### Go ff also w as convictedof seco nd -deg ree arsonandsenten ced to ten y ears. 1 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 - DP - 0 0 8 1 5 - S CT J OSEPH BI

S HO P GOFF
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 06/ 2005 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. DA LE HA RK EY COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: GEORGE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F CAPI TAL D EFENSE COU NSEL BY : ANDR E DE GR UY ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: OFFI CE O F THE ATTO RN EY G ENER AL BY: P ATRI CK J OSE P H M c NAM ARA M AR VI N L. W HI TE D IS T R IC T A T T O R N E Y : A N T H O N Y N . L A W R E N C E , III NATURE OF THE CAS E: CRI M I NAL - DEATH P ENALT Y - DI REC T AP P E AL D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 05/ 28/ 2009 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: 0 6 / 2 9 / 2 0 0 9 ; DE NI E D AND O P I NI ON M ODI F I E D B Y DE LE T I NG F OOT NOT E 2 4 AND D U PL I C A T E C ITA T I O N S I N ¶153 - 08/ 27/ 2009 M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. J os eph B i s hop G of f w as convi ct ed by the G eor ge C ounty C i r cui t C our t i n the capi t al
m u rd e r o f B ra n d y S tew a rt Y a tes d u rin g th e c o m m iss io n o f a r o b b e ry a n d w a s s e n ten c e d to death by l ethal i nj ect i on. 1

### Go ff identifies eight areas in whichhe co nten ds trial co un sel was in effective. 2 

### 2 ¶ 2
. G o ff ra ise s tw e lv e iss u e s o n a p p e a l: I . T he t ri al court err ed i n fai l i ng t o s upp res s evi dence w hi ch res ul t ed f r om t he unr e as ona bl e s e i z ur e t hat v i ol at e d G of f’ s r i ght s pur s uant t o t he F ourt h A m endm ent t o t he C onst i t ut i on of t he U ni t ed St at es and S ect i on 23 of

t he M i s s i s s i ppi C onst i t ut i on of 1890. I I . T he t ri al court err ed i n perm i t t i ng G of f t o act as hi s ow n at t orney a t tr ia l. III. T h e e v ide n ce in th is ca se is insu ffi cien t to p ro v e th a t G o ff i s g u il ty o f c a p it a l m u r d e r . I V . T he pros ecut or com m i t t ed m i s conduct i n i m proper ques t i oni ng on voi r di re, i m proper openi ng st at em ent on vi ct i m charact er, i m pro pe r c l os i ng a r gum e nt on j ur or “pr om i s e , ” a nd ar gum e nt out s i de t he r e c or d. V . G o ff r e c e iv e d in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l. 2 V I . T he t ri al court err ed by ref usi ng t o gran t a properl y s ubm i t t ed c ir c u m s ta n ti a l- e v id e n c e (t w o -t h e o r y ) i n s tr u c ti o n . V I I . The r e f

us alof t he t r i alco ur t t o g r ant an i ns t r uc t i on e m body i ng t he th e o r y o f d e fe n s e c o n s ti tu te s r e v e r s ib le e r r o r . V I I I . The de at h s e nt e nc e i n t hi s c as e m us t b e vac at e d be c aus e t he i ndi ct m ent f

ai l ed t o charge a deat h- penal t y- el i gi bl e of f ens e. I X . G of

f’ s e xe c ut i on by l e t hali nj e c t i on, unde r t he c ur r e nt M i s s i s s i ppi pr ot oc ol , woul d vi ol at e t he Fi r s t and Ei ght h A m endm e nt s t o t he U ni t e d St at e s C ons t i t ut i on, c or r e s pondi ng pr ov i s i ons of t he M i s s i s s i p p i Co n s t i t u t i o n , a n d s t a t e l a w. X . E rror w as com m i t t ed w hen cert ai n aggravat i ng fact ors w ere s ubm i t t ed t o t he j ury.

### During an Augus t 2, 2004, tel ephoneconver sati on, Brandy infor me d Jam es that

she 3 

### was unhappy, that s he ha d le ft with some one el se , and that s he woul d not becom ing hom e. Pearl B ou lware w as work ing the front-d esk at the motel wh en B randy ch eckedinto 4 

### themotel
. She te stif

ie d that Brandy com

ple te d a r egi strati on for

m and provi ded he r drive r’ s li ce nse , whi ch Boulwar e phot ocopi ed on thebac k of the r egi strati on for m. Boulwarest at ed that s he provide d Brandy with one room ke y. Go ff exp lainedto D etective R onnie L ambert that he raninto Melissa, p ut h er up in 5 

### a m ote l room in Mobil e, and we nt stra ight ba ck to theRoc ky Cree k Inn. De te ctiveLam bert later spo ke w ith M elissa, wh o co nfirmedthat Goff hadput her up in a motel. Melissa also said t hat Goff had gone to thes tore and bought he r s omegroc erie s be for e hele ft . Ac cording to Me li ss a, at

approxim at ely 8:30 p. m. andw hilethe y wer e in thest ore , Gof f r ec ei ved a phone c al l, and ther ea ft er his entire de me anor

changed. 3 X I. T h e se n ten ce o f d ea th is dis p ro p o rtion a te w h en co m p a re d w it h o th e r c a se s in w h ich th e d e a th p e n a lty h a s b e e n im p o se d in M i s s i s s i ppi , t aki ng i nt o c onsi derat i on t he uni que charact eri s t i cs of J o sep h G o ff. X I I . C um ul at i ve er ror r equi res reve rs al of t he convi ct i on and sent ence i n t hi s m at t er. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶3
. O n A ugus t1, 2 00 4, Br a nd y St e w artYat e s l e f th e rh us ba nd o f

e i ghtyear s , J ames Y at es , J r . , a nd thei rtw o young chi l dr en t o tr avel w i th def endantJ os eph G of

f
. B r andy had b e c o m e a c q u a in ted w ith G o ff w h ile w o rk in g a s a w a itres s a t th e B a m a B a rn , a b a r in T heodor e, A l abama. 3 ¶4. O n A ugus t26, 2004, at3: 53 p. m . , B r andy che cked i nt o r oom 121 atR ocky C r eek I nn i n L uceda l e, M i s s i s s i ppi , accompani ed by G of f
. Som et i m e l at eri n the day, af t erthe tw o had 4
an a l t e r c a t i on , Gof

f l e f tthe mot e l a nd tr a ve l e d t o M ob i l e , Al a ba ma, wher e h e metan acqua i nt ance , a w om an by the name of M el i s s a. 5

### PearlBoulware , a deskcl er k at themotel , t es ti fi ed that

Brandy re ce ive d se veral 6 

### te lephone c al ls throughout t he e vening of the t

wenty-s ixt

h. Theca ll er , a

ma le , a ske d Boulwareto ring Brandy’ s room, but i t wasbusy e ac h time . After several call s, theman as ked Boulwar e t o walk to theroom and “s eeif [Brandy] was okay.”Boulwareknocke d on thedoor t wic e, but no oneans wer ed. As s he tur ned t o le ave , Brandy ope ned the door and ac cording t o Boulware , a ppeare d as if

shehad be en c rying. On August

27, Margare t Cl ar

k ide nti fi ed a

ph oto grap h of Goff as being theman 7 

### who had vi si te d thefront de sk the ni ght be for e. 4 ¶5. T hr oughoutthe eve ni ng of the tw enty- si xth, B randy spoke by t el ephone w i t h her hus band J ames num er ous t i m es . A ccor di ng t o J ames, Bra ndy f i r s tc al l ed hi m coll ect b etw ee n 6 :30 an d 7 :30 p . m . D u ri n g this fi rstco n v ersa ti o n , w h ich lasted ab o u t an h o u r, B ran d y told Ja m es th at G o ff ha d slap p ed h er e arli er in the d ay , th at he ha d dro p p ed he r off
a t th e m o tel a n d lef

t, an d th a t sh e w a s a fra id h e w a s g o in g to h u rt h e r. T h e se c o n d c a ll,
w hi ch occ urr ed appr oxi m at el y an houraf t erthe f i r s t , ended a brupt l y, due t o a knock on B r andy’ s door
. T he thi r d cal l , w hich l as t ed aboutone hour , t ook pl ace s hor t l y af t ert he 6
se c o n d c a ll. D u rin g th is th ird c a ll, Ja m e s a n d B ra n d y m a d e p lan s fo r h im to p ick h e r u p e a rly the f ol l ow i ng m orni ng, A ugus t27, 2004. ¶6. A r ound 11: 30 p. m . on A ugus t26, G of f appr oache d the mot el ’ s f r ontdes k and s t at ed 7 thathe and hi s gi r l f

r i end w er e l ocked outof r oom 121. M ar gar etC l ark, a des k cl erk, m ade G of f a key. A boutthr ee mi nut es l at er , G of f r eturned, s t at i ng thathe w as s t i l l unabl e t o get into the roo m . C lark m ad e a s e c o n d k ey . W h en G o ff r eturn ed for the thir d ti m e, C lark i nqui r ed as t o w het heranyone e l s e w as i n the r oom . G of f ans w er ed pos i t i vel y, and s he

### 5

i nf or m ed hi m thatthe r eas on he w as unabl e t o geti nt o the r oom w as thatthe doorw as l ocked f r om the i ns i de. C l ark nevers aw G of f agai n. ¶7. A ccor di ng t o J ames, l at eri n the eve ni ng on the tw enty- s i xth and i n the ea r l y m or ni ng h o u rs of A u g u st 27 , h e tri ed to ca ll B ran d y three ad d it ion a l tim e s, b u t nev er rea ch ed h er. W hen J ames tr i ed t o c al l ar ound m i dni ght , a mal e ans w er ed the phone. B eca us e he di d not
w antt o caus e tr oubl e, J ames hung up. J ames tr i ed tw i ce mor e t o r eac h B r andy ar ound 4: 30 and 5: 30 a. m . on the tw enty- s eventh. W hen he w as unabl e t o re ach B r andy, James cal l ed the f r ontdes k f

oras s i s t ance . T he cl erk i nf or m ed hi m t hatt he t el ephone i n t he r oom w as of f t he hook. ¶8. O n the m orni ng of A ugus t 27, D ee D ee W al l , ow ner of the R ocky C r eek I nn, not i ced
w hatappea r ed t o be f

i r e damage i n r oom 121. W al l us ed the hous ekee pi ng key t o ent erthe
m o tel roo m . U p o n en teri n g the roo m , W all n o ti ce d tha t th e ro o m w as b u rne d an d that there
w as a body l yi ng on the f l oorbetw een the tw o beds
. W al l i m m edi at el y r eturned t o the mot el l obby and ca l l ed 911. ¶9. T he 911 cal l w as r ece i ved at appr oxi m at el y 8: 45 a. m . T he cal l advi s ed of a f i r e and a pos s i bl e body i n a r oom atthe R ocky C r eek I nn. N um er ous of f i cer s r es ponded, i ncl udi ng Ge o r g e Co u n ty S h e r i f

f Ga r y W e l f

o r d , wh o a rr i v e d a ta p p r o x i ma t e l y 8 : 5 5 a . m. ¶10
. D etec ti v e R o n n ie L am b ert, an i nv est i g ator w ith the G eo rge C o u n ty S h eriff’s D e p a rtm e n t, also re sp o n d e d . W h e n D e tec tiv e L a m b e rt a rriv e d o n th e s c e n e a t ap p ro x im a tely 9: 10 a. m . , Sher i f

f W el f or d and thr ee otherdet ect i ves w er e al r eady ther e. T he s cene had not yetbe en s ecur ed, buta de puty w as s t andi ng out s i de the mot el r oom . D et ect i ve Lam bert , t he

### Det ec tive Lambe rt ’s te stim ony indic at ed that, through the a ss is tanceof a uthoritie s 8 

### in Al abama , heobtaine d a phot ogra ph of Gof f at a pproxi mate ly 3: 30 p.m ., wh ich he the n showe d to Cl ar

k. Af te r s he i dentif

ie d thep ersoninth e pic ture a s the indivi dualshesaw travelin g w ith B randy, Detectiv e L ambert contacted th e sheriff’s d epartment disp atcher to haveGoff

ent er ed in theNationa l Crim e Infor mati on Cent er

(NCI C). 6 county cor oner , and anotherdet ect i ve ent er ed t he r oom , phot ogr aphed the sc ene, s ecur ed the
r oom w i th barr i ert ape, and i ns truct ed an of f i cert o st ay out s i de t he r oom t o pre ventanyone el s e f r om ent er i ng. ¶ 1 1
. T h e i n v e s ti g a ti o n c o n ti n u e d th ro u g h o u t th e d a y , a n d a t a p p ro x im a te ly 3 :4 5 p .m ., D et ect i ve Lam bertcont act ed the s her i f f’ s de part m enta nd ha d the di s pat chere nt erG of f and hi s vehi cl e i nt o the s ys t em. D et ect i ve Lam berthad i dent i f i ed the vi ct i m as Bra ndy Y at es 8 bas ed on the r egi s tr at i on m at eri al s f r om the mot el –a copy of B r andy’ s l i cens e w as p h o toco p ied o n the re v erse side o f th e re g istrati o n ca rd– an d h ad lea rne d fro m the m o tel clerk thatB r andy had a r r i ved atthe mot el i n a w hi t e For d M us t ang. ¶12. A r ound 3: 00 p. m . on A ugus t27, and as the i nves t i gat i on cont i nued i n G eor ge C ount y, T r ooperJ as on G i nn of

t he M i s s i s s i ppi H i ghw ay Patr ol s aw a w hi t e For d M us t ang tr avel i ng
w es ton I nt er s t at e 20 nea rV i cks bur g, M i s s i s s i ppi
. T r ooperG i nn not i ced thatthe ca rhad a tem p o ra ry tag , w h ich w a s d e fa c e d
. T ro o p e r G in n , w h o w a s p a rk e d in th e m e d ian , p u lled in to tr af f i c and c aughtup w i th the M us t ang. W hi l e he w as unabl e t o r ead the i s s ui ng s t at e on the t ag, T r oop e rG i nn c ou l d s e e tha tthe e xp i r a t i on da t e w a s A ug us t20 , 20 04
. Bec a us e t he
curr entdat e w as A ugus t27, 2004, i tw as cl earthatthe t ag w as , i n f act , expi r ed.

### 7

¶1 3
. A t th is po int, T roo p er G inn init iat ed a traffi c stop . T h e d ri v er l et do w n the p asse n g ers i de w i ndow , and Troope rG i nn not i ced the s tr ong s m el l of ci gar ett e s m oke, r ed mar ks on th e d riv e r’s n e c k , an d th a t th e v e h icle w a s “ tra sh e d ” o n th e in sid e . T h e d riv e r sta ted to T rooper G i nn that he w as on a “ spi ri tual experi ence” and travel i ng t o T exas. ¶1 4. C oncerned by t hi s s t r ange r es pons e a nd h i s o bs e r va t i on s o f the d r i ve rand t he condi t i on of

the vehi cl e, T r ooperG i nn as ked f ora dr i ver ’ s l i cens e, as w el l as r egi s tr at i on f or the vehi cl e, bot h of

w hi ch w er e pr ovi ded. T r ooperG i nn r eturned t o hi s veh i cl e w i t h the lice n se a n d p a p e rw o rk , co n tac ted th e d isp a tch e r in J a c k so n , a n d re q u e ste d a c h e c k to se e if the l i cens e w as val i d. U pon r eturni ng t o hi s pat rol car , T r ooperG i nn not i ced the odorof g a s o l i n e o n th e d o c u me n t s p r o v i d e d
. Tr o o p e rGi n n a g a i n c o n t a c t e d th e d i s p a t c h e r , th i s t i me t o i nqui r e w hetherthe dr i ver , by thi s t i m e i dent i f i ed as J os eph G of

f , had a c r i m i nal r ecor d. ¶15. T r ooperG i nn cal l ed f orbackup. W hi l e he w as i n hi s carw ai t i ng f orthe di s pat cher t o r es pond, T r ooperH enl ey arr i ved. T r ooperG i nn i nf or m ed Troope rH enl ey of w hathe had obs erved, a nd s ugges t ed thatTr ooperH enl ey s peak w i th G of f
. T r ooperH enl ey di d s o, and T ro o p e r H e n ley re lay e d to T ro o p e r G in n th a t G o ff h a d to ld h im th a t h e h a d a p p ro x im a tely $3, 000 i n cas h on hi m , t hathe w as a convi ct ed f el on, and t hathe had j us tbeen r el eas ed f r om pr i s on f ors hoot i ng s om eone. ¶16. A f

t ers peaki ng w i t h t he dis patcher, an d aft erbei ng i nf or m ed of

the conver s at i on be tw e e n Tr oo pe rHenl e y a nd Gof f , Tr oo pe rGi nn r e turne d t o G of f’ s v e hi c l e a nd as ked
w hetherG of

f had any s t ol en m er chandi s e, w eapons , ordrugs i n the vehi cl e. G of f r es ponded th a t h e d id n o t.

### 8

¶1 7. T r ooperG i nn t hen r eques t e d a nd r e c e i ve d pe r mi s s i on t o s e a r c h G of f’ s vehi cl e. S h o rtly a fte r th e s e a rc h b e g a n , a n d b e fo re th e s e a rc h w a s c o m p lete , T ro o p e r H e n ley h a d to l eave the s cene t o as s i s ti n anothertr af f i c s t op. B eca use se ar ches ar e notconduct ed w hen onl y one of

f i ceris o n t he sce ne, T r ooperG i nn expl ai ned t o G of f thatthe s ear ch w oul d be del ayed. ¶18. D ur i ng thi s appr oxi m at el y f i f t een- m i nut e i nt erm i s s i on ( w hi l e another of f i cer w as en
rou te t o the s ce n e), T roo p er G inn an d G o ff co n ti n u ed to co n v erse . T roo p er G inn ask ed G o ff
w h y th e p a p e rw o rk sm e lled lik e g a so lin e , to w h ich G o ff re sp o n d e d tha t he k e p t a g a s c a n in th e b a c k o f th e c a r in c a se h e ra n o u t o f g a s. D u rin g th is re sp o n se , G o ff a lso m e n tio n e d h is g irlfrien d , w h ich p ro m p ted T ro o p e r G in n to a sk “ w e ll, w h e re ’s sh e a t n o w ? ” A t th is p o in t, G of f’ s ent i r e dem eanorchanged–goi ng fr om t al kat i ve t o very qui et . G of f r es ponded thathe had “l os t ” heri n L uceda l e. G of f expl ai ned thatthe day be f or e, he and hi s gi r l f

r i end had
s t op ped in L uceda l e and c hecke d i nt o a mot el r oom , butthataf t erthey had gott en i nt o a f i ght , he had l ef

t . T r ooperG i nn t hen as ked G of f , “[ w ] el l , ar en’ tyou goi ng t o go back a nd pi ck herup?” G of

f neverr es ponded. Puzzl ed, and conc erned thatG of f’ s gi r l f r i end mi ght be i nj ur ed, T r ooperG i nn cont act ed the aut hori t i es i n s outhern M i s s i s s i ppi t o det erm i ne
w h ethe r th ey w ere sea rch ing for G o ff. ¶19. A f

t erT r ooperG i nn l earned f r om the G eor ge C ounty Sher i f f’ s O f f i ce thatG of

f w as a per s on of

i nt er es ti n the murde rof B r andy, he putG of

f unde rarr es t . I n al l , the tr af f i c s t op last ed just l ess th an o n e h o u r.

### Detectiv e Lamb ert testified th at this statement stoo d o ut to h im, b ecause 9 

### inve stigator s di d not know f or s eve ra l hours how the organs wer e r em oved f rom Brandy’s body– “[ W] e had no i dea at that tim e that

thos e l arge organs and inte stine s ha d bee n re move d from t

hat hole–unti l m

uch l ater that

night when the body wa s a ct

ual ly rem oved from th e scene.” 9 ¶2 0
. A ft er be ing i n form ed of G o ff’ s arrest, S h eriff W e lfo rd se n t tw o in v e stig a to rs to V icks b u rg to retr ieve G o ff an d his ve h icl e. E arly o n th e m o rnin g on A u g u st 28 , 2 0 0 4 , G o ff
arr i ved att he G eor ge C ount y S her i f f’ s D epart m ent . U pon arr i val , G of f w as gi ven Mir anda
w a rn in g s a n d th e re a ft e r i n te rv ie w e d b y D e te c tiv e L a m b e rt . Mir anda v. Ari z ona , 38 4 U. S. 4 3 6 , 8 6 S
. C t. 1 6 0 2 , 1 6 L . E d
. 2 d 6 9 4 (19 6 6 ). ¶21. D ur i ng thi s i nt ervi ew , G of f e xpl ai ned thatthe m arks on hi s body had bee n i nf l i ct ed by B r andy dur i ng a phys i cal al t er cat i on thathad occ urr ed s hor t l y af t erthey a rr i ved att he
m ot el , dur i ng w hi ch he ha d s l apped he ron the hea d. G off i ndi cat ed thatthe al t er cat i on began w i th hi m acc us i ng B r andy of bei ng s exual l y unfa i thf ul t o hi m and notw ant i ng t o be
w i th hi m anym or e. A ccor di ng t o G of f , af t ert he al t er cat i on, he l ef t . U pon r eturni ng t o t he
m ot el l at erthatni ght , the f i r s tthi ng G of

f not i ced w hen he ope ned the mot el r oom doorw as a not e w r i t t en by B r andy. I tw as notunt i l af t erhe had s hutthe doorbehi nd hi m thathe
n o t i c e d a “ s me l l
. ” Go f

f p r o c e e d e d t o d e s c r i b e t h e s c e n e a n d t h e s t a t e o f Br a n d y ’ s b o d y . He stat ed that b o d y “w as m u ti lat ed , . . . th e fac e an d ev ery thing crus h ed i n . ” In p arti cu lar, G o ff
s ai d thati t“l ooked l i ke s om eone ha d r eac hed i n thr ough a hol e i n he rc hes ta nd pul l ed out all h er o rga n s an d slun g them all o v er the roo m . ” A ft er h e fo u n d B ran d y ’s bo d y , G o ff 9 p ro c e e d e d to lie o n to p o f h e r b o d y fo r o v e r a n h o u r a n d “ ju st [h o ld ] he r.” H e sta ted , “I la id

### 10

there an d h el d her .
. . ki ssed herhead and everything el se . . . befor e I got up . ” G o ff
e x p lain e d th a t h e th e n b e c a m e w o rrie d th a t h e w o u ld b e c o n sid e re d a su sp e c t. “S o I s to le
everythi ng outof

the r oom thatm i ghthave had my fi ngerpr i nt s on i tand w i ped the r oom dow n, ”he s ai d. G of

f s ai d he then pl ace d the i t ems i ns i de hi s ve hi cl e. H e then bac ked the ca r
u p to the fron t of th e ro o m , g rab b ed a p air of w h it e g lov es th at he h ad w ith h im in the ca r, al ong w i th a ga s c an. G of f s ai d he w entback i nt o the r oom , “pour ed the gas , thr ew the ca n
a n d se t ito n fire [,] ” a n d th e n lef t. ¶22. A G eor ge C ounty gr and j ury handed do w n a tw o- count i ndi ctm ent agai ns t G of f on O ct ober19, 2004, char gi ng hi m w i th capi t al m ur der , w i th the under l ying fel ony bei ng
r obbery, and s econd- degr ee a r s on. A thi s arr ai gnm enton N ovember30, 2004, G of f pl eade d notgui l ty t o both char ges . A tpr etr i al he ar i ngs on A pr i l 7, 2005, the courthear d num er ous def ens e mot i ons , i ncl udi ng s ever al m ot i ons t o s uppr es s and a mot i on t o quas h. ¶ 2 3
. O n M o n d a y , M a y 2 , 2 0 0 5 , ju ry se lec tio n b e g a n in th e G e o rg e C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt, C i r cui tJ udge D al e H arkey pr es i di ng. ¶ 2 4
. A fte r th e ju ry h a d b e e n e m p a n e le d , G o ff in fo rm e d th e ju d g e th a t h e w o u ld lik e to “exe r ci s e [ hi s ] cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o r epr es ent[ hi m s el f ] ” and pr ocee d pro s e. T he tr i al j udge th o ro u g h ly ex a m in e d G o ff to en su re tha t he w a s k n o w in g ly , in tellig e n tly , a n d v o lu n tar ily
w ai vi ng hi s r i ghtt o couns el
. T he tr i al j udge ul t i m at el y det erm i ned thatG of f w as compet ent to w aive h is r igh t t o co u n sel, b u t cau ti o n ed G o ff th at he w as “ ask ing to rep rese n t [ h im self] attr i al on the mosts er i ous f el ony cr i m e thatcan be com m i t t ed” a nd thatG of f w oul d be p lace d at a “se ri o u s disad v an tage ” b y pro ce ed ing pro se. T h e jud g e the n au tho ri ze d G o ff’ s

### Dee n and McNal ly we repri vat ely re taine d by Goff ’s mot her , Le ss ieGoff

. 10 

### 11 a tto rn e y s, Je ff D e e n a n d S c o tt M c N a lly , to a c t as c o -c o u n se l, an d d ire c ted th e m to re m a in and pr ovi de G of

f w i th “any s uppor t , ass i s t ance , and advi ce thatyou deem s uf f i ci entt o s eek fr o m th e m .” 10 ¶2 5 . D r. S teph en H ay n e p erfo rm ed the a u top sy an d d eterm ined that the c au se o f B ran d y ’s d ea th w as fo u r sl ash w o u n d s to the n ec k , w h ich c u t th rou g h tw o m ajor b loo d v esse ls, the left j ugul arvei n and the l ef tcomm on car ot i d art ery. ¶26. I n addi t i on t o the l et hal sl ash w ounds , D r . H ayne f ound thatB r andy had s uf f er ed
num er ous otheri nj ur i es , i ncl udi ng ga pi ng w ounds i nf l i ct ed by bl unt - f

or ce tr auma overt he rig h t fa c ial a re a , the fro n t su rfa c e o f th e n e c k , an d th e rig h t-m id d le -t o -lo w e r c h e st w a ll. N u m e ro u s b o n e f

ra c tu re s w e re p re se n t in th e fa c ial a re a , the rig h t ch e st w a ll, a n d th e rib
c a g e . B ra n d y ’s te e th w e re k n o c k e d o u t. F ra g m e n ts o f c h a rr e d to o th p ick s w e re lo c a ted in the n ec k an d fac ial are a. A sm all sil v er m etal screw an d tw o p iece s o f splintered w o o d w ere
re m o v e d fr o m B ra n d y ’s s c a lp h a ir. O rg a n s, in c lu d in g p o rtio n s o f th e sm a ll an d lar g e b o w e ls and the s pl een, had bee n t orn outof B r andy’ s body vi a the hol e i n herches t . C harr i ng i nj ur i es w er e pr es entoverthe ent i r e body. ¶27
. T he j ury al so heard the t est i m on y o f tw o M i ssi ssi pp i C ri m e L abo rat ory i nv est i gator s. St acy Smi th, f

or ens i c sci ent i s tw i th the M i s s i s s i ppi C r i m e Lab, arr i ved atthe mot el at appr oxi m at el y 1: 00 p. m . on A ugus t27, 2004. U pon ent er i ng the mot el r oom , I nves t i gat or Sm i th not i ced thata l ayerof s ootc over ed the ent i r e r oom , thatthe curt ai ns , beds , l amps, and

### The ve hic lewas se cur ed wi th e vide ncet ape , whic h wa s initia le d by theoff ic er who 11 

### escortedthe v ehicle fro m Vick sburg to Lu cedale. Investig ator S mith b rok e the seal. Th e no te stated “Jo seph , went to see k ids. B e backsoo n.” 12 

### 12 fl oo r w er e damaged, a nd thatthe vi ct i m ’ s f eetw er e vi s i bl e on the f l oorbe tw een the b eds. Th e v i c t i m’ s o r g a n s a l s o we r e l y i n g o n th e f l o o rth r o u g h o u tth e r o o m. ¶28
. Physi cal evidence recov ered du ri ng Inve s t i gat orSm i th’ s s ear ch of the cr i m e s cene and late r in tro d u c e d a t trial in c lu d e d a p ill o w w ith o u t a p ill o w c a se , a b a g o f to o th p ick s a s w e ll
as t oothpi cks l yi ng i n the r oom , a gas can, a pac k of ci gar ett es , a met al dr aw ertr ack w hi ch app eared t o co ntai n b l oo dy fi ng erpr i nts , t i ssue and blood, and t w o w hit e, tw o-holed bu t t on s. N um er ou s ph otogr aphs of the mot el r oom t aken by I nves t i gat orSm i th al s o w er e admi t t ed i nt o evi dence and pr es ent ed t o t he j ury. ¶ 2 9
. In ad d iti o n to c o n d u c tin g the inv e stig a tio n o f th e m o tel ro o m , In v e s tig a to r S m ith
se a rc h e d G o ff’s v e h icle
. F o u n d o n th e p a ss e n g e r s e a t w a s a b lu e -fla n n e l sh irt, u n d e rn e a th 11
w hi ch w as f

ound a w hi t e pi l l ow cas e. I ns i de the pi l l ow case w as a s hi r t , a pi ece of w ood cont ai ni ng w hatappea r ed t o be bl oo d and ti ss ue, and an Econol odge not epad c ont ai ni ng a
n o te f rom B ran d y . O n th e p asse n g er-side fl o o rbo ard , a ba seb all cap , tw o sho es, a w h ite

12 g lov e c o n tai n ing red d ish stains, an d an em p ty p izza b o x w ere fou n d
. T h e b o tt o m o f th e left
s hoe appe ar ed t o have bl ood and t i s s ue l ocat ed betw een the tr eads
. A l s o r ecove r ed f r om G of f’ s vehi cl e w as a pl as t i c tr ash b ag, w hi ch cont ai ned ci gar ett e butt s , pi zza crus t , and a p ink -co lored b lade -gu ard from a d ispo sab le razo r.

### 13

¶30. W i th r egar d t o the s hi r t f ound i ns i de the pi l l ow cas e, I nves t i gat or Sm i th t es t i f i ed that ther e w as a l ar ge amountof a “r eddi s h subs t ance , w hatappear s t o be bl ood” on the f r ontof the s hi r t , and thatthe bac k of the s ame s hi r tc ont ai ned s m al l ers t ai ns of w hatal s o appea r ed t o be bl ood. I nves t i gat orSm i th not ed thatthe s hi r tw as m i s s i ng f ourw hi t e, tw o- hol ed b u t t o n s , wh i c h a p p e a r e d t o b e th e s a me a s th e b u t t o n s r e c o v e r e d f r o m th e mo t e l r o o m. ¶ 3 1
. A lso re c o v e re d fro m th e v e h icle w a s a w o m a n ’s w a llet, w h ich In v e stig a to r S m ith sa id
w as f ound i n the ar ea of

the cons ol e. T he w al l et , w hi ch w as r emoved f r om the vehi cl e and
r el eas ed t o the i nves t i gat oron the s cene , cont ai ned B r andy’ s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e, hers oci al
s ecur i ty car d, phot os of herchi l dr en 

### , the ch ildren ’s birthcertificates, their med icaid card s, her soc ia l se curit

y c ard, a carrot- cake r ec ipe, and $509 in ca sh ( te n fi fty-dol lar bi ll s, a f ive , andtwo on es), andtwo do llars in quarters. ¶ 3 2
. P a i g e Bo wl u s , a f o r e n s i c b i o l o g i s t a t th e M i s s i s s i p p i Cr i me La b , e x a mi n e d th e i t e ms of phys i cal e vi dence s ei zed i n an att empt t o l ocat e pos s i bl e bi ol ogi cal m at er i al and t o col l ect and pr es erve s uch mat er i al s o t hatD N A anal ys i s coul d be per f or m ed. ¶33. U pon a vi s ual exami nat i on of the met al tr ack, I nves t i gat orB ow l us not i ced a r eddi s hbr ow n s t ai n. She c ol l ect ed the s t ai n, t es t ed i tand i dent i f i ed i tas hum an bl ood. I nves t i gat or B ow l us s w abbed the r i ghts hoe r ecove r ed f r om G of f’ s ve hi cl e, a nd i ta l s o w as i dent i f i ed as hum an bl ood. I nves t i gat orB ow l us t es t i f i ed t hat , w hi l e s he vi s ual l y had exa m i ned the tr ead
o f th e l e f ts h o e a n d n o t i c e d th a ti twa s c a k e d wi th a t i s s u e - l i k e s u b s t a n c e a n d r e d d i s h
- b r o wn
s t ai ns , she had nott es t ed i ts o as t o l eave the i m pr es s i on of the s hoe pr i ntundi s turbed. She al s o not ed t hatt he shi r tre cover ed f r om G of f’ s vehi cl e w as “sa tur at ed w i th st ai ns , ” and s t at ed

### De t e c t i veLambe rt t e s t i f i e d th at th eo ri g in a lre qu e s t

f o r DNAt e s t i ngwa s wi thdr awn 13 

### oncehede te rm ine d that

Gof f was in the mot elroom

and that Goff had l ain on top of

Brandy. Jame s s tate d that he and Brandy ha d “di sa gre em ent s and argume nts ;”howeve r, he 14 

### testified th at theydidno t eng age in“physical fig htin g.” The j udge s ent enc ed Gof f to te n year s upon his convi ction by t he j ury f or s ec ond- 15 

### degr eear son. 14 thatthe m any patt erns of br ow n a nd r ed on t op of e ach otheri ndi cat ed the pr es ence of t i s s ue and coa gul at ed bl ood. ¶ 3 4
. N o D N A tes tin g w a s p e rfo rm e d o n a n y o f th e e v id e n c e , an d th e tes tin g c o n d u c ted d id noti dent i f

y the s our ce of

the bl ood. 13 ¶3 5 . D u rin g th e tria l, G o ff p re se n ted e v id e n c e im p lying that Jam es h ad trav e led to L uceda l e and ki l l ed hi s w i f e. G of f soughtt o el i ci tt es t i m ony f r om J ames thathe and Bra ndy had a hi s t ory of

dom es t i c vi ol ence and t hatt he pol i ce had bee n cal l ed t o t hei rr es i dence on atl eas tone occ as i on. 14 ¶36. O n M ay 5, 2 00 5, the j ury fou nd G off g ui l ty on both count s –capi t al m ur der and
s econd- degr ee a r s on. ¶37. O n M ay 6, 2005, the tr i al court conduct ed a s epar at e s ent enci ng hear i ng, as r equi r ed i n capi t al cas es . A s proof of aggr avat i ng fa ct or s , t he St at e pr es ent ed evi dence thatG of f had 15 b ee n co n v ict ed o f prior v iolen t cri m es, i n clud ing seco n d -de g ree assa u ltan d disch arg e o f a g u n in an o cc u p ied b u il d ing an d v e h icl e; th at G o ff’ s ac t of sett ing the m o tel o n fi re know i ngl y had cr eat ed a gr eatr i s k of death t o m any per s ons ; thatthe capi t al of f ens e had been c om m i t t ed w hi l e enga ged i n the comm i s s i on of the cr i m e of

r obbery; thatG of

f had

### 15

comm i t t ed the capi t al of f ens e t o avoi d a l aw f

ul arr es t ; and thatthe capi t al of f ens e had be en
e sp e c ially h e in o u s, a tro c io u s, a n d c ru e l. ¶3 8
. Init ial ly, G o ff directed h is co u n sel n o t t o p rese n t m it igation ev iden ce to the jury
. G o ff eventual l y change d hi s m i nd, how ever , and def ens e couns el pr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e tha tG of f had h a d a tu m u ltu o u s c h ild h o o d ; th a t G o ff w a s th e c h ild o f a n in c e stu o u s re latio n sh ip ; th a t, des pi t e hi s aver age i nt el l i gence , G of f s uf f er ed f r om s er i ous ment al i l l nes s ; and thatG of f had been s uf f er i ng f r om a ps ychot i c epi s ode w hen he ki l l ed B r andy. ¶3 9. A tt he conc l us i on of t he s e nt e nc i ng pha s e, t he j ur y f ound t hatt he f

ol l ow i ng aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s exi s t ed: ( 1) G of f pr evi ous l y w as convi ct ed of a f el ony i nvol vi ng the us e orthr eatof

vi olence t o the per s on; ( 2) G of f know i ngl y had cr eat ed a gr eatr i s k of death t o m any per s ons ; ( 3) the capi t al of f ens e had been comm i t t ed w hi l e G of f w as engage d i n the comm i s s i on of

a r obbery; ( 4) the capi t al o ff ense had be en comm i t t ed t o avoi d or pr eventl aw f

ul ar r es t ; and (5) t he capi t al off ens e had be en es peci al l y hei nous , atr oci ous , and
cruel
. T he j ury f

ound thatG of

f s houl d be s ent ence d t o death. ¶40. G o f

f ’ s po st -tri al “M oti on for Judg m ent N otw i t hst and i ng the V er di ctor , i n the A ltern a tiv e , fo r a N e w T ria l” w a s d e n ied o n Ju n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 5 . G o ff n o w ap p e a ls to th is C o u rt, in fo rm a p a u p e ris, re p re se n ted b y th e M iss iss ip p i O ffic e o f C a p ital D e fe n se C o u n se l. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶ 4 1
. Co n v i c t i o n s f

o r c a p i t a l mu r d e r a r e r e v i e we d u n d e r a h e i g h t e n e d s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w.

“ T h e s tan d a rd fo r th is C o u rt' s re v iew o f a n a p p e a l fro m a c a p ital m u rd e r c o n v ictio n a n d d e a th
s ent ence i s abundant l y cl ear . O n appea l t o thi s C our t , convi ct i ons upon i ndi ctm ent s f or

### 16

ca p it al m u rde r and sen tenc es o f dea th m u st be su b jected to ‘h eigh tene d scru ti n y . ’ L oden v. S ta te , 971 So. 2 d 54 8, 562 ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng B a lfo u r v . S ta te , 598 So. 2d 731, 739 ( M i s s . 1992) )
. U nderthi s st andar d of r evi ew , al l doubt s ar e t o be r es ol ved i n f avorof t he
a c c u se d , b e c a u se “ w h a t m a y b e h a rm les s e rro r in a c a se w ith les s a t sta k e b e c o m e s re v e rsib le
err orw hen the pena l ty i s death. ” Id
. ( quot i ng Ir v in gv. S ta te , 3 61 S o. 2d 13 60 , 13 63 (M i ss. 1 9 7 8 )). DI S CU S S I ON I . F ai l ure t o Sup pres s E vi dence R es ul t i ng f rom t he Sei z ure ¶4 2
. G o ff co n tend s tha t the traffi c stop w h ich led t o his arrest con sti tuted an il lega l seizu re underthe Four th A m endmentt o the U ni t ed St at es Const i tut i on, and ther ef or e, al l evi dence
c o l l e c t e d th e r e f

r o m s h o u l d h a v e b e e n s u p p r e s s e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t . I n p a r t i c u l a r , Go f f c l a i ms thatthe s t op of

hi s vehi cl e by Troope rG i nn w as i m proper, thatthe l ength of hi s det ent i on
w as unr eas onabl e, and thatthe cons entt o s ear ch w as i nval i d. A . P roce dural bar ¶ 4 3
. G o ff, th ro u g h c o u n s e l, su b m itt e d n u m e ro u s p re trial m o tio n s, in c lu d in g a m o tio n to
su p p ress all ev iden ce retri ev ed fr o m G o ff’ s ve h icl e. A t the c o n clus ion of th e e v ide n ti ary h e a rin g , the trial ju d g e d e n ied G o ff’s m o tio n , fin d in g th a t all e v id e n c e g e n e ra ted a s a re su lt of t he t r af f i c st op w as adm i s s i bl e. A tt r i al , G of f di d notr enew hi s obj ect i on t o the admi s s i on of any evi dence t aken f

r om hi s vehi cl e.

### The St at e points out t hat Goff , in fa ct , of

fe re d to s tipulateto t

he a dmissib ility of 16 

### the items at trial. 17 ¶ 4 4
. T h e S tate re sp o n d s th a t th is c h a llen g e is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d d u e to G o ff’s fa ilu re to
c h a llen g e th e a d m iss ib ili ty o f th e e v id e n c e w h e n o ffe re d a t trial. 16 ¶45. W hi l e G of

f di d not obj ect t o the admi s s i on of any evi dence t aken f r om hi s vehi cl e at trial, w e fin d th a t th e p re trial p ro c e e d in g s w e re su ffic ien t to p re se rv e th e iss u e fo r a p p e a l. ¶46. T hi s C our t has hel d that a def endant ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne r egar di ng the i ntr oduct i on of
e v id e n c e p ro p e rl y p re s e rv e d th e is s u e fo r a p p e a l, a n d a n o b je c tio n w a s n o t n e c e s s a ry . K e ttl e
v. S ta te , 641 S o. 2 d 74 6, 7 48 ( M i s s . 1994)
. “W hi l e i tw oul d have be en pr ef er abl e, and by farthe saferpract i ce forK et t l e t o hav e r enew ed his object i on , w e f i nd the err or i n thi s case
w as s uf f i ci ent l y pr es erved by l anguage of the mot i on i n l i m i ne, w hi ch the courtoverrul ed

. . . . ” Id
. T he K

ettle opi ni on then quot ed w i th a ppr oval the expl anat i on of the rul e gi ven by the C ol or ado Supr eme C our ti n U ptain v. Huntington L ab. , I nc. : P re se n tat io n o f iss u e s b y m e a n s o f m o tio n s in lim in e o ffe rs o p p o rtu n iti e s to e x p e d ite tria ls, e lim inate b en c h c o n fe re n c e s, a v o id ju ro r a n n o y a n c e a n d p e rm it m o re a c c u ra te r u lin g s . . . . W h e n , as h e re , a s p e c if ic e v id e n tiary iss u e is pr es ent ed t o the tr i al co urtin adva nce of tr i al , the pr i m ary purpos es of the c o n tem p o ra n e o u s o b

jec tio n ru le–to p erm itthe tri al c o u rt to a c c u ra tely e v a lu a te the l egal i s s ues and t o enabl e the appe l l at e courtt o appr ehend the bas i s of the obj ect i on –are s at i s f

i ed. R equi r i ng an addi t i onal f or m al obj ect i on and rul i ng i n a l l c as es w oul d unde r m i ne the benef i t s pr ovi ded by the m ot i on in l i m i ne pr ocedur e. W e conc l ude thatunderthe ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e, w her e the i s s ue of the admi s s i bi l i ty of

the s peci f

i c evi dence w as f

ul l y a r gued atthe tr i al courton the s ame gr ounds a r gued by the non- pr evai l i ng party on appea l , the p la in tif f’ s m o tio n in lim in e c o n s titu te d a tim e ly o b je c tio n . . . . Id
. ( quot i ng U

p ta in , 7 2 3 P .2 d 1 3 2 2 , 1 3 3 0 -3 1 (C o lo . 1 9 8 6 )); s ee al s o L a c y v. S ta te , 700 So. 2 d 6 0 2 , 6 0 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ).

### 18

B . O n th e m er it s ¶4 7. T he st andar d of r evi ew fort he suppr es s i on of e vi de nc e i s a bu s e of di s cr et i on. Ch a m b e r lin v. S ta te, 989 So. 2d 320, 336 ( M i ss. 20 08 ) ( ci t i ng Mis s . T r ansp. Com m ’n v. McL em ore , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 3 1 , 3 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 )). ¶4 8. A t r af

f i c s t op may c on s t i tut e a s ei zur e undert he Four t h A m endment w hen a “r eas onabl e per s on w oul d hav e bel i eved thathe w as notf r ee t o l eave . ” U

nited States v. Me n de n h a ll , 4 4 6 U .S . 5 4 4 , 5 5 4 , 1 0 0 S . C t. 18 7 0 , 6 4 L . E d . 2 d 4 9 7 (1 9 8 0 ). “A n a u to m o b ile
s t op i s . . . s ubj ectt o the const i tut i onal i m per at i ve thati tnotbe ‘ unr eas onabl e’ undert he circu m stan ce s. A s a ge n era l m att er, the d ec isi o n t o stop an au tom o b il e is reas o n ab le w h ere the pol i ce ha ve pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve thata tr af f i c vi ol at i on has occurr ed. ” W hre n v. U nited States , 517 U
. S. 806, 810, 116 S. C t . 1769, 135 L
. E d. 2d 89 (1996) ( ci t i ng D elaw are
v. P rou se , 4 4 0 U .S . 6 4 8 , 6 5 9 , 9 9 S . C t. 13 9 1 , 5 9 L . E d . 2 d 6 6 0 (1 9 7 9 ); P en n sylvan i a v. Mimms , 434 U . S. 106, 109, 98 S. Ct
. 330, 54 L . Ed. 2d 331 ( 197 7))
. T he const i tut i onal
r eas onabl enes s of

a tr af f i c s t op does notdepend on the actual mot i vat i ons of the i ndi vi dual
o ff ic e rs in v o lv e d
. W

hre n , 517 U
. S. at813. ¶49. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t has hel d that “the ques t i on w hether a cons ent t o a
s ear ch w as i n fa ct‘vol unt ary’ or w as t he pr oductof dur es s orcoer ci on, expr es s ori m pl i ed, is a q u e s tio n o f f

a c t to b e d e te rm in e d fr o m th e to ta lit y o f a ll th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s .” S c h n e c k lo th v. B u stam o n te , 4 1 2 U . S
. 2 1 8 , 2 2 7 , 9 3 S
. C t. 2 0 4 1 , 3 6 L . E d
. 2 d 8 5 4 (19 7 3 ). T h is C o u rt a d o p te d th a t f e d e ra l s ta n d a rd
. J

a c kso n v. S ta te , 41 8 S o. 2d 82 7, 83 0 (M i ss. 1982)
. “A s a cons equenc e of adopt i ng the vol unt ar i nes s t es tf orcons ents ear ches , t he

### In suppor t of his argum ent

that the al le ged c onse nt t o se arch wa s inval id, Goff ci te s 17 

### Penick v . St ate and Longst

reet v. Sta te . In Penick , this C ourt stated th at “the b est wayto provea de fe ndant

had knowl edgehe di d not haveto conse nt to thesearc h is for theoff ic er to have t old him. ” Penick , 44 0 S o. 2 d 5 47 , 55 0 (Miss. 1 98 3). H ow ever, n either th is Co urt, no r the UnitedStates S up re me C o urt, h as heldthat anofficer mu st adv ise a susp ect of h is cons ti tutiona l ri ght to re fus e t o cons ent . In Longst reet, this Court

st at ed that

when a se arch “is basedoncon sent alo ne, it is n ecessary that the perso n search ed b e aware o f the rig ht to re fus e unde r the l aw

. ” Longst

reet, 59 2 S o. 2 d 1 6, 1 9 (M iss. 199 1). We findthat Penick is merely adviso ry, an d th at Lo ng street is ina

ppli ca blein thi s c as e, as these arch wa s not “basedoncon sent alo ne.”
19 [U n ited S tate s S u p re m e ] C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t ‘w h ile th e su b jec t’s k n o w led g e o f a rig h t to
r ef us e i s a f act ort o be t aken i nt o a ccount , the pr os ecut i on i s notr equi r ed t o demonstr at e s uch know l edge a s a pr er equi s i t e t o es t abl i s hi ng a volunt ary co ns ent . ’ T hati s , cons entm ay be
e sta b lish e d w ith o u t a s h o w in g th a t th e p o lice w a rn e d th e c o n se n tin g p a rty o f h is F o u rth A m endmentr i ght s orthathe w as otherw i s e aw ar e of thos e r i ght s . ” J

o n e s v . S ta te ex r e l. Miss . D e p 't o f P u b . S a

fe ty , 607 So. 2d 23, 27 ( M i s s . 1991) ( quot i ng S c h n e c k lo th , 41 2 U. S.
a t 2 4 9 ); s ee al

s o L og a n v. S ta te , 7 7 3 S o . 2 d 3 3 8 , 3 4 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 ); G ra v e s v . S ta te , 708 So. 2 d 8 5 8 , 8 6 3 -64 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). 17 ¶5 0
. A t th e su p p ression h ea ri n g in the ca se su b jud ice, T roo p er G inn testi fi ed tha t w h ile
o n p a tro l o n A u g u st 2 7 , 2 0 0 4 , h e h a d o b se rv e d a v e h icle tra v e lin g w e stb o u n d o n In ter sta te 2 0 in W a rre n C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i. A c c o rd in g to T ro o p e r G in n , afte r n o ticin g th a t th e v e h icle had a t empora r y t ag, w hi ch appe ar ed t o have be en al t ered an d w hich w as expi r ed, he had i ni t i at ed the s t op. ¶51. A r out i ne tr af

f i c s t op f oran expi r ed t ag l ed t o otherf i ndi ngs w hi ch j us t i f

i ed f ur ther i nqui ry. Such f

i ndi ngs i ncl uded the r ed mar ks on G of f’ s neck, the app ear ance of t he

### Go f f , h i m s e l f , a dm i tt e d duri ngthes up pre s s i onh e ari ngthat thet a g wa s inde ed 18 

### expire d. Gof

f’ s l ic ense came back as being val id. Howeve r, Troope r Ginn was inf orm ed that Gof f ha d a l engthy crim ina l his tor y, e. g., “hehad multipl e br eaking and ent ering c harges showing on his crim ina l hi story, me nac ing, st ole n prope rt y charge s, as sa

ult , and charge s involving a

fire ar m. ” The dis pat che r al so inf orm ed Trooper

Ginn that

the y coul d not f

ind any r ec ord on f

il e of theMust ang Gof

f wa s driving. Tro op er Ginn testified that he hadrequestedp ermissionto searchG off’s v ehicle 19 

### bas ed on the c ondition of thete mporar

y ta g, the f

ac t t hat no re cord exi st ed f

or the ve hic le , thela rgeam ount of

c as h in Gof

f’ s pos se ss ion, thefa ct

that Gof f wa s de stine d for

Texa s, and Go ff’s demean or ingen eral. 20 v eh icl e’s interior, the s m ell o f ga so li n e, an d the u n u su al resp o n ses p rov ided b y G o ff. G o ff 18 to ld T ro o p e r G in n th a t h e d id n o t w o rk a n d th a t “ h e w a s o n a s p ir itu a l e x p e ri e n c e .” ¶52. T r ooper G i nn as ked G of f i f he had any drugs , w eapons , or s t ol en m er chandi s e i n t he vehi cl e. G of

f r es ponded thathe di d not
. T r ooperG i nn then pr oceeded t o r eques t , and
r ece i ve, cons entt o s ear ch G of f’ s vehi cl e. T he t ot al i ty of the s ear ch of

G of f’ s vehi cl e by 19 T r ooperG i nn cons i s t ed of openi ng a ca r t on of

ci gar ett es as w el l as s ear chi ng the ce nt er
cons ol e of

the vehi cl e, w her ei n thr ee bank- r ol l s of f i f ty- dol l arbi l l s w er e f

ound. T he s ear ch ended a f t erthe r ol l s of

m oney w er e f

ound, beca us e Troope rH enl ey had t o l eave the s cene t o r es pond t o anotheri nci dent
. T r ooperG i nn t es t i f i ed thathe then r emoved t he money and h an d ed itto G o ff. ¶53. T her eaf

t er , T r ooperG i nn w as i nf or m ed by t he G eor ge C ounty S her i f f’ s O f f i ce that G of f w as a per s on of

i nt er es ti n the murde rof B r andy. G of

f w as ar r es t ed, and T r oop G i nn

### A se arch warrant was obtained for

Goff’ s vehi cl e upon arriva l in George County. 20 

### Fo rensic scientist, StacySmith , con du cted a searcho f th e v ehicle, pursuant to the w arrant. It was during thi s s earc h th at numerous artic le s of evi denc e, inc luding thewal le t and the bloody s hir

t, wer e s ei ze d. 21 se c u re d h is v e h icle . T ro o p e r G in n ’s in v o lv e m e n t en d e d w h e n G e o rg e C o u n ty o ffic ials
arr i ved and t ook cus t ody of G of f and the vehi cl e. 20 ¶54. A t the concl us i on of the s uppr es s i on hear i ng, the tr i al j udge det erm i ned thatT r ooper G i nn had i ni t i at ed the tr af f i c s t op pr oper l y goi ng on t o concl ude thatthe det ent i on w as
reas on able und er the cir cum st ances. ¶55. T he tr i al court f

ound that the s t op of G of f’ s vehi cl e w as pr oper , that the l ength of t he d e te n tio n w a s re a s o n a b le , a n d th a t th e c o n s e n t to s e a rc h w a s v a lid
. See W hre n , 517 U
. S. at 810 (ci t i ng P rou se , 440 U
. S. at659) ( “[ a] s a gene r al m att er , the dec i s i on t o s t op an
a u to m o b ile is r e a s o n a b le w h e re th e p o lice h a v e p ro b a b le c a u se to b e liev e th a t a tra ffic
v io latio n h a s o c c u rre d ” ); S c h n e c k lo th , 4 1 2 U .S . at 2 2 7 ( “ th e q u e stio n w h e th e r a c o n se n t to
a se a rc h w a s in fa c t ‘v o lu n tar y ’ . . . is a q u e stio n o f fa c t t o b e d e ter m in e d fro m th e to tality of al l the ci r cumst ance s ”)
. T he tr i al courtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on by admi t t i ng the
e v id e n c e in q u e stio n , an d th is a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. II. W a iver o f C o u n sel, C o m p ete n cy to P ro ce ed P ro S e, a n d F a il u re to O rd er a M en tal C o m p ete n cy E x a m ina ti o n a n d to C o n d u ct a C om pe t e nc y H e ar i ng ¶5 6
. G o ff a rg u e s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d w h en i t all o w ed him t o w a iv e h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to c o u n se l an d p ro c e e d p ro se . G o ff a lso c laim s th a t th e trial c o u rt sh o u ld

### 22

hav e or de r e d a ment a l
- c ompe t e nc y e va l ua t i on a nd c on du c t e d a c ompe t e nc y h e a r i ng. A . W aiver of cou n sel an d ri gh t t o p rocee d p ro se ¶ 5 7 . W h ile G o ff p re se n ts th e iss u e a s w h e th e r th e trial c o u rt e rre d w h e n it a llo w e d h im to
w ai ve hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o couns el and pr ocee d pr o s e, w e f i nd thatthe ac tual i s s ue i s w hetherthe “hybr i d r epr es ent at i on” G of f re cei ved dur i ng tr i al pr ovi ded hi m w i th ef f ect i ve
a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. See Me tca lf v. S ta te , 6 2 9 S o . 2 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 3 ); see al so U nited States v. O r eye , 2 6 3 F . 3 d 6 6 9 , 6 7 1 (7th C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ). ¶58. A tr i al courtm ay perm i thybri d re pr es ent at i on w hi ch cons i s t s of “the part i ci pat i on by
a n a t t orne y i n the c on du c to f the tr i a l when the d e f

e nd a nti s p r oc e e di ng p r o s e . ” Me tc a lf , 6 2 9 S o . 2 d a t 5 6 2 -6 3 (c itatio n s o m itt e d ); s ee al s o M is s . C o n st. a rt. 3 , § 2 6 (1 8 9 0 ) (“ In a ll
cr i m i nal pr os ecut i ons t he ac cus ed s hal l have a r i ghtt o be hea r d by hi m s el f orco unsel , or both .
. . . ”)
. T hi s Courtha s s etf or th var i ous f

act or s t o cons i deri n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe tr i al courtgr ant ed pr o s e orhybr i d r epr es ent at i on: [T ]he d e fe n d a n t’s a c c e ss ib ili ty to c o u n se l; w h e th e r a n d h o w o fte n h e c o n su lts w i th couns el up t o t he po i nt of the r eques t ; the s t age of tr i al atw hi ch he r eques t s a part i ci pat ory r ol e i n hi s de f ens e; the m agni tude of

the r ol e he des i r es t o as s um e; w hetherthe tr i al courtencour ages i m m edi at e and c ons t ant acc es s i bi l i ty of

couns el ; and the natur e and e xt entof as s i s t ance of

couns el w h ich h a s b e e n p ro v id e d u p to th e p o in t o f th e re q u e st, in c lu d in g b o th s ubs t ant i ve and pr ocedur al ai d. Me tca lf , 629 So. 2d at565. ¶59. C ons i der i ng thes e f act or s i ndi vi dual l y, w e f i nd that thi s cas e i s analogo us t o o t her
c a se s in w h ich th is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t th e d e fe n d a n t w a s n o t d e p riv e d o f c o u n se l d u e to hybr i d r epr es ent at i on. D een and M cN al l y, G of f’ s pr i vat el y r et ai ned att orneys , w er e pr es ent

### Mande rs des cribe d her se lf as Goff ’s girlf ri end. 21 

### 23 atG of f’ s couns el t abl e dur i ng t he ent i r e tr i al , and G off co ns ul t ed w i th them on seve r al
o c c a s io n s . See D u n n v. S ta te , 6 9 3 S o . 2 d 1 3 3 3 , 1 3 4 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ); Me tca lf , 629 So. 2d at 5 6 5 . B o th D e e n a n d M c N a lly p ro v id e d s u b s ta n tia l a s s is ta n c e b e fo re tr ia l. See D unn , 693 So. 2d at1342. T hey f

i l ed numer ous pr etr i al m ot i ons and r epr es ent ed G off attw o pr etr i al hear i ngs . A f

t erG of f fi l ed a m ot i on t o proc eed pr o se, w hi ch the tr i al courtgr ant ed, the tr i al j udge s t at ed: [ U ] nd e rthe s e c i r c ums t a nc e s a nd gi ve n the na tur e of the c ha r ge s he r e , I am a p p o in tin g M r. D e e n a n d M r. M c N a lly a n d d ire c tin g th a t th e y r e m a in to pr ovi de you w i th any s uppor t , as s i s t ance , and advi ce thatyou deem suf f i ci ent t o s eek f r om them. A nd al s o, I w i l l aut hor i ze them t o actas co- couns el , i f that i s acc ept abl e t o you. ¶60. I ti s c l earf

r om the r ecor d thatD een a nd M cN al l y w er e notc as ual obs erver s . D een
c o n d u c te d v o ird ir e ; h a n d le d ju ry c h a lle n g e s ; m a d e n u m e ro u s o b je c tio n s th ro u g h o u t th e trial;
co n d u cted the c ross -ex am ination o f M arg are t C lark , T roo p er G inn , Jam es Y ates, Jr. , D r. H ayne, I nves t i gat orSm i th, I nves t i gat orB ow l us , and D et ect i ve L am bert ; con du ct ed t he di r ect exami nat i on of

D ee D ee W al l , D et ect i ve L amber t , and R ache l M ander s ; m ade the mot i on 21 f ordi r ect ed ver di ct ; pr es ent ed the cl os i ng ar gum enti n the gui l tphas e; repre s ent ed G of f at
s ent enci ng; made the openi ng s t at ementon behal f of G of f ats ent enci ng; conduct ed the di r ect exami nat i on of

L es s i e G of

f a nd D r . V an R os en ats ent enci ng; a nd f i l ed a mot i on f

ora new trial o r, in th e a ltern a tiv e , jud g m e n t n o tw ith sta n d in g th e v e rd ict.

### 24

¶ 6 1
. M c N a lly p a rticip a ted in th e a p p ro v a l o f ju ry in stru c tio n s a n d o th e rw ise a ss iste d b o th D een a nd G of

f t hr oughoutt he tr i al
. A s al r eady n oted, D een and M cN al l y f i l ed numer ous p re trial m o tio n s a s w e ll. ¶6 2
. In c o n tra st to th e in v o lv e m e n t o f D e en an d M cN all y , G o ff h a d a lim ited ro le thr oughoutthe cour s e of the tr i al
. G of

f made mi s cel l aneous obj ect i ons , buthi s onl y di r ect i nvol vementw as conduct i ng the cr os s - exami nat i ons of Pea r l B oul w ar e and Sher i f f W el f or d, and maki ng a cl os i ng ar gum ent , al ong w i th D een, atthe gui l tphas e. ¶ 6 3
. C o n sid e rin g th e to tality o f th e c irc u m sta n c e s, w e fin d th a t G o ff n e v e r w a s a c tu a lly
w i thoutcouns el
. D een a nd M cN al l y w er e ava i l abl e thr oughou tthe e nt i r e tr i al and
s ubs t ant i al l y pa r t i ci pat ed. The r ol e of eac h w as “notm er el y thatof a s ki l l ed bys t ander , but of a s ubs t ant i ve l i t i gat or . ” Me tca lf , 629 So. 2d at565. G of

f , havi ng neverbeen f

ul l y w i thout the as s i s t ance of

couns el , cannotnow com pl ai n. H e r ece i ved the bes tof both w or l ds

— the
a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l w h ile c o n d u c tin g h is o w n d e fe n s e . Id .; D unn , 693 So. 2d at1342- 43, Me tca lf , 629 So. 2d at565. B . C om pet ency eval uat i on ¶ 6 4
. W ith re g a rd to G o ff ’s c la im th a t t h e tr ia l c o u rt s h o u ld h a v e o rd e re d a m e n talc o m p e ten c y e v a lu a tio n a n d c o n d u c ted a c o m p e ten c y h e a rin g , w e fin d th a t th e fa c ts o f th is
ca se d id n o t w arran t ei ther. ¶ 6 5 . R u le 9 .0 6 o f th e U n ifo rm R u les o f C irc u it a n d C o u n ty C o u rt P ra c tic e p ro v id e s in p e rtin e n t p a rt:

### At the tim e Conner was d ecided , Unif

orm Circui t Cour

t Rul e 4. 08 control le d, 22 

### whic h did not

re quire that

a c ompe te ncy he aring beconduc te d following a court- orde re d me nta l e xam inati on. 25 I f bef or e ordur i ng t r i al the court , of i t s ow n m ot i on o r upo n m ot i on of an att orney, has r eas onabl e gr ound t o bel i eve thatthe def endanti s i ncompet ent t o s t and tr i al , the courts hal l or derthe def endantt o sub m i tt o a ment al e x a m in a tio n b y so m e c o m p e ten t p sy c h iatris t se lec ted b y th e c o u rt in acc or dance w i th § 99- 13- 11 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed of 1972. A f t erthe exa m i nat i on the courts hal l conducta hea r i ng t o d et erm i ne i f the d efe n d an t i s c o m p eten t t o stan d tr ial
. A ft er h ea ri n g all the e v iden ce , the c o u rt s hal l w ei gh t he evi dence and m ake a det erm i nat i on of w hetherthe def

endant is c o m p e ten t t o sta n d tri a l. If th e c o u rt fin d s th a t th e d e fe n d a n t is c o m p e ten t to st and tri al , then the co urtshal l m ake the fi nd i ng a m at t er of recor d an d the case w ill th e n p ro c e e d to trial. M i s s . U ni f

. C i r . & C ty. R . 9. 06. ¶ 6 6
. W h a t c o n stitu tes “ re a so n a b le g ro u n d ” to b e liev e th a t a d e fe n d a n t is in c o m p e ten t to
s ta n d tria l r e s ts la rg e ly w ith in th e d is c re tio n o f t h e tr ia l ju d g e . See Cox v. S ta te , 793 So. 2d 59 1, 597 ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng Co n n e r v . S ta te , 63 2 S o. 2d 12 39 , 12 48 (M i ss. 19 93 ), ( over r ul ed on othergr ounds )
. T he pert i nentque s t i on i s w hether“the tr i al j udge r ece i ve[ d] 22 i nf or m at i on w hi ch, obj ect i vel y cons i der ed, sho ul d r eas onabl y have r ai s ed a doubtabout def endant ’ s compet ence and al ert ed hi m t o the pos s i bi l i ty thatthe d ef endantcoul d nei ther
u n d e rsta n d th e p ro c e e d in g s, a p p re c iate th e ir s ig n ifica n c e , n o r r a tio n a lly a id h is a tto rn e y in hi s def ens e?” Co n n e r v . S ta te , 632 So. 2d at1248 ( ci t i ng L okos v. Capps , 625 F. 2d 1258, 1 2 6 1 (5th C ir
. 1 9 8 0 )). ¶6 7. O n Janua r y 21, 2005, G of f’ s a t t orne ys f

i l e d a mot i on f

ora c ou r t - or de r e d ment al exami nat i on of

def endant
. T he mot i on s t at ed:

### The e x parteconf er enc e wa s transc ribed on the r ec ord. 23 

### 26 T he att orney f

orthe def

endanti n thi s cas e m oves t hi s C our tt o orde ra ment al ex am in a tio n o f d efe n d an t t o b e c o n d u cted at su ch ti m e o r t im es a s the C o u rt m ay di r ect , by qual i f

i ed ment al heal th pr of

es s i onal s t o det erm i ne: ( 1) T he def

endant ’ s pr es entm ent al condi t i on and compet ency t o s t and tr i al ; and; ( 2) T he ment al condi t i on o f t he def endantatthe t i m e of

the of f ens e, a n d th a tth e p r o s e c u t i o n o f t h i s c a s e b e s t a y e d d e p e n d i n g th e o u t c o me of s uch exa m i nat i on. A s a tto rn e y fo r d e fe n d a n t, I q u e stio n th e d e fe n d a n t’s c o m p e ten c y to s t and tr i al a nd be l i eve thati ti s es s ent i al f ora ment al exami nat i on t o be conduct ed i n advanc e of the tr i al beca us e: ( 1) D ur i ng t he cour s e of t he i nves t i gat i on fort hi s of f ens e, under s i gned couns el has come t o bel i eve t hat def endanthas a hi s t ory of m ent al ill n e ss a n d th a t h e h a s b e e n tre a ted b y m e n tal h e a lth p ro fe ss io n a ls w h ile i ncar cer at ed i n t he St at e of A l abama. (2) T he defend ant has enga ged i n bazaa r [ si c] behav i or duri ng the p ast several years; (3 ) N o m e n tal h e a lth c lin icia n h a s s e e n th e d e fe n d a n t in o v e r six m onths , duri ng w hic h t i m e the def endanthas been c onf

i ned i n the G e o rg e C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i Ja il. ¶68. O n A pr i l 7, 2005, the court hear d var i ous m ot i ons br ought by G of f
. G of f t es t i f i ed at thi s hear i ng. A tt he conc l us i on of the hea r i ng, couns el f

orG of f , i n the pr es ence of

the St at e,
re q u e ste d th a t an e x p a rte c o n fe re n c e b e h e ld re g a rd in g a p re v io u sly -file d m o tio n fo r a c o u rtor der ed ment al eval uat i on. D ur i ng t hi s ex par t e conf er ence , couns el f

orG of f s t at ed thatt he 23 horr i f i c natur e of

the cr i m e pr om pt ed hi m t o r eques tthe ment al exami nat i on: B Y C O U N S E L F O R G O F F (D E E N ): A n d w h e n I ca m e o v e r h e re at firs t to r e p r e s e n th i m, I t o l d h i m, d u e t o th e h o rr e n d o u s n e s s o f th e a l l e g a t i o n , th a twe

### 27

o u g h tt o l o o k i n t o s o me ty p e o f ma y b e n o tg u i l ty b y r e a s o n o f i n s a n i ty o rs o me type of l ooki ng i nt o hi s compet ency a tthe t i m e the eve ntw as done. ¶ 6 9
. D u rin g th e co n fe re n c e , c o u n se l i n fo rm e d the tri a l co u rt th a t G o ff w a s a d iffic u lt c lien t, thatG of f w as a chi l d of

i nces t , and thatG of

f ha d s uf f er ed ps ychot i c epi s odes
. C onver s el y,
c o u n se l als o sa id th a t h e h a d n o tro u b le c o m m u n ica tin g w ith G o ff. A t th e c o n c lu sio n o f th is conf er ence , def

ens e counsel am ended the pr evi ous r eques tf ora ment al eval uat i on f ort he purpo s e s of

de t e r mi ni ng w he the rG of f w a s c ompe t e ntt o s t a nd tr i a l , s o tha tthe r e qu es t ed eval uat i on w as f

orm i t i gat i on purpos es onl y. ¶70. A t a s econd pr etr i al hear i ng on A pr i l 25, 2005, couns el f ur ther expl ai ned that he w as no l ongerr eques t i ng a m ent al eval uat i on fort he def endant
. C ouns el s t at ed thatbetw een the f i l i ng o f the mot i on o n J a nu a r y 21 , 2 00 5, a nd the h e a r i ng o n A pr i l 7 , 2 00 5, h e “ c oul d f i nd no i ndepende ntbackgr ound of M r . G of f w her e he w oul d hav e h ad any ps ychi atr i c ca r e or ps ychol ogi s tcar e orany i ndi cat i on thathe w oul d notbe com pet entt o s t and tr i al orthathe
w a s le g a lly in sa n e a t th e ti m e o f th e o ffe n se .” A c c o rd in g to c o u n se l, G o ff h a d b e e n a b le to
as s i s tcouns el i n hi s pr epar at i on of the def ens e, G of

f ha d a n a ppr eci at i on of

the s i tuat i on he
w as i n, and the tr oubl e thatcouns el had com m uni cat i ng w i th G of f w as no di f

f er entthan that
w i th an y o ther cl i ent w ho i s und er s ub st anti al stres s. ¶71. D ur i ng the A pr i l 25, 2005, hear i ng, the tr i al courtgr ant ed G of f’ s pr evi ous r eques t f

or f unds f orthe purpos e of

s ecur i ng a ment al
- heal th e xpertt o t es t i f y dur i ng the pena l ty phas e. A tthe conc l us i on of

thi s hear i ng, i n comm ent i ng on the i s s ue of G of f’ s compet ency, the tr i al j udge s t at ed:

### Dr. Van Ros en t es ti fi ed during s ent enc ing t hat Goff had a ful l- sc al e IQ sc oreof 24 

### 102, whi ch i s in theave ra ge or sl ightly a bove- ave ra ge range. In addi ti on, the r eport prepare d by Dr. R osen , whi lenot a dmi tt ed into e vide nce , s tate d that “ [Gof f] would becons ide re d comp etent inmost resp ects to stan d trial.” 28 I tw as m y obs ervat i on atthe hea r i ngs conduct ed A pr i l 7 t h
. . . , I di d not o b s e r v e o rp e r c e i v e a n y u n t o wa r d c o n d u c to n th e p a r to f th e d e f e n d a n t . He cert ai nl y appea r ed t o m e t o appr eci at e t he natur e of t he pr ocee di ngs . H e w as abl e t o pr ocee d and t es t i f y atthathear i ng, and hi s r es pons es t o the ques t i ons thatw er e as ked w er e appr opr i at e and r es pons i ve. I di dn’ ts ee a ny bas i s f orthe C our ton i t s ow n, s ua s pont e, br i ngi ng up, you know , havi ng a hea r i ng conduct ed oran exa m i nat i on conduct ed. 24 ¶72. T he tr i al courtdi d note r ri n f ai l i ng t o or dera m ent al
- compet ency e val uat i on or f ai l i ng to c o n d u c t a c o m p e ten c y h e a rin g , an d G o ff’s a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. I I I . Suff

i ci ency of

t he E vi dence ¶ 7 3
. G o ff c o n ten d s th a t th e p ro se c u tio n faile d to a d d u c e ev id e n c e su ffic ien t t o c o n v ict h im
o f th e u n d e rly in g fe lo n y o f r o b b e ry , a s it fa iled to p ro v e th a t G o ff to o k a n y p e rso n a l p ro p e rty bel ongi ng t o B r andy. G of f ar gues on appea l thatt her e w as no evi dence t hatB r andy’ s w al l et
w as everi n the mot el r oom w i th B r andy, thatther e w as no bi ol ogi cal evi dence f ound on t he
w al l et , and that the w al l etw as neve r t est ed for f i ng erpr i nts . ¶74. Speci f

i cal l y, G of

f cont ends that , beca us e the w al l et w as not f ound among the cr i m es cene i t ems thatw er e f

ound on the f

l oorboard of the vehi cl e ori n the pi l l ow cas e f ound on the p assenger seat , that this neg at es the theory o f rob bery. T hu s, G off avers that there i s a lack o f su ffi cien t ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe u n d erlying felon y o f rob b ery , an d that this C o u rt
m us tther ef

or e hol d t he evi dence i ns uf f i ci entt o pr ove capi t al m ur der
. W e di s agr ee.

### 29

¶75. I n Bush v. State, 8 95 S o. 2 d 83 6, 8 43 (M i s s . 2005) , w e r ei t er at ed the s t andar d of
r evi ew f orthe l egal s uf

f i ci ency of

the evi dence : I n Car rv. State, 2 0 8 S o . 2 d 8 8 6 , 8 8 9 (M iss . 1 9 6 8 ), w e sta ted th a t in co ns i de r i ng w he the rthe e vi de nc e i s s uf f i c i e ntt o s us t a i n a c on vi c t i on i n the f ace of a mot i on f

ordi r ect ed ver di ctorf or j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ct , the c r i t i c a l i nq ui r y i s whethe rthe e vi de nc e s ho w s “ be yo nd a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t [th e ] ac c u se d c o m m itt e d th e a c t c h a rg e d , an d th a t h e d id s o unders uch ci r cumst ance s thatevery el ementof the of f ens e exi s t ed; and w h e re th e e v id e n c e fa ils to m e e t th is te st it is in su ffic ien t to su p p o rt a c o n v ictio n .” H o w e v e r, th is in q u iry d o e s n o t re q u ire a c o u rt to

‘ask it self w h ethe r it

bel i eves thatthe evi dence atthe tr i al es t abl i shed gui l tbeyond a r eas onabl e doubt
. ’ I ns t ead, the r el evantques t i on i s w hether , af t ervi ew i ng the evi dence i n the lig h t m o s t f

a v o ra b le to th e p ro s e c u tio n , any r at i onal tr i erof f act coul d have f

ound t he es sent i al el ement s of the cr i m e beyond a re a so n a b le d o u b t. Ja ckson v. V

ir gini a, 4 43 U. S. 3 07 , 3 15 , 9 9 S. Ct
. 2 78 1, 6 1 L. Ed. 2 d 560 ( 1979) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal )
. Shou l d the f act s and i nf er ence s cons i der ed i n a cha l l enge t o the suf f i ci ency of

the evi dence “poi nt i n f avorof the def endanton any el ementof the of fense w i th s uf

f i ci entf or ce thatr eas onabl e men coul d nothave f ound beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe defend ant w as guil ty, ” t he prope r rem edy i s forthe ap pell at e cou rtt o reverse a n d r e n d e r [ , i.e . re v e rs e a n d d is c h a rg e ]. E dw ar ds v. State, 469 So. 2d 68, 70 ( M i s s . 1985) ( ci t i ng May v. State, 4 6 0 S o . 2 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 1 (M iss . 1 9 8 4 )); see al so D ycus v. State, 875 So. 2d 140, 164 ( M i s s . 2004)
. H ow ever , i f a r evi ew of

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

ai r - m i nded m en i n the exe r ci s e of

i m part i al j udgm entm i ght r eac h di f f er entconcl us i ons on ever y el e mentof

the of f e ns e , ” the e vi de nc e w i l l be de e med t o h a ve be en s u ff ic ie n t. E dw ards, 4 6 9 S o . 2 d a t 7 0 ; s ee al s o G ibby v. State, 744 So. 2d 244, 2 4 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). W h e n th e S tate ’s c a se re sts o n c irc u m sta n tial e v id e n c e , th e e v id e n c e m u st b e su ffic ien t to p ro v e g u iltb e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t, a n d to th e e x c lu sio n o f e v e ry re a so n a b le h y p o th e sis
c o n s is te n t w ith in n o c e n c e . B il li ot v. State, 4 5 4 S o . 2 d 4 4 5 , 4 6 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ).

### 30

¶7 6
. C ap it al m u rde r i s d efine d in M issi ssipp i C o d e A n n o tat ed S ec ti o n 9 7 -3-1 9 (2). ( 2) T he ki l l i ng of

a human bei ng w i thoutt he author i ty of l aw by any m eans or i n an y m ann er s hall be cap i t al m urder i n the f oll ow i ng cases:

. . . ( e) W hen done w i th orw i thoutan y desi gn t o ef f ectdeath, by any per s on e n g a g e d in th e c o m m is s io n o f t h e c ri m e o f . . . r o b b e ry . . . . M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-1 9 (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶77 . R ob bery i s defi ned i n M i ssi ssi pp i C od e A nn otat ed S ect i on 97 -3- 79 as f oll ow s: E very per s on w ho shal l fe l oni ous l y t ake oratt empt t o t ake f r om the per s on or f r om the pr esenc e the per s onal pr operty of anotherand aga i ns thi s w i l l by v io len c e to h is p e rso n o r b y p u tti n g su c h p e rso n in fe a r o f im m e d iate in ju ry to h is p e rs o n b y th e e x h ib itio n o f a d e a d ly w e a p o n sh a ll b e g u ilty o f r o b b e ry . .

. . M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-7 9 (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶78
. T he el em ents of robbery are: “(1) fel on i ou s i ntent , (2) forc e o r p u tt i ng i n fear as a
m e a n s o f ef

fe c tu a tin g the inte n t, a n d (3 ) b y th a t m e a n s ta k in g a n d c a rry in g a w a y th e p ro p e rty of anot herf

r om hi s per s on ori n hi s pr es ence . ” W a lk e r v . S ta te , 913 So
. 2d 1 98 , 22 3 (M i ss. 2005) ( quot i ng Ca ldw e ll v. S ta te , 4 8 1 S o . 2 d 8 5 0 , 8 5 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 )). ¶ 7 9
. U n d e r w e ll-se ttle d la w , “ p o s s e s s io n o f a d e c e a se d ’s p ro p e rty c re a tes a re a so n a b le i nfer ence thatthe pr operty w as s t ol en. ” Spi cerv. State, 92 1 So
. 2d 29 2, 31 2 ( M i s s . 20 06) ( ci t i ng K nox v. State, 8 0 5 S o . 2 d 5 2 7 , 5 3 1 -3 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 )); c f. W il son v. U n ited S tates, 162 U .S . 6 1 3 , 1 6 S . C t. 89 5 , 4 0 L . E d . 1 0 9 0 (1 8 9 6 ) (“ P o ss e ss io n o f th e fru its o f c rim e , rec e n tly
a ft e r i ts c o m m is s io n , ju s tif ie s th e in fe re n c e th a t th e p o s s e s s io n is g u ilty p o s s e s s io n , a n d , . .

. t hatt her e i s a l i ke pr es um pt i on i n t he cas e of m ur deraccompani ed by r obbery. ”)
. I n K nox ,

### 31

w e hel d that , “w hen the def endanti s di s cover ed w i th the per s onal prope r ty of the dec eas ed on hi s per s on i ti s ent i r el y w i thi n re as on forthe j ury t o f i nd thatthi s f

acti n i t s el f

cons t i tut es
r obbery. ” K

n ox, 805 So. 2d at531- 32. ¶8 0
. E v iden ce w as ad d u ce d th rou g h th e testi m o n y of Inv esti g ato r S m ith th a t B ra n d y ’s
w a llet w a s in G o ff’s p o ss e ss io n w h e n h e w a s sto p p e d sh o rtly a fte r B ra n d y ’s m u rd e r. S m ith t es t i f i ed thatthe w al l etw as f ound i ns i de the vehi cl e i n the ar ea of the cons ol e al ongs i de i t e ms r e mo v e d f

r o m th e mo t e l r o o m. ¶81. T he re cor d al s o di s cl os es that upon r egi s t er i ng i nt o the m ot el , B randy pr ovi ded her dr i ver ’ s l i cens e; thats he w as gi ven one r oom key; and thats he r eturned t o t he vehi cl e and d ro v e th e v e h ic le o v e r to ro o m 1 2 1 . A s e v in c e d b y G o ff’s sta tem e n t to th e p o lice , sh o rtly after th ey en tered the m o tel ro o m a n a lt erc ati o n e n su ed
. T h e re co rd sh o w s tha t G o ff th en left
a n d th a t h e la te r s ta te d to th e p o lic e , h e d id s o w ith “ in te n tio n s o f n e v e r c o m in g b a c k .” ¶82. A ccor di ng t o the r ecor d, B r andy w as s tr anded at t he m otel f or appr oxi m at el y ei ght hour s . I n thatt i m e s he had thr ee t el ephone c onver s at i ons w i th herhus band, J ames, dur i ng
w hi ch t hey di s cus s ed pl ans forhi m t o pi ck herup the nextm orni ng. T her e w as no i ndi cat i on i n the r ecor d thatB r andy eve rm ent i oned bei ng w i thoutherw al l et , orw i thoutm oney. J ames t es t i f i ed thatB r andy di d notuse banks , st at i ng, “W e al w ays keptour m oney athom e oron
u s.” A m o n g th e item s, m e n tio n e d in th e fa c ts, c o n tai n e d in B ra n d y ’s w a llet, w a s $ 5 0 9 in cash (t en fi fty-doll ar bi l l s, a fi ve, and tw o o nes), and tw o d oll ars i n q uart ers . ¶8 3. The r e c or d f

urthe r r e ve a l s tha t a mong the nu mer ou s i t e ms f ou nd i n G of

f’ s ve hi cl e,
w h ich G o ff a d m itt e d to tak in g fro m th e crim e sc e n e , w e re a n e m p ty p izz a b o x a n d a p las tic

### 32

tr a s h b a g . I n v e s t i g a t o rS mi th i n d i c a t e d th a tt h e tr a s h b a g c a me f r o m i n s i d e th e mo t e l r o o m. F o u n d i n s i d e th e tr a s h b a g a mo n g th e c i g a r e t t e b u t t s a n d a p i n k
- c o l o r e d b l a d e g u a r d f r o m a d isp o sa b le r a z o r, w a s p izz a c ru st. ¶84. I n Ki tchens v. State, 3 0 0 S o . 2 d 9 2 2 (M iss . 1 9 7 4 ), w e e x p lai n ed this C o u rt ’s l ongs t andi ng pos i t i on w i th r egar d t o the s uf f i ci ency of

ci r cumst ant i al evi dence : Itw as lo n g ag o h eld b y this C o u rtin the ca se o f B ro w n in gv. S ta te , 33 M i ss. 47, ci t i ng C i cel y v. St at e, 13 Sm edes & M . 202, 211, and the pr i nci pl e has been uni f

or m l y adhered t o s i nce thatt i m e, thatthe s uf f i ci ency of ci r cumst ant i al e vi dence i s pe cul i ar l y f orthe det erm i nat i on of the jur y, “ b e c a u se it i s a lw a y s s o lem n ly to b e w e ig h e d a n d a c ted u p o n b y th e ir under s t andi ngs and cons ci ence s , and i s , f r om i t s very nature, the s ubj ectof in fe re n c e s a n d c o n c lu s io n s in th e irm in d s [.]” 3 0 0 S o . 2 d a t9 2 6
- 2 7 ( q u o t i n g f r o m Johnson v. State, 2 3 S o . 2 d 4 9 9 (M iss. 1 9 4 5 )). ¶ 8 5 . 

### Bas ed on our

c ar ef ul and thorough revi ew of therec ord, the e vide ncein t his ca se does
no t “leave in different” the hypo thesis that, Bran dy ’s wallet, th e on e item at issue amo ng all the items fo un d inGo ff’s veh icle that w ere determin ed to hav e beentakenfrom th e crime
sc ene , had bee n lef

t in Goff ’s vehic leby Brandy
. 

### Lambert v . St ate , 462 So. 2d 308, 313-14 (Mi ss . 1984) (quoting Sorrel lsv. Stat e, 130 Mis s. 300, 94 So. 209 (1922)) . It fol lows that the reis nothing in the re cord that point s in favor of

Goff with suf fi ci ent forcethat no rationa l trier o f fact cou ld hav e fo un d this essential element of th e crime bey on d a reaso nab le do ub t,
a n d to th e e x c lu s io n o f e v e ry re a s o n a b le h y p o th e s is c o n s is te n t w ith in n o c e n c e . B ush v. S ta te , 8 9 5 S o . 2 d a t 8 4 3 ; B il li ot , 454 So. 2d at461. ¶86. T hus , on the ques t i on of w hethers uf

f i ci entevidence w as present ed t o s uppor t the j ury’ s concl us i on thatB r andy’ s w al l etw as i n herpr es ence a s c ont empl at ed by s ect i on 97- 3-

### 33

79, atthe t i m e of

he rmurde r , w e f

i nd G of f’ s ar gum entm er i t l es s . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 79 (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶87. W i th r egar d t o the f act that no bi ol ogi cal evi dence w as f ound on the w al l et , and that th e S tate fa iled to te s t t h e ite m fo r fin g e rp rin ts, w e re jec t G o ff’s a rg u m e n t th a t th is d e m o n stra tes a lac k o f su ffic ien t ev id e n c e . W e fin d th e se fa c ts m o re p ro p e rly p e rtin e n t to
a w e ig h t-o f- th e -e v id e n c e c laim , rath e r th a n a su ffic ien c y -o f-th e -e v id e n c e a n a ly sis a s to
w hethera r at i onal j ury coul d have de ci ded thatthe w al l etw as i n B r andy’ s pr es ence i n t he
m ot el r oom pr i ort o G of f’ s r emovi ng i t . W hi l e G of f doe s notar gue w ei ghtof the evi dence , w e deem i tnecessary t o ad dress these specif i c po i nts un der this res pecti ve an al ysi s. ¶88. E s s ent i al l y, w hen a def endant s ucce s s f

ul l y chal l enges a j ury’ s ver dict based on t he
w ei ghtof

the evi dence , the def

endanti s e nt i t l ed t o ha ve a di f f er entj ury pa s s on the evi dence
. See Sm ith v. S ta te, 925 So. 2d 825, 832 ( M i s s . 2006) ( “thi s C our thas nothes i t at ed t o i nvoke its a u th o rity to o rd e r a n e w trial a n d a llo w a se c o n d ju ry to p a ss o n th e e v id e n c e w h e re it
cons i der s t he f

i r s tj ury’ s det erm i nat i on of gui l tt o be bas ed on extr emel y w eak ort enuous
e v id e n c e ” ) (c itatio n s & inte rn a l qu o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). H o w e v e r, “th e p o w e r to g ra n t a
new t r i al shoul d be i nvoked onl y i n except i onal cas es i n w hi ch the evi dence pr eponder at es heavi l y agai ns tt he ver di ct . ” B u s h , 8 9 5 S o . 2 d a t 8 4 4 . T h is C o u rt w ill d istu rb a v e rd ict o n ly “w hen i ti s s o contr ary t o the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence thatt o al l ow i tt o s t and
w oul d s anct i on an uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ” I d. ¶ 8 9
. In v e s tig a to r S m ith te s tif ie d o n c ro s s-e x a m in a tio n th a t sh e re lea se d th e w a llet to D e tec tiv e L a m b e rt a t th e sc e n e , w h e re h e the n se a led it
. S h e sta ted tha t sh e d id n o t su b m it

### 34

the w al l ett o the cr i m e l abor at ory f ort es t i ng beca us e t her e di d notappea rt o be any bi ol ogi cal evi dence of

a ny s or tthatr equi r ed s uch s ubm i s s i on. Si m i l ar l y, the j ury had bef or e i tthe f

act that no t est s w ere cond ucted on the w al l etforfi ng erpr i nts. T h ese w ere f actual quest i on s,
w ith a tten d a n t in fe re n c e s th a t co u ld h a v e led in a n y n u m b e r o f d ir e c tio n s, fo r th e ju ry to
r es ol ve. ¶ 9 0
. W e fin d th a t th e lac k o f b io lo g ic a l a n d fin g e rp rin t e v id e n c e d o e s n o t p re p o n d e ra te
a g a in s t th e v e rd ic t s o a s to s a n c tio n a n u n c o n s c io n a b le in ju s tic e . B u sh , 895 So. 2d at844. ¶91. Fi nal l y, bas ed on the f r ami ng of G of

f’ s ar gum ent f

or thi s i s s ue, i t i s uncl earw hether he s eeks t o chal l enge the St at e’ s pr oof w i th r egar d t o t he i ntentel ementf orthe cr i m e of
r obbery. I n s up por tof hi s ar gum entw i th r egar d t o the l ocat i on of the w al l et , G of

f ci t es Y o u n gv. Za n t, 5 0 6 F . S u p p . 2 7 4 (M .D . G a . 1 9 8 0 ), a ff’ d , 6 7 7 F . 2 d 7 9 2 (1 1 th C ir
. 1 9 8 2 ). In Y oung , the p e tit io n e r so u g h t h a b e a s c o rp u s r e lief u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 , fro m h is d e a th
s ent ence i m pos ed by a G eor gi a st at e cour t , f ol l ow i ng hi s j ury convi ct i on of m ur der , arm ed
ro b b e ry , an d ro b b e ry . 5 0 6 F . S u p p . at 2 7 6 . T h e d istric t c o u rt g ra n ted re lief, in ter a lia, a s it p e rta in e d to p e tit io n e r’s se n ten c e , b a se d o n its fin d in g th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s in su ffic ien t to
s u s ta in a c o n v ic tio n b a s e d o n ro b b e ry . I d. a t 2 8 0 -8 1
. ¶9 2
. H o w ev er, ba sed o n o u r read ing o f Y oung , the deci s i on deal t onl y w i th the el ementof inten t, n o t w ith w h ethe r th a t v ictim ’s w all et w as in h is prese n ce at th e ti m e o f th e m u rde r. I d. at280- 81. M or eover , the di s tr i ctc our t ’ s s t at ed r eas oni ng f orgr ant i ng r el i ef

w as bas ed on a f i ndi ng thatthe “onl y r el evantevi dence pr es ent ed attr i al i ndi cat ed tha t p e tit io n e r d id
n o tc o n t e mp l a t e th e t a k i n g o f a n y mo n e y u n t i l a f

t e rth e s h o t s h a d b e e n f i r e d a n d th e b l o ws

### 35

had bee n s truck. ” I

d . at280. ( emphasi s added)
. T hus , w e f i nd Y oungdi s t i ngui s habl e f

r om the m at t er bef

ore us. ¶93. T hi s C our thas s t at ed t hat“t he i nt entt o rob, w hi ch i s r equi r ed t o pr ove the under l yi ng f el ony of r obbery, can be s how n f r om the f act s s urr oundi ng the cr i m e. ” W a lk e r v . S ta te , 913 So. 2d 198, 224 ( M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng L y n c h v. Sta te , 8 7 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 4 , 1 2 6 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 )). M i ssi ssi pp i recogn i zes the “o ne c o n ti n u ou s transact i on rat i on al e” i n cap i t al cases. W es t v. S ta te , 5 5 3 S o . 2 d 8 , 1 3 (M iss . 1 9 8 9 ). W e h a v e c o n stru e d o u r c a p ital m u rd e r sta tu te a n d h e ld that“the under l yi ng cr i m e begi ns w her e an i ndi ct abl e att empt i s r eache d
. . . . ” P i ckle v. S ta te , 3 4 5 S o . 2 d 6 2 3 , 6 2 6 (M iss . 1 9 7 7 ). “ A n in d ictm e n t c h a rg in g a k ill in g o c c u rrin g ‘w h ile engage d i n the comm i ssi on of’ one of the enumer at ed f

el oni es i ncl udes the ac t i ons of t he defend antl eadi ng up t o the f el ony, the att empt ed f

el ony, and f

l i ghtf r om the s cene of

t he f el ony. ” Tu rn e r v . S ta te , 732 So. 2d 937, 950 ( M i s s . 1999) ( quot i ng W est , 5 5 3 S o . 2 d at 13 ). ¶9 4. T he St a t e ’ s the ory of the c a s e w a s tha t G of f w e nt ba c k t o the Rock y Cr e e k I nn t he
n ig h t o f A u g u st 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 , to g e t b a c k w h a t w a s rig h tfu lly h is, th e m o n e y in B ra n d y ’s w a llet. T he evi dence , al though ci r cumst ant i al , s uppor t s thi s theory. ¶95. D ur i ng the St at e’ s cas e- i n- chi ef , e vi dence w as pr es ent ed thr ough J ames’ s t es t i m ony, tha ta f t e rG of f’ s de pa r tur e f

r om the mot e l e a r l i e rtha ta f t e rno on , Br a nd y f

e a r e d h i s r etur n. B a se d o n th e m o tel c ler k ’s te stim o n y , w h e n G o ff re tu rn e d to th e m o tel a t ap p ro x im a tely 11: 30 p. m . , h e cam e to t he f r ontdes k m ul t i pl e t i m es tryi ng t o gai n acc es s i nt o r oom 121, b e fo re e v e n tu a lly b e in g to ld th a t th e d o o r w a s lo c k e d fr o m th e in s id e .

### 36

¶96. A ddi t i onal evi dence w as pr es ent ed thatG of f had r ece i ved a si gni f

i cantsum of m oney f r om hi s m otherf

ora bus i nes s thathe had pl ann ed t o s t art . T her e al s o w as evi dence adduce d, s t i l l dur i ng the St at e’ s cas e, t hatG of f w as s uppor t i ng B r andy and thatG of f w as t he
s o u rc e o f t h e c a s h fo u n d in s id e h e r w a lle t. ¶97. A num ber of r eas onabl e i nf er ences cou l d be dr aw n f r om the f

act s s urr oundi ng t he i s s ue of G of f’ s i nt ent . W hi l e s om e may be compet i ng i s of no m att er . A s i s true i n cas es bas ed on di r ectt es t i m oni al evi dence, an y confl i ct s cr eat ed by the ci r cumst ant i al evi dence pr es ent ed w er e f

orthe j ury t o r es ol ve. 

### Ra t l i f f v . St ate , 515 So. 2d 877, 882 (Mi ss . 1987) ; see also Kitch ens, 30 0 S o. 2 d at 9 26 -27
. ¶98. A s w i th t he i s s ue r egar di ng t he pr es ence of B r andy’ s w al l et , w e f i nd not hi ng in t he
r ecor d t hatpoi nt s i n f

avorof G of f w i th s uf f i ci entf or ce thatcompel s us t o concl ude thatno
r at i onal t r i erof f

actcoul d have f

ound hi m gui l ty on the i nt entel ementof r obbery beyond a
re a so n a b le d o u b t, an d to th e e x c lu sio n o f e v e ry re a so n a b le h y p o th e sis c o n sis ten t w ith in n o c e n c e . B il

li ot ,4 5 4 S o . 2 d a t 4 6 1 ; c f. B ush v. State, 895 So. 2d at843. ¶99. H avi ng been pr oper l y i ns truct ed on the el e ment s of r ob be ry and capi t al m ur der , t aki ng the St at e’ s evi dence as a w hol e, i tw as r eas onabl e f orthe j ury t o concl ude thatG of f m ur der ed B r andy w hi l e enga ged i n the cr i m e of r obbery. G of

f’ s char ge thatthe evi dence i n thi s m att er d o es n o t su p p o rthis co n v ict ion of ca p it al m u rde r w ith th e u n d erlying fel o n y of rob b e ry is
w ith o u t m e rit. I V . P ros ecut ori al C ondu ct

### 37

¶ 1 0 0
. Go f

f a l l e g e s th a tth e S t a t e c o mmi t t e d mi s c o n d u c ti n n u me r o u s i n s t a n c e s a n d c l a i ms thats uch mi s conductdepr i ved hi m of a f ai rt r i al and a r el i abl e s ent enci ng pr ocee di ng, thus
m andat i ng thathi s convi ct i on and s ent ence of death be vac at ed. ¶101. T hi s C our t has hel d that the f ai l ur e by def

ens e couns el cont empora neous l y t o obj ect t o a pr os ecut or ’ s r emar k attr i al bar s cons i der at i on of pr os ecut or i al
- m i s conductal l egat i ons
o n a p p e a l. Ho d

g e s v . S ta te , 912 So. 2d 730, 751 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng D a v is v . S ta te , 660 So. 2d 1228, 1255 ( M i s s . 1995) )
. T he rul e governi ng pr es ervat i on f orr evi ew pr ovi des thati f an appel l antr ai s es f

orr evi ew an i s s ue notr ai s ed i n the pl eadi ngs , tr ans cr i pt , orrul i ngs , t he
a p p e lla n t m u s t h a v e p r e s e rv e d th e is s u e b y ra is in g it in a m o tio n fo r n e w tr ia l. Id
. ( ci t i ng M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 -1 3 -3 1 (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ); J a c kso n v. S ta te , 423 So. 2d 129, 131 (M i ss. 1 9 8 2 )). T h e ra tio n a le f o r th is ru le is b a s e d o n th e p o licy o f g iv in g th e trial ju d g e , p rio r to
a p p e lla te re v ie w , th e o p p o rt u n ity to c o n s id e r t h e a lle g e d e rr o r. Id
. ( ci t i ng Ho w a rdv. S ta te , 5 0 7 S o . 2 d 5 8 , 6 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 )). ¶102. G of

f neverr ai s ed any obj ect i on attr i al , ori n his m oti on fora new tr i al , thatt he pr os ecut i on ha d e ngaged i n mi s conductof any ki nd, and ther ef

or e hi s cl ai m s ar e barr ed f r om
co n side rati o n o n d ir ec t app ea l. N o tw ith stan d ing the p roc ed u ral ba r, the m erit s o f G o ff’ s cl ai m s w i l l be addr es s ed. A . V i c t i m - i m pac t i nf or m at i on dur i ng v oi r di r e and o pe ni ng s t at e m e nt ¶ 1 0 3
. F irst, a c c o rd in g to G o ff, th e S tate in jec ted c h a ra c ter e v id e n c e c o n c e rn in g th e v ictim d u rin g v o ir d ire a s w e ll as d u rin g its o p e n in g sta tem e n t. ¶ 1 0 4
. D u rin g v o ir d ire , the p ro se c u to r a sk e d th e fo llo w in g o f th e p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro rs:

### 38

B Y T H E D IS T R IC T A T T O R N E Y (v o ir d ire ): S h e w o rk e d a s a c o c k tail w ai tr es s ata bari n A l abam a w her e s he w or ked t o hel p s uppor therf ami l y. A n d y o u ’re g o ing to h ea r th at from h er h u sb an d
. A n d sh e left2 4 d ay s b efo re h e r d e a th w ith th e d e fe n d a n t. N ow , the ques t i on I have f orya’ l l i s, w i l l you hol d thatagai ns tthe St at e of M i s s i s s i p p i th a ts h e wo r k e d i n a b a r ? S o me p e o p l e j u s td o n ’ tl i k e t h a t . S o me pe op l e thi nk y ou o ug htn otwor k i n a b a r . Can e ve ryb od y t e l l me her pr of es s i on orhercar eerthats he w as doi ng atthe t i m e w i l l notaf f ectyour v e r d i c t ? Ca n e v e r y b o d y t e l l me th a t ? T h a ty o u c a n f o l l o w th e l a w? B e c a u se th e law d o e sn ’t sa y y o u h a v e the rig h t t o life u n les s y o u ’re a c o c k tail w aitress, or y o u h av e the ri g h t to l if e u n less yo u l eft y o u r kids 2 4 d ay s b efo re wi th a n o th e rma n . I td o e s n ’ ts a y th a t . I td o e s n ’ ts a y th a t . An d I n e e d t o k n o w. A nd i t ’ s al l r i ght
. A gai n, as the J udge t ol d you, thi s i s A m eri ca, w e ca n b e l i e v e wh a twe wa n t . An d th a t ’ s th e g r e a tth i n g a b o u to u rc o u n try . Bu twe need t o know now . B eca us e i f that ’ s goi ng t o botheryou, w e have t o know now . So, can e verybody t el l m e they ca n f ol l ow the l aw as gi ven t o you by the C o u rt? ¶105. L at er , duri ng the prosecuti on ’s o pen i ng s t at ement , the di s tr i ctatt orney made the fo llo w in g sta tem e n t: B Y T H E D I ST R I C T A T T O R N E Y ( openi ng s t at ement ) : . . . [ O ] n A ugus tthe 2nd, B r andy St ew artY at es w as 29 yea r s ol d. She had a hus band named J ames. She had a s on ei ghtyear s ol d, J ames I V , and s he had a daught ernamed Si s s y. H erm otherC ar ol yn, herfa therJac k, hers i s t erC rys t al , and herbr other J ef f l oved herdear l y and ca r ed f orhergr eat l y. O n A ugus tthe 2nd, t hey coul d notunder s t and the dec i s i on B r andy had made, a dec i s i on t o l eave herf ami l y and go t o w i th thatm an r i ghtther e, the d e f e n d a n tth a ty o u s e e i n th i s c o u r tr o o m. N ow , B r andy, you w i l l hear , w as a cockt ai l w ai tr es s ata bari n A l abama. She w o rk e d th e re to h e lp s u p p o rt th e fa m ily . J a m e s w o rk e d c o n s tru c tio n . S h e me tM r . Go f

f a tth a tb a r , a n d f

o rr e a s o n s we wi l l p r o b a b l y n e v e rk n o w, s he made a dec i s i on t o go w i t h him
. B utatthatt i m e, al l the conc ern, al l the lo v e , n o o n e , n o o n e e v e r d re a m e d th a t 2 4 d a y s la ter sh e w o u ld lay d e a d in R o o m 1 2 1 o f t h e R o c k y C re e k In n h e re in L u c e d a le , M is s is s ip p i.

### 39

¶106. W e f

i nd that the ques t i ons as ked by the pr os ecut or dur i ng voi r di r e w er e perm i s s i bl e,
as “[ o] url aw al l ow s an att orney f orei thers i de t o pr obe the pr ej udi ces of the pr os pect i ve j ur or s t o t he end t hatal l w i l l under s t and the j ur or s ’ thought s on m att er s di r ect l y r el at ed t o t he i s s ue s t o be tr i ed. ” W

e st v . S ta te , 553 So. 2d 8, 22 ( M i s s . 1989)
. T he pr os ecut i on w ant ed to k n o w w h e th e r a n y p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro r w o u ld b e p re ju d ice d a g a in st B ra n d y o r th e S tate beca us e s he w as a c ockt ai l w ai tr es s a nd/ orbe caus e s he had l ef the rhus band f

oranotherm an. ¶107. W i th r egar d t o the pr os ecut i on’s ope ning st at em ent, thi s C our thas hel d that “the p u rp o se o f a n o p e n in g sta tem e n t is to in fo rm th e ju ry w h a t a p a rty to th e lit ig a tio n e x p e c ts the pr oof

t o s how
. ” S la u g h terv. S ta te , 815 So. 2d 1122, 1131 ( M i s s . 2002 ) ( quot i ng Cre n sh a w v. S ta te , 5 1 3 S o . 2 d 8 9 8 , 9 0 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 )). W e find that the p ro se cu tor’s
s t a t e me n td i d j u s tth i s
– i n f o r m th e j u ry wh a ti te x p e c t e d th e e v i d e n c e t o s h o w. ¶108. Fur therm or e, s t at ement s made by couns el dur i ng voi rdi r e ordur i ng openi ng ar gum ent d o n o t c o n s titu te e v id e n c e . See He n to n v. S ta te , 752 So. 2d 406, 409 ( M i s s . 1999) ( cl os i ng arg u m en ts are n o t evid en ce ); Cre n sh a w v. S ta te , 5 1 3 S o . 2 d 8 9 8 , 9 0 0 (o p e n in g sta tem e n ts
a re n o t ev id e n c e ). T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. B . V i cti m -i m p act an d ch ara cter evi d en ce d u ri n g g u i l t ph ase ¶109. G of

f al s o cont ends thatthe St at e, dur i ng the gu i l tph as e, f or m al l y i ntr oduced i m pr oper
v ict im -i m p ac t an d ch ara cter ev iden ce thro u g h B ran d y ’s hu sb an d , Jam es. D u ri n g the S tat e’s
cas e- i n- chi ef

, Jam es i dent i f

i ed hi m s el f

as B r andy’ s hus band of ei ghtyear s , r ei t er at ed that they had tw o chi l dr en t ogether , and s t at ed w her e B r andy w or ked as w el l as w hatki nd of
w or k she di d. J ames’ s t es t i m ony i n no w ay t ouched upon B r andy’ s char act er . N ordi d J ames

### Jame s did, in fac t, pres ent victim -i mpa ct

tes timony during the se nte ncing phaseof 25 

### thetria l. This te stim ony was proper , as re cogni ze d by both t he Mi ss is sippi Le gis lature and thi s Cour t. Mis si ss ippiCode Annot at ed Se ction 99- 19-157( 2)( a) (Re v. 2007) al lows for an oral v ictim impact statement “at any senten cing hearing ” with the p ermissionof th e courts. This Cour

t has a dopte d the Unit ed State s Supre meCour t’ s hol ding in Payne

v. Tenne ss ee , 501 U.S. 808, 111 S. C t. 2597, 115 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1991) , and note d that “ [a ] st at e m ay le gitim at ely conc ludethat e vide nceabout thevic tim and about

theim pac t of themurder

on the v ictim’s family is relev ant to the jury’s decisio n as to wheth er or no t the d eath p enalty shoul d be i mpos ed. ” Ha nsen v. Sta te , 592 So. 2d 114, 146 ( Mis s. 1991). 40 tes tify d u rin g th e g u iltp h a se a s to th e im p a c t h is w ife ’s m u rd e r h a d h a d o n h im o r h is chi l dr en. Thi s i s s ue i s w i thoutm er i t , as the t es t i m ony “conc ern[ ed] the bac kgr ound .
. . of

25 th e v ic ti m ” a n d m e r e ly s e t th e s ta g e fo r t h e p re s e n ta tio n o f r e le v a n t e v id e n c e . Spi cerv. S ta te , 921 So. 2d at307. C . Seeki ng prom i s es f rom t he j ury duri ng voi r di re ¶110. G of

f al l eges that dur i ng voi r di r e, the St at e s ought a pr om i s e f r om the j ury thatt hey
w o u ld b e a b le t o co n v ictG o ff ev en in the ab sen ce o f D N A ev iden ce . T h e p arti cu lar i n q u iry of w hich G off

com plai ns i s as f

oll ow s: B Y T H E D I ST R I C T A T T O R N E Y ( voi rdi r e) : . . . [ Y ] ou know , i f you w at ch T V a l ot , you pr obabl y gett o w at ch— I don’ tknow how m any of you— how m a n y o f y o u w a tc h C S I? W e ll, ra is e y o u r h a n d . S e e , th e re ’s a lo t o f y o u . A l otof you. I t ’ s a ve r y popul ars how
. M y ki ds l ove i t . A l l r i ght
. T hey’ r e ol der an d they lov e tha t sho w . T h ey li k e L aw an d O rde r. B ut , c a n e ve r yb od y t e l l me tha tthe y c a n s e pa r a t e w ha tthe y s e e on TV f r om w hatyou s ee i n the courtr oom ? I know thats ounds l i ke a s i l l y ques t i on, but so m e p eo p le go , o h , w ell , itw as o n C S I, so h o w co m e the y d o n ’td o itin ev ery c a se ? A ll righ t. A nd I can te l l you how I know , I know C SI and Law and O r derar e makebeli eve. I f you fl i p the chan nel, yo u m ay see S cotty beam i ng som ebo dy el se u p , an d th a t’s o n T V . A ll righ t?

### In Stringer , the prose cution s pec if ic al ly reque st ed a

prom is e during voir direfor 26 

### a verd ict impo singthe d eath p enalty
. Stringer , 500 So. 2d at 938. During cl osing argument, th e pro secutio n remin dedthe jury o f their p rior p romise. Id
. 41 So, can e verybody t el l m e— and, agai n, thi s ki nd of goes t o the bur den of p r o o f , y o u k n o w, a b o u twha te v i d e n c e y o u h a v e
— a n d c a n e v e ry o n e t e l l me thatthey w i l l l i s t en t o the evi dence and nots pecul at e bec aus e they don’ thave, s ay, D N A or they don’ thave f i ngerpr i nt s and thi ngs you m ay s ee orhearabout on C SI ? C an eve r yone t el l m e they ca n do that ? Y eah? ¶111. D ur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent s , the St at e r emi nded the j ury of the ques t i on pos ed dur i ng voi rdi r e, st at i ng in partthat“[ y] ou w er e as ked i n voi rdi r e, you al l know aboutC SI
. C an you s etthatas i de i f

i t ’ s notneede d and r eturn a ve r di ct , a nd you al l s ai d yes
. So w e as k you t o hol d t o that
. I t ’ s notn ecessar y here , and i t ’ s notneede d. T he evi dence w as
overw hel m i ng. ” A ccor di ng t o G of f , thi s t act i c of putt i ng j ur or s i n a “box” has l ong been
c o n d e m n e d . In su p p o rt o f th is a rg u m e n t, G o ff re lies o n th is C o u rt’s s tate m e n t: I ti s a n i m pr operi nf

l uence t o putthe j ury i n a “box” by voi rdi r e t act i cs w hi ch e x tra c t a p ro m ise , p rio r to tri a l, to ign o re e v id e n c e fa v o ra b le to th e d e fe n d a n t. T hi s pr om i s e orpl edge pr event s t he j ur or s f r om cons i der i ng al l f

act or s r el at i ve to th e v e rd ict. T h e ju ro rs a re th e n c a lle d u p o n d u rin g c lo sin g a rg u m e n t to f ul f i l l t hatpr om i s e, and the ef f ect–w hethercal cul at ed ornot–i s t o s hame or coer ce the j ury i nt o r ej ect i ng f act or s w hi ch w oul d t end t o m i t i gat e agai ns tthe death penal ty. S trin g e r v . S ta te , 5 0 0 S o . 2 d 9 2 8 , 9 3 8 -39 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 ). 26 ¶112. I t i s r ever s i bl e err or t o as k a j ur or dur i ng voi r di r e t o comm i t t o r eturni ng a part i cul ar
v e rd ic t. I

d . a t 9 3 8 ; s ee al

s o W est v . S ta te , 4 8 5 S o . 2 d 6 8 1 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 ); Mu rp hy v. S ta te , 24 6 S o. 2d 92 0 (M i ss. 197 1). H ere, how ever, the prosecutordi d no task the j urors for a pr om i s e t o convi ct , nordi d he as k the j ur or s t o i gnor e any pi ece of evi dence ; r ather , he as ked

### “The ‘CS I effect’ i s a te rm that l egal a

uthoritie s and thema ss me dia havecoined 27 

### to de sc ribe a

suppos ed influenc e that wat ching thete le vision sho w CSI: Cri meSce ne Inv estigatio n has onjuror beh avio r. So me h ave claimed th at juro rs wh o see th e hig h-quality for ens ic evi denc e pr es ent ed on CSIra is e their s tandards in re altria ls, inwhic h ac tua l evi denc e i s typic al ly m orefl awe d and unc ertain. ” Unit ed St ate s v . Fi el ds , 483 F.3d 313, 355 n.39 ( 5th Cir. 2007) ( ci ting To m R. T yler, V iewin g C SI an dth e T hresh oldof Guilt: Mana ging Tr

uth and Jus ti cein Re al it

y and Fi ction, 115 Yal e L. J. 1050, 1050 ( 2006))
. 42 the j ur or s t o l i s t en t o the evi dence and r eturn a ver di ctba s ed upon the evi dence pr es ent ed at trial. See T

a y lo r v . S ta te , 6 7 2 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 6 , 1 2 6 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ) (q u e stio n s d id n o t ap p e a r to 27
e x tr a c t a n y k in d o f c o m m itm e n t fro m th e p o ten tial ju ro rs, b u t m e re ly “ p ro b e d ” in to th e ir p re ju d ice s in o rd e r to g e t so m e in sig h t in to th e ir th o u g h ts); W e st v . S ta te , 553 So. 2d 8, 22 ( M i s s . 19 89 ) ( O url aw al l ow s an att orney f orei thers i de t o pr obe the pr ej udi ces of t he p ro sp e c tiv e ju ro rs to th e e n d th a t a ll w ill u n d e rsta n d th e ju ro rs’ th o u g h ts o n m a tters d ire c tly related to the issue s to b e tri ed
. W h at i s i m p erm issi b le i s for an att o rne y to attem p t t o sec u re fro m th e ju ro r a p led g e th a t, i f a c e rta in se t of fac ts o c c u r o r ar e p re se n ted , th e jur o r w ill v o te
a c ertain w ay ). T h ere fore , the a d m issi o n o f th is st atem en t w as n o t error. D . A rgum ent out s i de t he rec ord ¶ 1 1 3
. G o ff c o n ten d s th a t th e S tate c o m m itt e d m isc o n d u c t d u rin g c lo sin g a rg u m e n t w h e n it
a rg u e d tha t th e o n ly w a y tha t th e b lo o d co u ld h a v e g o tten o n the b a c k o f G o ff’s sh irt w a s if G of f had s l as hed and be at en B r andy. G of f as s ert s thatthe pr os ecut or ’ s argum entw as
uns uppor t ed by the r ecor d f orthr ee r eas ons : ( 1) i n hi s s t at ementt o pol i ce, G of f expl ai ned thatthe bl ood on the shi r tre s ul t ed f r om hi s l yi ng on B r andy’ s body af t erhe di s cover ed her
m ur der ed i n the mot el r oom ; ( 2) no w i tnes s t es t i f i ed as t o how t he bl ood m ay have got t en on

### 43

the bac k of

G of f’ s s hi r t ; and ( 3) w hen as ked aboutw hatappea r ed t o be “dr opl et s of bl ood”
o n th e b a c k o f th e sh irt, In v e stig a to r S m ith d id n o t ag re e w ith th e p ro se c u to r’s a ss e ss m e n t,
s ta tin g th a t th e m a rk s w e re m e re ly “ s m a lle r s ta in s .” ¶114. D ur i ng i t s cl os i ng ar gum ent , the pr os ecut i on ar gued: B Y T H E D I STR I CT A TTO RN EY : . . . [ F] i r s tof f , the s hi r t . Y ou c a n br i ng the s hi r tup, pl eas e. T hi s i s hi s s hi r t . J us tl ook att he st ai n on thi s s hi r t . She t ol d you t her e w er e dr opl et s . D r opl et s . A l l ri ght
. T hes e ar e w her e the butt ons ar e mi s s i ng. D oes thatl ook l i ke w hatyou w oul d getby l ayi ng on somebody? N o w , I k n o w h e sa y s h e w a s th e re fo r a n h o u r a n d a h a lf, w e ’re g o in g to talk ab o u t th at i n a m inu te. B u t th at’s a lot of b loo d , m em b ers o f th e jury
. T h at’s a l otof bl ood. C ou l d you f

l i p t o the back, pl eas e, s i r ? The ba ck of the s hi r t , l oo k at these dr opl et s . T hati s bl ood i n m ot i on. T hati s thi s . ( M ot i oned w i th arm i n a slash ing m o ti o n . ) T h at’s ho w that g ets the re. T h at a in’tlayin g o n top o f he r. H o w d o y o u g e t b lo o d o n th e b a c k o f a sh irt if y o u ’re lay in g o n to p o f a g irl? W h at did h e d o ? L ay o n h er a n d w ad d le o n the b ac k , too ? P lease
. P lease
. It m akes no s ens e. U s e yourcom m on sens e. T hatshi r tri ghtt her e t el l s you, he k il led h er. ¶115. “The purpos e of

a cl os i ng a r gum enti s t o f ai r l y s um up the evi dence
. ” R og e rs v. S ta te , 796 So. 2d 1022, 1027 ( M i s s . 2001)
. T he pr os ecut ors houl d poi ntoutthos e f act s pr es ent ed b y th e S ta te “ o n w h ic h th e p ro s e c u ti o n c o n te n d s a v e rd ic t o f g u ilty w o u ld b e p ro p e r.” Clem o n s v . S ta te , 3 2 0 S o . 2 d 3 6 8 , 3 7 1 (M is s . 1 9 7 5 ). ¶116. T hi s Courtha s s t at ed that“ [ a] n i m pas s i oned ar gum enti s noti n i t sel f an i m proper
ar gum ent . Fur therm or e, the pr os ecut or , a s a ny othercouns el , i s f r ee t o r eca l l and comm ent
on t est i m ony of

f er ed i n evi dence and t o dr aw i nf er ence s . [ T he pr os ecut or ] m ay comm ent
u p o n a n y fa c ts in tro d u c e d in to e v id e n c e . H e m a y d ra w w h a tev e r d e d u c tio n s s e e m to h im pr operf r om thes e f

act s . . . . ” B e ll v. S ta te , 7 2 5 S o . 2 d 8 3 6 , 8 5 1 (M is s . 1 9 9 8 ).

### 44

¶117. W e f

i nd thatthe prosecutor r eferred t o a pi ece of val i dl y admi t t ed evi dence , the b loo d y sh irt and d rew a re aso n ab le i n feren ce there from ; and there fore the p rose cu tor’s
s ta te m e n t w a s p e rm is s ib le
. I d. a t 8 5 1
. A s s u c h , th is a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r i s w ith o u t m e ri t. E . P l ai n error ¶1 18
. G of

f as s er t s t hat the s e e r r or s w e r e s o pr e j ud i c i a l tha t the y s ho ul d be c on s i de r e d a s p lain e rro r o n a p p e a l. A s h a s b e e n sta ted m a n y ti m e s b y this C o u rt, “iss u e s n o t p re se n ted to th e trial c o u rt fo r la c k o f c o n tem p o ra n e o u s o b jec tio n a re p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d , an d e rro r, if any, i s w ai ved. ” W

el l s v. State, 903 So. 2d 739, 742 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng B a llen g e r v . S ta te , 667 So. 2d 1242, 1272 ( M i s s . 1995) )
. “W e departf r om thi s pr emi s e onl y in unusual
c ir c u m s ta n c e s ,” a s a m e a n s o f p re v e n tin g a m a n if e s t m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e . D i xon v. State, 953 So. 2d 1108, 1116 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed)
. “Such ci r cumst ance s ar e r equi r ed f orthi s C our tt o cons i derpl ai n err or , des pi t e f ai l ur e t o pr es erve such er r or . ” I d. N o t o n ly
ar e G of f’ s a s s i gnm ent s of

e r r orpr ocedur al l y ba rr ed, they ar e w i thoutm er i t . G of f m ay not
r el y on the pl ai n- err ordoctr i ne. V . I nef

f ect i ve A s s i s t ance of

C ounsel ¶119. L i s t i ng ei ghts epar at e cl ai m s , G of f c ont ends thathe w as deni ed the r i ghtt o compet ent
couns el as g uarant eed by the Si xth A m endment , and thatthi s C our tm us tgr anta new t r i al due t o thi s cons t i tut i onal i nf r i ngementand the r es ul t i ng pr ej udi ce. ¶1 2 0
. T h e S tat e c o u n ters th at, w ith the e x ce p ti o n o f th e firstclaim , the c lai m s raised b y G o ff
a re b a rr e d , a s th e y o c c u rr e d a t tim e s w h e n G o ff w a s a c tin g a s h is o w n a tto rn e y . See Fa re tta
v . Ca lifo rn ia , 422 U
. S. 806, 834, 95 S. C t . 2525, 2541 45 L
. E d. 2d 562, 581 n. 46 ( 1975)

### 45

( not i ng that“a def

endantw ho el ect s t o r epr es enthi m s el f cannotther eaf

t ercompl ai n thatt he qual i ty of

hi s ow n def

ens e amount ed t o a deni al of ‘ ef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

counse l ’ ”)
. T he St at e’ s cont ent i on, how ever , i s m i s pl ace d. B ecause each of G of f’ s i nef f ect i ve- as s i s t ance ch arg es p ertains to m att ers tha t w ere ad d resse d at tr ial by st an d b y co u n sel, rathe r th an G o ff hi m s el f , w e w i l l notappl y Far etta in this m att er. ¶12 1. In eval uati ng an inef fect i ve-ass i st ance c harge, thi s C ou rtapp l i es the tw o-prong ed t est
s etf or th i n Str i c kl

and v. W as hington, 4 6 6 U. S. 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S. Ct
. 2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 4
- 6 5 , 8 0 L. E d. 2d 674, 693- 95 ( 1984) and adopt ed by thi s C our ti n Str ingerv. State, 45 4 S o. 2d 468, 476- 77 ( M i s s . 1984)
. G of f m us ts how : ( 1) thathi s c ouns el ' s pe r f or m ance w as def

i ci ent , and (2 ) t h a t th is a lle g e d d e fi c ie n c y p re ju d ic e d h is d e fe n s e . L indsay v. State, 720 So. 2d 182, 184 ( M i s s . 1998) ( ci t i ng Str i ckland, 466 U
. S. at687, 104 S. C t . at2064- 65, 8 0 L . E d. 2d at 6 9 3 -9 5 ). T h e b u rd e n o f p ro v in g b o th p ro n g s lie s o n G o ff, w h o is fa c e d w ith a re b u ttab le p re s u m p tio n th a t tr ia l c o u n s e l is c o m p e te n t a n d h is p e rf o rm a n c e w a s n o t d e fi c ie n t. Ch ase
v. State, 699 So. 2d 521, 526 ( M i s s . 1997)
. A ddi t i onal l y, G of f musts how thatt here i s a
r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty t hat , butf orthe err or s of

hi s couns el , the j udgm entw oul d have be en d if fe re n t. Fis herv. State, 53 2 S o. 2d 99 2 , 99 7 (M i ss. 19 88 ). F i nall y, this C ou rtm ust det erm i ne w hethertr i al couns el ’ s per f or m ance w as bot h defi ci entand pr ej udi ci al t o t he def ens e bas ed upon t he “t ot al i ty of the ci r cumst ance s . ” Car rv. State, 873 So. 2d 991, 1003 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng Car ney v. State, 525 So. 2d 776, 780 ( M i s s . 1988))
. I f thi s C our tf

i nds thata i nef

f ect i ve- as s i s t ance char ge chi ef l y f ai l s underthe pr ej udi ci al pr ong, then w e may p ro c e e d d ir e c tl y t o th is p a rt o f t h e te s t. See S tr ic k la n d , 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 9 7 (“ If it is e a sie r to

### 46

d i s p o s e o f

a n i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s c l a i m o n th e g r o u n d o f l a c k o f s u f f i c i e n tp r e j u d i c e , wh i c h we expec tw i l l of

t en be s o, thatcour s e s houl d be f ol l ow ed. ”) A . F a i l u r e t o t i me l y i n v e s t i g a t e G o f f’ s p o t e n t i a l me n t a l h e a l t h c l a i ms and i naccurat e i nf

orm at i on provi ded t o t he t ri al court ¶122. A ccor di ng t o G of f , hi s tr i al couns el pr ovi ded i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance w hen they f ai l ed t o have h i m eval uat ed unt i l af t ert he t i m e t o as s ertan i ns ani ty def ens e had pa s s ed and by p ro v id in g in c o rr e c t in fo rm a tio n to th e tr ia l c o u rt . ¶123. O n J anuary 25, 2005, G off’s att orneys fi l ed a m oti on fora court - or der ed m ent al exami nat i on of

the def endantbeca us e of

the horr i f

i c natur e of

the cr i m e. A tthe conc l us i on of a hea r i ng on A pr i l 7, 2005, w her e G of f t es t i f i ed, def ens e couns el m ade c l earthathe w as
w i thdr aw i ng the pr evi ous r eques tf ora ment al eval uat i on f orthe purpos es of de t erm i ni ng
w hetherG of

f w as compet entt o s t and tr i al ; r at her, the eval uat i on w as r eques t ed onl y f or
m i t i gati on pu rposes. ¶124. A t a s econd pr etr i al hear i ng on A pr i l 25, 2005, couns el f ur ther expl ai ned that he w as no l ongerr eques t i ng a m ent al e val uat i on f orthe def endant
. Counsel s t at ed that , betw een the filing o f th e m o tio n fo r th e m e n tal e v a lu a tio n o n Ja n u a ry 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 , an d th e h e a rin g o n A p ril 7, 2005, he “c oul d fi nd n o i ndepende ntbackgr ound of M r . G of f w her e he w oul d have ha d any ps ychi atr i c ca r e orps ychol ogi s tcar e orany i ndi cat i on t hathe w oul d notbe compet ent to s ta n d tr ia l o r t h a t h e w a s le g a lly in s a n e a t th e tim e o f t h e o ff e n s e .” ¶1 2 5 . W e fi n d that co u n sel w as no t d eficien t, in that h e w as i n ti m ately fam il iar w ith G o ff, hi s fam i l y, and hi s backgr ound, he had c onduct ed hi s ow n i nves t i gat i on, and af t er

### 47

cons ul t at i on w i th G of

f , he w i thdr ew hi s r eques tf ora m ental ev al uat i on as or i gi nal l y f i l ed and as ked thatan eva l uat i on be conduc t ed f orpurpos es of

s ecuri ng m i t i gat i on evi dence
. F u rth erm o re, ev en if i t co u ld b e said that G o ff’ s co u n sel w as d eficien t bas ed o n the fa il u re to in v e stig a te, G o ff h a s fa iled to d e m o n stra te th a t co u n se l’s a c tio n s p re ju d ice d h im . D e sp ite G of f’ s cont ent i ons , t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatcounse l used the r es ul t s of the exa m i nat i on f

or the purpose h e int ended–a s evi dence of m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s atthe s ent enci ng phas e. A s th e ju ry d id in fa c t co n sid e r su c h e v id e n c e , this a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit. B. F ai l ure t o v oi r di r e j ur or s on e f f e c t of vi e wi ng c r i m e s c e ne phot og r aphs ¶12 6. G off

co ntends t hat hi s at t orney’s perf orm ance w as const i tuti on al l y d efi ci ent becau se th e j u ry wa s n o tq u e s t i o n e d r e g a r d i n g wh e th e rth e y wo u l d b e p r e j u d i c e d b y th e g ru e s o me phot ogr aphs dur i ng the s ent enci ng phas e. G of f c i t es t o R o ss v. S ta te , 95 4 S o. 2d 96 8 (M i ss. 2007) in su p p o rt o f th is a rg u m e n t. H o w e v e r, R oss d o e s n o t re v e a l a n y s u c h fin d in g b y th is C our t . I n addi t i on, dur i ng voi rdi r e, G of f’ s couns el exp l i ci t l y i nqui r ed as t o w hethert he grues om e phot ogr aphs w oul d af f ectthei rdeci s i on atthe cul pabi l i ty phas e. ¶ 1 2 7 . T h is c laim is w ith o u t m e rit. C . Fai l ur e t o o bj ec t t o v i c t i m i m pac t atvo i r di r e , i n ope ni ng st atem en t, an d i n tes ti m on y a t t h e cu l p ab i l i ty ph ase D . F ai l ur e t o obj ect t o pros ecut or’ s i m proper ques t i oni ng on voi r di re, i m pr ope r c l os i ng a r gum ent on j ur or “pr om i s e , ” a nd ar gum e nt out s i de t he rec ord ¶ 1 2 8
. B o th C a n d D w e r e d is c u s s e d in Is s u e IV , supra , w he r e i n we de t e r mi ne d tha t t he ref erences t o w hich G off

com plai ns w ere noti m proper; and that the prosecutordi d n ot as k

### 48

fo r a p ro m ise to c o n v ict, n o r d id h e a sk th a t an y e v id e n c e to b e ig n o re d . T h e re fo re , b o th char ges ar e w i thoutm er i t , as thi s C our tw i l l notf i nd i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance w her e a d e fe n d a n t’s u n d e rly in g c laim is w ith o u t m e rit. R oss , 954 So. 2d at1004. E . F ai l ure t o obj ect t o j ury com posi t i on ¶1 29
. G of

f cl ai m s t hat c ou ns e l ’ s f a i l ur e t o ob

j e c t t o the c ompos i t i on of the ve ni r e , w hi ch G of f cl ai m s had a di s pr opor t i onat e numberof pot ent i al j ur or s w i th cl os e t i es t o l aw enf or cement , l ed t o t he vi ol at i on of G of f’ s r i ghtt o a f

ai rtr i al and an i m part i al j ury. ¶130. G of

f i s corr ect that thi s C our t has r ever s ed a convi ct i on w her e an i nor di nat e number
o f ju ro rs w e re f

o u n d to h a v e h a d c lo s e tie s to la w e n fo rc e m e n t. See M h o o n v. S ta te , 464 So. 2 d 7 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ) ( s upers eded by s tat ut e on othergr ounds , s ee B e v ill v . S ta te, 556 So. 2d 699, 713 ( M i s s . 1990) )
. I n M hoon , the m a

jo rity w a s tro u b led th a t M h o o n ’s c o u n se l w o u ld h av e h ad to u se a ll o f his p ere m p tory ch all en g e s ju st to ex clud e a ll the p erso n s w h o w ere
e ith e r o n th e p o lic e fo rc e o r c lo s e ly c o n n e c te d w ith th e p o lic e fo rc e . Id
. at80. M o reo v er, thi s C our tf

ound that , even i f

M hoon’ s c ouns el ha d w ant ed t o do thi s , he coul d nothave done
s o , a s o n e ju ro r h a d n o t p ro p e rl y id e n tif ie d h e r c o n n e c tio n to th e p o lic e o n v o ird ir e . Id
. M hoo n, ther ef

or e, d e ter m in e d th a t th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, in ter a lia, c re a ted a n u n fa ir h a rd sh ip fo r t h e d e fe n d a n t. I

d. at81. ¶1 3 1
. H o w e v e r, th e u n iqu e circu m stan ce s w h ich resu lt ed in that fi n d ing b y this C o u rt in M hoon , ar e notpr es enti n t he cas e bef or e us. H er e, t he j ury pool w as compri s ed of a f i f tyei ghtper s on s peci al veni r e. A f t erchal l enges f

orcaus e, the tr i al j udge s truck t en pot ent i al j ur or s . T her ef

or e, t he r emai ni ng pool w as com pos ed of forty- ei ghtveni r e- per s ons . E l even

### 49

of t hes e f orty- e i gh tpe r s on s ha d s ome d e gr e e of c on ne c t i on t o l a w e nf or c e ment , w hi ch
ra n g e d fr o m d ir e c t to in d ir e c t. ¶132. O f

the tw el ve j ur or s chos en t o s erve, tw o had conne ct i ons t o l aw enf or cement : T i f

f any H u d so n (pa n el on e, j u ror n ine) a n d C h arlott e D ri sk ell (p a n e l f o u r, juro r si x ). H u d so n ’s
m o ther is a c o rrecti o n al officer a t th e jail w h ere G o ff w as b eing h eld, an d D ri sk ell ’s d a u g h te r- in -l a w ’s fi rs t c o u s in is a d e p u ty . ¶133. A s r ei t er at ed i n M hoon , “[t ] his C ou rtd oes nothol d thata per s on engage d i n l aw enf or cement , orr el at ed by bl ood orm arr i age t o one enga ged i n l aw enf or cement , s houl d be pers e exc l uded f

r om j ury s ervi ce. ” I

d. at82. T he numb er of po t ent i al j ur or s , as w el l as actual j ur or s , i n thi s m att erw i th t i es t o l aw enf or cementw as nei therunus ual norpr obl emat i c. ¶1 3 4
. F u rth e rm o re , “[c] o m p lai n ts c o n c e rn in g c o u n se l’s fa ilu re to . . . m a k e c e rta in obj ect i ons fal l w i t hi n the ambi tof tr i al s tr at egy” a nd cannotgi ve r i s e t o an i nef f ect i ve
a s s is ta n c e c la im
. Co le v . S ta te , 666 So. 2d 767, 777 ( M i s s . 1995) ( ci t i ng Mu rr a y v. Mag g io , 7 3 6 F .2 d 2 7 9 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 4 )). T h is C o u rt a lso h a s h e ld th a t “ ju ry se lec tio n d e c isio n s p lain ly fal l w i t hi n the ‘ ambi tof tr i al s tr at egy. ’ ” R e

y n o ld s v . S ta te , 784 So. 2d 929, 934 ( M i ss. 2 0 0 1 ). A s s u c h , w e fin d c o u n se l’s d e c isio n n o t to o b jec t t o the co m p o sitio n o f th e v e n ire to b e a s tr a te g ic d e c is io n w h ic h th is C o u rt w ill n o t s e c o n d -g u e s s . S trin g e r v . S ta te , 454 So. 2d at477. ¶ 1 3 5 . T h is c laim is w ith o u t m e rit. F . Co u n s e l e r r e d i n r e q u e s t i n g s e n t e n c i n g i n s t r u c t i o n 5 , D- 1 A.

### 50

¶136. G of

f c har ges thatcoun sel fai l ed to provide com petentrepr esent at i on w hen he
r eques t ed s ent enci ng i ns truct i on D
- 1A , w hi ch pr ovi ded: Y o u a re a d v ised th a t ju st b e c a u se th e se in stru c tio n s h a v e listed c e rta in aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s you ar e al l ow ed t o cons i der , does notm ean that tho se o r an y o ther a g g rav ati n g circu m stan ce s ex ist
. Iti s for o n ly y o u the ju ry t o det erm i ne, beyond a r eas onabl e doubt , w hi ch aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s exi s tand the w ei ght , i f

a ny, t o gi ve t o any part i cul araggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance . ¶1 37
. A ccor di ng t o G of f , t hi s i ns t ruct i on advi s e d j ur or s thatt he l i s t ed aggr avat i ng circu m stan ce s w ere n o t th e o n ly ag g rav ati n g circu m stan ce s the y co u ld co n side r. ¶ 1 3 8
. W e s e e n o e rr o r, p re ju d icia l o r o th e rw ise , in th is in stru c tio n . F u rth e r, as th e S tate poi nt s o ut , j ury i ns truc t i on s a r e t o be r e a d t og e the ra nd t a ke n a s a whol e , wi th no one in s tru c tio n ta k e n o u t o f c o n te x t. B y ro m v. S ta te , 863 So. 2d 836, 874 ( M i ss. 20 03 ). T he S tat e a d d s tha t ano ther jury instruction , sen tenc ing instruction 1 , co rrectl y o rde red the ju rors t o cons i deronl y t he fol l ow i ng el ement s of aggr avat i on, as s etf

or th i n M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A n n o tate d S e c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -1 0 1 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ), i n d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e d e a th p e n a lty sh o u ld be i m pos ed: 1. W hetherthe def

endantw as pr evi ous l y convi ct ed of a f el ony i nvol vi ng the us e orthr eatof

vi ol ence t o the per s on; 2. W hetherthe def

endantknow i ngl y c r eat ed a gr eatr i s k of death t o m any p e rso n s; 3. W hetherthe capi t al off ense w as comm i t t ed w hi l e the def endantw as e n g a g e d in th e c o m m iss io n o f ro b b e ry ; 4. W hetherthe capi t al of f ens e w as comm i t t ed f

orthe purpos e of

avoi di ng o r p re v e n tin g a law fu l ar re st; 5 . W h e th e r th e c a p ital o ffe n se w a s e sp e c ially h e in o u s, a tro c io u s o r c ru e l.

### 51

Y ou m us tunani m ous l y f i nd, beyond a r eas onabl e doubt , thatone orm or e of the preced i ngag

grava t i ngci rcum stan ces exist s in th is c a se to re tu rn th e d e a th penal ty. I f

none of thes e aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s ar e found t o exi s t , the d e a th p e n a lty m a y n o t b e im p o s e d
. . . . (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) ¶139. T he j ury’ s ver di ct f or the death penal ty enumer at ed onl y thos e aggr avat or s l i s t ed by sta tu te. S e e M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -1 9 -1 0 1 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). T h is c laim is w ith o u t m e rit. G . M i sha n d l i n g o f Stat e’s W i tness ¶140. G of

f cl ai m s that dur i ng the t es t i m ony of D r . St ephen H ayne, couns el f ai l ed t o obj ect t o cl ear l y i r r el evan tand pr ej udi ci al t es t i m ony conce rni ng the amountof pai n s uf f er ed by B r andy. A s D r . H ayne w as t es t i f yi ng atthe cul pabi l i ty phas e, s uch evi dence had no relev an ce to the ca u se a n d m an n er o f de ath, ac co rdin g to G o ff. ¶1 4 1
. T h is C o u rt, h a s s tate d tha t “[d]i sc u ss io n o f p a in b y a fo re n sic p a th o lo g ist is admi s s i bl e. ” Mitch e ll v. S ta te , 7 9 2 S o . 2 d 1 9 2 , 2 1 5 -1 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ); McG ow en v. S ta te , 859 So. 2d 320, 335 ( M i s s . 2003) ( quot i ng Holl an d II, 7 0 5 S o . 2 d 3 0 7 , 3 4 1 (M is s . 1 9 9 7 ))
. See al s o W h ittin g to n v. S ta te , 523 So. 2d 966, 976 ( M i s s . 1988) ( al l ow i ng f or ens i c t es t i m ony t hat a vi ct i m s uf

f er ed a f at al he arta t t ack as a r es ul tof tr auma and s tr es s i nduced by a beat i ng and
ro b b e ry ). “[I]n M iss iss ip p i, a fo re n sic p a th o lo g ist m a y tes tif y a s to w h a t p ro d u c e d [a vi ct i m ’ s ] i nj ur i es . . . and w hatt r auma s uch an i nj ury w oul d produc e. ” Mc G o w e n , 859 So. 2d at335 ( quot i ng Holl an d II, 7 0 5 S o . 2 d at 34 1 ). ¶142. B eca us e thi s type of t est i m on y i s adm i ssi ble attr i al , G off i s unabl e t o m ake the

### Go ff’s theo ry o f the d efense w as that B randy’s husb and , James, had ab usedher in 28 

### thepas t and was likely theone who ha d ca use d her death. 52 req u isi te sh o w ing o f de fi cien t perfo rm an ce u n d er Str i c kl and , 466 U . S. a t687, 104 S. C t . at 2 0 6 4 -6 5 , 8 0 L . E d . 2 d a t 6 9 3 -9 5 , an d h is c laim is w ith o u t m e rit. ¶143. G of

f al s o cl ai m s thatdur i ng cross -exam i nati on , h i s cou nsel w entf r om al l ow i ng p re ju d icia l tes tim o n y to e licitin g su c h tes tim o n y . In p a rticu lar , G o ff c laim s th a t co u n se l, havi ng f ai l ed t o i nt ervi ew D r . H ayne bef or e he t es t i f

i ed, el i ci t ed t es t i m ony thatther e w as no evi dence of

ol d i nj ur i es t o B r andy, as w el l as t es t i m ony conce rni ng the r emoval of or gans 28 f r om B r andy’ s body. ¶144. I n s uppor tof

hi s a r gum entthatthes e act i ons by co un sel am ou nted t o i neff ect i ve
a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l, G o ff re lies o n a c a se d e c id e d b y th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r t h e T e n th C ir c u it, Fis herv. G ibs on , 282 F. 3d 1283 ( 10 th C i r . 2002). “W her e an att or ney
a c c id e n tally b rin g s o u t tes tim o n y th a t is d a m a g in g b e c a u s e h e h a s fa iled to p re p a re , h is conductcannotbe ca l l ed a s tr at egi c choi ce: an eve ntp r oduced by the happe ns t ance of
couns el ’ s uni nf

or m ed and r eckl es s cr os s - exami nat i on cannotbe ca l l ed a ‘ choi ce’ atal l
. ” Id
. a t 1 2 9 6 ; s ee Str i c kl

and , 466 U
. S. at691 (c ouns el ’ s fa i l ur e t o i nves t i gat e mustbe pr oductof
a re aso n ab le de cisi o n that the p arti cu lar i n v esti g ati o n is un n ec essa ry o r i t i s d eficien t)
. ¶1 4 5 . T h is C o u rth as n o t ado p ted th e ru le esp o u sed b y the T en th C ir cu it
. R athe r, this C o u rt h a s g o n e o n l y s o f

a ra s t o c o mme n tt h a ta d e f e n s e a t t o rn e y ’ s f

a i l u r e t o i n t e r v i e w a p a th o lo g is t, w h ile “ n o t d u ty -b o u n d to [s o ],” w a s “ s u rp ri s in g .” Ho lla n d v. S ta te , 587 So. 2d 8 4 8 , 8 6 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ).

### 53

¶1 4 6
. W h ile d e fe n se c o u n se l’s a c tio n s m a y h av e b ee n de fi cie n t, G o ff h a s fa iled to demonstr at e thathe w as pr ej udi ced as a r es ul tof the t es t i m ony e l i ci t ed. T hi s poi ntof err or is w ith o u t m e rit. H . C ounsel ’ s cum ul at i ve perf orm ance w as cons t i t ut i onal l y i nef f ect i ve. ¶14 7. G off fi nall y con t end s that defense cou nsel ’s err ors, ev en if i nsuff i ci ent t o est abli sh in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e sta n d in g a lo n e , w h e n c o n sid e re d c u m u lativ e ly , are su ffic ien t to underm i ne conf

i dence i n the ver di ctand r equir e r ever s al
. H avi ng f ound eac h the above
m e n tio n e d a rg u m e n ts to b e w ith o u t m e rit, w e fin d th a t G o ff w a s p ro v id e d c o n stitu tio n a lly
e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l at tria l. T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. V I . R ef

usalto G rant a C i rcum s t ant i al E vi dence ( T w o- T heory) I nst ruct i on ¶148. G of

f a s s ert s thatthe tr i al c our ter red by refusi ng t o g ranta prope rl y subm i t t ed ci rcum s t ant i al evi dence ( tw o- theory) i ns truct i on ci t i ng P arkerv. State, 60 6 So
. 2d 11 32, 1140- 41 ( M i s s . 1992)
. G of f cont ends that , be caus e thi s w as a pur el y ci r cumst ant i al evi dence
c a se , h e w a s e n tit led to th e in stru c tio n , a n d th e c o u rt’s d e n ial o f th e in stru c tio n re su lted in th e ju ry n o t b e in g fu lly a n d fa irly in stru c ted o n th e law , thu s m a n d a tin g re v e rsa l. ¶149. G of

f s oughtt o i nvoke the s o- cal l ed “tw o- theory” ci r cumst ant i al evi dence i ns truct i on by subm i t t ed instruct i on D -14, w hich r eads: T h e C o u rt in stru c ts th e ju ry tha t i f th e re m a y b e a fa c t o r c irc u m sta n c e in th is caus e s us cept i bl e of

tw o i nt erpr et at i ons , one f avor abl e and the other unf avor abl e t o the D ef

endant , a nd w hen the j ury ha s c ons i der ed s uch f actor ci r cumst ance w i th al l otherevi dence , ther e i s a r eas on able doubtas t o the

### 54

corr ecti nt erpr et at i on, then you, t he j ury, m us tre s ol ve suc h doubti n f avorof the D ef endant , and pl ace upon s uch f actorci r cumst ance t he i nt erpr et at i on m o st fa v o ra b le to th e D e fe n d a n t. ¶ 1 5 0
. T h e tri a l co u rt re fu se d th e in stru c tio n o n th e b a sis th a t G o ff w a s n o t en tit led to b o th it an d th e ty p ica l circ u m sta n tial-e v id e n c e in stru c tio n ( to th e e x c lu sio n o f e v e ry re a so n a b le hypothes i s cons i s t entw i th i nnocenc e) , and bec aus e the nec es s ary bur den of p roof w as i ncl uded i n the el ement s i ns truct i on. ¶151. T hi s C our thas hel d i n m att er s w here t he case i s based on “ pur el y” ci r cumst ant i al evi dence , thatthe def

endanti s ent i t l ed t o a tw o- theory i ns truct i on, as w el l as the gene r al
c ir c u m s ta n tia l- e v id e n c e in s tru c tio n . P arker, 606 So. 2d at1140- 41 ( quot i ng Henders on v. State, 453 So. 2d 708, 710 ( M i s s . 1984) )
. H ow ever , des pi t e G of f’ s content i on t o t he
c o n tr a ry , P arkeris d is ti n g u is h a b le fr o m th e c a s e s u b ju d ic e . A s w e e x p la in e d , a ci r cumst ant i al
- evi dence cas e ( f orthe purpos es of gr ant i ng a “t w o- theory” i ns truct i on) i s one in w h ic h th e re is n e ith e r a n e y e w itn e s s n o r a c o n fe s s io n to th e c ri m e . S tate v. R og ers , 847 So. 2d 858, 863 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng Ma n g u m v. S ta te , 7 6 2 S o . 2 d 3 3 7 , 3 4 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 )); Str ingf el low v. State, 5 9 5 S o . 2 d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ); see al so R andol

ph v. State, 852 S o . 2 d 5 4 7 , 5 6 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ) (C arlson , J. , co n cu rri n g ). ¶ 1 5 2
. In G o ff’s sta tem e n t to in v e stig a to rs, h e a d m itt e d se tti n g fire to th e m o tel ro o m . T h is
cons t i tut ed a c onf

es s i on t o one of

the cr i m es s etf

or th i n the i ndi ctm ent . I ns truct i on D
- 14
s ou gh tt o c ov e r , i n t ot o, a l l the e vi de nc e s ub mi t t e d i n the St a t e ’ s c a s e . Thus , bas ed on R og ers , the trial c o u rt’s d e c isio n to d e n y a “ tw o -th e o ry ” ins tru c tio n in th is m a tter u lti m a telyT h e ru le origin ated in the ca se o f T hom ps on v. State, w her ei n the C our tr ever s ed 29 a cr i m i nal convi ct i on f

orthe tr i al court ’ s r ef

us al t o gr antthe f

ol l ow i ng i ns truct i on: T he courti ns truct s the j ury t hati f ther e i s any f

actorci r cumst ance pr oven by th e e v id e n c e in th is c a se u p o n w h ich th e ju ry c a n p lac e a re a so n a b le cons truct i on f

avor abl e ei thert o t he st at e orthe def endant , i ti s the duty of

the j ury to acce ptthatcons truct i on f avor abl e t o the def

endant , al though the one f avor abl e t o t he s t at e i s m or e r eas onabl e. 83 M i s s . at287, 35 So. 2d. at689. A l though obi t erdi ctum , s i nce R u n n e ls di d notexpr es s l y denounce T hom ps on , t he 30 s t at ementnonethel es s es pous ed w hy our s i s t erst at e A l abama al r eady had expr es s l y r ej ect ed th e tw o -th e o ry ru le. See , e .g ., G ib so n v. S ta te , 91 A l a. 64, 9 So. 171 ( 1890) ( A char ge w hich i nst ruct s the j ury that, i f the ev i den ce i s suscept i ble of tw o reasonab l e con struct i on s, one of w hi ch i s cons i s t entw i th t he def endant ' s i nnocenc e, i ti s thei rduty t o adopt t hat c o n s tru c tio n , is c a lc u la te d to c o n fu s e a n d m is le a d , a n d is p ro p e rl y re fu s e d .) 

### 55 w a s c o rr e c t. R og ers, 8 4 7 S o . 2 d a t 8 6 3
. T h e re fo re , th is a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit. ¶ 1 5 3
. S in c e its in c e p tio n in M iss iss ip p i ju risp ru d e n c e a t th e tu rn o f th e tw e n tieth c e n tu ry in T h o m p s o n v. S ta te, 8 3 M iss . 2 8 7 , 3 5 S o . 6 8 9 (1 9 0 3 ), th e “ tw o -th e o ry ” c irc u m sta n tialevi dence rul e ( i n i t s di f

f er entf or m s ) has been conde m ned r epea t edl y by thi s C our t , and f or d iverse rea so n s. S ix y ea rs after T hom ps on , w e not ed the pr obl em behi nd thi s type of 29 i ns truct i on: Itrar el y h app ens on the tri al o f a cri m i nal cas e t hat tw o reasonab l e t heo ri es, on e favorabl e t o the st at e and the o ther f avo rabl e t o the defend ant, do no tari se o u t o f a n d to s o m e e x ten t fin d s u p p o rt in th e e v id e n c e . If a c ted u p o n lit e ra lly b y jurie s, this instruc ti o n in m o st case s w o u ld am o u n t t o a p ere m p tory i ns truct i on t o f

i nd the def

endantnotgui l ty. R u n n el s v. State, 9 6 M i s s . 9 2, 9 6, 5 0 So. 4 99 ( 19 09 )
. Y e t , wi tho ute i the rd e ci di ng t he 30
rul e’ s l egal val i di ty, ordenounci ng T hom ps on , supra , R u n n el

s s i m pl y held t hatw hen a

### 56

cr i m i nal def

endanti s gi ven the nec es s ary i ns truct i ons thatgui l tm us tbe pr oven beyond a
re a s o n a b le d o u b t, re fu s a l o f th is in s tru c tio n w ill n o t c o n s titu te re v e rs ib le e rr o r. I d. ; see al so (i n ch ron o log ical ord er) R o u x v. City o f G u lf p o r t, 97 M i s s . 559, 52 So. 485 ( 1910) ( hol di ng
s ame, butr eadi ng R u n n el s as condemni ng the s ubs t ance of the T hom ps on in stru c tio n ); c

f. Sauci erv. State, 102 M i s s . 647, 59 So. 858 ( 1912) ( af f i r m i ng, w i thoutcomm ent , the tri al
court ’ s r ef

us al t o al l ow the i nst ruct i on i n Thom ps on phr as eol ogy) ( ci t i ng R u n n e ls and Roux ); W

ile y v. S ta te, 129 M i s s . 196, 91 So. 906 ( 1922) (s ame) ( ci t i ng R u n n e ls, R o u x, and Sauci er ); B r ady v. State, 1 2 8 M iss. 5 7 5 , 9 1 S o . 2 7 7 (19 2 2 ) (sam e) (cit ing sam e). ¶ 1 5 4
. L a t e r , we expr es s l y denounce d T hom ps on , st at i ng as f

oll ow s: T h e p rin c ip le s o u g h t to b e in v o k e d in th is in stru c tio n w a s n e v e r a p p lica b le to testi m o n y , ex ce p t th at of c ir cu m stan ti al ev iden ce alon e, an d w as im p ro p e rly appl i ed i n Thom

ps on v. State, 8 3 M i s s . 287, 35 So. 689, t o the t es t i m ony of e y e w itn e s s e s ; a n d , a s s ta te d a b o v e , has s i nce be en dis appr oved m any t i m es . Its effec t h as b ee n t o m isl ea d th e jury an d t o prev en t itfr o m ex erc isin g its di s cr et i on i n set t l i ng ques t i ons of ver aci ty underpr operi ns truct i ons by the c o u rt. Fis herv. State, 150 M i s s . 206, 227-28, 116 So. 746, 750- 51 ( 1928) ( emphasi s added) ( ci t i ng R u n n e ls, R o u x, S a u c ie r , W ile y, and B r ady ); cf

. W illia m s v. S ta te, 163 M i s s . 475, 482, 142 So. 471, 472 ( 1932) ( w i thoutcomm ent i ng on T hom ps on , hol di ng thatourtr i al court s ar e not req u ir ed to giv e a tw o -th eo ry instruc ti o n w h en it s su b stan ce is co v ere d b y o ther instruc ti o n s). ¶155. I n Mi c ke rv. State, 16 8 M i s s . 692, 152 So. 286 ( 1934) , w e expr es s l y hel d the tw otheory i ns truct i on as phr as ed i n T hom ps on (“e v en tho u g h the h y p o thes is of g u il t be th e m o re pr obabl e”) t o be an i n a c c u r a t e s ta t e me n to f la w in a n y c a s e . I

d. a t 69 8 -99 (em p h asis ad d ed ).

### 57

W e adde d t hat , even i f

cor r ect l y dra w n, i tw oul d notbe appl i cabl e w her e the convi ct i on w as b a s e d p ri n c ip a lly o n e y e w itn e s s te s tim o n y . I d. ( ci t i ng Wil

lia ms , 1 63 M i s s . 4 75 , 142 So. 4 7 1 ). See a l

so Jones v. State, 183 M i s s . 408, 1 84 S o. 810 ( 1938) ( det erm i ni ng thatt he tw o- theory i ns truct i on, w hen corr ect l y dr aw n, i s notappl i cabl e t o cas es r es t i ng on di r ect test im o n y ). ¶156. I n Y

arbor ough v. State, thi s C our t opi ned t hat t he t w o-theory i ns truct i on, w hether
c o rr e c tly d ra w n o r n o t, shou ld n ot be gi ven in any case . Y arbo r oug h, 202 M i s s . 820, 830, 3 2 S o . 2 d 4 3 6 , 4 4 0 (1 9 4 7 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). Y arbor ough re a c h e d th is c o n c lu sio n , first, beca us e “ther e ar e al w ays tw o theor i es , thatof the St at e of

gui l ta nd thatof

the def endantof i nnocenc e, . . . the i ns truct i on, i n ef f ect , i s a per empt ory f

orthe def

endant
. ” I

d. S e c o n d , “it pl ace s up on the tr i a l j ud ge the b ur de n a nd d a ng e ro f s a yi ng the c a s e i s p ur e l y one of ci r cumst ant i al evi dence , w her eas , i n m any ca s es, thi s i s a very di f f i cul tques t i on. ” I

d. Y arbor ough neverthele s s l ef tthe tw o- theory i ns truct i on ( i f dr aw n corr ect l y) i n pl ace and aff i rm ed the tri al cou rt ’s den i al of the inst ruc ti o n o n the ba si s that the case d i d n ot r est ent i r el y upon ci r cumst ant i al evi dence and thatthe def endanthad bee n gr ant ed the gene r al ci r cumst ant i al
- evi dence i ns truct i on, “t o the exc l us i on of every r eas onabl e hypothes i s . ” Id .; see al so L o tt v . S ta te, 204 M i s s . 610, 37 So. 2d 782 ( 1948) ( af f i r m i ng the tr i al court ’ s deni al of a r eques t ed tw o- theory i ns truct i on i n Thom ps on p h rase o log y ). ¶157. I n S im m o n s v . S ta te , 208 M i s s . 523, 44 So. 2d 857, 858- 59 ( 1950) , w e af f i r m ed the tr i al court ’ s deni al of

the tw o- theory i ns truct i on, on a fi ndi ng thatthe ca s e w as notT he i ns truct i on w as t aken fr om A l exande r , M i s s i s s i ppi J ury I ns truct i ons , ( 1953) 31 S ect i on 17 2, and ph ras ed as fol l ow s: T he courti ns truct s t he j ury for the def endant , thati f

ther e be a ny f

actor ci r cumst ance s i n thi s cas e s us cept i bl e of tw o i nt erpr et at i ons , one f avor abl e and the otherunf

avor abl e t o the ac cus ed and w hen the j ury have c ons i der ed s uch f actorc i r cumst ance s w i th a l l the otherevi dence , ther e i s a r eas onabl e doubt as t o t he cor r ecti nt erpr et at i on, they mustr es ol ve s uch doubti n f avorof the a c c u se d , an d p lace u p o n su ch fac t or circu m sta n c e s th e in terp re tatio n fa v o ra b le t o the ac cus ed. 

### 58 c ir c u m s ta n tia l. N o ta b ly , S im m on s con strues R u n n e ls , as cond em ning a t w o-theo ry in s tru c tio n , n o m a tte r h o w p h ra s e d
. I d. ¶158. Fi ve yea r s l at er , i n Cow ar d v. State, 223 M i s s . 538, 78 S o. 2d 605 ( 1955) , w e hel d that the r ef us ed tw o- theory i ns truct i on, i dent i cal t o one pr of f er ed i n the ca s e s ub j udi ce, “i s never pr operexce ptw her e the cas e r es t s e nt i r el y upon ci r cumst ant i al evi dence
. ” Co w a r d , 78 So. at610. Cow ard

added, “eve n i n a ca s e bas ed ent i rel y on ci r cumst ant i al evi dence , i f an 31 i ns truct i on i s al l ow ed thatthe evi dence m us texcl ude eve ry r eas onabl e theory otherthan that of gui l t , thati s hel d t o embody t he es s ent i al s of the tw o- theory i ns truct i on, . . . r ef us al of t he [ tw o- theory i ns truct i on] i s notr ever s i bl e err or . ” I d . ( ci t i ng Y

arbor ough , 3 2 S o . 2 d at 44 0 ). ¶159. T hen came N

es terv. State, 2 5 4 M iss
. 2 5 , 1 7 9 S o . 2 d 5 6 5 (1 9 6 5 ). In th is c a se , w e h e ld th a t, be c a u se th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted w a s s o circ u m sta n tial, th e tw o -th e o ry in stru c tio n sh o u ld have be en gr ant ed al ong w i th the gene r al ci r cumst ant i al
- evi dence i ns truct i on, w hi ch had b e e n g iv e n . I

d. a t 5 6 6 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). N ester ci t ed no cas e l aw foraut hor i ty; ra therthe C o u rt re lied so lely o n A lex a n d e r, M iss iss ip p i Ju ry In stru c tio n s, (1 9 5 3 ) S e c tio n 1 7 2 , fo r its d e c is io n . I

d.

### 59

¶160. I n K

itc h e n s, 300 So. 2d at 926, w e af f i rm ed the tr i al cou rt ’s r ef us al t o gr ant a tw otheory i ns truct i on, both be caus e the evi dence w as notent i r el y ci r cumst ant i al and the gene r al ci r cumst ant i al
- evi dence i ns truct i on had been gr ant ed. F oll ow i ng i n l i ne w i th Cow ard , t he Ki tc he ns C our tadded, “eve n i n a ca s e bas ed ent i r el y on ci r cumst ant i al evi dence, i f an i ns truct i on i s al l ow ed thatthe evi dence m us texcl ude every r eas onabl e theory otherthan that of gui l t , thati s hel d t o embody t he es s ent i al s of the t w o- theory i ns truct i on, . . . r ef us al of t he l att eri s notr ever s i bl e err or . ” I d. ( quot i ng Cow ard , 7 8 S o . 2 d at 61 0 ). ¶161. Y etw e cha nged cour s e i n He n de rs o n v. S ta te, 4 5 3 S o . 2 d 7 0 8 (M iss . 1 9 8 4 ), an d h e ld the tr i al cour ti n err orf orr ef us i ng t o gi ve both the gene r al ci r cumst ant i al
- evi dence in s tru c tio n a n d th e “ tw o -t h e o ry ” in s tru c tio n . I d. at710. I gnor i ng Ki tc he ns , Henders on
s t at ed: W h e re a ll th e e v id e n c e ten d in g to p ro v e th e g u ilto f th e d e fe n d a n t is circu m stan ti al, the tria l co u rtm u st gran t a j u ry in stru cti o n that ev ery re a so n a b le h y p o th e sis o th e r th a n th a t o f g u iltm u st b e e x c lu d e d in o rd e r to c o n v ic t. S a n de rs v. S ta te, 2 8 6 S o . 2 d 8 2 5 , 8 2 8 (M iss . 1 9 7 3 ); Matula v. State, 2 2 0 S o . 2d 83 3 , 83 6 (M iss. 19 6 9 ). A lso w h ere th e ev iden ce i s p u re ly c ir c u m s ta n tia l, t h e tr ia l c o u rt m u s t g ra n t a “ tw o -t h e o ry ” in s tru c tio n . Johnson v. S ta te, 3 4 7 S o . 2 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 0 (M iss . 1 9 7 7 ); N e s te rv. S ta te, 254 M i s s . 25, 29, 1 7 9 S o . 2 d 5 6 5 , 5 6 6 (1 9 6 5 ). I d. Johnson , ci t ed by Henders on f ora uthor i ty, a f

f i r m ed the tr i al c our t ’ s deci s i on denyi ng th e re q u e ste d tw o -th e o ry in stru c tio n b o th b e c a u se th e re q u e ste d in stru c tio n d id n o t co n tain th e la n g u a g e “ re a s o n a b le d o u b t” a n d th e c a s e w a s n o t e n tir e ly c ir c u m s ta n tia l. Johnson , 347 S o . 2 d a t 3 6 0
. Johnson , i n a ddr es s i ng the appel l ant ’ s a r gum ent , mer el y opi ned that“[ t ] he tw o- theory i ns truct i on m ay be gi ven onl y i n an ent i r el y ci r cumst ant i al e vi dence c as e. ” I d.

### 60

¶ 1 6 2
. W e h o ld to d a y th a t Ki tc he ns pr ovi des the bett errul e: “ I n a c ase based enti r el y on circu m stan ti al ev iden ce , if an instruction is al lo w e d th a t th e e v iden ce m u st ex clud e e v ery
r easonab l e theory otherthan thatof gui l t , thati s hel d t o embody t he es s ent i al s of t he tw o- theory i ns truct i on, . . . r ef us al of the l att eri s notr ever s i bl e err or . ” Ki tc he ns , 300 So. 2d at926 ( quot i ng Co w a rdv. S ta te , 223 M i s s . 538, 78 So. 2d 605 ( 1955) )
. T o the ext entt hat P arker , Henders on , a n d o th e r c a s e s s u g g e s t o th e rw is e , th e y a re h e re b y o v e rr u le d
. V II. Instructi on E m b od ying the T h eory of D efense ¶ 1 6 3
. O u r sta n d a rd fo r re v iew fo r th e d e n ial o f ju ry in stru c tio n s is a s fo llo w s: J ury i ns truct i ons ar e t o be r ead t ogetherand t aken a s a w hol e w i th no one instruction take n o u t of co n text. A d efe n d a n t i s en ti tl ed to h av e jury in stru c tio n s g iv e n w h ich p re se n t h is th e o ry o f th e c a se ; h o w e v e r, th is ent i t l ementi s l i m i t ed i n thatthe courtm ay r ef us e an i ns truct i on w hi ch in c o rre c tly sta tes th e law , is c o v e re d fa irly e lse w h e re in th e in stru c tio n s, o r is w i thoutf oundat i on i n t he evi dence
. Ch a n dlerv. S ta te , 946 So. 2d 355, 360 ( M i s s . 2006) ( quot i ng L a dn ierv. S ta te , 878 So. 2d 9 2 6 , 9 3 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 )). ¶164. G of

f cont ends that the tr i al court , by r ef us i ng hi s s ubm i t t ed i ns truct i on D
- 16, deni ed h im the o n ly o p p o rtu n ity h e h ad for the jury to co n side r his theo ry o f de fen se. G o ff’ s the o ry
o f d e fen se is that B ran d y ’s hu sb an d , Jam es, no t G o ff, kil led B ran d y . In su p p o rto f th is
co ntent i on , G off

po i nts t o h i s ow n st at em ent t o p oli ce, adm i t t ed as E xh i bit70 , that i tm ust have be en B r andy’ s hus band thatki l l ed her
. G of f al s o poi nt s t o James ’ s al l eged hi s t or y of d o m e stic v io len c e a n d th e tes tim o n y o f D e tec tiv e L a m b e rt.

### 61

¶16 5. S ub m i t t ed instruct i on D -16 prov i des: I char ge you, m ember s of the j ury, thatone cha r ged w i th a cr i m e i s perm i t t ed to introd u ce e v iden ce , in ex o n era ti o n o f h im self, w h ich if be li ev ed b y the ju ry w il l t en d to sh o w that so m e o ther p erso n co m m itted th e o ffen se c h arg ed
. In or dert o j us t i f

y an ac qui t t al , the t ot al i ty of any evi dence of

f er ed t o s how the g u il t of an o ther n ee d n o t be o f suc h stren g th as to w arran t a fi n d ing b y the ju ry that su ch o ther d id, in fact, co m m itth e crim e ch arg ed
. If th e jury b eli ev es th ere i s evi dence w hi ch r eas onabl y t ends t o s how thats om e otherper s on comm i t t ed t he cr i m e cha r ged, and thi s evi dence , w hen cons i der ed w i th al l the other evi dence i n the ca s e, generat es a r eas onabl e doubti n the mi nds of the j ury as t o w hetherthe D ef

endanti s the perpetr at orof the cr i m i nal a ct , the D ef endant m us tbe ac qui t t ed. ¶166. T he tr i al courtdeni ed the i ns truct i on, s t at i ng, “ I be l i eve i t ’ s i m pr operc om m entby the C o u rt u p o n th e w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e . T h a t w ill b e re fu s e d .” ¶167. W e f

i nd thatthe tr i al court di d note rri n de nyi ng i ns truct i on D
- 16 f orthe f ol l ow i ng tw o r eas ons : ( 1) the i ns truct i on i s w i thoutf oundat i on i n the evi dence , a nd ( 2) the i ns truct i on i s covered fai rl y els ew here i n the i nst ruct i on s. ¶1 68
. I n addi t i on t o hi s own s t a t e ment t o po l i c e tha t J a mes mus t ha ve be e n the on e w ho k ill e d B ra n d y , G o ff o ffe rs th a t Ja m e s, d u rin g h is te stim o n y , ad m itt e d to a p a st d o m e stic i ncidenti nv olvi ng B randy. J am es’ s t est i m on y o n cross- exam i nati on w as as f oll ow s: B Y C O U N SEL FO R G O FF ( D EEN ) : Y ou s a i d y ou w e r e ha vi ng mar i t al p ro b lem s. R ig h t? B Y JA M E S : C o rre c t. B Y C O U N S E L F O R G O F F (D E E N ): A n d tha t yo u w e re o n a g a in , o ff a g a in w ith h e r. Is th a t rig h t? B Y J A M E S: W e had s pl i tup one t i m e bef or e. T hi s w oul d be the s econd t i m e. B Y C O U N SE L FO R G O FF (D E E N ) : W as i ti n 2004 you had s pl i tup?

### 62

B Y J A M E S: I w oul d s ay 2003. B Y C O U N SE L F O R G O F F (D E E N ) : W as thatoverdom es t i c vi ol ence that ya’ l l s pl i tup? B Y JA M E S : N o , sir
. B Y C O U N S E L F O R G O F F (D E E N ): It h a d n o th in g to d o w ith th a t? B Y JA M E S : N o , sir
. B Y C O U N SE L FO R G O FF (D E E N ) : W as thatevera pr obl em i n your hous ehol d? B Y J A M E S: D i r ectpr obl em, no. B Y C O U N S E L F O R G O F F (D E E N ): S ir ? B Y J A M E S: D i r ectpr obl em, no. B Y C O U N S E L F O R G O F F (D E E N ): A dir ectproblem
. B ut there w as a pr obl em w i th f

i ght s and s tuf

f w i th ya’ l l , w as n’ tther e? B Y J A M E S: T her e w as di s agr eement s and ar gum ent s , yeah. B Y C O U N S E L F O R G O F F (D E E N ): P hy si cal fi gh t s. B Y J A M E S: Physi cal f i ght i ng, no. B Y C O U N SE L FO R G O FF (D E E N ) : T he l aw neverw as cal l ed t o your hous e? B Y J A M E S: O ne t i m e. B Y C O U N S E L F O R G O F F (D E E N ): H ow cl ose w as that t o w hen , t o A ug ust of 2004 thatthe l aw w as cal l ed t o yourhous e bec aus e of f i ght i ng goi ng on ther e. B Y J A M E S: T hr ee orf ouryear s ago. ¶169. T he r ecor d al s o s how s thatthe j ury heard evidence t hatthe i nves t i gat or s r evi ew ed Jam es’s p h o n e re co rds, w h ich c o rrob o rated his w h ere ab o u ts atthe tim e o f B ran d y ’s m u rde r,
a n d t o o k p h o t o g r a p h s o f h i s b o d y , p r i o rt o e x c l u d i n g h i m a s a s u s p e c ti n th e ma t t e r . I n s u m, G of f f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h a s uf

f i ci entevi dent i ary f

oundat i on t o w arr antthi s i ns truct i on. ¶ 1 7 0
. F u rth e r, th e ju ry a lso w a s p ro p e rly in stru c ted e lse w h e re in th e in stru c tio n s, w h e n it

### 63

w as t ol d thati tcoul d convi ctG of f of capi t al m ur deronl y i f the St at e pr oved, beyond a
re a so n a b le d o u b t an d to th e e x c lu sio n o f e v e ry re a so n a b le h y p o th e sis c o n sis ten t w ith i nnocenc e, each and eve r y el ementof the cr i m e. T hi s w as s etouti n i ns truct i on S- 2A , w hi ch pr ovi ded: T h e D e fe n d a n t, Jo se p h B ish o p G o ff, h a s b e e n c h a rg e d in th e in d ictm e n t w ith the cr i m e of

C ountI: C api t al M ur derf orhavi ng ki l l ed B r andy S. Y at es dur i ng the co m m i ssi on of the fel on y cri m e of R ob bery of B randy S
. Y at es. If y o u fin d f

ro m th e e v id e n c e in th is c a se , b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t an d to the exc l us i on of

every r eas onabl e hypothes i s cons i s t entw i th i nnocenc e: ( 1) J os eph B i s hop G of f , on oraboutA ugus t27, 2004, i n G eor ge C ounty, M iss iss ip p i; ( 2) di d w i l l f

ul l y, unl aw f

ul l y, fe l oni ous l y and w i thoutaut hor i ty of l aw and not in n e c e ss a ry se lf-d e fe n se ; ( 3) w i th o rw i tho uta ny de s i gn t o e f f e c tthe de a th, ki l l a nd mur de rBr a nd y S. Y a tes , a h u m a n b e in g ; ( 4) ata t i m e w hen Jos eph B i s hop G of f w as engaged i n t he comm i s s i on of the f el ony cr i m e of

R obbery, by t aki ng the per s onal pr operty of B r andy S. Y at es i n herpr es ence orf

r om herper s on agai ns therw i l l by vi ol ence t o the per s on o f B ran d y S
. Y ates; th en y o u sh all fi n d the D efe n d an t, Jo sep h B isho p G o ff g u il ty o f C ap it al M u rde r. I f the St at e has f

ai l ed t o pr ove any one orm or e of the above el ement s beyond a rea so n a b le d o u b t an d to th e ex c lu sio n o f ev e ry rea so n a b le h y p o th e sis cons i s t entw i th i nnocenc e, then you s hal l f i nd the D ef

endant , J os eph B i s hop G o ff no t gu il ty o f C ap it al M u rde r. ¶ 1 7 1 . F o r th e fo re g o in g re a so n s, w e h o ld th a t th is a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit. V III . W het her t he I ndict m en t C harged a D eat h- P enal t y E l i gi bl e O f f ens e. ¶ 1 7 2
. C o u n t I o f t h e in d ic tm e n t, w h ic h c h a rg e s G o ff w ith c a p ita l m u rd e r p u rsu a n t to

### 64

M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 9 7 -3-1 9 (2)(e), th at G o ff: I n G eor ge C ount y, M i s s i s s i ppi , on oraboutA ugus t27, 2004, di d then and th e re w ill fu lly , u n law fu lly , an d fe lo n io u sly , an d w ith o r w ith o u t an y d e sig n to ef f ectthe dea th, ki l l and murde rB r andy S. Y at es , a human bei ng, w hi l e i n the comm i s s i on of

the cr i m e and f

el ony of R obbery, as def

i ned by Sect i on 97- 3- 73, M i s s . C ode of

1972, as amended. ¶ 1 7 3
. G o ff a rg u e s th a t h is d e a th se n ten c e m u st b e v a c a ted b e c a u se th e in d ictm e n t fa iled to i ncl ude a st atut ory aggr avat i ng fa ct oror the m ens r ea stan d ard requ ir ed for cap it al m u rde r. In suppo rtof this argum ent, G off ci t es Appr e ndi

v. N e w Jers ey , 5 3 0 U .S . 4 6 6 , 1 2 0 S . C t. 2348, 147 L . E d. 2d 435 (2000) , and Ring v. Ari z ona , 5 3 6 U. S. 5 8 4 , 1 2 2 S
. Ct
. 2 4 2 8 , 1 5 3 L. E d
. 2 d 5 5 6 (20 0 2 ). ¶ 1 7 4
. T h is C o u rt re p e a te d ly h a s re je c te d th is ty p e o f a rg u m e n t. See, e. g. , S pice r , 921 S o. 2 d a t 3 1 9 ; B ro w n v. S ta te , 8 9 0 S o . 2 d 9 0 1 , 9 1 8 (M is s . 2 0 0 4 ); S tev e n s v . S ta te , 867 So. 2d 2 1 9 , 2 2 5 -2 7 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ). W e h a v e h e ld th a t A ppr endiand Ringa d d re ss iss u e s w h o lly d is tin c t f ro m th e p re s e n t o n e , a n d in fa c t d o n o t a d d re s s in d ic tm e n ts a t a ll. Spi cer , 921 So. 2d at319 ( ci t i ng Br o wn , 8 9 0 S o . 2 d at 91 8 ). ¶ 1 7 5 . T h e p u rp o se o f a n in d ictm e n t is to fu rn ish th e d e fe n d a n t w ith n o tice a n d a re a so n a b le d e s c ri p tio n o f th e c h a rg e s a g a in s t h im s o th a t h e m a y p re p a re h is d e fe n s e . Spi cer , 921 So. 2d at319 ( ci t i ng W

ill ia m s v . S ta te , 4 4 5 S o . 2 d 7 9 8 , 8 0 4 ( M is s . 1 9 8 4 )). A n in d ictm e n t is
r equi r ed onl y t o have a cl eara nd c onci s e s t at ementof the el ement s of

the cr i m e w i th w hi ch th e d e fe n d a n t is c h a rg e d
. Id
. ¶176. U nderM i s s i s s i ppi l aw , the under l yi ng f el ony thate l evat es the cr i m e t o capi t al m ur der

### 65

m us tbe i dent i f

i ed i n t he i ndi ctm ental ong w i th the s ect i on and s ubs ect i on of the s t atut e under
w h ic h th e d e fe n d a n t is b e in g c h a rg e d
. B e n n e tt v. S ta te , 933 So. 2d 930, 952 (M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 17- 20) )
. I n addi t i on, “[ o] urdeath penal ty st atut e cl ear l y s t at es the onl y aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s w hi ch m ay be r el i ed upon by the pr os ecut i on i n s eeki ng the ul t i m at e puni s hm ent . ” Spi cer , 921 So. 2d at319 ( quot i ng Br o wn , 8 9 0 S o . 2 d at 91 8 ). ¶ 1 7 7 . W h e n G o ff w a s c h a rg e d w ith c a p ital m u rd e r, h e w a s p u t o n n o tice th a t th e d e a th penal ty m i ghtre s ul t , w hataggr avat i ng fa ct or s m i ghtbe use d, and the m ens r ea s t andar d t hat
w a s re q u ir e d
. See Ste v e ns , 8 6 7 S o . 2 d a t 2 2 7 . T h is a ss e rtio n o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit. I X . L et hal I nj ect i on P rot ocol ¶ 1 7 8
. G o ff a ss e rts th a t e x e c u tio n b y leth a l in jec tio n , u n d e r th e c u rre n t M iss iss ip p i p ro to c o l,
w oul d vi ol at e the Fi r s tand Ei ghth A m endment s of t he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on,
c o rr e s p o n d i n g p r o v i s i o n s o f th e M i s s i s s i p p i Co n s t i tu t i o n , a n d s t a t e l a w. ¶1 7 9
. G o ff’ s cl ai m t hat M i ssi ssi pp i ’s m et ho d o f i nfl i ct i ng death by l et hal i nject i on
cons t i tut es cruel and unus ual puni s hm entw as di s pos i t i vel y re j ect ed i n f

avorof the St at e by the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t ’ s hol di ng i n B az e v. R ees a n d b y th is C o u rt’s h o ld in g in B e n n e tt v. S ta te . I n B e n n e tt , thi s C our ts t at ed: O n A pr i l 16, 2008, the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tdeci ded B az e v. R ees , uphol di ng the St at e of K entucky’ s l ethal
- i nj ect i on pr ot oco l as notbei ng v o c a tiv e o f t h e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. B as e v. R ees , 553 U . S. , 128 S. C t . 1520, 1 7 0 L . E d . 2 d 4 2 0 (2 0 0 8 ). In so d o in g , C h ief Ju stic e R o b e rts’s p lu ra lity opi ni on announce d the s t andar d w hi ch w e m us tus e t o det erm i ne w hetherour m e th o d o f

e x e c u ti o n v io la te s th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. Id
. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t 's pl ur a l i ty f

ou ndtha tc rue l a ndun us ual puni s hm entoccur s w her e l ethal i nj ect i on

### 66

as an ex ecuti on m et ho d present s a “subst anti al ” or “obj ect i vely i ntol erabl e ri sk of s er i ous harm ” i n l i ghtof “f eas i bl e, r eadi l y i m pl ement ed” a l t ernat i ve p ro c e d u re s . Id
. at 1531, 1532. H ow ever , the ana l ys i s w as f ocus ed on the m annerof

l ethal i nj ect i on, and di d n otquest i on t he val i di ty of l ethal i nj ect i on o r t h e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f t h e d e a th p e n a lty a s s u c h
. Id
. at1537. T he B ase C our thel d: K entucky has a dopt ed a method of exec ut i on bel i eved t o be the m o st h u m a n e a v a ilab le, o n e it sh a re s w ith 3 5 o th e r S ta te s . . . [w h ich ] i f admi ni s t er ed as i nt ended .
. . w i l l r es ul ti n a pai nl es s death. T he r i s ks of m al admi ni s tr at i on . . . s uch as impr operm i xi ng of chemi cal s and i m pr oper se tti n g o f IV s b y tra in e d a n d e x p e rie n c e d p e rso n n e l - c a n n o t b e re m o tely c h a ra c ter ize d a s “ o bje c tiv e ly in to ler a b le.” K e n tu c k y ’s d e c isio n to a d h e re to i t s pr ot ocol des pi t e thes e as s ert ed r i s ks , w hi l e adopt i ng s af eguar ds t o pr ot ect a g a in st th e m , ca n n o t b e v iew e d a s p ro b a tiv e o f th e w a n to n in flic tio n o f p a in u n d e r t h e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. B ase , 128 S. C t . at1537. For“the di s pos i t i on of

othercases u ncert ai n, ” J us t i ce Rober t s cl ear l y s t at ed th a t “[a ] S tate w ith a leth a l in jec tio n p ro to c o l subst an t i all y sim i lar t o the pr ot ocol w e uphol d t oday w oul d notcr eat e a r i s k t hatm eet s [ the ‘ s ubs t ant i al r i s k’ ] s t andar d. ” Id . a t 1 5 3 7 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). I f di f f er ence s exi s tbe tw een M i s s i s s i ppi ' s e xecut i on pr ot ocol s and thos e us ed i n K entucky, then, the i nqui ry i s w hetherM i s s i s s i ppi ’ s l ethal
- i nj ect i on p roto co l m ee ts C o n stitu ti o n al m u ster i n li g h t of th is r ec en t Su p rem e C o u rt d ec isi o n . T h e F if

th C ir cu it , w h en co n side ri n g inm a te D ale L eo B isho p ’s E i gh th-A m end m ent chal l eng e t o M i ssi ssi pp i’ s l et hal- i nject i on proced ures, r ece nt l y announce d that“M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s l ethal i nj ect i on pr ot ocol appea r s t o be s u b s ta n tia lly s im ila r t o K e n tu c k y ' s p ro to c o l t h a t w a s e x a m in e d in B a s e .” W al kerv. E pps , 2008 U . S. A pp. L E X I S 15547 at[ *13] ( 5th C i r . M i s s . J ul y 21, 2 0 0 8 ). W e a g ree w ith the F if th C ir cu it ’s an alys is, a n d h o ld tha t B en n ett ’s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t ch a llen g e to th e leth a l in jec tio n p ro to c o l i n M iss iss ip p i is w ith o u t m e rit. B e n n e tt v. S ta te , 990 So. 2d at160- 61. ¶ 1 8 0
. W e fin d n o m e rit in G o ff’s E ig h th -A m e n d m e n t ar g u m e n t. ¶1 81
. G of

f’ s Fi r s t - A mend ment c l a i m i s pr oc e du r a l l y ba rr e d, a s G of f of f e r s no di s c us s i on
a n d c ite s n o a u th o ri ty in s u p p o rt o f t h is c la im
. See B yr om , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d a t 8 9 1 (a p p e llan ts

### 67

all eg ing erro rs m u st pre se n t us w ith a c o m p let e re co rd h igh li g h ti n g the a ll eg ed erro rs
su p p o rte d b y c itatio n to re lev a n t ca se law ); R andol ph , 852 So. 2d at558 ( i n the abs ence of
m eani ngf

ul ar gum entand ci t at i on of author i ty thi s C ou rtw i l l gener al l y notcons i dert he assig n m en t of erro r). ¶182. Pr ocedur al barnot w i ths t andi ng, f orre as ons ar t i cul at ed i n S p ic e r , 973 So. 2d at207- 0 8 , G o ff’s F ir s t- A m e n d m e n t c la im is w h o lly w ith o u t m e ri t. X . A ggravat i ng F act ors ¶1 83
. A tt he concl us i on of t he se nt enci ng phase , t he j ur y found tha tthe f ol l ow i ng aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s exi s t ed: (1) G of f pr evi ous l y w as convi ct ed of a f el ony i nvol vi ng th e u se o r th re a t of

v io len c e to th e p e rso n ; (2 ) G o ff k n o w in g ly cre a ted a g re a t ri sk o f d e a th t o many per s ons ; ( 3) the capi t al of f ens e w as c om m i t t ed w hi l e G of f w as e ng aged i n t he
comm i s s i on of

a r obbery; ( 4) the capi t al of f ens e w as comm i t t ed f

orthe purpos e of

avoi di ng
orpr event i ng l aw f

ul arr es t ; and ( 5) t he capi t al of f ens e w as es peci al l y hei nous , atr oci ous , and
c ru e l. See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -19 -10 1 (5) (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶1 8 4
. G o ff a lleg e s th a t er ro r w a s c o m m itt e d w h e n c e rta in a g g ra v a tin g fac tors w ere
su b m itt e d to th e ju ry . In p a rticu lar , G o ff a ss e rts th a t th e re w a s in su ffic ien t ev id e n c e to
s uppor tthr ee of

the aggr avat i ng f

act or s : thatthe ki l l i ng t ook pl ace w hi l e i n the comm i s s i on of a r obbery, thatG of

f know i ngl y c r eat ed a gr eatr i s k of de ath t o m any per s ons , and thatt he ki l l i ng w as comm i t t ed f orthe purpos e of

avoi di ng or pr event i ng hi s ar r es t . W hi l e G of f does
n o t ch a llen g e th e su b m iss io n o f th e a g g ra v a tin g fa c to r th a t th e c a p ital o ffe n se w a s e sp e c ially

### 68

heinous, atroci ou s, o r cru el, h e d o es c h all en g e the co n sti tuti o n ali ty o f th e “ h einous, atroci ou s,
orcruel ” l i m i t i ng i ns truct i on gi ven. ¶185. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 99- 19- 105( 3) ( b) s t at es t hat t his C ou rtm us tcons i der the
s u ff ic ie n c y o f th e e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt th e a g g ra v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See S im m o n s v. S ta te , 8 0 5 S o . 2 d 4 5 2 , 4 9 5 -96 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). A . P re v iou sly c o n v icted o f a fe lon y inv o lving th e u se o r th re a t of v iolen ce to t he pers on ¶186. T he St at e pr es ent ed evi dence thatG of f ha d previ ou sl y b een co nv i ct ed of s econddegr ee a s s aul tand di s char ge of a gun i n an occ upi ed bui l di ng and vehi cl e, w hi ch G of f does notthe cha l l enge. B . K i l l i ng i n t he com m i s s i on of a robbery ¶1 8 7 . G o ff co n tend s that the ev iden ce w as insu ffi cien t to su p p o rt the rob b ery ag g rav ator. T h is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t f o r t h e re a s o n s d is c u s s e d in Is s u e II I, supra . C . K nowi ngl y c r e at i ng a gr e at r i s k o f de at h t o m any pe r s ons ¶188. W e fi nd that i t w as pr oper f or the j ury t o cons i der w hether G off know i ngl y cr eat ed a gr eatr i s k of

death t o many per s ons . “ U s e of thi s aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance i s notl i m i t ed to th o se c rim e s w h e re v e ry lar g e n u m b e rs o f in d iv id u a ls a re a t risk o r th o se w h e re th e sa fe ty of others t han the i nt ended f ew w as j eopar di zed. ” Sim m ons , 805 So. 2d at495 ( ci t i ng J a c kso n v. S ta te , 684 So. 2d 1213, 1235 ( M i s s . 1996) )
. G of f a dm i t t ed t o del i ber at el y s ett i ng f i r e t o R oom 121, and t he t es t i m ony attr i al s how ed that , i n addi t i on t o the des k cl erk on dut y,

### 69

and atl eas tone othergues tw as s t ayi ng atthe R ocky C r eek I nn on the ni ghti n ques t i on. ¶18 9. G off ci t es Me e ks v . S ta te , 604 So. 2d 748, 752 ( M i s s . 1992) , f or the pr opos i t i on t hat the St at e err oneous l y us ed the evi dence of ar son t o s uppor tthe aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s al tho ug h h e w as separat el y co nv i ct ed an d sent enced for the cri m e o f ar son. In ot her w ords, G of f cont ends thatthe Stat e ca nnotus e thi s evi dence a s econd t i m e t o s uppor tt he
a g g ra v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s . H o w e v e r, Meeks is d istin g u ish a b le f ro m th e fa c ts b e fo re th is C our tt oday. ¶190. I n Meeks , the d e fe n d a n t w a s in d icte d in C o u n t I an d c o n v icte d fo r c a p ital m u rd e r w ith the under l yi ng f

el ony of ki dnappi ng and se par at el y i ndi ct ed i n C ountI I and convi ct ed f or k id n a p p in g . Meeks , 6 04 So
. 2 d a t7 51
. M e e ks was s e nt e nc e d t o l i f e i mpr i s on m entf

or
c a p ita l m u rd e r a n d s e p a ra te ly s e n te n c e d to th ir ty y e a rs fo r t h e k id n a p p in g . Id
. at750. T he
re c o rd in d ic a te d th a t th e o n ly p e r s o n k id n a p p e d w a s M e e k s ’s w if e , T a n a . Id
. at750 n. 1. T hi s C ourth e l d tha tM e e ks c ou l d no tb e p l a c e d i n j e op a r dy tw i c e , f i r s tf orthe p e na l ty of death f orcapi t al m ur derw i th t he un der l yi ng f el ony of ki dnappi ng and a s econd f orthe p u n is h m e n t o f k id n a p p in g a s a s e p a ra te o ff e n s e . Id . at 7 5 3 . T h e fa c t th a t M e e k s u lti m a tely
r ece i ved a l i f

e s ent ence , i ns t ead of

the death penal ty, f

orthe capi t al m ur der , and a thi r ty- year
s ent ence f

orthe ki dnappi ng w as of no m om ent , as the doubl e- j eopar dy i s s ue st i l l r emai ned. Id
. ¶191. H er e, G of

f w as i ndi ct ed i n C ourt I on capit al m ur der w i th the under l yi ng f el ony of
r obbery and sepa r at el y i ndi ct ed i n C ountI I on ar s on. U nl i ke Meeks , G of f w as neveri ndi ct ed

### 70

orconvi ct ed f

ora s epar at e of

f ens e t hatw as al s o the bas i s of the under l yi ng f

el ony s uppor t i ng
an d elev ati n g a m u rde r t o ca p it al m u rde r. D . K i l l i n g co m m i tt ed for t h e p u rp ose of av oidi n g o r p reven ti n g a rrest ¶ 1 9 2
. T h is C o u rt h a s sta ted th e sta n d a rd fo r re v iew in g th e s u ff ic ie n c y o f th e e v id e n c e to
s uppor tan “a voi di ng- l aw f ul
- arr es t ” i ns truct i on: [I] f th e re is e v id e n c e fro m w h ich it m a y b e re a s o n a b ly in fe rre d th a t a s ubs t ant i al r eas on f

orthe ki l l i ng w as t o conce al the i den t i ty of the ki l l eror kil l i ng s t o “co ver theirtracks” so as t o av oid apprehen si on and even tual arres t b y a u th o rities , the n it i s p ro p e r fo r th e c o u rt to a llo w th e ju ry to c o n sid e r th is aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance . U n d er this co n stru cti o n the C o u rtp rop erly su b m it s this ag g rav ator to th e jury i f evi dence exi s t ed f

r om w hi ch t he j ury coul d r eas onabl y i nf erthatconce al i ng the ki l l er ’ s i dent i ty, orcover i ng the ki l l er ’ s tr acks t o avoi d appr ehens i on and arr es t , w as a s ubs t ant i al r eas on f orthe ki l l i ng. Mitch e ll , 792 So. 2d at219 ( quot i ng Ma n n in gv. S ta te , 7 3 5 S o . 2 d 3 2 3 , 3 5 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 )). ¶1 9 3
. W e fin d th a t i t w as p rop er for th e tr ial co u rtt o all o w th e ju ry to c o n sid e r th is aggr avat i ng fa ct or . G of f , by hi s ow n admi s s i on, r emoved al l i t ems f r om the mot el r oom
w h ich b e b eli ev ed m igh t co n tai n his f ing erp ri n ts an d w h ich m igh t ti e h im to the crim e. G o ff also ad m itted th at he set fi re to th e m o tel roo m to av o id d etec ti o n o f th is cri m e. G o ff’ s cont ent i on as t o Meeks w a s d is c u s s e d in S e c tio n B ., supra . ¶ 1 9 4
. T h e re fo re , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. E . H ei nous, at roci ous, and cruel l i m i t i ng i nst ruct i on

### 71

¶1 9 5 . G o ff argu es th at the li m it ing instruc ti o n g iven w as u n co n sti tuti o n all y v ag u e. T h e jury
w as charged in sent encing i nst ruct i on S -12 as f oll ow s: T he C our ti ns truct s the J ury thati n cons i der i ng w hetherthe capi t al of f ens e w as es peci al l y hei nous , atr oci ous , orcruel : hei nous m eans extr emel y w i cked or s hocki ngl y evi l ; atr oci ous m eans outr ageousl y w i cked a nd vi l e; and cruel m eans des i gned t o i nf

l i cta hi gh degr ee o f pai n w i th i ndi f f er ence t o, oreven enjoym ent of

the suff eri ng of ot hers. A n es peci al l y he i nous , a tr oci ous orc ruel capi t al of f ens e i s one ac compani ed by s uch addi t i onal act s as t o s etthe cr i m e apa r tf r om the norm of

capi t al m ur der s
— the cons ci ence l es s orpi t i l es s cr i m e w hi ch i s unnece s s ar i l y t or tuous [ s i c] t o the vi ct i m . I f

you f i nd f r om the evi dence beyond a r eas onabl e doubt thatthe def

endantut i l i zed a m ethod of ki l l i ng w hi ch ca us ed s er i ous m ut i l at i on, thatther e w as di s m ember m entof the body pr i ort o death, thatthe def endant i nfl i ct ed p hy si cal or m ental pain before deat h, that there w as m ental t orture and aggr avat i on befor e dea th, orthata l i nger i ng ort or tur ous death w as s uf f er ed by the vi ct i m then you may f i nd thi s aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance . ¶ 1 9 6
. T h e e x a c t lan g u a g e o f th is in stru c tio n h a s b e e n fo u n d to b e leg a lly su ffic ien t so a s to
s a tis fy c o n s titu tio n a l re q u ir e m e n ts in p re v io u s d e c is io n s b y th is C o u rt . See B e n n e tt , 933 So. 2 d a t 9 5 5 -5 6 ; H

a v a r d v. S ta te, 9 2 8 S o . 2 d 7 7 1 , 7 9 9 -8 0 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ); K nox , 805 So. 2d at 5 3 3 ; S tev e n s v . S ta te , 8 0 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 1 , 1 0 6 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). ¶197. I n S teven s, w e hel d t hat t he “‘es peci al l y hei nous , atr oci ous orcruel ’ pr ovi s i on of M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 19- 101 ( 5) ( h) i s nots o va gue and overbr oad as t o vi ol at e the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. ” S teven s, 806 So. 2d at1060. ¶198. T he tr i al court ’ s deci s i on t o gr ant thi s i ns truct i on w as i n acc or dance w i th es t abl i s hed p re c e d e n t a n d w a s n o t e rr o r.

### Goff pre se nts no evi denc e that his se ntencewas im

pose d under th e influenc e of 32 

### pas si on or pr ej udic e or

any other

ar bit rary f ac tor . 72 X I . P roport i onal i t y of O f f’ s s ent ence ¶199. T hi s C our t i s r equi r ed by s t atut e t o per f or m a pr opor t i onal i ty r evi ew w hen r evi ew i ng th e im p o sitio n o f a d e a th se n ten c e . M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -1 0 5 (3 ) sta tes : ( 3) W i th r egar d t o t he s ent ence , the courts hal l det erm i ne: ( a) W hetherthe s ent ence of death w as i m pos ed underthe i nf l uence of pas s i on, p re ju d ice o r a n y o th e r a rb itrar y fa c to r; (b) W h ether the ev i den ce supp ort s the jury' s or j ud ge' s f i nd i ng of a st atutory a g g ra v a tin g c irc u m sta n c e a s e n u m e ra ted in S e c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -1 0 1 ; ( c) W hethert he s ent ence of death i s exce s s i ve ordi s pr opor t i on at e t o the penal ty i m pos ed i n s i m i l arcas es , cons i der i ng both the cr i m e and the def endant

. . . . M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -1 9 -1 0 5 (3 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶ 2 0 0
. A fte r r e v iew in g th e re c o rd in th is a p p e a l a s w e ll a s th e d e a th p e n a lty c a se s listed in the appe ndi x, w e f

i nd G of f’ s death s ent ence w as noti m pos ed underthe i nf l uence of pas s i on, p rejud ice, or an y o ther a rbitrary fac tor. See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -19 -10 5 (3)(a). 32 ¶ 2 0 1
. W e fu rth e r fin d th a t, as d isc u ss e d in iss u e X , supra , t he evi dence i s m or e t han
s u ff ic ie n t to s u p p o rt th e ju ry ’s fi n d in g o f s ta tu to ry a g g r a v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See M issi ssipp i C o d e A n n o tat ed § 9 9 -19 -10 5 (3)(b )(R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶202. W i th r egar d t o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 99- 19- 105( 3) ( c) , G of f cl ai m s that i t i s cl ear thathi s death s ent ence i s both exce s s i ve and di s pr opor t i onat e t o the pena l ty i m pos ed i n ot her
c a p ital c a se s. A c c o rd in g to G o ff, b e c a u se o f th e g ra v ity o f h is m e n ta l d isa b ili ties , h is

### The f oll owing t es ts wer e a dminist er ed t o Goff : t he We xle r Adult Inte ll ige nce 33 

### Sca le , Third Edi ti on; t

he Minnes ota

Multi- Phas ic Per sona li ty Inven tory, Ve rs ion 2; the Mayung Multi -Axi alClinic alInve ntor y, Ve rs ion 3; and the Ror sc hac h inkbl ot m ethod. 73 s ent ence s houl d be vac at ed, and the ca s e s houl d be r emanded f orm odi f i cat i on of

t he
sen tenc e to lif

e im p ri so n m en t pu rsua n t t o M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 9 9 -19 -10 5 (5)(c). ¶203. G of

f cl ai m s that the “r ecor d i s r epl et e w i th evi dence w hi ch demonstr at es the degr ee t o w hi ch G of

f i s i m pai r ed ment al l y” and thatthe “r ecor d demonst rat es thathe has been d iag n o se d w ith b ip o lar d iso rd e r w ith p sy c h o tic fe a tu re s.” In p a rticu lar , G o ff re fe re n c e s h is b iza rre b e h a v io r a t trial a n d h is in a p p ro p ria te la u g h ter d u rin g q u e stio n in g b y p o lice , a s w e ll
as the t es t i m ony of

both D r . V an R os en and Les s i e G of f dur i ng s ent enci ng thatG of f w as
s uf f er i ng f r om the di s or derthe ni ghtB r andy w as ki l l ed. ¶2 0 4
. D u ri n g the sen tenc ing p h ase o f tri al, D r. R o sen stat ed that h e h a d interview ed G o ff tw i ce, and he e xpl ai ned the t es t s w hi ch w er e us ed i n e val uat i on of G of f
. D r . R os en t es t i f

i ed 33 thatG of f had a f ul l s cal e I Q s cor e of

102, w hi ch i s i n the ave r age- t o- s l i ght l y- above a ver age
r ange. D r . R os en bel i eved thatG of f “w as tryi ng very har d t o c onvi nce [ hi m ] thathe di d not h a v e a m e n tal d iso rd e r” a n d th a t th e re su lts o f th e te s tin g re v e a l th a t G o ff d o e s n o t w a n t to b e se e n a s m e n tally ill. T h e te stin g fu rth e r in d ica ted to D r. R o se n th a t G o ff h a s a “ ter rific a lly bad s el f
- i m age, ” thatG of

f has “per i ods of

hi gh ener gy, even exci t ement , ” and thatG of f has a “ str o n g tend en cy tow ard s su b stan ce ab u se.” T h e re su lt s of th e ink b lot testsug g ested t o D r. R o se n th a t G o ff “ is a g e n tlem a n w h o h a s p e rio d s o f sig n ifica n t d e p re ss io n ” a n d “ p o in ted to pr obabl y a bi pol ardi s or der
. ” B as ed on hi s i nt ervi ew s w i th G of f , D r . R os en gave G of

f t he

### 74

di agnos i s of

“per s onal i ty di s or derw i th pr om i nenta nt i s oci al and s chi zotypal tr ai t s , coupl ed
w i th bi pol ardi s or derw i th occas i onal psychot i c f eatur es . ” W i th r egar d t o G of f’ s condi t i on on the ni ghtof

B r andy’ s m ur der , D r . Rosen bel i eved thatG of f “w as i n the mi ds tof

a bi pol ar d is o rd e r p s y c h o tic e p is o d e .” ¶205. W e f

i nd, how ever, thatG off h as subm i t t ed no proof of any ment al def

ectof any degr ee, w i th the exc ept i on of D r . R os en’ s t es t i m ony, and t hi s t es t i m ony i s admi t t edl y bas ed on G of f’ s unver i f

i ed s el f
- r eport i ng of

pa s tpr obl ems. W hi l e t es t i f yi ng, D r . Rosen s t at ed that G off w as not “t err i fi cal l y co op erat i ve, ” t hat G off w ou l d n o t all o w him access t o h i s past psych i at ri c records, and that G off p rovi ded on l y v agu e i nform at i on i n respon se t o q uest i on s. I n f act , D r . R os en s t at ed thatG of f’ s hi s t ory w as i ncompl et e, and thus the di agnos i s gi ven w as
no tas f i rm as i tcou l d h ave b een u nd er norm al ci rcum st ances. ¶206. I n addi t i on, af

t ercompar i ng the f

act s of thi s i ns t antcas e w i th f

actual l y s i m i l arcas es i n w hi ch the death s ent ence w as i m pos ed, w e concl ude thatthe s ent ence of death w as nei ther
exce s s i ve nordi s pr opor t i onat e. ¶207. T hi s Courthas uphel d the dea th penal ty i n cas es i nvol vi ng capi t al m ur der s dur i ng the
com m i ssi on of a r obbery. I n D o ss v. S ta te , 7 0 9 S o . 2 d 3 6 9 , 4 0 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ), this C o u rt f ound thatboth the convi ct i on a nd the s ent ence w er e appr opr i at e. I n D oss , d uri ng the cou rs e
o f a ro b b e ry o f a g ro c e ry sto re , a sto re c le rk w a s s h o t a n d k ille d
. Id
. T hi s C our thas f ound thatthe s ent ence of

death w as pr opor t i onat e w her e the def endanthad s tr angl ed and r obbed th e v ic tim
. Ca b e llo v. S ta te , 4 7 1 S o . 2 d 3 3 2 (M is s . 1 9 8 5 ). Ca b e llo o b serv ed that “this C o u rt

### 75

has r ece nt l y af

f i r m ed s ever al convi ct i ons and dea th s en t e nc e s w he r e the def endantw as f

ound gui l ty of r obb ery/ m urde r. . . . ” Id
. at350 ( ci t i ng D uf our v. S ta te , 45 3 S o. 2d 33 7 (M i ss. 1 9 8 4 ); S trin g e r v . S ta te , 4 5 4 S o . 2 d 4 6 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ); B o o k e r v . S ta te , 449 So. 2d 209 ( M i s s . 1984)
. I n E v a n s v . S ta te , 4 22 So
. 2 d 73 7, 7 47 ( M i s s . 1 98 2) , a s i n D oss , this C o u rt hel d thatthe s ent ence of death w as notexce s s i ve ordi s pr opor t i onat e t o the pena l ty i m pos ed i n s i m i l arcas es , consi der i ng both t he cr i m e and the manneri n w hi ch i tw as comm i t t ed as
w el l as the def

endant
. L i ke the def

endanti n D oss , the def

endanti n Evans ha d sh o t a st o re cl erk dur i ng the cour s e of a s t or e r obbery. ¶208. T hi s C our tal s o has uphel d t he us e of the dea th penal ty i n cas es i n w hi ch the def endant cl ai m ed t o have ment al pr obl ems. I n B e rr y v. S ta te , 7 0 3 S o . 2 d 2 6 9 , 2 9 3 -94 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ), thi s C ourtfound thatB err y’ s death s ent ence w as notexce s s i ve ordi s pr opor t i onat e i n r el at i on to o th e r c a se s, d e sp ite th e fa c t th a t B e rr y w a s a p a ra n o id sc h izo p h re n ic f u n c tio n in g w ith br ai n damage and an i m pai r ed i nt el l ectual capa ci ty. G of f , l i ke the def

endanti n B erry , ci t es thi s C our t ’ s deci s i on i n E dw a rds v . S ta te , w h e re in th is C o u rt f o u n d th e d e a th p e n a lty d is p ro p o rt io n a te b e c a u s e th e d e fe n d a n t s u ff e re d fr o m p a ra n o id s c h iz o p h re n ia
. Id
. at293 ( ci t i ng E dw a rds v . S ta te , 441 So. 2d 84, 93 ( M i s s . 1983) )
. T he f ol l ow i ng di s cus s i on f

ound i n B er r y i s i ns truct i ve: I ndeed, w e r ece nt l y hel d t hata di agnos i s of par anoi d s chi zophr eni a does not nece s s ar i l y pr ohi bi tthe i m pos i t i on o f t he death penal ty w her e the def endant is c o m p e te n t to b e e x e c u te d
. See B ill io t v. S ta te , 6 5 5 S o . 2 d 1 , 1 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ), ce rt . d en ied, 51 6 U . S
. 1 0 9 5 , 1 3 3 L . E d
. 2 d 7 6 2 , 11 6 S
. C t. 81 8 (19 9 6 ). E x p ert t es t i m ony a tBer r y’ s tr i al r evea l ed thathe i s i ndeed c om pet entt o be exe cut ed. See L ow enf

ield v. B utler , 843 F. 2d 183, 187 ( 5th C i r . 1988) , cert . deni ed, 485

### 76

U . S. 1014, 99 L
. E d. 2d 714, 108 S. C t . 1487 ( 1988) ( s t at i ng thatf orone t o be c o m p e ten t to b e e x e c u ted h e h a s to b e a w a re o f th e p u n ish m e n t h e is a b o u t to su ffer an d w h y h e m u st suffer it ). E dw ard s i s al s o di s t i ngui s habl e bec aus e the evi dence of E dw ar ds ’ af

f l i ct i on, unl i ke thati n B err y’ s cas e, w as “overw hel m i ng , if i ndeed notw i thout contr adi ct i on . . . . ” E dw ar ds , 441 So. 2d a t93. E dw ar ds had bee n comm i t t ed t o the M i s s i s s i ppi St at e H os pi t al atW hi t f i el d on tw o occas i ons and had a l ong h is to ry o f h a llu c in a tio n s in w h ic h p e o p le w e re o u t to “ g e t” o r k ill h im
. Id
. at 87- 88
. Ph ys i c i a ns h a d tr e a t e d Edw a r ds ’ c on di t i on f ory e a r s wi th the drugs p ro lix in , c o g e n tin , v a liu m , a n d s te la z in e . Id
. at87. T her e i s no evi dence , on the otherhan d, that B erry h ad ev er been d i agn osed an d/ortreat ed, m uch l ess i nst i tuti on al i zed, f

or hi s vari ou s af

fl i ct i on s pri or t o h i s ki ll i ng M ary B ou nd s. T here i s al so no evidence o f B erry ev er h av ing su ffered from an y h all u cina t i on s. B erry ’s I. Q
. o f 76 an d h is f ron tal lob e im p airm en t afford h im n o reli ef e ith er. A ccor di ng t o D r . B l ant on, an I . Q
. of 76 i s i n the borderl i ne ra nge of i nt el l ectual functi on and does notr enderone ment al l y r et ar ded. I n L ani erv. S ta te , 533 So. 2d 473, 492 ( M i s s . 1988), the def endanthad an I
. Q
. of

61 and s uf f er ed f r om hal l uci nat i ons , yetw e hel d thats uch di s or der s w er e noton the s a me l e ve l a s tho s e f

ou nd i n the E dw ar ds cas e. T he def endant , i n N

eal v. S ta te , 451 So. 2d 743, 752 ( M i s s . 1984) , cert . deni ed, 469 U . S. 1098, 83 L . E d. 2d 716, 105 S. C t . 607 ( 1984) , pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef gr ant ed i n parton other gr ounds , 525 So. 2d 1279 ( M i s s . 1987) , h ad an I. Q
. of 54 and s uf

f er ed f r om the o rga n ic bra in d isord er d em en ti a. T h is diseas e, w h ich a cc o rdin g to D r. B lanto n , i s qu it e sim il ar t o B erry ’s f ron tal l o b e im p airm en t, affects a p erso n ’s m e m o ry a n d a b ility to c o n tr o l h is im p u ls e s . Id
. D es pi t e t hatf act , w e hel d that N eal ’ s di s turbance s w er e noton parw i th thos e i n E dw ard s . 451 So. 2d at762. I tap pear s then thatB err y’ s m ent al s t at e i s m or e compar abl e t o thatof the def endant s i n L ani erand N eal than thatof

H eze ki ah Edw ar ds
. A s s uch, B err y’ s death sent ence i s notexces s i ve ordi s pr opor t i onat e i n r el at i on t o other c a s e s , a n d we r e

j e c tth i s c l a i m. B erry , 7 0 3 S o . 2d at 2 9 3 -94
. G o ff h as an full scale IQ sco re of 1 0 4 , w h ich, acc o rdin g to D r. R o sen , p lace s h im the a v era g e-to-sli g h tl y -ab o v e-a v era g e ra n g e. A lso, as n o ted a b o v e, G o ff
re fu se d to a llo w D r. R o se n a c c e ss to h is p a st p sy c h iatric re c o rd s a n d re fu se d to e ffe c tiv e ly

### 77

part i ci pat e i n D r . R os en’ s eval uat i on, thus m aki ng D r . R os en’ s di agnos i s l es s than r el i abl e. I n l i ghtof

the f or egoi ng, w e f

i nd thatthe deat h sent ence i m pos ed i n thi s cas e i s nei ther
exce s s i ve nordi s pr opor t i onat e. X I I . C um ul at i ve E rror ¶209. G off

sub m i t s t hat, sho uld t his C ou rtn otf i nd any one e rr ors uf

f i ci entt o w arr ant
r ever s al of

the death s ent ence i n thi s c as e, the acc um ul at i on of s uch err or s s houl d be t aken in to c o n s id e ra tio n a n d th e s e n te n c e re v e rs e d b e c a u s e o f c u m u la tiv e e rr o r. ¶210. T hi s C our tm ay r ever s e a c onvi ct i on and/ orsent ence base d upon t he cumul at i ve ef f ect
o f e rr o rs th a t in d e p e n d e n tly w o u ld n o t r e q u ir e re v e rs a l. J e n k in s v . S ta te , 607 So. 2d 1171, 1 1 8 3 -8 4 ( M is s . 1 9 9 2 ); H a n se n v. S ta te , 592 So. 2d 114, 153 ( M i s s . 1991)
. “I ti s true that i n capi t al cas es , al though no err or , s t andi ng al one, r equi r es r ever s al , the aggr egat e ef f ectof
v a rio u s e rro rs m a y c re a te a n a tm o sp h e re o f b ias , p a ss io n a n d p re ju d ice th a t th e y e ffe c tiv e ly deny the def

endanta f

undament al l y fai r tri al
. ” W o o dw a rdv. S ta te , 533 So. 2d 418, 432 (M is s . 1 9 8 8 ), cer t . deni ed , 4 9 0 U . S
. 1 0 2 8 , 1 0 9 S
. C t. 1 7 6 7 , 1 0 4 L . E d
. 2 d 2 0 2 (19 8 9 ). ¶ 2 1 1
. A fte r c o n d u c tin g a th o ro u g h re v iew o f th e re c o rd , th e b rie fs, a n d th e a rg u m e n t, th is C our thas det erm i ned thatther e ar e no i nd i vi dual err or s , orcumul at i ve nea rerr or s , w hi ch
r equi r e r ever s al of

ei therG of

f’ s convi ct i on orhi s s ent ence . CO NC L US I ON ¶212. G of

f’ s convi ct i ons and death s ent ence w er e pr oper l y deci ded by the j ury. B as ed on the foregoing an al ysi s, w e aff i rm bo th the con vict i on s and the sent ences.

### 78

¶ 2 1 3
. CO UN T I : CONVI CT I ON OF CAP I TA L M URDE R AND S E NT E NC E OF DEATH BY LETHAL I NJ ECTI ON , AFF I RM ED . CO UN T I I : CO NV I CT I ON OF ARSON ( S ECON D DEG REE) AN D T HE S E NT E NC E OF T E N ( 1 0 ) YE AR S I N T HE C U STO D Y O F T H E M I SSI SSI PPI DE PA R TM EN T O F C O R R EC TIO N S, AF F I RMED . T HE S E NT E NC E I N CO UN T I I I S T O R UN CO NS E CU T I VE T O T HE S E N T E N C E IN C O U N T I. CAR LS ON, P . J . , DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H AND L AM AR, J J . , CONCUR. DI CK I NS ON , J . , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RS W I T H S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON JO I N E D B Y C A R L SO N , P . J. , R A N D O L P H , L A M A R A N D P I E R C E , JJ. RA ND OL P H, J . , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RS W I T H S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON J OI NE D B Y CARL S ON, P . J . , DI CKI NS ON, LA M AR AND PI ER CE , J J . W AL LE R, C . J. , D I SSEN TS W I TH SEP A R A TE W R I TT EN O PI N I O N JO I N ED BY G R A V ES, P. J . KI TCHEN S , J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH S EPARATE W RI TTEN O PI NI ON J OI NED B Y C H A N D L E R , J. DI CK I NS ON , J US T I CE , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RR I NG : ¶2 1 4
. A lth o u g h I co n cu r w ith the m ajority o p inio n , I w ri te sep ara tel y to ad d ress G o ff’ s
ar gu menttha tthe e vi de nc e w a s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o e s t a bl i s h the un de r l yi ng f e l on y o f r obber y. I n e s s ence , the onl y pr oof of r obbery i n thi s c as e i s thatG of f w as di s cover ed s oon af t erthe
m u rde r w ith the v ict im ’s pro p erty. T h is C o u rtha s l o n g an d co n sist en tl y h eld th at no m o re than thi s si ngl e pi ece of ci r cumst ant i al evi dence i s needed t o cr eat e a j ury ques t i on as t o t he
r obbery. ¶215. I n W

h e a t v. S ta te , 420 So. 2d 229 ( M i s s . 1982) , J os eph M ayerand Ter es a H ayes
m a rr ie d a n d tr a v e le d to th e M is s is s ip p i C o a s t f o r t h e irh o n e y m o o n . I

d . at230. A f

t era phone
conver s at i on w i th M ayer ’ s fa ther , t hey w er e notsee n or hea r d fr om agai n unt i l thei rbodi es
w e re fo u n d in a w o o d e d a re a n o rt h o f G u lf p o rt . I d. at2 31
. T heirhands and f eetw er e t i ed b e h in d th e m , a n d e a c h w a s s h o t in th e b a c k o f t h e h e a d
. Id
.

### Wheat wa s tri ed s eparate ly for the murder

of the coupl e. He was convi ct ed of the 34 

### wif e’ s murde r, but

the jur y c ould not agr eeon a

punis hme nt. This tria l wa s f or the murde r of the hus band. 79 ¶216. A f

t eri tw as r eport ed thatthe M ayer s had bee n dr i vi ng a 1976 C ut l as s w i th a K e n tu c k y lice n se p late , fo u r w itn e ss e s c a m e fo rw a rd a n d s tate d th a t a m a n h a d c o m e to th e ir h o u s e a n d a s k e d fo r a s s is ta n c e g e ttin g a c a r o f t h a t d e s c ri p tio n o u t o f a d itc h
. I d . Fr om the
w itn e s s e s ’ d e s c ri p tio n s a c o m p o s ite s k e tc h w a s m a d e a n d c ir c u la te d
. I d . K enneth W heatw as
arr es t ed and i ndi ct ed by a H arr i s on C ounty gr and j ury f orcapi t al m ur der , w i th the under l yi ng
c ri m e o f r o b b e ry . I

d . T he j ury f

ound hi m gui l ty and s ent ence d hi m t o death. ¶ 2 1 7 . W h e a t ap p e a led , cla im in g , inte r a lia, th a t h e sh o u ld n o t r e c e iv e th e d e a th p e n a lty b ec au se th ere w as n o p roo f o f the c ri m e o f rob b ery in co n n ec ti o n w ith the a ll eg ed m u rde r. I d . at238. T hi s C our taf

f i r m ed W heat ’ s convi ct i on, s t at i ng: A tappr oxi m at el y 9: 30 p. m . on the ni ghtJ os eph M ayer [ ] w as ki l l ed, he w as 34 a tth e W o r th M o t e l o n th e b e a c h 2 6 mi l e s f r o m wh e r e h e wa s k i l l e d th a ts a me ni ght
. T he j ury f

ound thatappel l antki l l ed hi m . A ppr oxi m at el y tw o and one- hal f hour s af t erthe young coupl e w er e t ogetheratthe mot el , appel l ant a p p e a re d a t th e N e tto h o m e w ith the M a y e r ca r w h ich p lac e w a s a p p ro x im a tely 1. 4 m i l es f

r om w her e M ayerw as ki l l ed. A ppel l antw as i n c om pl et e pos s es s i on of the M ayercar , al ong w i th i t s cont ent s , consi s t i ng of a l eathercas e, l uggage, bo ok s, cam era, radi o, baseba l l bat, and m aps.

**** Ful l y cons i der i ng the hi s t ory of al l thatoccurr ed on t he ni ghti n ques t i on, the c o n d itio n o f M a y e r’s b o d y w ith h is h a n d s a n d fe e t ti e d , an d a b u llet h o le th ro u g h th e b a c k o f h is h e a d a n d sh o rtly th e re a fte r a p p e llan t b e in g so lely in f ul l pos s es s i on of

the M ayervehi cl e and i t s cont ent s , i s cl ear l y a ques t i on f or th e ju ry a s to w h e th e r o r n o t h e “ ro b b e d ” M a y e r o f h is c a r. T h e re c e rta in ly is n o o ther rea so n sh o w n in this reco rd fo r th e b rutal m u rde r of y o u n g M ay er.

### 80

I d . at238- 39. ¶2 18
. I n B illio t v. S ta te , 4 54 So
. 2 d 44 5 ( M i s s . 1 98 4) , W a l l a c e Cr ol l , J r . , h i s wi f e and d a u g h te r w e re f

o u n d b lu d g e o n e d to d e a th in th e irh o m e . I d . at451. T he bodi es w er e f ound by 12- year - ol d St ephen Crol l a nd s om e of hi s f r i ends , a f t erthey s aw de f

endantJ ames Bi l l i ot d ri v in g W a lla c e C ro ll’ s c a r a n d b e c a m e s u s p ic io u s . I d . W hen the b od i es w ere f ound, an al l
- poi nt s bul l et i n w as i ssued i n M i s s i s s i ppi and Loui s i ana, and tw o days l at erB i l l i otw as
a rr e s te d
. I

d . H e w as tr i ed and c onvi ct ed of capi t al m ur derand s ent ence d t o death. ¶219. B i l l i otappeal ed, cl ai m i ng, i nt eral i a, thatthe ver di ctw as agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng
w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e b e c a u s e th e S ta te f a ile d to p ro v e th e u n d e rl y in g fe lo n y o f r o b b e ry . I d. at462- 63. T hi s C our taf f i r m ed B i l l i ot ’ s convi ct i on, s t at i ng: B i l l i otw as s een dr i vi ng aw ay f r om t he sc ene i n t he carow ned by t he dec eas ed C r ol l
. B i l l i otal s o admi t t ed he t ook $60. 00 f r om W al l ace C r ol l ’ s w al l et . T he iss u e o f in ten t w a s a q u e stio n o f fa c t fo r th e ju ry . H a v in g b e e n p ro p e rly i ns truct ed on t he el ement s of r obbery and capi t al m ur der , t aki ng the evi dence as a w hol e, i tw as r eas onabl e f orthe j ury t o concl ude thatB i l l i otcomm i t t ed the murde rw hi l e enga ged i n the cr i m e of r obbery. I d . at463. ¶220. I n Fish e r v . S ta te , 481 So. 2d 2 03 (M i s s . 1985) , M el i nda W eather s w as r epor t ed
m i s s i ng w hen s he f

ai l ed t o r eturn hom e fr om a sof tbal l game. H ercarw as l at erf ound
a b a n d o n e d a lo n g H ig h w a y 1 1 /8 0 o u ts id e o f M e ri d ia n . I d . at206. Fourdays l at er , hernaked b o d y w a s d is c o v e re d b y a s e a rc h p a rt y o n a n o ld lo g g in g tr a il o u ts id e o f M e ri d ia n . I d . A f t er t he d i s c ov e r y of

M e l i nd a ’ s b od y, l a w e nf or c e menta utho r i t i e s the or i z e d tha tthe s us pect

### 81

m ig h t b e th e s a m e in d iv id u a l th a t h a d sto p p e d a n d ra p e d a n o th e r f e m a le n e a r t h a t a re a . I

d. A uthor i t i es or gani zed a decoy ope r at i on des i gned t o attr acta s us pectw hos e mode of
o p e ra tio n w a s to s to p lo n e fe m a le d ri v e rs a lo n g H ig h w a y 1 1 /8 0
. I d . at207. ¶221. A m on t h af

t erM el i nda’ s body w as f ound, the dec oy w as dr i vi ng al ong H i ghw ay 1 1 /8 0 w h e n a p ic k u p tru c k a p p ro a c h e d h e r c a r f ro m b e h in d a n d fl a s h e d its lig h ts . I d . W hen the dr i verof

the pi ckup appr oache d the ca r , a det ect i ve w ho w as hi di ng i n the ba cks eat ju m p e d o u t a n d a rr e s te d th e m a n , d e fe n d a n t L a rr y F is h e r. I d . A fte r F ish e r’s a rre st, a g o ld p e n d a n t a n d th e b a c k o f a n e a r ri n g w e re d is c o v e re d in h is tru c k
. I d . M el i nda’ s m ot her id e n tif ie d th e g o ld p e n d a n t a s M e lin d a ’s
. I d . at207- 08. ¶2 2 2
. F ishe r w as su b seq u en tl y c h arg ed w ith the c ap it al m u rde r of M eli n d a G ail W ea thers
w hi l e he w as engage d i n the cr i m es of r ape and

ro b b e ry . I

d . at 21 0
. A ft er a tri al, th e ju ry fo u n d h im g u ilty o f c a p ita l m u rd e r a n d s e n te n c e d h im to d e a th
. I d . at211. Fi s herappea l ed,
c laim in g , inte r a lia, th a t th e S tate ’s e v id e n c e w a s le g a lly in su ffic ien t to e sta b lis h c e rta in el ement s of

the cr i m e of

capi t al m ur der , part i cul ar l y the under l yi ng f el oni es of

r ape a nd
ro b b e ry . I

d. ¶223. A l though thi s C our tr ever s ed and r emanded the ca s e for a new tr i al i n a di f f er ent venue, thi s C our ts t at ed thatthe evi dence of r obbery w as s uf

f i ci entf ora convi ct i on: T her e i s evi dence t hatF i s hert ook fr om M el i nda G ai l W eather s s ever al pi ece s o f j e we l r y , p e r s o n a l p r o p e r ty h a v i n g s o me v a l u e , a l th o u g h mo d e s t . Th e s a me e v id e n c e m e n tio n e d a b o v e [sp e a k in g o f e v id e n c e o f th e ra p e ] w o u ld e n a b le any r eas onabl e j ur ort o concl ude beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthi s t aki ng w as by vi ol ence t o herper s on orby put t i ng heri n f earof i m m edi at e per s onal

### This was Duplanti s’ s s ec ond tria l. Hisfir st tri al , whic h res ult ed in a death s ent enc e, 35 

### was o verturnedbythis C ourt ongro un ds n ot relatedto th e un derly ing rob bery
. 82 i nj ury. Fi s her ’ s f

el oni ous i nt enti s s i m i l ar l y s how n b y thatw hi ch the e s ta b lis h e d fa c ts a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s s h o w th a t h e d id
. W h e a t v. S ta te , 420 S o .2 d 2 2 9 , 2 3 8 -3 9 (M is s .1 9 8 2 ); V o y les v. S ta te , 362 So. 2d 1236, 1242- 43 (M iss .1 9 7 8 ). W e h o ld th a t th e e v id e n c e in th is c a se w a s le g a lly a d e q u a te to es t abl i s h t hatL arr y Fi s hercomm i t t ed the under l yi ng fel ony of r obbery of M el i nd a G ai l W eat hers. 481 So. 2d at214. ¶224. I n D u

p la n tis v. S ta te , 708 So. 2d 1327 ( M i s s . 1998) , G ary T hr as h w entt o hi s exw if e ’s h o u s e to c h e c k o n h e r a ft e r h e h e a rd th a t tw o p ri s o n e rs h a d e s c a p e d
. I d . a t 1 3 3 3 . H is b o d y la te r f

o u n d ly in g in a p o o l o f h is o w n b lo o d o n h is e x -w if e ’s k itc h e n fl o o r. I

d . H is p o c k e ts w e re e m p ty , a n d h is tru c k w a s m is s in g . I d. T hr as h’ s truck w as subs equent l y f ound
a b a n d o n e d in M e m p h is , T e n n e s s e e . I d. ¶225. A f

t eri nves t i gat i ng tw o phone ca l l s m ade f r om the r es i dence w her e the murde rhad t aken pl ace , the pol i ce a r r es t ed K en St r i ckl and and D avi d D upl ant i s i n J acks on, T ennes s ee. I d . at 13 3 4
. D u p lantis w as ind ict ed , tr ied a n d co n v ict ed for the ca p it al m u rde r of G ary T hr as h and sent ence d t o l i f e i n pri s on w i thoutpar ol e. I d . at1331. H e appe al ed, cl ai m i ng, 35 i nt eral i a, thathe di d notpos s es s the i nt entt o r ob t he vi ct i m unt i l af t erthe ki l l i ng, and thus th e k ill in g c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n d o n e in th e c o u rse o f th e ro b b e ry . I d . at 13 4 1
. T h is C o u rt af f i r m ed hi s convi ct i on, s t at i ng: I n the cas e sub j udi ce, D upl ant i s w as an esc apee fr om j ai l
. H e had no money, nordi d he have acc es s t o i t . I ti s notbe yond the r eal m of i nf er ence t o bel i eve thatD upl ant i s f

i r s tdevel oped the i nt entt o r ob G ary T hr as h of hi s truck and m o n ey , an d then k il led M r. T h rash w h en h e d id n o t c o o p e rate. T h e jury

### 83

a p p a re n tly d re w th is i n f e r e n c e , o r o n e s im ila r t h e re to , fr o m th e fa c ts . W e acc eptthe j ury’ s f

i ndi ng. F ur therm or e, the poss i bi l i ty t hatt he pr eci s e mom ent o f T h rash ’s de ath m ay h av e p rec ed ed the a ctua l co n su m m ati o n o f th e ro b b ery d o e s n o t v iti a te th e c a p ital c h a rg e . T h is a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit. I d. at1342. ¶226. I n K

n ox v. S ta te , 805 So. 2d 527 ( M i s s . 2002) , w hi l e r es pondi ng t o a mi s s i ng per s on
re p o rt , a u th o ri ti e s f

o u n d th e v ic tim d e a d in th e tru n k o f h e r c a r i n h e r c a rp o rt . I d . at529. A fte r d isc o v e rin g th e b o d y , the sh e riff le ft th e sc e n e to in ter v iew p e o p le in the c o m m u n ity t o “deve l op a s us pect . ” I d . at529- 30. A n i nf

or m antt ol d hi m t hatS t eve K nox w as i nvol ved in th e v ic ti m ’s d e a th
. I d . at530. A uthor i t i es began s ear chi ng f orK nox bas ed on the d e s c ri p tio n g iv e n to th e m b y th e in fo rm a n t. Id
. ¶ 2 2 7 . O ff

ic e rs fo u n d K n o x w a lk in g i n a fi e ld c lo s e b y . I d. T he of

f i cer s ques t i oned K nox
a b o u t th e v ic tim , a n d K n o x d e n ie d k n o w in g h e r. I d. O n e o f th e o ffic e rs n o tice d so m e sm a ll “b row n ish red d ish” sp o ts on K n o x ’s l eft th igh an d d ec ided to tak e K n o x to the sh eriff’s
s ta tio n . I d . A t th e sta tio n , o n e o f th e o ffic e rs f o u n d a s e t o f k e y s in K n o x ’s b a c k p o c k e t,
w hich w ere l at er det erm i ned t o b e t he v i ct i m ’s m i ssi ng ho use and car keys. ¶228. A n A m i t e C ount y gr and j ury i ndi ct ed K nox f orcapi t al m ur derw hi l e i n the
c o m m is s io n o f a ro b b e ry p u rs u a n t to M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3 -1 9
. I d . A ft er a tr ial , the ju ry fo u n d h im g u ilty o f c a p ita l m u rd e r a n d s e n te n c e d h im to d e a th
. I d . K nox appea l ed, cl ai m i ng, i nt eral i a, thatthe St at e pr es ent ed i ns uf f i ci entevi dence of

the under l yi ng cr i m e of r obbery. I d . at531. W e uphel d t he convi ct i on, s t at i ng:

### 84

It is n o t n e c e ss a ry th a t th e v ictim b e d e p riv e d o f p ro p e rty p ri o r to d e a th to s u s ta in a c o n v ic tio n fo r r o b b e ry . W e st v . S ta te , 46 3 S o. 2d 104 8, 105 6 (M i ss. 1985)
. “A n i ndi ctm entchar gi ng a ki l l i ng occurr i ng ‘ w hi l e enga ged i n the c o m m iss io n o f [ro b b e ry ]’ i n c lu d e s th e a c tio n s o f th e d e fe n d a n t lea d in g u p to the f el ony, t he at t empt ed f

el ony, and fl i ghtfr om t he sc ene of t he f el ony. ” W

est v. S ta te , 5 5 3 S o . 2 d 8 , 1 3 (M is s . 1 9 8 9 ). See a l so Tu rn e r v . S ta te , 7 32 So
. 2d 937, 950 ( M i s s . 1999)
. “I nt entt o do an ac torcomm i ta cr i m e i s al s o a q u e s tio n o f f

a c t to b e g le a n e d b y th e ju ry fr o m th e fa c ts sh o w n in e a c h c a s e .” S h a n k lin v. S ta te , 290 So. 2d 625, 627 ( M i s s . 1974)
. Ful l y cons i der i ng the cr i m e i n quest i on, t he l ocat i on of Spear s ’ body i n t he trunk of hercar , and the k e y s to th a t ca r in K n o x ’s p o s s e s s io n e v e n a fte r h e c h a n g e d h is c lo th e s, it is cl ear l y a ques t i on f

orthe j ury w hetherSpear s w as r obbed orw hetheri tw as K n o x ’s i n tent to rob he r. U n q u esti o n ab ly, the p roo f dem o n str ates tha t Sp ea rs w as strangl ed w hich caused lar ge am ou nts of blood to accum ulat e i n h er l un gs, wh i c h wo u l d h a v e r e s u l t e d i n a s l o w, h e i n o u s d e a th
. A b l o o d tr a i l l e d f r o m a s poti n hergar age t o the trunk of he rcar , w i th no s i gn of entry i nt o herhom e, al l of w hi ch i ndi cat es thatK nox t ook t he keys fr om S pear s ’ s per s on w hi l e s he w as in th e g ara g e. F u rth erm o re, iti s m o st sign if ican t that K n o x w a s in p o s s e s s i o n o f

S p e a r s ’ s c a ra n d h o u s e k e y s - h e rp e r s o n a l p r o p e r ty - a tth e t i me h e w as a rrested
. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-7 3 c learly e stab li sh es the n ec essa ry el ement s f

orpr oof of r obbery, i ncl udi ng the t aki ng of personal pr operty of another
. T he L egi s l atur e di d notpl ace a val ue i n det erm i ni ng w hatcons t i tut es p e rso n a l p ro p e rty o f a n o th e r. H a d th e L e g isla tu re in ten d e d o th e rw ise it w o u ld have s o s t at ed i n t he s t atut e. T hi s C our thas s t at ed, “The t aki ng of pr operty w as the el ementr el evantt o es t abl i s h eac h char ge r egar dl es s of i t s val ue. ” Hol l y v. S ta te , 671 So. 2d 32, 45 ( M i s s . 1996)
. T hus , the f actthatK nox t ook onl y the vi ct i m ’ s hous e and c arkeys w hi ch w er e of m er e nomi nal val ue i s of no gr eat conce r n. 805 So. 2d at531- 32. T hi s C our tconcl uded i t s anal ys i s of the r obbery i s s ue by s t at i ng: H er e, the e l e ment s of

r ob be ry b y the f

tof ho us e a nd c a rke ys , the un de r l yi ng f el ony, w as cl ear l y e s t abl i s hed and pr oven beyond a r eas onabl e doubt
. A gai n, w hen the def

endanti s di s cover ed w i th t he per s onal prope r ty of the dec eas ed o n h is p e rso n it i s e n tirely w ith in re a so n fo r th e ju ry to fin d th a t th is fa c t in i t s el f cons t i tut es r obbery. I ti s al s o w i thi n t he j ury’ s provi nce t o concl ude that K no x k i l l ed S pears i ntendi ng t o take her carand thath e either f ai l ed to do so ori nt ended t o r eturn ata l at ert i m e. I d. at532.

### 85

¶229. T hus , ourj ur i s prudence cl ear l y es t abl i s hes thatthe tr i al courtdi d noterri n s endi ng the ques t i on of

r obbery t o the j ury i n thi s cas e, and the j ury w as w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on t o f i nd G o ff gu il ty o f th e ro b b ery an d , co n seq u en tl y , the c ap it al m u rde r. C A R L S O N , P . J. , R A N D O L P H , L A M A R A N D P IE R C E , JJ . , JO IN T H IS OP I NI ON. RA ND OL P H, J US T I CE , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RR I NG : ¶ 2 3 0
. T h e d issen t au th o re d b y m y re sp e c ted c o llea g u e , Ju stic e K itch e n s, in c o rre c tly su g g e sts th a t th e m a

jo rity fe ll far sh o rt o f th e lev e l o f a th o ro u g h a n d o b je c tiv e a n a ly sis , w h ile o n ly cl ai m i ng t o exami ne w i th hei ght ened s crut i ny, ver sus an actual hei ght ened s crut i ny. H ei ght ened s crut i ny f

orappel l at e r evi ew does notal t eror e l evat e the bur den of pr oof beyond
a rea so n a b le d o u b t. T h e d iss e n t’s im p lica tio n th a t th e m a jo rity fa iled to h o n e stly c a ll “a b a ll
a b a ll an d a strik e a strik e ” is n o t o n ly in c o rre c t, bu t in e rro r. T h e se c riticism s d o little to advanc e the admi ni s tr at i on of j us t i ce. ¶231. H ad m y col l eague been the tw el f th j ur or , he very w el l m ay have s w ayed the other ju ro rs to lo o k th ro u g h th e len s p re sc rib e d in h is d iss e n t. P e rh a p s h is s k ill fu l ar g u m e n ts
w oul d have c onvi nced them t o concl ude a c api t al of f ens e had notoccurr ed. H ow ever , as
s ucci nct l y l ai d outi n the maj or i ty opi ni on, but t res sed by Jus t i ce D i cki ns on’ s exce l l ent
c o n c u rr e n c e , the fa c ts p re se n ted to th e ju ry in th e g u iltp h a se w e re su ffic ien t to su p p o rt its fi n d in g o f c a p ita l m u rd e r. T h e la w d o e s n o t r e q u ir e ju ro rs to fi n d g u ilt b e y o n d a ll d o u b t, i.e .,

### 86

abs ol ut e ce r t ai nty, butr atheronl y beyond a re as onabl e doubt
. T hi s al l ow s a zone of r es i dual d o u b t to e x is t w ith o u t o ff e n d in g n o tio n s o f f

a ir n e s s a n d ju s tic e . ¶232. T he di s s entdecr i es thatthe r ecor d i s devoi d of cr edi bl e evi dence on the ques t i on of rob b ery , asse rt ing n o t “a sli v er o f evid en ce ” su p p o rt s the jury ’s de term ination
. T o su p p o rt thi s as s ert i on, the di s s entst at es t hatw e know f r om the r ecor d thatM r s . Y at es t ook herw al l et i nt o the mot el of

f i ce, and r eturned t o the ca rw i th the w al l et . D i s . O p. ¶252. H avi ng r ead the
r ecor d m ul t i pl e t i m es , I f i nd no s uch t es t i m ony. T he des k cl erk, Pear l B oul w ar e, never
r ef err ed t o Y at es us i ng a w al l etatchec k- i n. T he des k cl erk, Pear l B oul w ar e, neverr ef err ed to se eing a w all et. (R ec o rd a t 46 8 -75 ). ¶233. N ext , t he dis sent fi nd s si gn i fi cance in t he “absen ce of bi ol ogi cal m att eron the
w al l et , . . . ” A ccor di ng t o the di s s ent , thi s a bs ence “ s ugges t s more he avi l y than not , thatt he
w al l etw as abs ent. . . . ” D i s. O p. ¶255. A n i nt erpr et at i on w hi ch f ai l s t o appr eci at e that otherphys i cal evi dence f ound i n the def

endant ’ s cars how ed no evi dence of bi ol ogi cal
m a tte r. ¶23 4. T he d i ssentcon cl ud es that the p enalty sho uld be l i fe, as opp osed to death. T he j urors , w h o w ere alread y sati sfi ed b ey o n d a rea so n ab le d o u b t th at th e S tat e p rov ed rob b ery , h ea rd addi t i onal evi dence duri ng the s ent enci ng phas e. T he j ury w as r equi r ed t o cons i derw hether
a n y o n e o f fiv e e lem e n ts o f a g g ra v a tio n e x iste d , in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e d e a th p e n a lty
s houl d be i m pos ed. The s ent enci ng i ns truct i on r equi r ed a s epar at e f i ndi ng by the j ury, once

### Morepre ci se ly, themone y found in def endant’ s f le eing aut o. 36 

### 87 agai n beyond a r eas onabl e doubt , thatone orm or e of the aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s exi s t ed, bef or e i tcoul d r eturn a dea th penal ty s ent ence . ¶2 3 5 . In its c o n sid e ra ti o n o f ag g rav ati n g circu m stan ce s, w ith ad d it ion al ev iden ce b efo re them , the jury o nce aga i n con cl ud ed un anim ou sl y that on e of the ag gravat i ng ci rcum st ances,
a m o n g o th e rs, w a s: ( 3) [ t ] he capi t al of

f ens e w as com m i t t ed w hi l e t he def endantw as engaged i n the comm i s s i on of

r obbery. ¶2 36
. B ef

or e t he j ury made i t s u l t i mat e d eci s i on, any ves t i ge of doubtr egar di ng t he
w her eabout s of

the money f

ound i n the w al l et w as ans w er ed by the t est i m ony of t he 36 defendan t ’s m other , w ho t es t i f i ed thaton the ni ghtof

the cr i m e, the def

endantw as ather hous e. H e t al ked on the phone tw i ce. D ur i ng the s econd cal l , s he l i s t ened t o t he
conver s at i on on anotherphone. G of f w as t al ki ng t o a w om an, and “t he gi r l s ai d, ‘ J os eph you can’ tj us tputm e i n a m ot el and go of f and l eave m e. ’ ‘I ’ m hungry. ’ A nd he s ai d, ‘ I l ef tyou $ 5 0 0
. 0 0
. ’ A n d sh e sa id, ‘ B u t th ere ’s no thing to ea t here
. ’” ¶23 7. T he def

endant ’ s ow n w or ds bel i e the di s s ent ’ s al t ernat i ve reasonab l e i nfer ence theory. T here h as been no mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. T her e i s overw hel m i ng evi dence of gui l t . T he
m a jo rity re v iew e d th is c a se u n d e r th e re q u ire d h e ig h ten e d s c ru tin y s tan d a rd . T h e m a jo rity concl uded thatther e w as s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n s uppor tof the r es ul t , a nd i tcannotf ai r l y be
s a id th a t n o re a s o n a b le ju ro r c o u ld h a v e fo u n d o th e rw is e .

### 88

¶238. I choos e t o f

ol l ow the vi ew announce d by C hi ef J us t i ce Burge rof the U ni t ed St at es S u p re m e C o u rt fo r th a t C o u rt n o t to re try c a se s d e n o v o o n a p p e a l, no r to c lo se m y e y e s to th e re a lity o f o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e o f g u ilt f a ir ly e s ta b lis h e d
. See Milto n v. W a in w rig h t, 4 0 7 U . S
. 3 7 1 , 3 7 7 , 9 2 S
. C t. 2 1 7 4 , 2 1 7 8 , 3 3 L . E d
. 2 d 1 , 6 -7 (1 9 7 2 ). C A R L S O N , P . J. , D IC K IN S O N , L A M A R A N D P IE R C E , JJ . , JO IN T H IS OP I NI ON. W AL L E R, CH I E F J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶239. I n m y vi ew , w hi l e I a gr ee w i th the m aj or i ty c oncl us i on r egar di ng the s uf f i ci ency of the evi dence , the r ecor d s uppor t s tw o orm or e hypothes es of the cr i m e com m i t t ed and ther ef or e t he ci r cumst ant i al evi dence (tw o- theory) i ns truct i on D
- 14 s houl d have be en gi ven to th e ju ry . F o r th is re a so n , I re sp e c tfu lly tha t be c a u se the tri a l co u rt err e d w h e n it faile d to g ran t i n stru cti o n D -14 , a c ir cu m stan ti al ev iden ce (tw o -th eo ry) instruc ti o n , the tri al co u rt ’s ju d g m e n t ca se m u st b e re v e rse d a n d th is c a se re m a n d e d fo r a n e w trial. I w rite s e p a ra tely to a d d re s s th is p o in t. C i r cum s tant i alevi dence ( tw o- theory

) i ns tr uct i on ¶ 2 4 0
. T h e e v id e n c e in th is c a s e is p u re ly c ir c u m s ta n tia l. See Ly n c h v . S ta te , 877 So. 2d 1254, 1265 (M i ss. 2 00 4) ( quot i ng S tate v. R og ers , 847 So. 2d 858, 863 ( M i s s . 2003) ( For purpos es of

gr ant i ng a tw o- theory i ns truct i on, “[ a] ci r cumst ant i al evi dence cas e . . . . i s one i n w hi ch ther e i s nei theran eye w i tnes s nora conf es s i on t o the cr i m e. ”)
. G of f gave no
c o n fe s s io n n o r w e re th e re a n y e y e w itn e s s e s . T h e S ta te a n d G o ff c o n c e d e a s m u c h
.

### Ins tr uction S- 2A provi ded: 37 

### Th e Defen dant, Josep h B isho p G off, has beenchargedin the indictment with thecrim e of

Count I: Capi ta l Murder

for having kil le d Brandy S. Yate s during the co mmissionof th e felony crime o f Ro bb ery o f Bran dyS. Y ates. If yo u fin d f

rom th e evid ence inthis case, b eyo nda reason able d oubt an d to theexc lus ion of

eve ry r ea sona

blehypothe si s c onsi st ent with innoc enc e: (1) Jos eph Bi shop Goff

, on or about August 27, 2004, in Ge orgeCounty, Mississip pi; (2) did wi ll ful ly, unlawful ly, fe loni ously and wi thout a uthorit y of l aw and not in n ecessary self-d efense; (3) with or wi thout

any des ign t o ef

fe ct thedeath, kil l and murder Brandy S. Yates, a humanbein g; (4) at a ti mewhen Joseph Bis hop Goff was enga ged in thecommi ss ion of the fe lony c ri meof Robbe ry, by taking t he per sona l prope rty of

Brandy S. Yate s in he r pr es enc e or

from her pe rs on aga ins t he r wi llby viol enc e t o theper son of B randy S . Yates; If theSt at e has f

ai le d t o prove any one or

more of theaboveel em ent s be yond a reason ab le d oubt an d to the ex clusio n o f everyreason able hyp oth esis cons is te nt wi th innoce nce , the n you sha llf ind theDe fe ndant , Jos eph Bi shop Goff not gui lt y of Ca pit alMurde r. 89 ¶24 1. T w o i nst ruct i on s are requi red i n ci rcum st anti al evidence cases such as this
. T he fi rs t has been t erm ed the “typi cal ci r cumst ant i al i ns truct i on, ” w hi ch r equi r es the j ury t o excl ude
every r eas onabl e hypothes i s ot herthan gui l t . W e have s t at ed: A j ury i s i ns truct ed t o excl ude every other r eas onabl e hypothes i s than thatof g u ilt w h e n a c a s e i s b a s e d e n tir e ly u p o n c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . A ci r cumst ant i al evi dence i ns truct i on i s r equi r ed onl y w hen the pr os ecut i on can p ro d u c e n e ith e r a n e y e w itn e ss n o r a c o n fe ss io n /sta tem e n t b y th e d e fe n d a n t. Hu g h e s v . S ta te , 983 So. 2d 270, 278 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. T hi s type of i ns truct i on w as gi ven i n S- 2A , and no i s s ue exi s t s abouti t s pr opr i ety. 37

### 90

¶2 42
. T he ci r cumst ant i al evi dence i ns t ruct i on t hatw as notgi ven i s know n as t he ci r cumst ant i al evi dence ( tw o- theory) i ns truct i on. W hi l e the pr opr i ety of thi s i ns truct i on has been que s t i oned i n the pas t , I bel i eve that , i n c ert ai n i ns t ance s , the i ns truct i on m us tbe gi ven to s e c u re p ro te c tio n o f a n a c c u s e d ’s ri g h t to a fa irtr ia l. See S trin g fe llo w v. S ta te , 595 So. 2d 1320, 1322 ( M i s s . 1992)
. T he i ns t antcas e i s s uch an oc cas i on. ¶243. T he des i gnat i on “tw o- theory” i s a m i snom er. A b et t er nam e w ou l d be a “tw oi nt erpret at i on” i ns truct i on, w her e the evi dence can be ar gued, as i n thi s cas e, t o ei ther i m pl i cat e G of

f ort o abs ol ve G of

f of the r obbery of

B r andy. T he tw o- theory i ns truct i on does
n o t o ffer th e jury th e c h o ice b etw ee n tw o d ist inct theo ri es fo r th e m u rde r, i. e., w h ethe r G o ff
comm i t t ed the murde rors om eone e l s e comm i t t ed the m ur der
. T he tw o- theory i ns truct i on is n o t u se d to a d v a n c e tw o d istin c t th e o rie s s u c h a s “ m u rd e r o r a lib i; h o m icid e o r a n a c c id e n t; hom i ci de gui l torm i s t aken i dent i ty, ” as w as addr es s ed i n K itch e n s v . S ta te , 300 So. 2d 922, 9 2 6 (M iss. 1 9 7 4 ). ¶244. H er e, the j ury had t o excl ude the r easonab l e h yp othesi s thatG of f di d nott ake the
w al l et . U nderthe St at e’ s theory, G of f st ole t he w al l etas partof the murde r . O n the other hand, the f

act s s how t hatB r andy w as dr i vi ng w hen s he and G of f chec ked i nt o the R ocky C r eek I nn. I ti s pl aus i bl e t hatB r andy l ef tt he w al l eti n t he car , and t hus t he w al l etw as not t aken i nt o the mot el r oom . G of f c oul d ha ve ki l l ed B r andy i n a r age a nd dr i ven aw ay i n t he M u s ta n g , u n a w a re th a t B ra n d y ’s w a lle t w a s in th e v e h ic le
.

### 91

¶245. I n J

o n e s v . S ta te , 797 So. 2d 922 ( M i s s . 2001) , thi s C our t r ever s ed and r emanded f or
a new t r i al t he capi t al
- m ur derconvi ct i on of K enneth E ar l J ones f

orf ai l ur e t o gi ve the tw otheory i ns truct i on w her e the evi dence w as w hol l y ci r cumst ant i al
. W e s t at ed: In a c a se w h e re a ll th e e v id e n c e ten d in g to p ro v e th e g u ilto f th e d e fe n d a n t is circu m stan ti al, the tri al co u rtm u st gran t tw o j u ry instruc ti o n s. F ir st, the c o u rt m us tgra nta j ury i ns truct i on t hatevery r eas onabl e hypothes i s otherthan that of gui l tm us tbe excl ud ed i n or dert o convi ct . A s s t at ed pr evi ous l y, the tr i al courti n thi s cas e di d grantthe typi cal ci r cumst ant i al evi dence i ns truct i on. H ow ever , i n a ddi t i on t o gi vi ng i ns truct i on on ci r cumst ant i al e vi dence , the tr i al courtm us tgr anta “ tw o- theory” i ns truct i on s uch as D
- 7. I n the cas e atba r , the tr i a l c o u r tr e f

u s e d t o a l l o w D
- 7 , th e two - th e o ry i n s tru c t i o n . Th e v e ry s a me tw o- theory i ns truct i on a s D
- 7 w as a ti s s ue i n Henders on . T hi s C our tr ever s ed an d rem a n d ed for a n ew tr ial b ec au se th e tri al j u d g e re fuse d the tw o -th eo ry i ns truct i on as w el l as the typi cal ci r cumst ant i al evi dence i ns truct i on. Id
. a t 9 2 8 -2 9 (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). See al s o P a rk e r v . S ta te , 60 6 S o. 2d 11 32 , 11 42 (M i ss. 1992) ( “B eca us e the tr i al j udge r ef us ed t o gr anta tw o theory i ns truct i on of f er ed by the d efe n se in this case , the tri al j u d g e ab u sed h is discreti o n an d this case m u st be rem an d ed
. ”); He n de rs o n v. S ta te , 453 So. 2d 708, 710 ( M i s s . 1984) ( “[ T ] hi s c as e s houl d be r emanded f or
a n ew tr ial b ec au se ju ry in stru cti o n s req u ired in a c ir cu m stan ti al ev iden ce ca se w ere
re fu se d .”); N

e ste r v. S ta te , 254 M i s s . 25, 29, 179 So. 2d 565, 566 ( 1965) ( cas e r ever s ed and
r emanded, as “[ t ] he evi dence
. . . w as s o ci r cumst ant i al as t o r equi r e the gi vi ng of the tw otheo ry in stru cti o n an d itw as p rejud ici al error fo r th e c o u rtto refu se it
. ”). ¶2 46
. I ns t ruct i on D
- 14, of f er ed by G of

f as a ci r cumst ant i al evi dence ( t w o- t heor y) i nst ruct i on , i s as f

oll ow s:

### 92

T h e C o u rt in stru c ts th e ju ry th a t if the re m a y b e a fa c t o r c irc u m sta n c e in th is caus e s us cept i bl e of

tw o i nt erpr et at i ons , one f avor abl e and the other unf avor abl e t o t he D ef

endant , an d w hen the j ury has cons i der ed s uch f actor ci r cumst ance w i th al l otherevi dence , ther e i s a r eas onable do ubtas t o the corr ecti nt erpr et at i on, then you, the j ury, m us tr es ol ve s uch doubti n f avorof the D ef endant , and p l ace upon s uch f actorci r cumst ance the i nt erpr et at i on m o st fa v o ra b le to th e D e fe n d a n t. ¶247. T hi s i ns truct i on i s very s i m i l ar t o other i ns truct i ons appr oved by thi s C our t , butw as
re fu s e d b y th e tr ia l c o u rt . See Hu g h e s, 983 So. 2d at278. ¶248. W hen the tr i al courtconsi der ed i ns truct i on D
- 14, t he f ol l ow i ng excha nge occ ur r ed: B Y T H E D I ST R I C T A T T O R N E Y : W e obj ectt o D
- 14, Y ourH onor . I thi nk th is is a c irc u m sta n tial e v id e n c e c a se , an d th a t h a s b e e n d e fin e d in th e e lem e n ts i ns truct i on. I t ’ s i m pr operunderthe l aw t o gi ve thi s i ns truct i on. B Y C O U N SE L FO R G O FF ( M cN A L L Y ) : A nd Judge, w e f eel thi s i s a tw otheory case bas ed on ci r cumst ant i al evi dence as f aras the murde rand the r o b b e r y . W e f

e e l th i s c h a r g e i s a p p r o p r i a t e u n d e rM i s s i s s i p p i l a w.

. . . B Y T H E C O U R T : . . . I don’ tthi nk you’ r e ent i t l ed t o thi s and a c i r cumst ant i al e v id e n c e in stru c tio n w h e n th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f is u se d in th e e lem e n ts i ns truct i on. D
- 14 w i l l be r ef us ed. ¶2 4 9
. T h e law is c lear– b ec au se the ev iden ce in this c ase is p u rely circu m stan ti al, the ju ry
s houl d have r ecei ved bot h t he typi cal ci r cumst ant i al evi dence i ns truct i on, as w el l as the ci r cumst ant i al evi dence ( tw o- theory) i ns truct i on. I n thi s cas e, onl y the typi cal ci r cumst ant i al
e v id e n c e in s tru c tio n w a s g iv e n .

### “A m oti on for direc te d verdic t c hal le nges theleg alsuf fi ci enc y of the e vide nce 38 

### off er ed to t hat point of tri alt o sus tain a

guilty ve rdi ct .” Mo rris v. Sta te , 777 So. 2d 16, 22 (Mi ss . 2000) (e mpha si s a dded) . The re for e, any e vide nceproc ure d af te r Gof f’ s s econd motion f or a direc te d verdict durin g the guilt pha seof hi s tri alcannot e nte r in to our 93 ¶250. A s the j ury w as not f ul l y and f

ai r l y i ns truct ed due t o the tr i al court ’ s f ai l ur e t o gr ant i ns truct i on D
- 14, I w oul d r ever s e the tr i al court ’ s j udgm entand r emand t hi s cas e f ora new tr ia l. See Jones , 797 So. 2d at929. GRAVE S , P . J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON. KI T CH E NS , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶251. W er e thi s cas e bef or e us an appe al fr om a convi ct i on of r obbery and r obbery al one,
w e w o u ld u se v e ry li ttl e ink to re v e rse a n d re n d e r fo r la c k o f e v id e n c e . T h e th re e e lem e n ts
o f ro b b e ry a re (1 ) th e inte n tio n a l (2 ) tak in g an d ca rry in g a w a y o f a n o th e r’s p ro p e rty fro m h is p e rs o n o r p re s e n c e (3 ) e ff e c tu a te d b y fo rc e o r t h re a t o f f o rc e . Cro c k e r v . S ta te , 272 So. 2d 6 6 4 , 6 6 5 (M iss . 1 9 7 3 ). It is fu n d a m e n tal c rim in a l l a w tha t ev e ry e lem e n t o f a c rim in a l sta tu te
m u st be p rop erly p led a n d su ffi cien tl y p rov en in o rde r t o p e rm it c o n v ict ion there u n d er. T ag g a rt v . S ta te , 957 So. 2d 981, 985- 86 ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng Ca rrv. S ta te , 208 So. 2d 886, 889 ( M i s s . 1968) ). O n chal l enges t o the s uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence , w e r evi ew t he
e v id e n c e in th e li g h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e ju ry ’s v e rd ic t, G lee to n v. S ta te , 716 So. 2d 1083, 1087 ( M i s s . 1998), but“i f w e det erm i ne t he evi dence poi nt s i n fa vorof the def endanton any
e lem e n t o f th e o ffe n se su c h th a t a re a so n a b le ju ro r c o u ld n o t h a v e fo u n d th e d e fe n d a n t g u ilty beyond a r eas onabl e doubt , w e mustr ever s e the convi ct i on. ” Co lem a n v. S ta te , 947 So. 2d 878, 881 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng E dw a rds v . S ta te , 4 6 9 S o . 2 d 6 8 , 7 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 )). 38

### dec is ion. In my vie w, today’s m aj ori ty opini on c ontains no sugge stion to t he c ontrar

y, nor do theseparat e opinions of the Chi ef Jus ti ceand J

ustic e Di ckinson. Jus ti ceRandolph cont ends that t he e vide ncedoes not

s upport this es ta bli shm ent of 39 

### a l ink be twe en Mr s. Yat es and he r wa ll et . Wi th hum il it y, I dis agr ee . Page s 468 through 474 of ther e c ord d oc um e nt

thedir e c t

e xam i nat i onof

Ms . Pe arlBo ulwar e , wh o m ana ge d the front des k of the Roc ky Cre ek Inn on theaf te rnoon and eve ning of

Aug. 26, 2004. Ms. Boulwarere count ed che cking Mrs. Yate s into t he m ote l, as ce rt aining Mr s. Yat es ’s me thod of payment, and r evi ewing Mrs . Yate s’ s drivers li ce nse . Justic e Randolph c orr ec tly note s that t he word “ wal le t”was abs ent from t his ac count , but

thedes cription wa s de tail ed e nough to l ea d Dis tric t Att orne y Tony Lawr enc e to cl ai m in his res ponset o Gof f’ s firs t motion f

or a dire ct ed ve rdi ct , in a statement mem ori al iz ed on page 819 of there cord, that

“[ t] he evid ence al so s howed that [Mr s. Yat es ] use d that wa ll et to c hec k int o thehote l at approxim at ely 4:00 p.m. ” Obvious ly, this state me nt was not evide nce , but it was a r ef le ction of th e evid ence w ith whichthe trial ju dg e clearly ag reed indenyin g G off’s mo tion . In my vie w of t his uniqueca se , this int er pre tati on of the evide ncewas re as onabl e. Give n our obli gation t o re vie w deni al s of motions f or direc te d verdic t wi th t

he e vide nceca st

in t he l ight most favo rable to th e jury ’s verd ict, G leeton , 716 So. 2d at1087 

### , I am satisfied th at the S tate dem onstrate d that Mr s. Yat es poss es se d thewall et when she arrive d at the Roc ky Cre ek Inn. A conc lus ion t o thecontrary i s onewith whic h I woul d not agree; b ut that det er mination would appe ar

t o obl igateonet o the judgm ent that t he St at e f ai le d to prove that

Mrs . Yate s ev er po ssessed th e wallet, an d a ju dg e ho ldin g th at op inio n w ou ld b e ob ligatedto rev erse Goff ’s convi ction. 94 ¶252. I n or dert o sus t ai n G of f’ s convi ct i on of ca pi t al m ur der , w e m us tfi nd t hatthe evi dence
su p p o rt s th e d eterm ination th at he co m m itted m u rde r and t he under l yi ng cr i m e of r obbery. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3 -1 9 (R e v . 2 0 0 6 ). O n th e q u e stio n o f m u rd e r, th e e v id e n c e c lea rly is
su ffic ien t to su sta in th e c o n v ictio n . O n th e q u e stio n o f ro b b e ry , tho u g h , the re c o rd is u tterly d ev o id o f cred ible ev iden ce that su ffi cien tl y p rov es a felon iou s tak ing o f B ran d y Y ates’s
w al l et . W e know f

r om the r ecor d thatM r s . Y at es t ook herw al l eti nt o the mot el of f i ce w hen
s he pai d f

orthe r oom t hatshe w as t o shar e w i th G of f
. W e al s o gl ean f

r om t he r ecor d t hat 39
s he r eturned f

r om the off

i ce t o the ca r , of

w hi ch s he w as the dr i veratthatt i m e, w i t h the
w al l et . T he nextappea r ance the w al l etmakes i n the r ecor d i s i t s di s covery i n the ar ea of the

### 95

car ’ s cons ol e, by pol i ce, the nextday. T he St at e pr ovi ded no evi dent i ary bas i s on w hi ch the j ury c oul d c oncl ude thatthe w al l ete vere nt er ed the m ot el r oom , w her e i tc oul d h ave been t aken f r om the vi ct i m ’ s per s on or pr es ence , as i s i ndi s put abl y r equi r ed by the r obbery s t atut e. ¶253. T he St at e w as unabl e t o pr oduce an eyew i tnes s t o the atr oci t i es thatw er e vi s i t ed upon M r s . Y at es by hercruel as s ai l ant. N o on e conf es s ed t o ki l l i ng herorr obbi ng herof her
w al l et . T her ef

or e, thi s i s a ca s e r es t i ng ent i rel y upon ci r cumst ant i al evi dence , and as s uch
re q u ire s p ro o f o f th e d e fe n d a n t’s g u ilt , b o th a s to m u rd e r a n d ro b b e ry , b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t an d to th e e x c lu sio n o f e v e ry re a so n a b le h y p o th e sis c o n sis ten t w ith in n o c e n c e to
s u s ta in a c o n v ic tio n o f c a p ita l m u rd e r. Hu g h e s v . S ta te , 9 8 3 S o . 2 d 2 7 0 , 2 7 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ). T hi s f undament al r equi r ementgoes al l butunaddr es s ed by t oday’ s m aj or i ty opi ni on, and the C our t ’ s m er e pas s i ng r ef er ence s t o i tf

al l f ars hor tof

the l evel o f t hor ough and obj ect i ve
a n a ly sis th a t sh o u ld c h a ra c ter ize o p in io n s fr o m M iss iss ip p i’s h ig h e st c o u rt, es p e c ially in
c a p ita l c a s e s , w h ic h w e c la im to e x a m in e w ith h e ig h te n e d s c ru tin y . See M aj
. O p. at29, 32, 3 8
. See al

s o B e n n e tt v. S ta te , 9 9 0 S o . 2 d 1 5 5 , 1 5 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ). ¶254. I n the pr es entc as e, the r ecor d pl ai nl y r evea l s thatthe St at e add uced evi dence that excl udes every r eas onabl e hypothes i s cons i s t entw i th G of f’ s i nnocenc e on the cha r ge of
m u rde r. A s to the alleg a tio n o f rob b ery , the S tat e’s p roo f fell far sh o rto f th at ev iden ti ary st andar d. T hi s C ourt ’ s duty, i n thes e ci r cumst ance s , i s cl ear : w e mustbe atl eas tas ho nest
as w e expe cta home pl at e umpi r e t o be and c al l a bal l a bal l and a s tr i ke a s tr i ke.

### 96

N otw i ths t andi ng the St at e’ s admi r abl e di l i gence , a bal l w as thr ow n on the r obbery as pectof th is c a se , tho u g h th e p ro se c u tio n w a s w e ll w ith in th e strik e z o n e o n th e m u rd e r a sp e c t. ¶255. E ven unt o the r ender i ng of t oday’ s j udgm ent , the St at e has been unabl e t o poi nt t o a
s l i ve ro f e vi de nc e tha ts up po r t s the j ury’ s r ob be ry de t e r mi na t i on . W he n w e he l d or al
ar gum ent s on t hi s cas e i n J anuary, w e putthi s very ques t i on t o the St at e’ s abl e couns el , w ho
ca n d idly a ck n o w ledg ed th at no ev iden ce w as a d d u ce d at tri al t o the e ffect th at M rs. Y ates’s
w a lle t w a s in th e m o te l r o o m d u ri n g th e c o m m is s io n o f th is h e in o u s h o m ic id e . T h e re fo re , a jury co u ld n o t ha v e d eterm ined b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t, letalon e to th e e x clus ion o f ev ery
r eas onabl e hypothes i s cons i s t entw i th G of f’ s i nnocenc e of

r obbery, thatM r s . Y at es ’ s w al l et
w as i n herpr es ence a tthe t i m e of he rmurder
. I ndeed, gi ven the abs ence of bi ol ogi cal m att er on the w al l et , the evi dence s ugges t s m or e hea vi l y than notthatthe w al l etw as abs entf r om th is h e llis h m u rd e r s c e n e . See M aj
. O p. at12. ¶ 2 5 6
. T h e e v id e n c e d o e s n o t, o f c o u rse , a lto g e th e r elim in a te th e p o ss ib ili ty th a t G o ff s to le th e w a llet in th e sa m e c o n tin u o u s tra n sa c tio n th a t led to M rs. Y a tes ’s d e a th . A s th e m a jo rity
corr ect l y as s ert s , the r ecor d i n thi s c as e does l end i t s el f t o the hypothes i s thatM r s . Y at es di d, i n f act , t ake he rw al l etw i th herf r om G of f’ s cari nt o the mot el room and thatG of f l at er
ro b b e d h e r o f th is a rticle o f p e rso n a l p ro p e rty . I ag re e th a t th is h y p o th e sis , o b v io u sly
cons i s t entw i th gui l t , i s a r eas onabl e one, and t he j ury coul d r eas onabl y have i nf err ed i tf r om th e e v id e n c e . T h e p ro o f in th is c a se , h o w e v e r, fa lls fa r sh o rt o f e x c lu d in g a ll rea so n a b le hypothes es consi s t entw i th i nnocenc e of robbe ry, becaus e the l ocat i on of the w al l etdur i ng

### 97

G of f’ s barbar i c ac ti s a f

actt o w hi ch t he evi dence does nots peak. B as ed upon the evi dence and the evi dence al one, i ti s j us tas r eas onabl e, i f notm or e r eas onabl e, t o i nf erthatthe w al l et
rem aine d in the ca r as G o ff r eturn ed to A laba m a , w h ile h e p erp etua ted th is bru tal m u rde r, and dur i ng hi s f

l i ghtf r om the cr i m e s cene . Such an hypothes i s cl ear l y i s r eas onabl e and
con si st ent w i th i nn ocen ce of r ob bery. Y etthe m aj ori ty d ecl i nes t o an al yze thi s hyp othesi s. I f i tdi d, t hi s fa t al fl aw i n t he St at e’ s cas e w oul d be expose d as i rr epar abl e, a def i ci ency that
w o u ld m an d ate rev ersa l of G o ff’ s co n v ict ion for c ap it al m u rde r. ¶ 2 5 7 . F in d in g th a t su c h a n a n a ly sis lea d s to th e in e sc a p a b le c o n c lu sio n th a t th e e v id e n c e is i ns uf f i ci entt o excl ude every r eas onabl e hypothes i s cons i s t entw i th G of f’ s i nnocenc e of

the
cr i m e of robbe r y, I w oul d re ver s e t he capi t al m ur derconvi ct i on, af f i r m the convi ct i on f

ort he les se r-in c lu d e d o ffe n se o f m u rd e r, an d re m a n d to th e tria l c o u rt w ith in stru c tio n s to
re s e n te n c e G o ff

a c c o rd in g ly
. See W

h e e lerv. S ta te , 5 3 6 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). CHANDL ER , J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.

### i A P P E N D IX DE AT H CAS ES AF F I RM ED BY THI S COURT Ch a m b e rlin v. S ta te , 9 8 9 S o . 2 d 3 2 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ). L o de n v. S ta te, 9 7 1 S o . 2 d 5 4 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). K ing v. State, 9 6 0 S o . 2 d 4 1 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). B e n n e tt v . S ta te, 9 3 3 S o . 2 d 9 3 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). H a v a r d v. S ta te, 9 2 8 S o . 2 d 7 7 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). Spi cerv. State, 9 2 1 S o . 2 d 2 9 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). Ho d g e s v. S ta te, 9 1 2 S o . 2 d 7 3 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). W a lk e rv. S ta te, 9 1 3 S o . 2 d 1 9 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). L e v. S ta te, 9 1 3 S o . 2 d 9 1 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). B r ow n v. State, 8 9 0 S o . 2 d 9 0 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). P o w e rs v. S ta te 883 So. 2d 20 ( M i s s . 2004) B r anch v. State, 8 8 2 S o . 2 d 3 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). S c o tt v . S ta te, 8 7 8 S o . 2 d 9 3 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). L ynch v. State, 8 7 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). D ycus v. State, 8 7 5 S o . 2 d 1 4 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). B y r o m v. S ta te, 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 8 3 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ).

### ii

How el l v. State, 8 6 0 S o . 2 d 7 0 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ). How ar d v. State, 8 5 3 S o . 2 d 7 8 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ). W al kerv. State, 815 So. 2d 1209 ( M i s s . 2002)
. *f ol l ow i ng r emand. B ish o p v. S ta te , 8 1 2 S o . 2 d 9 3 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). S te v e n s v. S ta te, 8 0 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). G r ays on v. State, 8 0 6 S o . 2 d 2 4 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). K nox v. State, 8 0 5 S o . 2 d 5 2 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). Sim m ons v. State, 8 0 5 S o . 2 d 4 5 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). B er r y v. State, 8 0 2 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). S n o w v. S ta te , 8 0 0 S o . 2 d 4 7 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). Mitchel l v. State, 7 9 2 S o . 2 d 1 9 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). P uckett v. State, 788 So. 2d 752 ( M i s s . 2001)
. * f ol l ow i ng r emand. G oodin v. State, 7 8 7 S o . 2 d 6 3 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). J o r da n v. S ta te, 786 S o . 2 d 9 8 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). Manning v. State, 765 So. 2d 516 ( M i s s . 2000)
. *f ol l ow i ng r emand. E s kr idge v. State, 7 6 5 S o . 2 d 5 0 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 ). McG il ber r y v. State, 741 So. 2d 894 ( M i s s . 1999) . P u c k e tt v . S ta te, 7 3 7 S o . 2 d 3 2 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). * rem an d ed for Bat s on hear i ng.

### iii

Ma n n in gv. S ta te, 7 3 5 S o . 2 d 3 2 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). * rem an d ed for Bat s on hear i ng. Hughes v. State, 7 3 5 S o . 2 d 2 3 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). Tu r n e rv. S ta te, 7 3 2 S o . 2 d 9 3 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). Sm ith v. S ta te, 7 2 9 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). B urns v. State, 7 2 9 S o . 2 d 2 0 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). J o r da n v. S ta te, 7 2 8 S o . 2 d 1 0 8 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). G r ay v. State, 7 2 8 S o . 2 d 3 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). Manning v. State, 7 2 6 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). W oodw ar d v. State, 7 2 6 S o . 2 d 5 2 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). B e ll v . S ta te, 7 2 5 S o . 2 d 8 3 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). E v a n s v. S ta te, 7 2 5 S o . 2 d 6 1 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). B re w e r v . S ta te , 7 2 5 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). Cr a w fo r d v. S ta te, 7 1 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). D os s v. State, 7 0 9 S o . 2 d 3 6 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). U n de r w o o d

v. S ta te, 7 0 8 S o . 2 d 1 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). Hol land v. State, 7 0 5 S o . 2 d 3 0 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). W e lls v. S ta te , 6 9 8 S o . 2 d 4 9 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). W ilcherv. State, 6 9 7 S o . 2 d 1 0 8 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ).

### iv

W iley v. State, 6 9 1 S o . 2 d 9 5 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). B ro w n v. S ta te , 6 9 0 S o . 2 d 2 7 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). S im o n v. S ta te , 6 8 8 S o . 2 d 7 9 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). J a c kso n v. S ta te , 6 8 4 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). W il liam s v. State, 6 8 4 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). D avis v. State, 6 8 4 S o . 2 d 6 4 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). T a y lo r v . S ta te , 6 8 2 S o . 2 d
. 3 5 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). B ro w n v. S ta te , 6 8 2 S o . 2 d 3 4 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). B lu e v. S ta te , 6 7 4 S o . 2 d 1 1 8 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). Ho lly v . S ta te , 6 7 1 S o . 2 d 3 2 (M is s . 1 9 9 6 ). W a lk e r v . S ta te , 6 7 1 S o . 2 d 5 8 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). R u ss e ll v. S ta te , 6 7 0 S o . 2 d 8 1 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). B a llen g e r v . S ta te , 6 6 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). D a v is v . S ta te , 6 6 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). Ca rrv. S ta te , 6 5 5 S o . 2 d 8 2 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). Ma c kv. S ta te , 6 5 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 8 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ). Ch a se v. S ta te , 6 4 5 S o . 2 d 8 2 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ). Fo ste r v . S ta te , 6 3 9 S o . 2 d 1 2 6 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ).

### v

Co n n e r v . S ta te , 6 3 2 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 3 ). H a n se n v. S ta te , 5 9 2 S o . 2 d 1 1 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ).

* S h e ll v. S ta te , 5 5 4 S o . 2 d 8 8 7 (M is s . 1 9 8 9 ), Shell v. Mis s is s i

ppi , 498 U
. S. 1 ( 1990) re v e rs in g , in p a rt , a n d re m a n d in g , S h e ll v. S ta te , 595 So. 2d 1323 ( M i s s . 1992) r emandi ng f ornew s ent enci ng hear i ng. D a v is v . S ta te , 5 5 1 S o . 2 d 1 6 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ). Min n ick v. S ta te , 5 5 1 S o . 2 d 7 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ).

*P in k n e y v. S ta te , 5 3 8 S o . 2 d 3 2 9 (M is s . 1 9 8 9 ), P inkney v. Mis s is s i ppi , 49 4 U. S. 10 75 ( 1990) vaca t i ng and r emandi ng P in k n e y v. S ta te , 6 02 So
. 2 d 11 77 ( M i s s . 1992) r emandi ng f

ornew s ent enci ng hear i ng.

* Clem o n s v . S ta te , 5 3 5 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 4 (M is s . 1 9 8 8 ), Clem ons v. Mis s is s i ppi , 49 4 U. S. 7 3 8 (1 9 9 0 ) v a c a tin g a n d re m a n d in g , Clem o n s v. S ta te , 593 So. 2d 1004 ( M i s s . 1992) re m a n d in g fo r n e w s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g . W o o dw a rdv. S ta te , 5 3 3 S o . 2 d 4 1 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). N ix o n v. S ta te , 5 3 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 7 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). Co le v . S ta te , 5 2 5 S o . 2 d 3 6 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). L o c k e tt v. S ta te , 5 1 7 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). L o c k e tt v. S ta te , 5 1 7 S o . 2 d 1 3 1 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). Fa rag a v. S ta te , 5 1 4 S o . 2 d 2 9 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ).

### vi

*J o n e s v . S ta te , 517 So. 2d 1295 ( M i s s . 1987) , Jones v. Mis s is s i ppi , 487 U
. S. 1230 (1 9 8 8 ) v a c a tin g a n d re m a n d in g , J o n e s v . S ta te , 602 So. 2d 1170 ( M i s s . 1992) r emandi ng f or new s ent enci ng hear i ng. W iley v. S ta te , 4 8 4 S o . 2 d 3 3 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 ). J o h n so n v. S ta te , 4 7 7 S o . 2 d 1 9 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). G ra y v. S ta te , 4 7 2 S o . 2 d 4 0 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). Ca b e llo v. S ta te , 4 7 1 S o . 2 d 3 3 2 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). J o rda n v. S ta te , 4 6 4 S o . 2 d 4 7 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). W ilch e r v . S ta te , 4 5 5 S o . 2 d 7 2 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). B ill io t v. S ta te , 4 5 4 S o . 2 d 4 4 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). S trin g e r v . S ta te , 4 5 4 S o . 2 d 4 6 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). D u fo u r v . S ta te , 4 5 3 S o . 2 d 3 3 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). N e a l v. S ta te , 4 5 1 S o . 2 d 7 4 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). B o o k e r v . S ta te , 4 4 9 S o . 2 d 2 0 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). W ilch e r v . S ta te , 4 4 8 S o . 2 d 9 2 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). Ca ldw e ll v. S ta te , 4 4 3 S o . 2 d 8 0 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ). Ir v in gv. S ta te , 4 4 1 S o . 2 d 8 4 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ).

### vii

T o k m a n v. S ta te , 4 3 5 S o . 2 d 6 6 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ). L e a th e rw o o d

v. S ta te , 4 3 5 S o . 2 d 6 4 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ). H ill v. S ta te , 4 3 2 S o . 2 d 4 2 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ). P ru e tt v. S ta te , 4 3 1 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ). G ill ia rdv. S ta te , 4 2 8 S o . 2 d 5 7 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ). E v a n s v . S ta te , 4 2 2 S o . 2 d 7 3 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ). K in gv. S ta te , 4 2 1 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ). W h e a t v. S ta te , 4 2 0 S o . 2 d 2 2 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ). Sm ith v. S ta te , 4 1 9 S o . 2 d 5 6 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ). J o h n so n v. S ta te , 4 1 6 S o . 2 d 3 8 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ). E dw a rds v . S ta te , 4 1 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ). B u llo c kv. S ta te , 3 9 1 S o . 2 d 6 0 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 0 ). R e ddix v. S ta te , 3 8 1 S o . 2 d 9 9 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 0 ). J o n e s v . S ta te , 3 8 1 S o . 2 d 9 8 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 0 ). C u lb e rs o n v. S ta te , 3 7 9 S o . 2 d 4 9 9 (M iss. 1 9 7 9 ). G ra y v. S ta te , 3 7 5 S o . 2 d 9 9 4 (M iss. 1 9 7 9 ).

### viii

J o rda n v. S ta te , 3 6 5 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 8 (M iss. 1 9 7 8 ). V o y les v. S ta te , 3 6 2 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 6 (M iss. 1 9 7 8 ). Ir v in gv. S ta te , 3 6 1 S o . 2 d 1 3 6 0 (M iss. 1 9 7 8 ). W a sh in g to n v. S ta te , 3 6 1 S o . 2 d 6 l ( M iss. 1 9 7 8 ). B e ll v. S ta te , 3 6 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 6 (M iss. 1 9 7 8 ).

* C a se w a s o rig in a lly a ffirm e d in th is C o u rt b u t o n re m a n d fr o m U . S . S u p re m e C o u rt, cas e w as r emanded by t hi s C our tf ora new s ent enci ng hear i ng.

### ix D EA TH C A SES R EV ER SED A S TO G U I LT PH A SE

A N D SEN TE N C E P H A SE R o s s v. S ta te, 9 5 4 S o . 2 d 9 6 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). Flo w e rs v. S ta te, 9 4 7 S o . 2 d 9 1 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). Flow ers v. State, 8 4 2 S o . 2 d 5 3 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ). R a n da ll v . S ta te, 8 0 6 S o . 2 d 1 8 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). Flow ers v. State, 7 7 3 S o . 2 d 3 0 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 ). E dw ar ds v. State, 7 3 7 S o . 2 d 2 7 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). Sm ith v. State, 7 3 3 S o . 2 d 7 9 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). P or terv. State, 7 3 2 S o . 2 d 8 9 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). K ol ber g v. State, 7 0 4 S o . 2 d 1 3 0 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). S n e ls o n v. S ta te, 7 0 4 S o . 2 d 4 5 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). F u silierv. S ta te , 7 0 2 S o . 2 d 3 8 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). How ar d v. State, 7 0 1 S o . 2 d 2 7 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). L es terv. State, 6 9 2 S o . 2 d 7 5 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). Hu n terv. S ta te , 6 8 4 S o . 2 d 6 2 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ).

### x

L a n ierv. S ta te , 6 8 4 S o . 2 d 9 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). G iles v. S ta te , 6 5 0 S o . 2 d 8 4 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ). D u p la n tis v. S ta te , 6 4 4 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ). H a rr iso n v. S ta te , 6 3 5 S o . 2 d 8 9 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ). B u tlerv. S ta te , 6 0 8 S o . 2 d 3 1 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). J e n k in s v . S ta te , 6 0 7 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). A b ra m v. S ta te , 6 0 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). B a lfo u r v . S ta te , 5 9 8 S o . 2 d 7 3 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). G riffin v. S ta te , 5 5 7 S o . 2 d 5 4 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ). B e v ill v. S ta te , 5 5 6 S o . 2 d 6 9 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ). W e st v . S ta te , 5 5 3 S o . 2 d 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ). L e a th e rw o o d

v. S ta te , 5 4 8 S o . 2 d 3 8 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ). Me a se v. S ta te , 5 3 9 S o . 2 d 1 3 2 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ). Ho u sto n v. S ta te , 5 3 1 S o . 2 d 5 9 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). W e st v . S ta te , 5 1 9 S o . 2 d 4 1 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). D a v is v . S ta te , 5 1 2 S o . 2 d 1 2 9 l ( M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). W ill ia m so n v. S ta te , 5 1 2 S o . 2 d 8 6 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ).

### xi

Fo ste r v . S ta te , 5 0 8 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). Sm ith v. S ta te , 4 9 9 S o . 2 d 7 5 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 ). W e st v . S ta te , 4 8 5 S o . 2 d 6 8 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). Fish e r v . S ta te , 4 8 1 S o . 2 d 2 0 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). J o h n so n v. S ta te , 4 7 6 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). F u se lierv. S ta te , 4 6 8 S o . 2 d 4 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). W e st v . S ta te , 4 6 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). J o n e s v . S ta te , 4 6 1 S o . 2 d 6 8 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). Mo ffe tt v. S ta te , 4 5 6 S o . 2 d 7 1 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). L a n ierv. S ta te , 4 5 0 S o . 2 d 6 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). L a n e y v. S ta te , 4 2 1 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ).

### xii DEATH CASES REVERSED AS T O PUNI S HM ENT AND R EM AND ED F OR RE S EN TE NCI NG TO L I F E I M P RI S ONM EN T

R e ddix v. S ta te , 5 4 7 S o . 2 d 7 9 2 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ). W h e e lerv. S ta te , 5 3 6 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). W h ite v . S ta te , 5 3 2 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). B u llo c kv. S ta te , 5 2 5 S o . 2 d 7 6 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). E dw a rds v . S ta te , 4 4 1 S o . 2 d 8 4 (M iss. l98 3 ). D y c u s v . S ta te , 4 4 0 S o . 2 d 2 4 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ). Co lem a n v. S ta te , 3 7 8 S o . 2 d 6 4 0 (M iss. 1 9 7 9 ).

### xiii DEATH CASES REVERSED AS TO P UNI S HM EN T A ND RE M ANDE D F OR A NE W TR I AL

ON S ENTENCI NG PHASE ON LY

R u b e n s te in v. S ta te, 9 4 1 S o . 2 d 7 3 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). K in gv. S ta te, 7 8 4 S o . 2 d 8 8 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). W a lk e rv. S ta te, 7 4 0 S o . 2 d 8 7 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). W a tts v. S ta te, 7 3 3 S o . 2 d 2 1 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). W e s t v . S ta te, 7 2 5 S o . 2 d 8 7 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). Sm ith v. S ta te , 7 2 4 S o . 2 d 2 8 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). B er r y v. State, 7 0 3 S o . 2 d 2 6 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). B o o k e r v . S ta te , 6 9 9 S o . 2 d 1 3 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). T a y lo r v . S ta te , 6 7 2 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ).

*S h e ll v. S ta te , 5 5 4 S o . 2 d 8 8 7 (M is s . 1 9 8 9 ), Shell v. Mis s is s i

ppi , 498 U . S. 1 (1990) r ever s i ng, i n part , and r emandi ng, S h e ll v. S ta te 595 So. 2d 1323 ( M i s s . 1992) r emandi ng f or new s ent enci ng hear i ng.

* P in k n e y v. S ta te , 5 3 8 S o . 2 d 3 2 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ), P inkney v. Miss iss ip p i, 4 94 U . S. 1 0 7 5 (1 9 9 0 ) v a c a tin g a n d re m a n d in g , P in k n ey v. S ta te , 6 02 So. 2d 1177 ( M i s s . 1992) r emandi ng f

ornew s ent enci ng hear i ng.

### xiv

* Clem o n s v . S ta te , 5 3 5 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 4 (M is s . 1 9 8 8 ), Clem ons v. Mis s is s i ppi , 49 4 U. S. 7 3 8 (1 9 9 0 ) v a c a tin g a n d r e m a n d in g , Clem o n s v. S ta te , 593 So. 2d 1004 ( M i s s . 1992) re m a n d in g fo r n e w s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g .

*J o n e s v . S ta te , 5 1 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 9 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ), Jones v. Mis s is s i ppi , 487 U
. S. 1230 (1 9 8 8 ) v a c a tin g a n d re m a n d in g , J o n e s v . S ta te , 602 So. 2d 1170 ( M i s s . 1992) r emandi ng f or new s ent enci ng hear i ng. R u ss e ll v. S ta te , 6 0 7 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). Ho lla n d v. S ta te , 5 8 7 S o . 2 d 8 4 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ). W ill ie v . S ta te , 5 8 5 S o . 2 d 6 6 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ). L a dn e r v . S ta te , 5 8 4 S o . 2 d 7 4 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ). Ma c k b e e v. S ta te , 5 7 5 S o . 2 d 1 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ). B e rr y v. S ta te , 5 7 5 S o . 2 d 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ). Tu rn e r v . S ta te , 5 7 3 S o . 2 d 6 5 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ). State v. T

okm an , 5 6 4 S o . 2 d 1 3 3 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ). J o h n so n v. S ta te , 5 4 7 S o . 2 d 5 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ). W ill ia m s v. S ta te , 5 4 4 S o . 2 d 7 8 2 (M iss . 1 9 8 9 ); s ent ence af f ' d 684 So. 2d 1179 (19 9 6 ). L a n ierv. S ta te , 5 3 3 S o . 2 d 4 7 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). S trin g e r v . S ta te , 5 0 0 S o . 2 d 9 2 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 ).

### xv

P in k to n v. S ta te , 4 8 1 S o . 2 d 3 0 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). M h o o n v. S ta te , 4 6 4 S o . 2 d 7 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). Ca n n a da y v. S ta te , 4 5 5 S o . 2 d 7 1 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). W iley v. S ta te , 4 4 9 S o . 2 d 7 5 6 (M is s . 1 9 8 4 ); re s e n te n c in g a f fi rm e d , W

iley v. S ta te , 4 8 4 S o . 2 d 3 3 9 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ), cert . deni ed W iley v. Mis s is s i

ppi , 4 7 9 U . S
. 1 0 3 6 (19 8 8 ); re s e n te n c in g o rd e re d , W iley v. S ta te , 635 So. 2d 802 (M i s s . 1993) f ol l ow i ng w r i tof

habea s corpus i s s ued pur s uantt o W iley v. P u c k e tt , 9 6 9 S o . 2 d 8 6 , 1 0 5 -1 0 6 (5 C ir
. 1 9 9 2 ); th re s e n te n c in g a ff

ir m e d , W iley v. S ta te , 9 5 -D P -00 1 4 9 , F eb rua ry 1 3 , 1 9 9 7 (reh ea ri n g p en d ing ). W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 4 4 5 S o . 2 d 7 9 8 (M iss . 1 9 8 4 ). * C a se w a s o rig in a lly a ffirm e d in th is C our tbuton r emand f

r om U . S. Supr eme C our t , c as e w as r emanded by thi s Courtf ora new s ent enci ng hear i ng.