I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 6 - KA- 0 0 4 1 8 - S CT J O H N A . WI L L I A MS
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 03/ 2006 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. S HARI ON R. AYCOCK COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: I TAW AM BA COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: W I LLI AM C. STENNETT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : DE I RD RE M c CR OR Y DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: J OHN R I CH AR D YOUN G NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 10/ 11/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E SM I T H , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D L A M A R , JJ. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. T h i s a p p e a l c o me s t o u s f r o m th e Ci r c u i t Co u r t o f I t a wa mb a Co u n ty , wh e r e J o h n A. W i l l i ams w as convi ct ed on tw o count s : ( 1) m anuf actur i ng m ar i

j uana i n a quant i t y gre at er than thi r ty gr ams, and (2) poss es s i on of a f i r earm by a convi ct ed f

el on. Form anuf

actur i ng
m ar i j uana, W i l l i ams w as s ent ence d t o f i f t een ye ar s i m pr i s onm entand or der ed t o pay a $1, 500 f i ne. Forbei ng a convi ct ed f el on i n poss es s i on of a f i r earm , W i l l i ams w as s ent ence d t o th r e e y e a r s i mp r i s o n me n tt o ru n c o n c u rr e n t l y wi th th e f i f t e e n - y e a rs e n t e n c e . W i l l i a ms al l eges that : ( 1) the j ury ver di ctw as agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghto f t he evide nce a nd

### Graham te stif ie d that heand hi s partner wer e r unning a sur vey l inefor

the owne r of 1 

### the ad jacent lan d, M s. Jackso n. T he p lants w ere actuallylocatedonan ad ja cent pro perty ownedbyR.C . Grimes. 2 contr ary t o the l aw ; ( 2) he di d notr ece i ve a f ai rtr i al be caus e s om e mem ber s of the j ury knew the def endantand l aw yer s i n t hi s cas e; (3) t he cour ter r ed i n al l ow i ng a pol i ce s ur vei l l ance t ape t o be s how n t o the j ury; ( 4) the courterr ed i n admi t t i ng evi dence of hi s pr i orf el ony convi ct i on; ( 5) hi s cons t i tut i on al r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed bec aus e he w as ques t i oned w i thout bei ng advi s ed of

hi s r i ght s ; ( 6) he w as pr ej udi ced by i m pr opers t at ement s made dur i ng t he S tate ’s c lo sin g a rg u m e n t; an d (7 ) h is tria l co u n se l w a s in e ffe c tiv e . F in d in g n o re v e rsib le
err or , w e af

f i r m W i l l i ams’ s convi ct i on. FACTS ¶ 2
. In M a rc h 2 0 0 5 , C h ri s G ra h a m w a s s u rv e y in g lan d a ro u n d th e B ria r C re e k a re a in Ita w a m b a C o u n ty w h en h e d isc o v e re d w h a t ap p e a re d to b e m a riju a n a p lan ts g ro w in g in sm a ll
r ed cups
. G r aham and hi s partnerl ef tthe ar ea i m m edi at el y. L at ert hatday, G r aham cal l ed 1 C hr i s U m f

r es s , a narcot i cs agentw i th the I t aw amba C ounty Sher i f f’ s D epart m ent and
r eport ed w hathe had di s cover ed. H e l at ert ook U m f r es s t o the ar ea w her e he ha d s een the cup s. ¶3. U m fr ess t est i fi ed t hat he suspect ed t he pl ant s i n the cups w er e mar i j uana. T he S h eriff’s D ep artm en t dec ided to co n d u ct vid eo surv eil lanc e o n th e p lants u sing a w aterp roo f,
m ot i on- det ect i ng camer a s ys t em. Thi s c amer a w as s etup on A pr i l 7, 2005. U m f r es s t es t i f

i ed thatthey r eturned t o the camer a every t hr ee days t o change the t ape and the bat t er i es i n t he

### 3

s ys t em. O n A pr i l 2 7, U m fr es s m oni t or ed the f oot age a nd s aw thats om eone ha d been
r ecor ded t endi ng the pl ant s . A l though the t ape s how ed s om eone t endi ng the pl ant s , the p e rso n ’s f

a c e w a s n e v e r re v e a led b e c a u se th e c a m e ra a n g le w a s to o lo w . T h e tap e c lea rly
s how ed tw o dogs , a w hi t e G erm an s hepher d and a c ockers pani el , acc om panyi ng the per s on t end i ng the p l ants . ¶4. U m fr ess sur m i sed thatsi nce t he do gs w ere accom pan ying the suspe cton the vi deot ape, i tw as l i kel y thatthe s us pectw as w al ki ng t o the pl ant s f r om s om ew her e nea rby. Ac t i n g o n th i s b e l i e f

, Umf r e s s d e c i d e d t o d o s o me “ mo b i l e s u r v e i l l a n c e , ” d r i v i n g o n s o me of the r oads i n the ar ea l ooki ng fort he dogs w hi ch w er e se en on t he vi deo. U m f r es s t es t i f

i ed thathe di s cover ed the tw o dogs atthe r es i dence of J ohn A
. W i l l i ams. H e dec i ded t o cont i nue
v id e o su rv e ill a n c e in h o p e s o f g e tti n g a p o sitiv e id e n tifica tio n o f th e su sp e c t. ¶5. O n J une 6, 2005, U m f r es s r eturned t o the s ur vei l l ance ar ea t o chec k the ca m er a and the pl ant s . H e t es t i f

i ed thathe coul d t el l thatthe pl ant s had bee n t ended. H e r evi ew ed the vi deot ape, and on thi s s econd vi deo, the s us pect ’ s fa ce w as cl ear l y s how n. U m f r es s t es t i f

i ed thatO f f i cerD avi d Shef

f i el d, w ho al s o w as r evi ew i ng the t ape, i m m edi at el y i dent i f i ed the
s us pectas J ohn W i l l i ams. H avi ng a posi t i ve i dent i f i cat i on of

the s us pect , U m f

r es s deci ded t o col l ectthe pl ant s i n the w oo ds. H ow ever , w hen he a t t empt ed t o do s o, he r eal i zed that
s om e of the pl ant s w er e no l ongerther e. B el i evi ng thatW i l l i ams ha d harves t ed the mi s s i ng pl ant s , U m f

r es s appl i ed f

orand r ece i ved a s ear ch w arr antf orW i l l i ams’ s r es i dence
. ¶6. U m f

r es s and f

i ve other agent s pr ocee ded t o s ear ch W i l l i ams’ s r es i dence
. A ccor di ng t o U m f r es s ’ s t es t i m ony, W i l l i ams w as or al l y a dvi s ed of hi s Mir anda r i g h t s . W i l l i a ms

### 4

a d m itt e d to o w n e rsh ip o f th e p lan ts w h ich h a d b e e n u n d e r su rv e ill a n c e in th e w o o d s. A g e n ts fou n d tw o m o re plan ts at W il li am s’s r esid en ce , alon g w ith d ri ed m arij u an a in a T u p p erw are b o w l and in a fil m ca n ist er. T h ey also fou n d at th e re side n ce a h an d g u n in the d raw er o f a ni ght s t and i n the mast erbedr oom , m ar i j uana- gr ow i ng l i t er atur e and pa r apher nali a, a r i f l e, t w o s ho t gu ns , a mm un i t i on f orthe gu ns , a nd a bu c k k ni f e . A f t e rbe i ng t a ke n i nt o c us t ody, W i l l i am s si gn ed a w ai ver of hi s Mir anda r i ght s , s t at i ng thathe di d notw anta l aw yerand that he w ou l d co op erat e w i th the poli ce and answ er theirqu est i on s. CO UR S E OF P RO CE E DI NG S ¶7. O n A ugus t2, 2005, John A
. W i l l i ams w as i ndi ct ed by a gra nd j ury on one co un tof
m anuf actur i ng m ar i

j uana i n an am ountgre at ert han t hi r ty gr ams and one countof pos s es s i on of a f i r earm by a convi ct ed f el on. O n J anuary 27, 2006, i n a one - day tr i al , an It aw am ba C ounty j ury convi ct ed W i l l i ams on both count s . W i l l i ams di d nott es t i f y, nordi d he ca l l any wi tn e s s e s . Al l e g i n g n u me r o u s e rr o r s wh i c h h e b e l i e v e s d e p r i v e d h i m o f a f a i rtr i a l , W i l l i a ms filed a tim e ly a p p e a l w ith th is C o u rt. A N A L Y S IS I . W i l l i a ms ’ s mo t i o n s f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t a n d J NO V ¶8
. T hi s C our tr e vi e w s the d e ni a l o f a mot i on f

ordi r ect ed ver di ctundera de novo
s ta n d a rd
. G ilm e r v . S ta te , 955 So. 2d 829, 833 ( M i s s . 2007)
. The c r i t i cal i nqui ry i n deci di ng
w hetherthe evi dence i s s uf f i ci entt o s us t ai n a convi ct i on i n t he f ace of a m ot i on fordi r ect ed
v e r d i c to rf

o rj u d g me n tn o twi th s t a n d i n g t h e v e r d i c t( JNOV) i s wh e th e rth e e v i d e n c e s h o ws bey on d a reasonab l e do ub tthat the acc used co m m i t t ed the act ch arg ed an d thathe d i d so

### 5

u n d e r s u c h c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t e v e ry e le m e n t o f th e o ff e n s e e x is te d
. Iv

y v. S ta te , 949 So. 2d 7 4 8 , 7 5 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 7 ). If th e e v id e n c e fa ils to m e e t th is te s t, it is in su ffic ien t to su p p o rt a
c o n v ic tio n . I

d. T h e leg a l su ffic ien c y o f t h e e v id e n c e is v iew e d in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e S ta te . D ix o n v. S ta te , 9 5 3 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). A
. C ountI

, M anuf actur e of Mar i j uana ¶9. M i s s i s s i ppi Code A nnotat ed sect i on 41 -29-139 (a) (1) m akes t he m anufa ctur e of
m ari j uan a un l aw ful
. O ur l aw defi nes t he term “m anu facture” as: the p r od uc t i on , p r e pa r a t i on , p r op a ga t i on , c ompou nd i ng , c on ve r s i on or pr oces s i ng of

a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance , ei therdi r ect l y ori ndi r ect l y, by extr act i on f r om s ubs t ance s of

natur al or i gi n, ori ndepende nt l y by m eans of chemi cal s ynthes i s , orby a combi nat i on of extr act i on and che m i cal synt hes i s , and i ncl udes a ny pa ckagi ng orr epac kagi ng of the s ubs t ance orl abel i ng or relab eli n g o f i ts co n tai n er. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 4 1 -29 -10 5 (q) (R ev . 2 0 0 5 ). ¶1 0
. W ill iam s a rg u e s th a t th e e v id e n c e a g a in st h im w as in su ffi cien t t o su p p o rt h is convi ct i on. D ur i ng the t est i m ony of A gentU m f

r es s , i tw as es t abl i s hed thats om eone ha d been vi deot aped by the s ur vei l l ance cam er a t endi ng t he pl ant s l ocat ed i n t he w oods
. O n the f i r s tvi deo, w hi ch w as admi t t ed i nt o evi dence as St at e E xhi bi t1, the sus pectcoul d be s een bendi ng over , t endi ng t o t he pl ant s , and t hen w al ki ng aw ay f r om t he pl ant s . B eca us e of the l ow angl e of

t he camer a, t he sus pectcoul d be s een onl y f r om the w ai s tdow n. H ow ever , t he first v id e o c lea rly d id sh o w tw o d o g s, a w h ite G e rm a n sh e p h e rd a n d a c o c k e r sp a n iel,
ac co m p an y ing the s u sp ec t. T w o do g s fi tt ing th e d esc ri p ti o n of th e d o g s on the v ideo w ere f ound atW i l l i ams’ s r es i dence , acc or di ng t o U m f r es s ’ s t es t i m ony.

### 6

¶11. T he second video, w hi ch w as admi t t ed as St at e E xhi bi t 2, agai n s how ed a s us pect t endi ng the pl ant s . H ow ever , beca us e U m f r es s r ai s ed the ca m er a angl e af t erm oni t or i ng t he f i r s tvi deo, t he sus pect ’ s f ace w as very cl ear l y s how n. U m f r es s and anotheragenti dent i f i ed thi s s us pectas J ohn W i l l i ams. W i l l i ams admi t t ed thatthe mar i j uana pl ant s found i n the
w oo ds w ere hi s. ¶12. W hen the s ear ch w arr ant w as exec ut ed at W i l l i ams’ s r es i dence , the agent s r ecove r ed tw o m ar i j uana pl ant s w hi ch w er e bei ng gr ow n on W i l l i ams’ s pr operty, m ar i j uana i n a T upperw ar e bow l and a fi l m cani s t er , and mar i j uana- gr ow i ng l i t er atur e and pa r aphernal i a. W i l l i ams admi t t ed thatthes e i t ems bel onged t o hi m . T he f or ens i c anal ys i s r eportf r om t he Tupe l o Cr i me La b, whi c h w a s a dmi t t e d a s St a t e Exh i bi t4 , c on f i r med tha tthe p l a nt s and
s ubs t ance s r ecove r ed f

r om the w oods and W i l l i ams’ s r es i dence w er e i ndeed mar i j uana. T he agg regat e w ei gh tof these i t em s w as 39.4 gram s. ¶13. I ti s c l earthe St at e present ed suff i ci ent evi den ce present ed to f i nd beyond a
r eas onabl e doubtthatW i l l i ams w as i ndeed gui l ty of eac h el ementof

the cr i m e of
m a n u fa c tu rin g m a riju a n a . T h e re fo re , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. B
. P os s es s i on of

a F i r ear m by a C onvi ct ed Fel on ¶14. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 97- 37- 5 makes i t unl aw f ul f or any per s on w ho has been convi ct ed of

a f el ony t o pos s es s a f

i r earm a nd pr ovi des thata nyone i n vi ol at i on of this section m ay b e im p ri so n ed for n o t m o re tha n three y ea rs, o r b e o rde red to p ay n o t m o re than $ 5 , 0 0 0 in fi n es, or b o th. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -37 -5 (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ).

### Sev eral guns were recov ered during th e searcho f W illiams’s resid ence. Th e on ly 2 

### gun for whic h Wil li am s wa s c harged wi th pos se ss ion wa s a .22 c al ibe r pis tolrec over ed f rom a nig htstan d inWilliams’s b edro om. 7 ¶15. I ti s undi s put ed thatW i l l i ams pr evi ous l y w as convi ct ed of t he f el ony of aggr avat ed
a ss a u lt. H is in d ictm e n t a n d o rd e r o f c o n v ictio n w e re a d m itt e d in to e v id e n c e a s S tate E x h ib it 5. T he i s s ue her e i s w hetherther e w as s uf f i ci entevi dence t o fi nd thatthe gun f ound at W i l l i ams’ s r es i dence w as i n W i l l i ams’ s pos s es s i on. 2 ¶16. B ecause the gun w as not f ound on W i l l i ams’ s per s on, the S t at e m us t pr ove t hatt he gun w as i n the cons tructi ve poss es s i on of W i l l i ams. “C ons truct i ve pos s es s i on al l ow s t he p ro se c u tio n to e sta b lish p o ss e ss io n o f c o n tra b a n d w h e n e v id e n c e o f a c tu a l p o ss e ss io n is abs ent . C ons truct i ve pos s es s i on i s est abl i s hed by show i ng t hatt he contr aband w as undert he dom i ni on a nd c ontr ol of the def endant
. ” R o b e rs o n v. S ta te , 5 95 S o. 2 d 13 10 , 13 19 (M i ss. 19 92 ) ( ci t i ng V

ick e ry v. S ta te , 535 So. 2d 1371, 1379 ( M i s s . 1988) )
. “[ T ] her e mustbe
s uf f i ci entf act s t o w arr anta f

i ndi ng thatthe def

endantw as aw ar e of

the presence and char act erof

the part i cul ar[ contr aband] and w as i nt ent i onal l y and cons ci ous l y i n pos s es s i on of i t . ” C u rr y v. S ta te , 2 4 9 S o . 2 d 4 1 4 , 4 1 6 (M iss. 1 9 7 1 ). ¶17. W i l l i ams cl ai m s thatthe gun f ound athi s r es i dence w as nothi s buthi s w i f e’ s and that the evi dence w as i ns uf

f i ci entt o es t abl i s h thatthe gun bel onged t o hi m . I ti s cl earf r om the
r ecor d thatW i l l i ams’ s r es i dence w as underthe contr ol a nd pos s es s i on of both W i l l i ams and hi s w i f e. I n G in n v . S ta te , thi s C our tpr es cr i bed the pr operrul e f orf i ndi ng cons truct i ve pos s es s i on of

contr aband i n s uch a s i tuat i on:

### Umfr es s te stif ie d that in the firs t sur

vei ll anc e vide o, thesuspe ct was wearing a f

ixe d- 3 

### blad e kn ife onhis b elt. 8 W e have hel d thatw her e contr aband i s f ound upon pr emi s es noti n the e x c lu siv e c o n tro l an d p o ss e ss io n o f th e ac c u se d , a d d iti o n a l in c rim in a tin g fa c ts m us tconnec tthe ac cus ed w i th the contr aband. W her e the pr em i ses upon w hi ch co ntr aband i s f

ound i s noti n the exc l us i ve pos s es s i on of the ac cus ed, the ac cus ed i s ent i t l ed t o acqui t t al , abs ents om e com petentevi dence connec t i ng hi m w i th the contr aband. G inn v. State, 8 60 So
. 2 d 67 5, 6 85 ( M i s s . 2 00 3)
. Bec a us e W i l l i a ms’ s r e s i dence w as not underhi s excl us i ve pos s es s i on and contr ol , w e mustdet erm i ne w hetheraddi t i onal i ncr i m i nat i ng f

act or s connec tW i l l i ams t o the gun. ¶18. T he handgun, w hi ch w as admi t t ed i nt o evi dence as St at e E xhi bi t 8, w as f ound i n t he draw er of

a night st and l ocated on the lef tsi de o f the b ed in W i l l i am s’ s bedroo m . U m fr ess tes tified th a t o n th e rig h t sid e o f th e b e d w a s a d re ss e r c o n tain in g , a m o n g o th e r th in g s, fe m a le gar m e nt s . O n the n i gh t s t a nd i n w hi c h the g un was l oc a t e d w a s a f i xe d- bl a de k ni f

e a nd a 3
m etal bo x co n tai n ing li terature a b o u t gro w ing m arij u an a. W il li am s said that the lit era ture
w as hi s . U m f

r es s t es t i f

i ed thatbeca us e of

the i t ems l ocat ed i n the dr es s eron the r i ghts i de of the r oom and the ni ght s t and on the l ef ts i de of the r oom , i tapp eared t hatthe l ef ts i de of the ro o m w as the “m asc u li n e” si d e, i. e., W il li am s’s si d e. U m fress t esti fi ed that W il li am s’s
w if e c lai m ed that the g u n w as h ers, bu t w h e n h e a sk ed h er to loa d b u ll ets i n to the g u n ’s
m a g a z in e , sh e c o u ld n o t. ¶19. I n vi ew i ng the evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfa vor abl e t o t he St at e, w e f i nd t hatther e w as
s uf f i ci entaddi t i onal i ncr i m i nat i ng evi dence f ora r eas onabl e jur or t o f i nd beyond a

### 9

re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t W ill iam s w a s in co n stru c tiv e p o ss e ss io n o f th e h a n d g u n fo u n d in h is bedr oom . T her ef

or e, thi s i s s ue i s w i thoutm er i t . T he tr i al courtdi d noterri n denyi ng W i l l i a ms ’ s mo t i o n s f

o rd i r e c t e d v e r d i c ta n d JNOV. I I . Som e j ur or s s t at e d dur i ng v oi r di r e t hat t he y k ne w peopl e i nvo l ve d i n t he cas e. ¶20. W i l l i ams cl ai m s thathe w as una bl e t o r ece i ve a f ai rtr i al beca us e pot ent i al j ur or s w ho
s t a t e d d u r i n g v o i rd i r e th a tth e y we r e f a mi l i a rwi th th e a t t o rn e y s , wi tn e s s e s , o rW i l l i a ms hi mse l f w e r e a l l owed t o s e r ve a s j ur or s i n thi s c a s e . H oweve r , be c a us e the r e w a s no
c h a llen g e b y th e d e fe n se to a n y o f th e se ju ro rs a t trial, W ill iam s h a s w a iv e d h is rig h t to appea l on thi s i s s ue. ¶21. I n J

a c o v. S ta te , th e d e fe n d a n ts c o m p lain e d o n a p p e a l o f th e c irc u it c o u rt’s re fu sa l to
s tr ik e a ju ro r w h o h a d a d m itte d fr ie n d s h ip w ith th e sh e ri ff in th e c o u n ty o f p ro s e c u tio n . Jaco
v. State, 574 So. 2d 625, 633 ( M i s s . 1990)
. T hi s C our thel d thatbeca us e the def endant s had f ai l ed t o chal l enge the j ur orei therf orcaus e orper empt or i l y, they had w ai ved the poi nton
a p p e a l. I

d. at634 ( ci t i ng R a tli

ff v . S ta te , 5 1 5 S o . 2 d 8 7 7 , 8 8 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 )). ¶22. T he tr i al c our tdi s m i s s ed s even j ur or s f orc aus e on i t s ow n m ot i on. T he St at e made tw o chal l enges f

orcaus e, one of

w hi ch w as grant ed by the court . T he def ens e made no ch all en g es fo r ca u se, an d the d efe n se d id n o t use it s p ere m p tor y c h a ll en g es o n the ju rors aboutw hom W i l l i ams now compl ai ns . T hi s i s s ue i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed. I I I . T he i nt roduct i on of t he vi deot apes i nt o evi dence

### 10

¶2 3. W i l l i ams a r gu e s tha tthe tr i a l c our ter r ed i n al l ow i ng t he vi deot apes f r om t he
su rve il lanc e c am era in the w o o d s to b e sh o w n to the jury
. T h ese v ideo tape s ea ch w ere admi t t ed i nt o evi dence dur i ng the t es t i m ony of A gentU m f

r es s . A f t erthe admi s s i on of

t he f i r s tvi deo i nt o evi dence , de f ens e couns el m ade the f ol l ow i ng obj ect i on: “Y ourhonor , I do obj ectt o the s how i ng [ of ] t hi s vi deo, becaus e, fi r s tof al l , t hey’ ve al r eady s ai d t o thi s j ury t hat they w i l l s ee thi s m an on thi s t ape. ” The t r i al courtoverrul ed the obj ect i on. ¶ 2 4
. “ A trial ju d g e h a s b ro a d d isc re tio n a s to th e a d m iss ib ili ty o f e v id e n c e . U n les s th is di s cr et i on i s s o abus ed as t o be pr ej udi ci al t o the ac cus ed, t his C our tw i l l notr ever s e the l ow ercourt ’ s rul i ng. ” Co lem a n v. S ta te , 697 S o. 2d 777, 784 ( M i s s . 1997) ( quot i ng D ye v. S ta te , 4 9 8 S o . 2 d 3 4 3 , 3 4 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 )). D efe n se c o u n sel’s objecti o n w as p rop e rly
ov erruled. In l aying t he p redi cat e foradm i t t i ng the fi rs tvideo i nto evi de n ce , U m fr ess des cr i bed w hatw as on the t ape. I n doi ng s o, U m f r es s r ef er s t o t he s us pecton the vi deo as “a pe r s on, ” and ne vers ays “the def endant ” or“W i l l i ams. ” The obj ect i on by def ens e couns el t o the f i rs tvideo w as erroneou s. ¶25. B ef

or e t he adm i s s i on of the se cond vi deot ape i nt o evi dence , af t erthe f i r s tal r eady had been s how n t o t he j ury, t he pr os ecut orm ade the f ol l ow i ng re m ark aboutthe se cond vi deo: Pr os ecut or : A nd has thatbeen c ued up? U m fr ess: Y es i thas. P ro se c u to r: T o the ti m e that t h e d efend an t w as ou t t h ere at those p l an ts ? U m fress: Y es, sir
.

### 11

D ef ens e cou nsel m ade no obj ect i on t o the pr os ecut or ’ s comm ent . W hen as ked i f s he had obj ect i on t o the s econd vi deo bei ng a dm i t t ed i nt o e vi dence , de f ens e couns el s t at ed, “N o, but I do obj ectt o agai n t el l i ng them t hatthey w i l l s ee thi s gent l eman i n the pi ctur e, w her eas t hey
m us tdet erm i ne w hos e pi ctur e i ti s . ” The t r i al courtr es ponded: J ury, I trus tthatthati s under s t ood thatyou ar e vi ew i ng t hi s vi deo m aki ng your o w n fa c tu a l d e ter m in a tio n th a t, i n fa c t, th is in d e e d is o r is n o t th e d e fe n d a n t. T hat ’ s yourdet erm i nat i on t o m ake. T hi s C our tpr es um es thata j ury f ol l ow s the di r ect i on of

a tr i al c our tt o di s r egar d a n i m pr oper
c o m m e n t. Flo ra v. S ta te , 9 2 5 S o . 2 d 7 9 7 , 8 0 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). ¶26
. T he tr i al cou rtdid not di rect l y sust ai n d efense couns el ’ s obj ect i on , no r di d it adm on i sh the pr os ecut or ’ s comm ent . H ow ever , the tr i al court ’ s i ns truct i on di d i nf or m the j ury thatt hey
w er e t o m ake thei row n fa ctual det erm i nat i ons as t o w hethert he sus pecton the vi deo w as t he def endant
. T he tr i al courtdi d notabus e i t s dis cret i on by al l ow i ng the vi deot apes t o be pl ayed f orthe j ury. ¶ 2 7 . W ill iam s a ls o c la im s th a t t h e v id e o s w e re n o t p ro p e rl y a u th e n tic a ted a t trial. H o w e v e r, th e re w a s n o o b jec tio n a t trial a s to th e a u th e n ticity o f th e v id e o tap e s. “ It is el ement ary thatdi f

f er entgr ounds than the obj ect i ons pr es ent ed t o the tr i al courtcannotbe pr e s e nt e d f

orthe f i r s tt i me o n a pp eal
. ” T h o rn h ill v. S ta te , 56 1 S o. 2d 10 25 , 10 29 (M i ss. 1 9 8 9 ). W ill iam s’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e v id e o tap e s w e re n o t p ro p e rly a u th e n tica ted is pr ocedur al l y barr ed. I V . E vi dence of

W i l l i am s ’ s previ ous f el ony convi ct i on

### 12

¶ 2 8
. W ill iam s c laim s th a t t h e tr ia l c o u rt e rr e d in a llo w in g e v id e n c e p e rta in in g to h is pr evi ous c onvi ct i on f

ora ggr avat ed as s aul t . I ti s hi s c ont ent i on that“ the det ai l ed des cr i pt i on of the aggr avat ed as s aul tpoi s oned the mi nds of the j ur or s . ” The i ndi ctm entand s ent enci ng
or derf orhi s pr i orf

el ony convi ct i on w er e ent er ed i nt o evi dence as St at e Exhi bi t5 t o pr ove thatW i l l i am s w as i n f

acta “c onvi ct ed f

el on” i n pos s es s i on of

a f i r earm . T her e w as no
o b jec tio n a t trial to th e in d ictm e n t an d se n ten c in g o rd e r b e in g e n ter e d in to e v id e n c e , an d th is iss u e is th e re fo re b a rre d o n a p p e a l. V . W i l l i am s’ s Mir anda r ig h ts c la im ¶29. W i l l i ams cl ai m s thathe w as ques t i oned by A gentU m f r es s pr i ort o bei ng i nf

or m ed of hi s c on s t i tut i on a l r i gh t s a s r e qui r ed by Mir anda v. Ari z ona , 384 U
. S. 436, 86 S. C t . 1602, 16 L
. E d. 2d 694 (1966)
. T hi s ar gum enti s pre s ent ed f ort he f i r s tt i m e on appe al
. N o m ot i on
w a s m a d e a t th e trial le v e l to s u p p re ss th e s tate m e n ts m a d e b y W ill iam s to th e a g e n ts a t h is hom e. A gentU m f

r es s t es t i f

i ed thathe or al l y advi s ed W i l l i ams of hi s r i ght s dur i ng t he
exec ut i on of

the s ear ch w arr ant . Fur ther , W i l l i ams s i gned a w ai verof hi s r i ght s a f

t erbei ng t aken i nt o cus t ody. “A s a gene r al rul e, cons t i tut i onal ques t i ons notas s ert ed atthe tr i al l evel
ar e dee m ed w ai ved. ” P in k n e y v. S ta te , 7 5 7 S o . 2 d 2 9 7 , 2 9 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 ). T h is iss u e is pr ocedur al l y barr ed. V I . I m pr ope r s t at e m e nt m ade by t he pr os e c ut or dur i ng c l os i ng a r gum e nt ¶ 3 0
. D u rin g c lo sin g re b u ttal, th e p ro se c u to r m a d e th e fo llo w in g c o m m e n t: S o h o w d o y o u b e liev e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t tu rn in g to th e g u n , this S m ith & W e ss o n , h o w d o y o u b e liev e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t th is pi s t ol w as hi s ? W el l , one r eas on i s i tw as f ound i n oratthe ni ght s t and on w hat

### 13

appea r s t o have be en hi s s i de of the bed, butal s o beca us e that ’ s exac t l y w hat ki nd of pi s t ol he s hotM ark L ent z w i th. D e fen se c o u n sel i m m ed iat ely o b jected to the co m m en t, arg u ing that n o ev iden ce o f a sh o o ti n g h ad co m e in, on ly tha t W il li am s w as p rev iou sly c o n v ict ed o f ag g rav ated assa u lt
. I d. T he tr i al courtgave the f ol l ow i ng cur at i ve i ns truct i on t o the j ury: L adi es and g ent l emen of the j ury, I ’ m goi ng t o i ns tructyou t o di s r egar d the stat em en t th at’s be en m ad e b y [th e p rose cu tor]
. Y o u w il l see w h en y o u return t o the j ury room that St at e’s E xh i bitN o. 5 in the indi ct m ent i nv olvi ng the case i n 1992, the aggr avat ed as s aul t , thatt he w eapon thati s us ed i s a 9- m i l l i m et er p ist o l. It ’s referred to in this i n d ictm en t by a p arti cu lar serial n u m b er. T h ere ’s been no pr oof

i n thi s cas e thati t ’ s one and the s ame gun. ¶31. W i l l i ams a r gues thatthe tr i al c our ts houl d ha ve gr ant ed a m i s tr i al s ua s pont e, i n t he ab se n ce o f a n o m o ti o n for a m istri al, b ec au se th e jury w as tainted b y the p rose cu tor’s
c o m m e n t. “ T h e g ra n tin g o f a m is tr ia l is w ith in th e s o u n d d is c re tio n o f t h e tr ia l ju d g e .” Ho o p s v . S ta te , 681 So. 2d 521, 528 ( M i s s . 1996 )
. I ti s pr es um ed thata j ury f ol l ow s t he d ir e c tio n o f a tria l ju d g e to d is re g a rd a n im p ro p e r c o m m e n t o r t e s tim o n y . Flo ra v. S ta te , 925 S o . 2 d a t 80 5 . “O u r law p re su m e s th e jur y d o e s a s it is to ld . T o p re su m e o th e rw ise w o u ld
r enderthe j ury s ys t em i noper abl e. ” W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 684 So. 2d 1179, 1209 ( M i s s . 1996) (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶32. T her e i s no r eas on t o be l i eve thatW i l l i ams w as pr ej udi ced orthatthe j ury w as t ai nt ed by the pr os ecut or ’ s r emar k. D et ai l s of the s hoot i ng ment i oned i n the al l egedl y im prope r
r emar k w er e al r eady be f or e the j ury i n the aggr avat ed assaul ti ndi ctm ent , w hi ch had be en admi t t ed i nt o e vi dence w i thoutobj ect i on. W e m us ta s s um e thatthe j ury f oll ow ed t he in stru c tio n s o f th e tria l ju d g e a n d d isre g a rd e d th e c o m m e n t. A fte r th e c o u rt’s a d m o n ish m e n t,

### 14

th e p ro s e c u to r h im s e lf

s a id th a t h e “ d id n o t m e a n to re p re s e n t th a t th a t is th e s a m e g u n .” F u rth er, th e g u n w h ich w a s in e v iden ce w as n o t eve n a 9 -m il li m eter, b u t a . 2 2 ca li b er, sh o w in g th e ju ry th a t itc o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n th e sa m e g u n u se d in th e a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt. G i ven thi s s etof

ci r cumst ance s , thi s C our tcannots ay thatW i l l i ams w as pr ej udi ced by the p ro se c u to r’s c o m m e n t, an d th e re w a s n o a b u s e o f d isc re tio n in th e trial c o u rt’s f a ilu re to g ra n t a m istria l su a sp o n te . V I I . I nef

f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

counse l ¶33. W i l l i ams nextar gues thathi s re pr es ent at i on att r i al w as def i ci ent , ci t i ng thr ee al l eged d e fic ien c ies th a t h e c laim s c o n stitu ted in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l. ¶ 3 4
. “ T o p re v a il o n a c laim o f in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f co u n se l, a d e fe n d a n t m u st m e e t a tw o- pr onged t es ts etf

or th i n Str i ckland v. W

as hington , 466 U
. S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct
. 2052, 80 L
. E d. 2d 674 ( 1984) , w hi ch thi s C our thas adopt ed. ” R a n k in v. S ta te , 636 So. 2d 652, 6 5 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ). T he Str i c kl

and t es tr equi r es a show i ng thatcouns el ’ s per f or m ance w as s uf f i ci ent l y def

i ci entt o cons t i tut e pr ej udi ce t o the def ens e. T he def

endanthas the bur den of

pr ovi ng bot h prongs
. A s tr ong butr ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on, that couns el ’ s per f

or m ance f

al l s w i thi n t he w i de r ange of r eas onabl e pr of

es s i onal assi st ance, exi st s. T he defend ant m usts ho w that butforhis at t orney’s error s, th e re is a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty th a t h e w o u ld h a v e re c e iv e d a d iffe re n t re su lt in th e trial c o u rt. I d. (C it ati o n s o m itted). S tat ed d if fer e n tl y , a d efe n d an t m u st sho w that h is tri al co u n sel’s p e rf o rm a n c e w a s d e fi c ie n t a n d th a t h e w a s p re ju d ic e d b y th e d e fi c ie n t r e p re s e n ta tio n . W e
w i l l addr es s eac h of

W i l l i ams’ s ar gum ent s i n turn. A . C o u n s e l d idn o t r e q u e s t s e v e r a n c e o f th e c h a r

g e s .

### 15

¶35
. W i l l i am s assert s that his tri al cou nsel err ed i n no t m ov i ng t o hav e the charges against hi m s ever ed s o thatthe manuf actur i ng-m ari

j uana c har ge and the f

el on- i n- pos s es s i on- of

- af i r earm char ge coul d be t r i ed i n di f f er entproc eedi ngs . T he crux of thi s cl ai m i s thatal l ow i ng the j ury t o hearevi dence of the pr i orf

el ony convi ct i on pr ej udi ced W i l l i ams i n t he
m anuf actur i ng- m ar i

j uana c har ge. ¶36. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 99- 7- 2 di ct at es w hen tw o or m or e of f ens es m ay b e c h a rg e d in a sin g le in d ictm e n t: ( 1) T w o ( 2) orm or e of f ens es w hi ch ar e tr i abl e i n the s ame cour tm ay be char ged i n the s ame i ndi ctm entw i th a s eparat e countf oreac h of

f ens e i f: ( a) the o ffen ses a re b ase d o n the s am e a ct or tran sa c tion ; or (b) the o ffen ses a re bas ed on tw o orm or e act s or t ra ns act i ons connec t ed t ogetherorcons t i tut i ng part s of a comm on s cheme orpl an. ( 2) W her e tw o ( 2) orm or e of f ens es ar e pr oper l y c har ged i n s epar at e count s of a s i ngl e i ndi ctm ent , al l s uch cha r ges m ay be tr i ed i n a s i ngl e pr ocee di ng. T hi s C our thas pr es cr i bed a pr ocedur e f ordeci di ng w hetherm ul t i pl e cha r ges br oughtunder one i ndi ctm entm eetthe r equi r ement s of the s t atut e: W hen a de f

endantr ai s es the i s s ue of s ever ance , w e r ecomm end thatthe tr i al courth ol d a h e a r i ng o n the i s s ue . The St a t e , the n, h a s the b ur de n of m aki ng a pr i m a f aci e ca s e s how i ng thatthe of f ens es char ged f

al l w i thi n the l anguage of the s t atut e al l ow i ng mul t i
- counti ndi ctm ent s . I f the St at e meet s i t s bur den, a def endantmay r ebutby s how i ng thatthe of f ens es w er e s epar at e and di s t i nct act s ortr ans act i ons . I n m aki ng i t s de t erm i nat i on r egar di ng s ever ance , the tr i al courts houl d pay part i cul aratt ent i on t o w hetherthe t i m e per i od betw een the o c c u rre n c e s is in sig n ifica n t, w h e th e r th e e v id e n c e p ro v in g e a c h c o u n t w o u ld be admi s s i bl e t o pr ove ea ch of the othercount s . . . and w hether t he cr i m es w er e i nt erw oven. Co rle y v. S ta te , 584 So. 2d 769, 772 ( M i s s . 1991)
. B eca us e t hi s quest i on w as notr ai s ed at the tr i al l evel and ar i s es f r om an i nef

f ect i ve- as s i s t ance - of- cou nsel cl ai m , the bur den i s on

### 16

W i l l i a ms t o ma k e a s h o wi n g th a th i s mu l t i
- c o u n ti n d i c t me n tv i o l a t e d th e s t a tu t e . W i l l i a ms p r o v i d e s n o a u th o r i ty , n o a r g u me n t , a n d n o a n a l y s i s wh a t s o e v e ro n th i s i s s u e . T h e r e f o r e , we
w ill n o t ad d re ss th e m e rits o f th is c laim . H o w e v e r, ev e n if W ill iam s c o u ld sh o w th a t h is
couns el ’ s f

ai l ur e t o m ove f

ors ever ance of

thes e char ges c ons t i tut ed def i ci entper f

or m ance so as t o m eetthe f

i r s tpr ong of

the S tricklandtest , W i l l i a ms mus ta l s o s ho w tha the w as pr ej udi ced by the def

i ci entr epr es ent at i on. ¶37. T he s econd pr ong of the Str i ckland t es tr equi r es the def endantt o s ho w that , absent
couns el ’ s err or s , “ther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty thathe w oul d have recei ved a di f f er ent
r es ul ti n the tr i al court . ” R a n k in v. S ta te , 6 3 6 S o . 2 d a t 6 5 6
. W ill iam s h a s fa iled to m e e t h is bu rde n o n thi s prong o f the tes t . T here w as no sho rt age o f cr edibl e evidence ag ai nst W i l l i am s on the m anu facture- of- m ari j uan a charge, as d i scussed p revi ou sl y. E ven if defense
co u n sel h ad su cc essfu ll y m o v ed to h av e the ch arg es sev ere d , g iven the stren g th o f th e S tat e’s
cas e aga i ns tW i l l i ams, he coul d notr eas onabl y have ex pect ed a di f f er entr es ul ton t he
m anuf actur e- of
- m ar i j uana c har ge. W e f

i nd thatW i l l i ams f

ai l s t o m eetthe s econd pr ong of the Str i ckl

and tes t. B . C o u n se l p re se n tedn o c a se -in -c h ief. ¶3 8
. A fte r th e S tate p rese n ted it s ca se at tr ial , the d efe n se m o v ed for a d ir ec ted v e rd ict. T h is m o ti o n w as d en ied b y the c o u rt , an d the d efe n se re sted at th at t im e. N o w itn esse s w ere cal l ed on beha l f of t he defens e. W i l l i ams now as s ert s thati tw as err orcons t i tut i ng i neff ect i ve assi st ance for hi s coun sel t o call no w i tnesses.

### 17

¶ 3 9
. It is n o t u n c o m m o n fo r t h e d e fe n s e in a c ri m in a l c a s e to c a ll n o w itn e s s e s . See, e. g. , B u rr o w s v . S ta te , 9 6 1 S o . 2 d 7 0 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ), S h ields v . S ta te , 70 2 S o. 2d 38 0 (M i ss. 1997) , and H

a rr iso n v . S ta te , 635 So. 2d 894 ( M i s s . 1994)
. T he onl y s peci f i c err ort hat W i l l i am s al l eges is co un sel ’s fai l ure t o cal l C yn thia W i l l i am s, W i l l i am s’ s w i fe, as a w i tness
so sh e c o u ld testi fy th at th e firearm fou n d in the b ed roo m b elon g ed to h er. ¶ 4 0
. T h e re is a s tro n g b u t re b u ttab le p re su m p tio n “ th a t co u n se l’s p e rfo rm a n c e fa lls w ith in the w i de r ange of

r eas onabl e pr of

es s i onal as s i s t ance . ” R a n k in v. S ta te , 636 S o. 2d at656. T here cou l d b e m any reas on s w hy cou nsel cho se not t o cal l C yn thia W i l l i am s as a w i tness i n t his case, notthe l eas tof w hi ch coul d be t o avoi d a pot ent i al l y damagi ng cr oss exami nat i on. F ur ther , evi dence al r eady ha d been pr es ent ed thr ough cr os s exami nat i on of U m fress tha t C y n thia W il li am s claim ed that the g u n b elon g ed to h er. ¶41. W i l l i ams’ s c ouns el per f or m ed a thor ough cr os s exami nat i on of the w i tnes s es cal l ed b y th e S tate . A fte r c o n su lti n g w ith c o u n se l, W ill iam s h im se lf m a d e th e d e c isio n th a t h e d id
n o t w ish to testi fy. W il li am s h as n o t ov erc o m e th e p re su m p ti o n that h is co u n sel’s perf orm ance w as r easona ble unde r the cir cum st ances. C . D e fe n s e c o u n s e l d idn o t r e q u e s t th a t J u d g e A y c o c k

r e c u s e h e rs e lf. ¶42
. W i l l i am s ass ert s that def ense c ou nsel sho uld hav e m ov ed for J ud ge A yco ck to recuse her s el f , cl ai m i ng thatC ynthi a W i l l i ams had be en i nvol ved i n a l aw sui tag ai ns tJ udge A y c o c k ’s b ro th e r, D a rre l H a rp , Jr., sh o rtly b e fo re W ill iam s’s trial. B e c a u se o f th is
c o n n e c tio n , W ill iam s a rg u e s th a t h is c o u n se l w a s d e fic ien t fo r n o t re q u e stin g a re c u sa l.

### 18

¶43. N othi ng in t he rec or d i ndi cat es thatJ udge A ycock w as even a w ar e of the al l eged l aw s ui tbetw een he rbr otherand the def endant ’ s w i f

e. T he i s s ue w as neverr ai s ed atthe tr i al lev e l, an d th e re c o rd is c o m p lete ly d e v o id o f a n y e v id e n c e w h ich w o u ld su p p o rt th is c laim
o n a p p e a l. F u rth e r, n o th in g in o u r la w w o u ld h a v e re q u ire d J u d g e A y c o c k to re c u se h e rse lf beca us e of

s uch a l aw s ui t , abs ents om e s how i ng of bi as . “W hen a j udge i s notdi s qual i f i ed under§ 165 of

the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on, or[ M i s s . C ode A nn. ] § 9- 1- 11, the pr opr i ety of his or her s i t t i ng i s a quest i on t o b e decided b y the j ud ge and is subj ectto revi ew o nly i n case of m ani f es tabus e of

di s cr et i on. ” R u

ffin v. S ta te , 4 8 1 S o . 2 d 3 1 2 , 3 1 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ). T h ere
w oul d have be en no abus e of di s cr et i on i n J udge A ycock’ s pr es i di ng overthi s cas e, even ha d d e fe n se c o u n se l as k e d h e r to re c u se . It c a n n o t b e sa id th a t d e fe n se c o u n se l w a s d e fic ien t in
n o t m ak ing a re q u est th at co u ld p rop erly h av e b ee n d en ied. F u rth er, a rev iew o f the rec o rd
r evea l s no pr ej udi ce orbi as on J udge A ycock’ s part . O n the contr ary, the r ecor d s how s t hat Ju d g e A y c o c k w a s fa ir a n d im p a rt ia l i n h e r ru lin g s. W ill iam s h a s s h o w n n o p re ju d ice in havi ng J udge A ycock pr es i de overthi s cas e. ¶44. A f

t erthor ough r evi ew of

the tr i al r ecor d, w e f

i nd thatW i l l i ams has f

ai l ed t o s how that hi s tr i al couns el ’ s as s i s t ance w as s uf f i ci ent l y de f

i ci entt o c ons t i tut e pr ej udi ce t o hi s def ens e. T h e re fo re , W ill iam s’s c laim o f in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶45. T he evi dence p res ented at t r i al w as s uf f i ci entt o s uppor tW i l l i ams’ s convi ct i on on both count s . Fur ther , W i l l i ams has nots how n thathi s tr i al couns el w as s uf f i ci ent l y def

i ci ent to su p p o rta find ing o f in e ffe cti v e a ssist an ce u n d er Str i ckland anal ys i s . A l l otheri s s ues

### 19

br oughtw er e pr ocedur al l y barr ed f r om cons i der at i on. T her ef or e, W i l l i ams’ s convi ct i ons as t o C ount s I and I I ar e af f i r m ed. ¶ 4 6
. COUNT I : CO NV I CT I ON OF MANU F AC TU RE OF M ARI J UANA GR EATER THAN 3 0 GRAM S AND S ENTENCE OF F I FTE EN ( 1 5 ) YEARS, W I TH CO ND I T I ON S , I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CORRE CT I ONS , W I TH F I VE ( 5 ) YE ARS ON P OS T R EL EA S E S UP ER VI S I ON, AF F I RM ED . COUNT I I : CONVI CT I ON OF P OS S ES S I ON OF A W EA P ON BY A CONVI CT ED F EL ON AND S EN TE NCE OF T HR E E ( 3 ) YE ARS I N T HE CU S TODY OF THE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M EN T OF CORRE CT I ONS , AF F I RM ED . S EN TE NCE I N COUNT I I S HALL RUN CONC URRE NT LY W I TH S EN TE NCE I M P OS ED I N COUNT I . AP P EL LA NT S HALL P AY A F I NE OF $ 1 5 0 0 . 0 0 , COURT C O ST S IN T H E A M O U N T O F $904. 50 A N D R E ST I T U T I O N O F $100. 00. S M I T H, C. J . , W AL L E R A N D D I A Z , P . J J . , E AS L E Y, CA RL S ON , DI CK I NS ON A N D R A N D O L P H , J J ., C O N C U R . G R A V E S , J ., C O N C U R S I N R E S U L T O N L Y .