I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 0 - CT - 0 1 0 0 4 - S CT S T EV E A NTONIO A NT

HONY
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 17/ 2010 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. LE S TE R F
. W I LL I AM S ON, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LAUDERDALE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T : S T E V E A N T O N IO A N T H O N Y (P R O S E ) AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : S T E P HANI E BR E L AND W OOD SCOTT STUA RT DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : E. J
. ( BI LBO ) M I TCH ELL NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 01/ 17/ 2013 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. T h e L a u d e rd a le C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt co n v icte d S tev e A n to n io A n th o n y o f th e sa le of coca i ne. H e appe al ed hi s convi ct i on, ar gui ng that : ( 1) the ci r cui tcourterr ed by exc l udi ng evi dence on cr os s - exami nat i on of t he pri orf el ony char ges of

the St at e’ s conf

i dent i al i nf or m ant ; ( 2) the ci rcui tco urter r ed i n denyi ng tw o per empt ory chal l enges r ai s ed by the def ens e; and ( 3) the j ury’ s ver di cti s agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence
. T he C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a ffirm e d the co n v ictio n . A n th o n y p e tit io n e d fo r c e rtio ra ri w ith th is C o u rt, rai si ng the sam e three iss ues. F i nd i ng that the tr i al cou rterr ed b y li m i t i ng the cross-

### 2

exami nat i on of

the conf

i dent i al i nf

or m ant( C I ) , w e r ever s e A nthony’ s convi ct i on and
se n ten c e a n d re m a n d th is c a se fo r a n e w trial. FACTS ¶2. T hi s C our t adopt s the s t at ement of f act s as pr ovi ded i n the C our t of A ppeal s opi ni on as f oll ow s: O n D e c e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 9 , A n th o n y w a s a rre ste d fo r se lli n g a p p ro x im a tely 3. 06 gr ams of

coca i ne t o A r nol d B r ow n, a conf i denti al inf

or m ant . T he drug s al e betw een A nthony and B r ow n t ook pl ace on J une 29, 2007. P rio r to the d ru g b u y , B ro w n ap p ro a c h e d A g e n t C h risto p h e r S c o tt w ith the M er i di an Pol i ce D epart m entand the EastM i s s i s s i ppi T as k For ce a bout w or ki ng w i th the t as k f

or ce a s a C I
. B r ow n cont act ed an i ndi vi dual know n as “Pee W ee” w ho had coc ai ne he w as w i l l i ng t o s el l
. A gentS cottbegan the o p e r a t i o n t o b u y d ru g s th r o u g h B r o w n f r o m P e e W e e b a s e d o n B r o w n 's i nf or m at i on. B r ow n cal l ed Pee W ee on the or der s of A gentS cottand s etup a m e e tin g p lac e fo r th e d ru g b u y . P e e W e e a g re e d to m e e t B ro w n o n 1 6 th A venue a nd 16th St r eeti n M er i di an, M i s s i s s i ppi
. A gentScot tt es t i f i ed thathe d id n o t r ec o rd th e c o n v ersa ti o n , b u t th e p h o n e c all w as m ad e fro m th e ir br i ef i ng l ocat i on. A tt he tr i al , B r ow n t es t i f i ed t hat t he m an he kne w as Pee W ee w as A nthony. B ef or e the C I w entt o the drug- buy l ocat i on, the t as k f or ce s ear ched B r ow n thor oughl y t o m ake s ur e he di d nothave any w eapons orcontr aband on hi m . B r ow n w as then i s s ued m oney f r om the of

f i ci al t as k- f

or ce f und. T he depart m entm ade c opi es of the s er i al num ber s of

eac h bil l us ed i n the buy. T he t as k f

or ce w i r ed B r ow n w i th an audi o and vi deo devi ce, and he w as w i r ed w i th a tr ans m i t t ers o the s ur vei l l ance agent s coul d he arBrow n dur i ng the buy. B row n’s v eh icl e w as sear ched i n it s ent i rety to m ake sure t hat no drug s, contr aband, orw eapons of any type w er e pr es enti n hi s vehi cl e. A f t erB r ow n w as thor oughl y s ear ched a nd w i r ed, B row n gave the a g e n ts t h e s p e c if

ic ro u te th a t h e w a s g o in g to tak e to th e b u y . A g e n t S c o tt t es t i f i ed thatthe age nt s tr i ed t o do a phys i cal s ur vei l l ance w i thoutbei ng t oo cl os e i n pr ox i mi ty t o the b uy i n or de rt o e ns ur e tha tBr own’ s c ov e rwas not bl ow n. A gentScot tf

ur thert es t i f

i ed thatB r ow n di d notm ake a ny s t ops betw een the pr e- buy m eet i ng and the buy l ocat i on. B r ow n t es t i f i ed that A nthony t ol d hi m he had s om e “s of t , ” w hi ch i s pow dercoca i ne. B r ow n as ked

### 3

A nthony f

orthe pr i ce of

a gr am of c ocai ne. A nthony t ol d B r ow n a gr am of coca i ne w as $100. W hen B r ow n and A nthony w er e at the de s i gnat ed pl ace f orthe buy, B r ow n t es t i f

i ed thatA nthony goti n B r ow n’ s cari n or dert o m ake the excha nge. D ur i ng t he exc hange, A nthony gotoutof the vehi cl e bef

or e the cl os e of the buy. Brow n then f

ol l ow ed A nthony outof the ca rand appr oache d A nthony aboutbuyi ng s om e pi l l s i n or dert o getA nthony on vi deo. A f t erthe buy, B r ow n i m m edi at el y m etw i th t he agent s w ho conf i s cat ed the coc ai ne that B ro w n h a d b o u g h t fro m A n th o n y . A t th e p o st-b u y d e b rie fin g , th e ag e n ts a g a in s ear ched Brow n and hi s car . T he agent s al s o t ook B r ow n’ s s t at ement . T he M i s s i s s i ppi C ri m e L ab det erm i ned thats ubs t ance s ol d t o B r ow n w as 3. 06 gr ams of coca i ne. T he j ury convi ct ed A nthony on J une 2, 2 01 0, fors al e of coca i ne. A nt hony w as s ent ence d as a habi tual of f enderunderM i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 99- 19- 81 ( R ev. 2007)
. T he ci r cui tcour ts ent ence d A nthony t o s i xty y e a r s i n the c us t od y o f the M i s s i s s i pp i D e pa r t mentof Cor r e c t i ons w i thoute l i gi bi l i ty f

orpr obat i on orpa r ol e. A nthony w as addi t i onal l y or der ed t o pay a $5, 000 f

i ne. A n th o ny v. S ta te , ____ S o . 3d __ _ , 20 1 2 W L 26 6 8 6 0 , ** 1 -2 (M iss. C t. A p p . Jan
. 31 , 2 0 1 2 ). ¶3. D ur i ng the tr i al , A nthony s oughtt o cross- exam i ne B row n regardi ng : (1) a pr i or
co n v ict ion from 1 9 9 3 , (2) a n arrest o n F eb ru a ry 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 , for tw o co u n ts of sale o f a
c o n tro lled su b sta n c e a n d o n e c o u n t o f c o n tem p t o f c h ild su p p o rt, an d (3 ) a n a rre st o n A p ril 17, 2007, f

orone countof

pos s es s i on of

a cont rol l ed subs t ance and one c ountof abus e/negl ect/ expl oi t at i on of a vul ner abl e adul t . T he t r i al courtal l ow ed cr os s - exami nat i on
r egar di ng t he tw o count s of s al e of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance f orw hi ch B r ow n w as ar r es t ed on F ebruary 26, 2007, ba s ed on the f i ndi ng thatBrow n w as “ w or ki ng of f ” thes e char ges as a conf i dent i al i nf

or m ant . T he tr i al court , how ever , r ef us ed t o al l ow cr os s - exami nat i on on t he
re m a in in g c h a rg e s a n d th e 1 9 9 3 c o n v ic tio n .

### 4

¶4. T he C our tof

A ppeal s uphel d the tr i al court ’ s rul i ng. T he C our tof A ppeal s f

ound that atthe t i m e of

tr i al , B r ow n’ s 1993 convi ct i on w as s event een ye ar s ol d and w as s ubj ectt o t he tim e lim its o f M iss iss ip p i R u le o f E v id e n c e 6 0 9 (b ). T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a lso fo u n d th a t, beca us e A nthony had f ai l ed t o s how the tr i al courtthatB r ow n had bee n convi ct ed of t he
re m a in in g c h a rg e s , e v id e n c e o f B ro w n ’s a rr e s ts w a s in a d m is s ib le u n d e r R u le 6 0 9
. DI S CU S S I ON ¶5. “Li m i t at i ons on cr os s - exami nat i on ar e r evi ew ed f orabus e of

di s cr et i on. ” Jef

f ers on
v. S ta te , 818 So. 2d 1099, 1109 (M i ss. 2 00 2). W e w i l l af f i r m the tr i al court ’ s exer ci s e of d is c re tio n u n le s s th e ru lin g r e s u lt e d in p re ju d ic e to th e a c c u s e d
. Cla rk v. S ta te , 40 So. 3d 5 3 1 , 5 4 2 (M is s . 2 0 1 0 ). ¶6
. M iss iss ip p i a llo w s w id e -o p e n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n o f an y m att er tha t i s relev a n t, in c lu d in g th e p o s s ib le in te re s t, b ia s , o r p re ju d ic e o f t h e w itn e s s . Me e ks v . S ta te , 604 So. 2d 748, 755 ( M i s s . 1992)
. “Forthe purpos e of att acki ng the cr edi bi l i ty of a w i tnes s , evi dence
o f b ia s , p re

ju d ic e , o r in te re s t o f th e w itn e s s fo r o r a g a in s t a n y p a rt y to th e c a s e is a d m is s ib le .” M
. R
. E
. 616. T hi s i ncl udes i nt err ogat i ng the w i tnes s ’ s be l i ef orper cept i on as t o w hethert he S ta te c o u ld e x te n d le n ie n c y fo r p e n d in g c h a rg e s . Fo ste r v . S ta te , 508 So. 2 d 1111, 1114 - 1 5 (M is s . 1 9 8 7 ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds by P o w e ll v. S ta te , 806 So. 2d 1069 ( M i ss. 2001)
. “N otonl y i s thi s r i ghts ecur ed by ourrul es of evi dence
. . . i tis a funct i on of t he conf r ont at i on cl aus es of

f eder al and s t at e cons t i tut i ons . ” Ca sto n v. S ta te , 823 So. 2d 473, 491 ( M i s s . 2002) ( quot i ng S u a n v. S ta te , 5 1 1 S o . 2 d 1 4 4 , 1 4 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 )). ¶7. H er e, a s J udge R us s el l f ound i n he rdi s s ent , t he favo rabl e t reat m ent B row n had
r ece i ved on hi s pri orchar ges i n exchange forhi s t es t i m ony w as a mat er i al poi ntthataf f ect ed

### I not e that thema jorit y st at es that Anthony ra is ed the s am e threei ss ues in his petition 1 

### for wri t of ce rtiorari be for e thi s Court that he ra is ed be for e the Cour t of Appea ls . ( Maj . Op. 5 B ro w n ’s c re d ib ility a s a w itn e s s . Anthony , 2 0 1 2 W L 2 6 6 8 6 0 , at *8
. In li m it ing A n tho n y ’s
c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n o f B ro w n , the trial c o u rt d e n ied A n th o n y th e o p p o rtu n ity to fu lly chal l enge Brow n’ s cr edi bi l i ty. T hi s er r orby the t r i al cour ti s augment ed by the f actthatt he S tate ’s c a se re lied h e a v ily o n B ro w n ’s te stim o n y . B a se d o n th e re c o rd b e fo re u s, th e o n ly evi dence pl aci ng A nthony i ns i de B r ow n’ s vehi cl e i s B r ow n’s t es t i m ony. T he vi deo
s ubm i t t ed i nt o evi dence show s onl y B r ow n handi ng overs om ethi ng t o an unknow n per s on
s i t t i ng i n the vehi cl e. T he vi deo does notr evea l the f ace oreven the cl othi ng of the per s on. T h u s, the re li ab il ity of B row n ’s t esti m o n y w as cru cial in this i n stan ce . A n d A n tho n y ’s j u ry
s h o u ld h a v e h e a rd th e fu ll e x te n t o f t h e d e a ls b e tw e e n B ro w n a n d th e S ta te . CONCL US I ON ¶8. F or t hese reasons , w e f i nd thatthe tr i al court ’ s err ori n l i m i t i ng A nt ho ny ’s cross e x a m in a tio n o f B ro w n c o n stitu ted re v e rsib le e rro r. A c c o rd in g ly , w e re v e rse th e ju d g m e n ts of the C our tof

A ppeal s and the Lauder dal e C ounty C i r cui tC our tand r emand t he ca s e t o the tr i al courtf

ora new tr i al cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. ¶ 9
. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL LE R, C. J . , KI TC HENS , CHANDLER A ND KI NG, J J . , CONCUR. LAM AR, J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH S EPARATE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED BY D I C K I N SO N A N D R A N D O L P H , P . JJ. , A N D C O L E M A N , J. L AMAR , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶10. I di s agr ee w i th t he m aj ori t y’s con cl usi on thatthe ci r cui tcourterr ed i n l i m i t i ng A n th o n y ’s c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n o f B ro w n . T h e re fo re , I r e s p e c tf u lly d is s e n t. 1

### at

¶1). Howeve r, Anthony rai se s two is sue s in his peti ti on, only thefir st of whi ch wa s rai se d befo re the C ourt of App eals: (1) th at the circ u itc ourt impro perlylimited h is crossexamination of

Brown and (2) that hi s right to a spe edy tri alwas viol at ed. Bec aus e Anthony raises the issu e of h is right to a sp eedytrial for th e first time in h is p et itio n, th is claim is pro cedurally b arred an dI d ec line to address it. Sto ckstill v. S tate , 854 So. 2d 1017, 1023 (Miss. 2 00 3) (citatio ns o mitted). Jo hn ston v. Sta te , 618 So. 2d 90, 93 ( Mis s. 1993) ( ci tati on omi tt ed)
. 2

### Id. 3 

### With ers v. Sta te , 907 So. 2d 342, 345 ( Mis s. 2005) ( ci tati on omi tt ed)
. 4 

### M.R .E. 1 03 (a). 5 

### La cy v. Sta te , 62 9 S o. 2 d 5 91 , 59 4 (M iss. 19 93 ). 6 

### M.R .E. 4 02 , 40 3. 7 

### 6 ¶11. T hi s C our t r evi ew s a ci r cui t court ’ s l i m i t at i ons on cr os s - exami nat i on f or an abus e of di s cr et i on, and thatdi s cr et i on “mustbe exer ci s ed w i thi n t he boundar i es of the M i s s i s s i ppi 2 R u le s o f E v id e n c e .” T hi s C our thas expl ai ned that“ [ a] bus e of di s cr et i on i s f

ound w hen the 3
r evi ew i ng courthas a ‘ def i ni t e and f

i r m convi ct i on’ thatthe courtbel ow comm i t t ed a c l ear
err orof j udgm entand concl us i on i tre ache d upon a w ei ghi ng of the f act or s . ” A ddi t i onal l y,

4
e rro r m a y n o t b e b a se d u p o n a e v id e n tiary ru lin g “ [u ]nle ss a su b sta n tial r ig h t o f th e p a rty is
a ffe c ted .” In o th e r w o rd s, fo r th e circ u it c o u rt’s e v id e n tiary ru lin g to c o n stitu te r e v e rsib le

5
err or , i tmustha ve had the ef f ectof denyi ng the def

endanta f

undament al l y f

ai rtr i al , r es ul t i ng i n a mi s carr i age of

j us t i ce. 6 ¶12. T o be admi s s i ble, all ev i den ce m us tcomportw i th ourR ul es of E vi dence , and no
e v id e n c e is a d m iss ib le if it is n o t re lev a n t o r if its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is o u tw e ig h e d b y its prej ud i ci al eff

ect . Iti s true, as the m aj ori ty n otes , that M i ssi ssi pp i al l ow s “w i de-ope n cross- 7

### Johnst on , 61 8 S o. 2 d at 9 3. See a lso M.R .E. 6 11 (b). 8 

### M.R .E. 6 11 (a). 9 

### Maj. O p. at ¶7
. 10

### Id. 11 

### Fo ster v. Sta te , 508 So. 2d 1111, 1114 ( Mis s. 1987) ( ci tati on omi tt ed) (ove rr ule d 12 

### onoth er gro un ds). 7 exam i nati on so l on g as t he m at t er i s r el evan t . ” B ut cr oss- exam i nati on is n ot w i tho ut l i m i t s, 8
a n d o u r tria l c o u rts c a n a n d s h o u ld lim it c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n in to iss u e s th a t ar e n o t re lev a n t,
orar e otherw i s e barr ed by ourR ul es of Evi dence
. I ndeed, R ul e 611( a) expr es s l y r ecogni zes thata j udge may l i m i tcr os s - exami nat i on t o “( 1) m ake the i nt err og at i on and pr es ent at i on ef f ect i ve f orthe as cert ai nm entof

the truth, ( 2) a voi d ne edl es s c ons um pt i on of t i m e, and ( 3) p ro te c t w itn e s s e s fr o m h a ra s s m e n t o r u n d u e e m b a rr a s s m e n t.” 9 ¶ 1 3
. An th o n y a r g u e s th e c i r c u i t c o u r t e rr e d b y l i mi t i n g h i s c r o s s - e x a mi n a t i o n o f Br o wn on tw o i s s ues – B r ow n’ s 1993 convi ct i on and hi s A pr i l 2007 arr es t . T he maj or i ty det erm i nes thatthe C our terr ed i n r es tr i ct i ng hi s cr os s - exam i nati on beca us e the “f avor abl e tr eatm ent B r ow n had re cei ved on hi s pri orchar ges i n exchange forhi s t es t i m ony w as a mat er i al poi nt th a t af fe c ted B ro w n ’s c re d ib ili ty a s a w itn e ss .” T h e m a jo rity c o n c lu d e s th a t th e c irc u it 10
c o u rt ’s lim ita tio n d e n ie d “ A n th o n y th e o p p o rt u n ity to fu lly c h a lle n g e B ro w n ’s c re d ib ility .” 11 B u t, w h ile A n th o n y h a s a rig h t to c o n fro n t h is a c c u se rs, th is rig h t is n o t u n lim ited , an d is “al w ays s ubj ectt o the tr i al court ’ s i nh ere ntpow ert o l i m i tcr os s - exami nat i on t o r el evant fa c tu a l is s u e s .” 12

### 8

¶ 1 4
. I a g re e th a t A n th o n y h a d a rig h t to c ro ss -e x a m in e B ro w n a b o u t h is a rra n g e m e n t to

“ w o rk o ff” c e rta in d ru g c h a rg e s a s a c o n fid e n tial in fo rm a n t. T h e c irc u it co u rt sp e c ifica lly qu est i on ed B row n, un der oat h an d ou t si de the presence o f the jury, abo ut hi s pri or charges,
an d the c o u rtall o w ed A n tho n y ’s att o rne y to q u esti o n B row n a s w ell
. T h en the c ir cu itco u rt
rul ed: C o u rt : [Y ] o u m ay ask ab o u t th e p il l cha rge s tha t he c au g h t th a t w ere

p a rt o f th e d e a l th a t w a s g o in g to b e d o n e a w a y w ith fo r h is cooper at i on. I m ean, t hathappene d and that ’ s r el evant , and you m ay as k aboutthat
. A s t o f el oni es i n years pas t , you m ay not a sk a b o u t th a t. A s to so m e d ism iss a l o f a v u ln e ra b le a d u lt ch a r ge o ra bu s e o f

a v ul ne r a bl e a du l tc ha r ge wher e h e w as not con vict ed, I don’tthink t hat’ s an a p p rop ri at e m at t er f or cr ossexami nat i on, you m ay notas k aboutthatunl es s you have got s o m e p ro o f t h a t it w a s d ir e c tly re la te d to th e d e a l. ¶ 1 5
. T h e c irc u it c o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t A n th o n y c o u ld q u e stio n B ro w n re g a rd in g th e p ill char ges thatw er e goi ng t o be di s m i s s ed as partof the deal B r ow n had m ade i n excha nge f or hi s cooper at i on , b ut hel d t hatthe 1993 convi ct i on w as s o r emot e i n t i m e thati thad no bear i ng on A nthony’ s cas e, and thatthe A pr i l 2007 arr es tw as i rr el evantbeca us e i tw as not rel at ed to B row n’s deal w i th the drug tas k force and theref ore, n ot probati ve of bias
. B ecause A nthony pr es ent ed no s peci f i c f act s thatw oul d s uppor ta f i ndi ng thatB r ow n’ s 1993
con vict i on o r A pri l 20 07 arr esthad any rel evan ce t o B row n’s arrangem ent t o w ork as a
co n fi d en ti al i n form an t, o r t o B row n ’s bias o r cre d ibil ity , I w o u ld fi n d that the c ir cu itco u rt properl y li m i t ed cross- exam i nati on on these i ssues. ¶1 6. T he maj or i ty f

i nd s tha tRul e 6 16 o f

o urRul e s o f

Evi de nce gove r ns t hi s ques t i on becau se i tprovi des that “evidence of bi as, prej ud i ce, or i nter estof the w i tness f or or ag ainst
any pa rt y t o the case is a d m is s ib le ” fo r t h e “ p u rp o s e o f a tta c k in g th e c re d ib ility o f a w itn e s s .”

### M.R .E. 6 09 (emph asis add ed). 13 

### 9 I ti s c l e a rt o me tha tAnt ho ny s ou gh tt o c r os s - e xa mi ne Br own on h i s 1 99 3 c on vi c t i on and A pr i l 2007 arr es tnott o sho w thatB r ow n had s om e bi as orpr ej udi ce ag ainst A nthony , but t o at t ack B r ow n’ s char act erfort ruthf ul nes s by s how i ng B r ow n had br oken the l aw on s ever al
occa s i ons and w as not c r edi bl e. T her ef or e, I w oul d f

i nd A nthony’ s cr os s - exami nat i on on thes e tw o i s s ues w as governed by R ul es 608 and 609 of ourR ul es of

E vi dence , notR ul e 616. R u les 6 0 8 a n d 6 0 9 o f o u r R u les o f E v id e n c e lim it ad m iss io n o f p a st c o n v ictio n s a n d sp e c ific i ns t ances o f cond uctof a w i tnes s w hen of

f er ed onl y t o att ack the w i tnes s ’ s char act erf or truthful ness. ¶1 7. A dm i s s i bi l i t y o f e vi de nc e r e l a t e d t o Br own’ s 1 99 3 c on vi c t i on f ort he purpos e of att acki ng B r ow n’ s char act erf ortruthf ul nes s i s governed by R ul e 609: (b) T im e L im it . E vidence o f a con vict i on u nd er this rul e i s n o t a dm iss ib le if a p eriod o f m ore tha n t en yea rs has el aps ed s i nce the dat e of the convi ct i on or of the r el eas e of

the w i tnes s fr om conf

i nementi m pos ed f

orthatconvi ct i on, w h ic h e v e r i s th e la te r d a te , un l ess the courtdet erm i nes , i n the i nt er es tof ju stic e , tha t th e p ro b a tiv e v a lu e o f th e c o n v ictio n su b sta n tially o u tw e ig h s its p re ju d icia l ef

fe c t. H o w e v e r, ev id e n c e o f a c o n v ictio n m o re tha n ten y e a rs o ld as cal culat ed h erei n is no tadm issi ble unl ess the p ropon ent gi ves t o the adv ers e part y s uf f i ci ent advance w r i t t en not i ce o f in ten t to u se s u c h e v id e n c e to pr ovi de the adve r s e party w i th a f ai roppor tuni ty t o cont es tthe us e of s uch evi dence
. 13 ¶18. T he r ecor d does notr evea l the cr i m e comm i t t ed i n 1993 orw hen B r ow n w as r el eas ed fro m p riso n . H o w e v e r, itis u n d isp u ted th a t m o re th a n ten y e a rs ( in fa c t, ap p ro x im a tely
se v e n tee n ) h a d p a ss e d sin c e th e d a te o f th e c o n v ictio n a t th e tim e B ro w n te stifie d . T h e re is no evi dence thatB r ow n w as r el eas ed f r om conf i nementi m pos ed f

ort he convi ct i on l es s t han t en y ears be fore h e t est i fi ed ag ai nstA nthony , and A nthony do es not ar gu e t hat he w as.

### M.R .E. 6 09
. 14 

### 10 U n d er R u le 60 9 (b), ev iden ce o f the 1 9 9 3 co n v ict ion w as a d m issi b le on ly if the c o u rt det erm i ned thatthe pr obat i ve val ue of the convi ct i on s ubs t ant i al l y outw ei ghed i t s pr ej udi ci al
e ffe c t. F u rth e rm o re , su c h ev id e n c e is notadm is s i bl e unl es s A nthony gave s uf f i ci entw r i t t en not i ce t o the St at e of

hi s i nt entt o i ntr oduce e vi dence of the ant i quat ed convi ct i on. 14 ¶ 1 9
. T h e re c o rd sh o w s th a t th e c irc u it c o u rt h e a rd a rg u m e n t o n a d m iss ib ili ty o f b o th i ns t ance s of

pr i orconductout s i de the pr es ence of the j ury. T he ci r cui t - courtj udge f ound,
as t o the 1993 c onvi ct i on, thatA nthony ha d notgi ven the s uf f i ci entw r i t t en not i ce r equi r ed underR ul e 609, thatthe convi ct i on w as s o r emot e thati tw oul d have no bear i ng on the ca s e,
a n d th a t ad m iss io n o f th e e v id e n c e w o u ld b e u n fa irly p re ju d icia l to th e S tate . T h e c irc u it
c o u rt a p p lied th e c o rre c t leg a l an a ly sis , an d its ru lin g w a s n o t an a b u se o f d isc re tio n . I w o u ld
a ff ir m th e c ir c u it c o u rt o n th is is s u e . ¶20
. A s t o the A pri l 20 07 arr est , the record i s unclearr egardi ng the natur e of the cri m es, b u t i t a p p e a rs to b e a n a rre st fo r a b u se o f a v u ln e ra b le a d u lt. A n th o n y a d m its th a t h is
couns el ’ s ar gum entand ques t i ons w er e bas ed on a booki ng r eportpr ovi ded t o the defense dur i ng di s covery, a nd thathe doe s notknow e xact l y w hatthe cr i m es i nvol ved orw hen they
o cc u rred
. A n tho n y d o es n o t argu e th a t the A p ri l 20 0 7 arrest l ed to a c o n v ict ion , an d there is n o e v id e n c e th a t B ro w n w a s c o n v icte d o f a n y c rim e s th a t h e w a s a rre ste d fo r in A p ril 2007. T her ef

or e, cr os s - exami nat i on r egar di ng the A pr i l 2007 arr es ti s governed by R ul e 608,
w hi ch addr es s es cr os s - exami nat i on i nt o a w i tnes s ’ s s peci f i c i ns t ance s of

conduct , othert han
con vict i on of a cr i m e, and provides i n p ert i nen tpartas f oll ow s:

### M.R. E. 608 ( em phas is adde d). 15 

### Bren t v. Sta te , 63 2 S o. 2 d 9 36 , 94 4 (M iss. 19 94 ) (citation s omitted ). 16 

### 11 (b) S p ec if

ic In sta n c e s o f C o n d u ct. S p ec if ic i n stan ce s o f th e c o n d u ct of a w i tnes s , f

orthe purpos e of

a t t acki ng ors uppor t i ng the w i tnes s ’ s c har act erf or tru th fu ln e s s , otherthan convi ct i on of cr i m e as pr ovi ded i n R ul e 609 , m ay not be pr oved by extr i ns i c evi dence
. T hey m ay, how ever , i n t he di s cr et i on of the cou rt , if p robat i ve of t ruthful ness or u ntruthf ulness , b e inquir ed int o o n crossexami nat i on of

the w i tnes s ( 1) conce rni ng the w i tnes s ’ s char act erf or tru th fu ln e s s o r u n tru th fu ln e s s . . . . 15 T hi s C ou rthas s t at ed cl ear l y t hati ns t ance s of pas tconductof

f er ed s ol el y t o att ack a
w i tness’ s cr edibi l i ty “m ustbe such as t o ref l ectupo n the w i tness’ s charact er fortruthful ness. I f the pas tc onductdi d noti nvol ve l yi ng, dece i t , ordi s hones ty i n s om e manner , i tcannotbe in q u ire d in to o n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n . T h e trial c o u rt h a s n o d isc re tio n a ry au th o rity to p e rm it i nqui ry by cr os s - exami nat i on i nt o c onductnoti nvol vi ng truthf ul nes s . ” B eca us e A nt hony

16 of f er ed no evi dence thatthe conduc tthatgave r i s e t o B r ow n’ s A pr i l 2007 arr es ti nvol ved l yi ng, dece i t , ordi s hones ty, I w oul d f i nd the ci r cui tcourtpr oper l y l i m i t ed cr os s - exami nat i on on thi s i s s ue. ¶2 1. A nt hony w as al l ow ed t o ques t i on B r ow n r egar di ng whethe rh e h a d e ver been
c o n v icte d o f a fe lo n y a n d re g a rd in g h is o n ly d ru g c h a rg e s g iv in g ris e to h is a rra n g e m e n t to
w o rk a s a c o n fid e n tial in fo rm a n t. A t trial, A n th o n y a sk e d B ro w n th e fo llo w in g q u e stio n s in the pr es ence of

the j ury: Q : H ave y ou ever been con vict ed o f any fel on i es? A : Y es.

. . .

### 12

Q : M r . B r ow n, how i s i tthatyou beca m e i nvolve d w i th M B N orthe L auder dal e C ounty T as k For ce? A : I caughta s al e – a pi l l char ge. Q : W hen you s ay you “c aughta pi l l char ge, ” w hatdo you m ean? A : I so ld to so m e o n e a n d th e y – I g o t ca u g h t.

. . . Q : O kay. B utthey arr es t ed you? A : Y e s . Q : O k a y . A : Y e s , s ir
. Q : W hatw er e you t ol d w hen you gotarr es t ed? A : W hatw as I t ol d? Q : W er e you t ol d, hey you can w or k thi s char ge of f , w e ca n cutyou a dea l and l etyou go f

r ee or– A : N o . I w en t t o them an d ask ed them co u ld I h elp m y self. Q : W h y d id y o u w a n t to d o th a t? A : T o k e e p fr o m g o in g to ja il. Q : A n d , o b v iou sly, yo u h av e d o n e itso far? A : Y e s , s ir
. Q : O kay. B utyou al s o gotpai d, di dn’ tyou? A : Y e s , s ir
. ¶22. A nthony had an opportuni ty t o, and di d, ful l y quest i on B r ow n i n t he pr es ence of the j ury r egar di ng hi s agr eementt o “w or k of f ” hi s ow n drug cha r ges by w or ki ng w i th the drug

### 13

tas k fo rc e . In d e e d , A n th o n y q u e stio n e d B ro w n ab o u t th e sp e c ific c h a rg e s ; i
. e. , the p ill char ges , thatga ve r i s e t o Brow n’ s w or k a s a c onf i dent i al i nf

or m ant . T he jur y w as m ade
aw are that B row n h ad h is ow n rea so n s to c o o p era te w ith the p o li ce – the y h ea rd B row n test if y that he previ ou sl y h ad b een c o n v ict ed of a f el on y, that he w as w orki ng w i th the drug tas k f or ce t o avoi d goi ng t o j ai l , and thathe w as pai d t o be a conf i dent i al i nf

or m ant . A ddi t i onal l y, the re co rd sh o w s tha t C h ri stop h er S co tt , the p o li ce o ffi ce r w h o arran g ed fo r B row n to w o rk
as a conf i dent i al i nform ant , al s o t es t i f i ed thatthe pi l l char ges agai ns tB r ow n w er e dr opped i n excha nge f

orB r ow n’ s w or k w i th the drug t as k f or ce, and thatB r ow n w as pai d f orhi s w or k. I n f act , dur i ng A nthony’ s cr os s -exam i nat i on, Scot tagr eed thatw or ki ng as a conf i dent i al in fo rm a n t w a s “ lik e a g e t-o u t-o f-ja il-fr e e c a rd ” a n d th a t B ro w n h a d a n “ u lterio r m o tiv e ” to t es t i f y s o thathi s drug char ges w oul d “go aw ay. ” ¶23. A ny addi t i onal t es t i m ony that B r ow n w as convi ct ed of an unr el at ed cr i m e i n 1993 or arrested for so m e u n ce rt ain c ri m e in A p ri l 2 0 0 7 w o u ld be cu m u lat ive o n th e issue s o f B row n ’s
c re d ib ili ty a n d /o r m o tiv a tio n to tes tify a g a in st A n th o n y . E v e n if th e c irc u it co u rt a b u se d its di s cr et i on by l i m i t i ng A nthony’ s cr os s - exami nat i on on thes e tw o i s s ues , w hi ch I do not b eli ev e that i tdid, I canno tagree t hat the li m i t at i on aff ect ed A nthony ’s subst anti al ri gh t s, d e n ie d h im a fu n d a m e n ta lly fa irtr ia l, o r r e s u lte d i n a m is c a rr ia g e o f j u s tic e . T h e re fo re , I
w ou l d fi nd th at any err or on the partof the cir cuitcou rti n li m i t i ng A nthony ’s cross e x a m in a tio n w a s h a rm le s s e rr o r, a t w o rs t. ¶2 4
. F o r th e fo reg o ing rea so n s, I w o u ld affirm the c ir cu i tcou rt ’s decis i on t o li m it A n tho n y ’s
c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n o f B ro w n , a n d w o u ld a ff ir m A n th o n y ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e .

### 14

D IC K IN S O N A N D R A N D O L P H , P . J J . , A N D C O L E M A N , J. , JO IN T H IS OP I NI ON.