rk H ic k s .” DI S CU S S I ON I . W het her t he t ri al court erred b y not grant i ng H i cks ’ s m ot i on f or a di r e c t e d ve r di c t or hi s m ot i on f or j udgm e nt not wi t hs t andi ng t he v er d ict (JN O V ). ¶7. H i cks m ade a pos t - tr i al m ot i on f or JN O V , w hi ch the tr i al court deni ed. H i cks ar gues th a t th e S ta te d id n o t p ro v e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t th a t h e w a s a c o n v ic te d fe lo n . A
m o tio n f o r JN O V c h a lle n g e s th e le g a l s u ff ic ie n c y o f t h e e v id e n c e . Mc Cla in v. S ta te , 625 So. 2d 774, 778 ( M i s s . 1993)
. "[ T ] hi s C our tpr oper l y r evi ew s the rul i ng on t he l as tocca s i on t he chall eng e w as m ade in the tr i al cou rt . " Id
. at 77 8
. H ere , this o cc u rred w h en the tri al co u rt d e n i e d Hi c k s ’ s mo t i o n f o rJNOV. ¶8. H i cks ar gues that the St at e f ai l ed t o pr ove beyond a r eas onabl e doubt thatH i cks w as a convi ct ed f

el on beca us e the evi dence pr es ent ed w as i ns uf f i ci entt o es t abl i s h thatH i cks w as the M ark H i cks convi ct ed i n courtf i l es num ber7532 a nd 7866. T he St at e di s agr ees , r el yi ng on J ens en’ s t es t i m ony a s t o the i nf or m at i on c ont ai ned i n the courtf i l e and the cert i f

i ed f i nal ju d g m e n t an d se n ten c e o f th e c o u rt in c a u s e n u m b e rs 7 5 3 2 a n d 7 8 6 6 in tro d u c e d in to

### 5

evi dence , a s w el l a s thi s C our t ’ s hol di ng i n B ra n n in gv. S ta te , 2 2 4 S o . 2 d 5 8 0 (M iss. 1 9 6 9 ). I n Bra nning , 22 4 S o . 2 d a t 580 , the S t at e soug ht t o incr ease the cri m i nal penalt i es agai nst B r anni ng, pur s uantt o Sect i on 6866 M i s s i s s i ppi C ode 1942 A nnot at ed ( Supp. 1968) , s i nce th is w a s h is th ir d o ff

e n s e . ¶9. I n Bra nning , thi s C our t cons i der ed w hether i t w as err or f or the tr i al court t o gi ve the f ol l ow i ng i ns truct i on t o t he j ury: T h e Co u r ti n s tru c t s th e J u r y f o rth e S t a t e o f

M i s s i s s i p p i th a tu n d e rth e l a w, i d e n t i ty o f

n a me o f th e De f e n d a n ta n d th e p e r s o n p r e v i o u s l y c o n v i c t e d i s p r i ma fa c ie e v id e n c e o f id e n tity o f p e rs o n , a n d if y o u b e liev e fro m th e e v id e n c e in thi s , beyond a r eas onabl e doubtt hatt he nam e of the D ef endanti n thi s cas e and the name of

the per s on pr evi ous l y convi ct ed ar e the s ame, then you w oul d be w arr ant ed i n t he pr es um pt i on thatthey ar e i n f actthe s ame per s on. Bra nning , 224 So. 2d at580. ¶10. T he C our thel d: T h e re is n o m e rit in a p p e llan t' s c riticism o f th e in stru c tio n g ra n ted th e S tate th a t id e n tity o f n a m e o f th e d e fe n d a n t an d th e p e rso n p re v io u sly c o n v icte d is p rim a fa c ie e v id e n c e o f id e n tity o f p e rso n . T h e a p p e lla n t d id n o t d e n y h is i dent i ty w i th t he t w o pre vi ous convi ct i ons char ged and pr oved; ther ef or e, the pr es um pt i on i s thatthe appe l l anti s one and the s ame person a s t he one pr evi ous l y convi ct ed. T he j ury w as ent i t l ed t o thi s i ns truct i on as t o the l aw fr o m th e c o u rt . W e s ai d i n G o ld

sb y v. S ta te , 2 4 0 M is s . 6 4 7 , 1 2 3 S o .2 d 4 2 9 (1 9 6 0 ), cer t . den ., 3 6 5 U .S . 8 6 1 , 8 1 S . C t. 82 9 , 5 L . E d . 2 d 8 2 4 (1 9 6 1 ): "M o re o v e r, itis a w e ll e s t a b l i s h e d ru l e o f

e v i d e n c e a n d p r a c t i c e i n t h i s St a t e t h a tt h e i d e n t i ty o f n a me of the def endantand t he per s on pre vi ous l y convi ct ed i s pr i m a f aci e evi dence of i dent i ty of

pe r s on, a nd, i n the abs ence of r ebutt i ng t es t i m ony, s uppo rt s a fi n d in g o f s u c h id e n tity
. Mc G o w a n v. S ta te , 1946, 200 M i s s . 270, 281, 25 So. 2d 131, [ s ugges t i on of

er r orover rul ed, ] 26 So. 2d 70. " 240 M i s s . at674, 123 So. 2d at439. Bra nning , 2 2 4 S o . 2 d a t 5 8 2
. ¶11. Si m i l ar l y, i n Co u rs e v. S ta te , 461 So. 2d 770, 771 ( M i s s . 1984) , thi s C our ts t at ed:

### 6

C laren ce C o u rse a p p ea ls f rom h is co n v ict ion o f th e c ri m e o f bu rglary o f a dw el l i ng i n the C i r cui tC our tof the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H i nds Count y and sent en ce to serve ten years i n the D epart m ent of C orr ect i on s. H aving al so f ound C our s e had be en pr evi ous l y convi ct ed of tw o s epar at e f

el oni es , one f

or arm ed r obbery and anotherforburgl ary, al l as char ged i n the i ndi ctm ent , the circu itjud g e sen tenc ed C o u rse as a h ab itu al o ffen d er to se rve the fu ll ten y ea rs w ith o u t p a ro le , p ro b a tio n o r r e d u c tio n o f s e n te n c e u n d e r M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -1 9 -8 1
.

. . . C our s e has tw o as s i gnm ent s of err or , the f

i r s tbe i ng thatthe St at e, s i m pl y by p r o d u c i n g r e c o r d s th a to n e " Cl a r e n c e Co u r s e " wa s c o n v i c t e d o f th e two pr evi ous f

el oni es , di d noti n a nd of i t s el f i dent i f y thatper s on as the def

endant o n tr ial
. T h e re co rds d id fu rnish a p resu m p tio n o f suc h iden ti ty, ho w ev er, w h ic h c o u ld h a v e b e e n e a s ily o v e rc o m e if e rr o n e o u s . See : B ra n n in gv. S ta te , 2 2 4 S o . 2 d 5 7 9 (M iss . 1 9 6 9 ); G o ld sb y v. S ta te , 240 M i s s . 647, 123 So. 2d 429, 124 So. 2d 297, 129 So. 2d 127 (1960) ; and 1 W hart on' s C r i m i nal E vi dence , § 103, pp. 180- 82 ( T or cai e d. 13th e d. 1972)
. W e do a dd the St at e w oul d be w ell ad v ised to b e p rep are d to g o furthe r tha n m ere rec o rds, ho w ev er, e s p e c ia lly w h e re th e n a m e is n o t u n u s u a l o r u n c o m m o n . . . . ¶12. H ow ever , i n Bra nningand Cou rse , thi s C our t addr es s ed the ques t i on i n the cont ext of sent encing t he d efendan tt o an enh anced sent ence a s a habi tual off end er. H ere, w e m ust exami ne the evi dence pr es ent ed t o det erm i ne w hetherthe St at e pr es ent ed s uf f i ci entevi dence to s u p p o rt H ic k s ’s c o n v ic tio n fo r p o s s e s s io n o f a fi re a rm b y a c o n v ic te d fe lo n . ¶1 3. I n Iv

y v. S ta te , 94 9 S o . 2d 74 8 , 75 1 (M iss. 20 0 7 ) ( interna l citatio n s o m itt e d ), th is C ou rtrei t erat ed the st and ard of r eview forl egal s uff i ci ency as f

oll ow s: [I] n c o n sid e rin g w h e th e r th e e v id e n c e is s u ffic ien t to su sta in a c o n v ictio n in the f ace of a mot i on f

ordi r ect ed ver di ctor f

orj udgm entnot w i ths t andi ng the ver di ct , the cr i t i cal i nqui r y i s w hether t he evi dence s how s “beyond a reas on able dou bt that accused co m m i t t ed the actcharg ed , a n d thathe d i d so u n d er su ch circu m stan ce s tha t ev ery elem en t o f th e o ffen se ex ist ed ; and w h ere th e e v id e n c e fa ils to m e e t th is te s t it is in s u ff ic ie n t to s u p p o rt a c o n v ic tio n .”

. . .

### Nei the r the St at e nor thedef ens e a ske d Je nse n to s tatethesoc ia l s ec uri ty num ber 4 

### that wa s l is te d in t

he c ourt fi le
. 7 H ow ever , i f

a r evi ew of

the evi dence r evea l s thati tis of s uch qual i ty and w ei ghtthat , “havi ng i n m i nd the beyond a r eas onabl e d ou btbur den of pr oof s t andard, r eas onabl e f

ai r - m i nded men i n the exe r ci s e of i m part i al j udgm ent m i ghtr eac h di f

f er entconcl us i ons on every el emento f the of f ens e, ” the e v id e n c e w ill b e d e e m e d to h a v e b e e n s u ff ic ie n t. ¶1 4
. T h e circu itc lerk, Jen sen , testi fi ed tha t she w as su b p o en ae d b y the S tat e to b ri n g co u rt f i l es num ber ed 7532 and 7688 w i th hert o court . She s t at ed thatthe name of the def endant i n f i l es num ber ed 7532 and 7688 w as M ark H i cks
. A ccor di ng t o the cer t i f i ed copy of

t he fin a l j u d g m e n ts a n d se n ten c e s, H ick s w a s c o n v icte d o f g ra n d larc e n y o n M a rc h 3 1 , 1 9 8 6 , in
caus e number7532, and he w as convi ct ed of burgl ary on M ar ch 13, 1987, i n caus e number 7688. J ens en t es t i f

i ed thatthe courtf

i l es di d notcont ai n a par don f r om the governorof

the S tate o f M iss iss ip p i n o r a n y re lief fro m d isa b ili ty . J e n se n s tate d th a t sh e d id n o t p e rso n a lly know H i cks , and i tw as notherduty t o i dent i f y H i cks
. W hi l e J ens en s t at ed thatther e w as no pi ctur e i n the courtf

i l e, f i l e number7688 cont ai ned a soci al s ecur i ty num beron t he
comm i t m entor dert o the peni t ent i ary. J ens en al s o s t at ed thatthe f i l e co ntai ned a dat e of 4 bi r th and i nf

or m at i on l i s t i ng the r ace and s ex as a bl ack mal e. ¶15
. T h ere also w as su ffi cien tevi den ce t o supp ortthat H i cks w as i n po sses si o n o f a
w ea p o n . T am b o u ri n e testi fi ed that sh e fo llo w e d h er b roth er, H icks , into the irfathe r’s bedr oom , w her e H i cks ret ri eved a r i f l e. She then f

ol l ow ed H i cks i nt o the ki t chen. She obs erved H i cks go out s i de w i th the gun, a nd s he cal l ed the pol i ce w hen s he hea r d the gunf i r e. S h e sa w H icks w ipe d o w n th e rifle a n d h av e h is girl fri en d return the g u n to h er fathe r’s hous e.

### 8

¶16. E r i c, H i cks ’ s cous i n, t es t i f i ed thathe s aw H i cks go overt o the bed a nd geta r i f l e, gr ab
s om e s hel l s , and l oad t he gun. H i cks t hen w entoutthe door
. A ccor di ng t o E r i c’ s t es t i m ony, he and hi s w i f

e, J oyce, l ef

t , he aded back t o thei rhous e. T hey t ook coverw hen H i cks f i r ed the f i r s ts hot
. T he pol i ce w er e cal l ed t o the s cene . E r i c’ s w i f e, J oyce, t es t i f

i ed t o a s i m i l ar
a c c o u n t o f e v e n ts . ¶17. T he j ury w as cal l ed upon t o r evi ew the evi dence pr es ent ed t o det erm i ne w hethert he S tate m e t i ts b u rd e n an d p re se n ted su ffic ien t ev id e n c e to e sta b lish , b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t, ea ch elem en t of th e o ffen se a s to e ac h co u n t. T h ey w ere instruc ted b y the tri al co u rt t o us e thei rgood comm on s ens e and s ound hones tj udgm enti n eval uat i ng the evi dence
. T he tr i al cour tre f

us ed t he j ury’ s re ques tt o i nf or m t hem w hetherH i cks ’ s s oci al s ecur i ty num ber
m at ched the ci r cui tcl erk’ s f i l es . H ow ever , the j ury r eturned a gui l ty ver di cton the countof pos s es s i on of

a f i r earm by a convi ct ed f el on and a no t - gui l ty ver di cton the countof
a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt a ft e r h e a ri n g e v id e n c e . See I vy , 949 So. 2d at751. C ons i der i ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfa vor abl e t o t he St at e, w e f i nd t hatt her e w as s uf

f i ci entevi dence to c o n v ic t H ic k s fo r p o s s e s s io n o f a fi re a rm b y a c o n v ic te d fe lo n . See Id
. I I . Jury I nst ruct i on S-4. ¶18
. H icks adm i t s that no object i on w as of fer ed t o the t ri al courtas to the S tat e’s jury instruction S -4. T h ere fore , H icks arg u es o n ap p ea l th at th e tri al co u rt ’s giv in g the jury i ns truc t i on a mount e d t o pl a i n e r r or . To p r e va i l u nd e rthe d oc tr i ne o f p l a i n e rr or , t he def endantm us ts how thatther e w as e rr or , thatthe err orr es ul t ed i n a mani f es ti nj us t i ce, and th a t it a ff e c te d th e d e fe n d a n t’ s fu n d a m e n ta l rig h ts . W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 794 S o. 2d 181, 187 (M is s . 2 0 0 1 ). “ T h is C o u rt h a s fo u n d p la in e rr o r i n fa ilin g to in s tru c t th e ju ry p ro p e rl y . . . .”

### 9

Wil lia ms , 794 So. 2d at188 ( ci t i ng B e rr y v. S ta te , 728 So. 2d 568, 570 ( M i s s . 1999) ( f i n d i n g p l a i n e r r o rb e c a u s e f a i l u r e t o f

u l l y i n s tru c tth e j u ry o n th e e l e me n t s of t h e c r i me infri n g es o n the fu n d am en tal ri g h ts of a d efe n d an t) ). ¶19. J ury I ns truct i on S- 4 s t at ed:

T he C our ti ns truct s the j ury t hati ti s unl aw f ul forany per s on w ho has b e e n c o n v icte d o f a fe lo n y u n d e r th e law s o f th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i, t o pos s es s any f

i r earm unl es s s uch per s on ha s r ece i ved a par don, orhas r ece i ved a r el i ef f r om di s abi l i ty pur s uantt o Secti on 9 25( c) of T i t l e 18 of

the U ni t ed S tate s C o d e o r h a s re c e iv e d a c e rtifica te o f re h a b ili tatio n fr o m th e C o u rt in w hi ch he w as convi ct ed. T he C our tf

ur theri ns truct s the j ury thatthe def endanthas notr ece i ved a par don, he has notr ece i ved a r el i ef f r om di s abi l i ty pur s uantt o Sect i on 925( c) of T i t l e 18 of

the U ni t ed St at es C ode and he has notr ece i ved a c ert i f i cat e of r ehabi l i t at i on f

r om thi s Court ; ther ef

or e, i f you f i nd beyond a r eas onabl e doubt th a t o n o r a b o u t D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 , in S im p so n C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i: 1. the def

endantw as a convi ct ed f el on, having been convi ct ed of gr and larcen y o n M arc h 3 1 , 1 9 8 6 , in C au se N u m b er 7 5 3 2 in the C ir cu itC o u rt of Si m ps on C ount y, M i s s i ssi ppi , and thathe w as al s o convi ct ed of bur gl ary on M ar ch 13, 1987, i n C ountI of C aus e N um ber7688 i n the C irc u it C o u rt o f S im p so n C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i, an d th a t, 2. on oraboutD ecem ber 19, 2005, i n Si m ps on C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi , the defend ant had i n his p ossess i on a fi rearm , then, o n yo ur oaths as j urors , y o u sh all fi n d the d efe n d an t gu ilty o f the u n law ful p o sses sion o f a fire a rm b y a c o n v icte d fe lo n , a s c o n tain e d in C o u n t II o f th e in d ictm e n t. Y ou ar e f

ur theri ns truct ed thati f

t he St at e has fa i l ed t o pr ove any one orm or e of

the af or ement i oned el ement s be yond a r eas onabl e doubt , then you s hal l f i nd the def

endantnotgui l ty. ¶2 0. H i cks ar gues tha tj ury i ns truc tS- 4 pe r e mpt or i l y t ol d the j ur y t hatH i cks had not
r ece i ved a pa r don, a r el i ef f r om a di s abi l i ty ora ce r t i f i cat e of r ehabi l i t at i on, ther eby r es ul t i ng i n pl ai n err orby r el i evi ng the j ury f r om f i ndi ng eac h el ementof

the of f ens e. M i s s i s s i ppi C od e A nn otat ed S ect i on 97 -37-5( 1) ( R ev. 20 06 ) pr ov i des:

### 10

I ts hal l be unl aw f

ul f orany per s on w ho has bee n convi ct ed of a f el ony under the l aw s of

t hi s s t at e, any others t at e, orof the U ni t ed S t at es t o pos s es s any f i r earm orany bow i e kni f e, di r k kni f

e, but cherkni f

e, sw i t chbl ade kni f

e, me t a l l i c k n u c k l e s , b l a c k j a c k , o ra n y mu f

f l e ro rs i l e n c e rf

o ra n y f i r e a r m u n less s uch per s on has r ece i ved a par don forsuch f el ony, has r ece i ved a r el i ef f r om di s abi l i ty pur s uantt o Sec t i on 925( c) of Ti t l e 18 of

the U ni t ed St at es C ode, or h a s re c e iv e d a c e rtifica te o f re h a b ili tatio n p u rsu a n t to su b se c tio n (3 ) o f th is s e c tio n . (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶2 1
. T h e ab sen ce o f a p ard o n , reli ef from a d isab il ity , o r a ce rt if icate o f reh ab il it ati o n are
n o t e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts o f th e c ri m e o f p o s s e s s io n o f a fi re a rm b y a c o n v ic te d fe lo n . See M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -37 -5 (R ev . 20 0 6 ). W h il e this C o u rtha s no t co n side red th is i ssu e, th e C o u rt of A ppeal s s peci f

i cal l y addr es s ed t his s ame ques t i on f r om a di f

f er entper s pect i ve i n E s tes
v. S ta te , 782 So. 2d 1244, 1255 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2000)
. I n E s tes , the courtdet erm i ned that
w hetherthe def

endant“r ece i ved a pa r don f orthe f el ony, orha d notr ece i ved a c ert i f i cat e of
r ehabi l i t at i on pur s uantt o M i s s . Code A nn. § 97- 37- 5( c) ” w as an af f i r m at i ve def

ens e thatw as in c u m b e n t u p o n th e d e fe n d a n t to ra ise , n o t a n e lem e n t o f th e o ffe n se fo r th e S tate to h a v e to p ro v e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. I d. T he courts t at ed: M or eover , pr opos ed i ns truct i on D
- 4 w as pr oper l y r ef us ed becaus e i tdi d not corr ect l y s t at e the l aw . A tr i al courtcannotbe puti n err orf orr ef us i ng an in s tru c tio n th a t m is s ta te s th e la w . W ill ie v . S ta te , 58 5 S o. 2d 66 0, 67 3 (M i ss. 1 9 9 1 ). T h e p o rtio n o f in stru c tio n D -4 in e rro r re q u ire d th e S tate , in o rd e r to f i nd hi m gui l ty, t o pr ove t hatE s t es , a convi ct ed f el on, had notr ece i ved a par don f orthe f el ony, orhad notr ece i ved a c ert i f i cat e of rehabi l i t at i on p u r s u a n t to M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3 7 -5 (c ) ( R e v . 1 9 9 4 ). W h e n a fa c t is peculiar l y w ithin the know ledge of one of the par ties s o that

innocence can be pr ov e n wi t

h no di f f i c ult y, the law w il

l not r e nde rit

incum bent

u pon t he o th e rs ide to p r o v e th e in n o c e n c e . Mille r v . S ta te , 105 M i s s . 777, 779, 63 So. 269, 269 ( 1913)
. T hi s i s an af f i r m at i ve def

ens e w hi ch w oul d have pl ace d the b u rd e n o n E s te s to e s ta b li s h
. T h us, it is not upon the State to pr ove a negati ve . I

d.

### 11

E s tes , 7 8 2 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 5 5 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶22. A ppl yi ng t he r eas oni ng f ound i n E s tes , thi s as s i gnm entof err ori s w i thoutm er i t . T he tr i al courtdi d noterri n gi vi ng j ury i ns truct i on S- 4. III . B at

s on . ¶ 2 3
. O n a p p e a l, H ick s a rg u e s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in a llo w in g th e S tate to e x e rc ise its p e re m p to ry s tr ik e s a g a in s t tw o A fr ic a n -A m e ri c a n ju ro rs . See B at s on v. K entucky, 47 6 U. S. 79, 106 S. C t . 1712, 90 L
. E d. 2 d 69 (1986)
. I n Flo w e rs v. S ta te , 947 So. 2d 910, 917- 18 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ), this C o u rtrec en tl y stated the stan d ard o f rev iew in co n side ri n g the tri al co u rt ’s
rul i ng on a B at

s on chal l enge, s t at i ng: T hi s C our tgi ves gr eatdef er ence t o a t r i al cour t ' s det erm i nat i ons under Bat s on b e c a u s e th e y a re b a s e d la rg e ly o n c re d ib ility
. B e rr y v. S ta te , 802 So. 2 d 1 0 3 3 , 1 0 3 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). In rev iew ing a c lai m for a B at s on vi ol at i on, "w e w i l l notoverrul e a tr i al courton a B at s on ruli ng un l ess the r ecor d i ndi cat es thatthe rul i ng w as c l ear l y e rr oneous ora gai ns tt he ov erw helm i ng w ei gh tof the ev i den ce. " T h o rs o n v. S ta te , 721 So. 2d 590, 593 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). I n l odgi ng a B at

s on cl ai m , the p arty w ho obj ect s t o the pe rem p tory s tr i ke " m us tf

i r s tm ake a pr i m a f

aci e s how i ng thatr ace w as the cr i t er i a f orthe exerci se of the p erem ptory st ri ke. " Mc Fa rla n d v. S ta te , 707 So. 2d 166, 171 ( M i s s . 1997) ( ci t i ng B at s on , 476 U
. S. at96- 97)
. A def endantcan e s t abl i s h a pr i m a f aci e ca s e of

di s cr i m i nat i on by s how i ng : (1) thathe i s a mem berof c o g n iza b le racial gro u p ; ( 2 ) th at th e p rose cu tor h as e x erc ised p ere m p tory chal l enges t o r emove f

r om the veni re m ember s of the def endant ' s r ace ; ( 3) and th e fa c ts a n d c irc u m sta n c e s ra ise d a n in fe re n c e th a t t h e p ro se c u to r u se d h is p e r e m p to ry c h a lle n g e s fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f s tr ik in g m in o ri tie s . S n o w v. S ta te , 800 So. 2d 472, 478 ( M i s s . 2001)
. O nce a pr i m a f aci e ca s e has been es t abl i s hed, the party exer ci s i ng t he chal l enge ha s the bur den t o art i cul at e a ra c e -n e u tr a l e x p la n a tio n fo r e x c lu d in g th a t p o te n tia l ju ro r. Mc Far land , 707 So. 2d at 171
. A s l ong as di s cr i m i nat ory i nt enti s noti nher enti n the expl anat i on gi ven by the pr os ecut i on, "the r eas on of f er ed w i l l be dee m ed r ace neu tral
. " R a n da ll v. S ta te , 716 So. 2d 584, 588 ( M i s s . 1998) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed). A ft er a r ace-neutr al exp l anati on has bee n g i ven , "the tr i al cou rtm ust d eterm ine w h ethe r th e o b jecti n g p arty h as m et i ts bu rde n to p rov e tha t th ere

### 12

has been purpos ef

ul di s cr i m i nat i on i n the exe r ci s e of the per empt ory, " i
. e. , that th e re a s o n g iv e n w a s a p re te x t f o r d is c ri m in a tio n . Mc Far land , 707 S o. 2d at 171. Thi s Courtha s r ecogni zed f i ve i ndi ci a of

pr et extthatar e r el evantw hen an alyz ing the ra ce -ne u tr al reaso n s o ffered b y the p rop o n en t o f a p ere m p tory strik e , sp e c ifica lly : ( 1) di s par at e tr eatm ent , thati s , the pr es ence of unchal l enged j ur or s of the oppos i t e r ace w ho s har e the cha r act er i s t i c gi ven as the bas i s f

orthe cha l l enge; ( 2) the f ai l ur e t o voi r di r e as t o the char act er i s t i c ci t ed;
. . . ( 3) the cha r act er i s t i c ci t ed i s unr el at ed t o t he f act s of the cas e; (4) l ack of re cor d s uppor tf

orthe s t at ed reas on ; and (5) group -based trai t s. Ma n n in gv. S ta te , 765 So. 2d 516, 519 ( M i s s . 2000) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. T he bur den r emai ns on the opponentof the s tr i ke t o s how thatthe r ace - neutr al e x p la n a tio n g iv e n is m e re ly a p re te x t f o r r a c ia l d is c ri m in a tio n . B erry , 802 So. 2d at1042. ¶24. D uri ng jur y sel ect i on , the S t at e exe r ci s ed f i ve of i t s per empt ory s tr i kes against A f r i can- A m er i can j ur or s . H i cks onl y r ai s es a n as s i gnm entof e rr oras t o tw o j ur or s : J ur or12, C u rt is L
. M ag ee ; and Ju ror 1 3 , B arb ara K . B e rry. T h e S tat e d id n o t exe rcise p ere m p tory
s tr ik e s a s to J u ro r 1 4 , B re n d a W e a th e rs b y , a b la c k fe m a le ; J u ro r 1 5 , W illie B . B ri d g e s , a bl ack f emal e; and J ur or11, Per r y B row n, a bla ck mal e. T he r ecor d s t at es thatt he compo si t i on o f the j ury w as as f ol l ow s : J ur or1, C andi s e Sm i th, w hi t e f emal e; J ur or7, R i char d M ul l i ns , w hi t e mal e; J ur or9, M i chae l C l ark, w hi t e mal e; J ur or11, Perry B r ow n, bl ack mal e; J ur or14, B r enda W eather s by, bl ack f emal e; J ur or15, W i l l i e B
. Bri dges , bl ack fe m a le; J u ro r 2 0 , T a m m y L . C o lli n s, b lac k fe m a le; J u ro r 2 2 , S h e rry A . B lac k w e ll, w h ite f emal e; J ur or23, C onni e S. Prui t t , w hi t e f emal e; J ur or24, Bri an M
. H ul l , bl ack mal e; J ur or 26, R i t a C
. H ol l i day, bl ack f emal e; J ur or29, H arry M
. W i l l i ams, w hi t e mal e; and the
a lte rn a te ju ro r, J u ro r 3 2 , S h e rr y M . H u b b a rd , w h ite fe m a le
.

### Juror 10 di d not s er ve on the j ury. 5 

### Juror 3 di d not s er

ve on the j ury. 6 

### 13 ¶2 5
. T h e tr ial co u rt req u ir ed rac e-n eu tr al rea so n s for the S tat e' s ex erc ise o f it s p ere m p tory chal l enges . A s t o J ur or12, C ur t i s L
. M cG ee, the r ecor d s how s thatthe St at e pr ovi ded the foll o w ing rea so n for stri k ing the ju ror: He ’ s g o ta b r o th e r - i n - l a w i n t h e p e n i t e n t i a ry , a n d whe n I wa s t a l k i n g t o h i m, he w as i nat t enti ve t o m e. B utI not i ced, w hen D ani el [ def ens e couns el ] w as t al ki ng t o hi m , he w as l ooki ng at D ani el and l ooki ng atthe def endantand g ri n n in g . T he def ens e ar gued thatJ ur or12 l ooked att ent i ve and thatthe St at e had nots truck J ur or9,
a w hi t e j ur orw hos e uncl e w as i n j ai l , orJ ur or10, a w hi t e j ur orw ho ha d a s on- i n- l aw w ho had bee n i n j ai l
. A f

t erhear i ng ar gum ent s , the tr i al courts t at ed: 5 [ T ] hos e tw o coupl ed t ogetherm akes i ta r ace [ / ] gender [
- ] neutr al [ r eas on]
. T he Supr eme C our thas sai d t hati natt ent i venes s al one i s adequa t e t o s tr i ke a j ur or o r i s a n e u tr a l r e a s o n fo r s tr ik in g a ju ro r. S o I’ ll a llo w th a t o n e to s ta n d
. ¶26. T he St at e al s o exer ci s ed a pe r empt ory s tr i ke agai ns tJ ur or13, Barbar a K
. B erry. T he St at e pr ovi ded the f

ol l ow i ng r eas on f

ors tr i ki ng J ur or13: She s t at ed thats he had hear d of a D ef endantH i cks , and w hen s he w as as ked w oul d t hataf

f ectherdeci s i on, s he w as s haki ng he rhe ad no bef or e the ques t i on w as even gott en outof

the ques t i oner ’ s m outh. A nd she a ns w er ed t oo qui ck t o the f actthather– I m ean, she w as notaf f ect ed by – orhervot e w oul d not be aff ect ed b y h er havi ng heard o f H i cks. N ow f orthe r ecor d, 14 i s a bl ack f emal e, 15 i s a bl ack f

emal e, 11 i s a bl ack m al e. S o I have n’tstruck al l blacks. T he def ens e s t at ed thatthe St at e di d nots tr i ke J ur or3, w ho s t at ed thathe knew H i cks , but th e d e fe n se c o u n se l ac k n o w led g e d th a t h e d id n o t re c a ll Ju ro r 3 re sp o n d in g to o q u ick ly to the ques t i oner . T he tr i al courtf ound: 6

### 14

W el l , I thi nk ans w er i ng t oo qui ckl y coul d s how a pr edi s pos i t i on. So I ’ l l gi ve you t he bene f

i tof the doubton that , M r . B ow en, and w i l l l etthe s tr i ke s t and. ¶2 7. “ The tr i a l j ud ge a c t s a s f i nd e ro f f a c twhen a B at

s on i s s ue ar i s es . ” L

y n c h v. S ta te , 877 So. 2d 1254, 1270 ( M i s s . 2004)
. "The r ace neutr al expl anat i ons m us tbe vi ew ed i n t he l i ghtm os tf

avor abl e t o the tr i al court ' s fi nd i ng s. " W a lk e r v . S ta te , 815 So. 2d 1209, 1214 ( M i s s . 2 00 2)
. “ Thi s Courth a s s e to uta n on - e xh a us t i ve l i s to f r a c e - ne utr a l r e a s on s f

ort he
e x e rc is e o f p e re m p to ry c h a lle n g e s : ‘ liv in g in a ‘h ig h c ri m e ’ a re a , body language, dem eanor , pr os ecut or ' s di s trus tof the jur or , i ncons i s t ency be tw een or al r es pons es and j ur or ' s car d,
cr i m i nal hi s t ory of

j ur ororr el at i ve, s oci al w or k and othertypes of empl oym ent , and r el i gi ous beli efs
. ’" Lynch , 877 So. 2d at1271- 72 ( quot i ng W al ker , 8 1 5 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 1 5 ) (e m p h a sis ad d ed ). ¶28
. “Inat t enti ven ess al on e has be en acc epted as a r ace-neutr al expl anati on forthe exerci se of a per empt ory s tr i ke. ” Ho rn e v. S ta te , 825 So. 2d 627, 636 ( M i s s . 2002) ( ci t i ng P u c k e tt
v. S ta te , 788 So. 2d 752, 760 ( M i s s . 2001))
. W hi l e thi s C our thas neverhel d thatans w er i ng t oo qui ckl y i s a r ace - neutr al reas on f ors tr i ki ng a j ur or , the St at e cont ends ans w er i ng t oo qui ckl y i s aki n t o i natt ent i venes s . T hati s , the j ur ori s noti nt er es t ed enough t o al l ow t he ques t i onert o compl et e hi s orherques t i on bef or e ans w er i ng the ques t i on. H er e, the tr i al
courtf ound thatJ uror13' s ans w er i ng t oo qui ckl y coul d i ndi cat e a pr edi s pos i t i on, and the S ta te w a s e n title d to th e b e n e fi t o f t h a t d o u b t. See L ynch , 87 7 S o . 2 d at 12 7 1 -72 (a juro r’s b o d y lan g u a g e a n d d e m e a n o r a re ra c e -n e u tra l re a so n s); see al so W al ker , 815 So. 2d at1215. ¶ 2 9
. T h e re c o rd d e m o n stra tes th a t t h e tr ia l c o u rt m a d e a s in c e re , b o n a fid e e ffo rt to pr oper l y w ei gh and exa m i ne the r ace - neutr al r eas ons pr ovi ded by the St at e. N othi ng i n t he

### 15

r ecor d r evea l s thatthe tr i al cour tabuse d i t s di s cr et i on i n f i ndi ng thatthe St at e pr ovi ded r ace neutr al r eas ons f

ors tr i ki ng J ur or s 12 and 13.

CO NC L US I ON ¶ 3 0
. T h e ju d g m e n t o f t h e C ir c u it C o u rt o f S im p s o n C o u n ty , M is s is s ip p i, is a ff ir m e d
. ¶ 3 1
. CO NVI CTI ON OF POS S ES S I ON OF A FI REARM BY A CO NV I CT ED F EL ON AND S EN TE NCE OF T HREE ( 3 ) YE ARS , AS A HABI TU AL OF F EN DE R, I N TH E C U STO D Y O F T H E M I SSI SSIPP I D EP A R TM EN T O F C O R R EC TIO N S, AF F I RMED . S AI D S E NT E NC E S HA L L NO T B E RE DU CE D O R S U S P E N D E D N OR S HALL THE AP P EL LA NT BE EL I GI BL E F OR P AROL E OR P ROBA TI ON. S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND D I AZ , P . J J . , CARL S ON, DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H AND L AM AR, J J . , CONCUR. GRAVE S , J . , DI S S ENTS W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.