I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - KA - 0 1 9 9 6 - CO A LA RRY GE NE S I NGLE TON A / K/A L ARRY S I NG L E T ON A/K/A L AR RY G. S I NG L E T ON AP P EL LA NT

v. S TATE OF M I S S I S S I PP I APP ELLEE D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 21/2013 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . JA M E S M C C L U R E III CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: TAT E COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F S TATE PUB LI C D EFENDER BY : G EO RG E T. H O LM ES BENJ AM I N ALLE N SUBE R ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: OFFI CE O F THE ATTO RN EY G ENER AL BY : M E L ANI E DOT S ON T HOMAS DI S T RI CT AT T ORNE Y: J OHN W
. CH AM P I ON NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY T RI AL CO UR T DI S P OS I T I ON: CO NVI CT E D OF CO UNT S I AND V, GR AT I F I CA T I ON OF L US T , AND S ENT ENCE D TO F I VE YEARS ON EACH CO UNT ; CO UNT S I I , I I I , AND I V, S E XUAL BA TTERY O F A CH I LD U ND ER F OUR T E E N YE AR S OF AGE , AND S E NT E NC E D T O T W E NT Y YE AR S ON E A C H C O U N T ; C O U N T S V I, V II, A N D V III , S E XUAL BA T T E RY OF A C HI L D AT LEAST FOU RTEEN B UT U ND ER SI XTEEN YEA RS OF AG E, AN D SEN TENC ED TO T W E NT Y YE AR S ON E AC H C OUNT ; AND C O U N T S IX , X , X I, X II, X III , X IV , X V , X V I, XV I I , AN D X VI I I , POSS ESS I ON OF CH I LD PORN OG RA PHY , AN D SEN TENC ED TO T E N YE AR S ON E AC H C OUNT , W I T H T HE SENTENC E I M POSED I N C OU NT I X TO RU N C ON SECUTI VELY W I TH SEN TEN CE S I M PO SED IN CO U N TS I T HR OUGH V I I I , AND W I T H T HE SENTENC ES IN A LL OTH ER CO UN TS TO

### Th e name o f the v ictim has b een ch ang ed fo r con fidentiality p urp oses. 1 

### 2 RU N C ONC UR RE NT L Y W I T H ONE ANOT HE R, AL L I N T HE CU S T ODY OF T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF C O R R E C T I O N S, W I T H C R E D I T FO R 353 DA YS SERVED , AN D TO PAY $ 1 , 0 0 0 TO TH E M I SSI SSI PPI CH I LD RE N ’ S TR U ST F UND AN D A $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 F I NE F OR E AC H OF CO UN TS I X TH RO UG H X VI I I , W I TH $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 S US P E NDE D F OR E AC H OF C O U N T S IX T H R O U G H X V III D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D : 11/ 25/ 2014 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 G R I F F I S, P . J. , B A R N E S A N D I SH E E , JJ. GR I FF I S , P. J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . L a rry G e n e S in g leto n w a s c o n v icte do f g ra tifica tio n o f lu st, se x u a l b a ttery o f a c h ild
u n d er fo u rt ee n y ea rs of a g e, sex u al b att ery o f a ch il da t l ea st f o u rt ee n b u t un d er sixtee n y ea rs of age, and pos s es s i on of

c hi l d pornogr aphy underM i s s i s s i ppi Code A nnot at ed s ect i ons 97- 5- 23, 97- 3- 95( 1) ( d) , 97- 3- 95( 1) ( c) , a nd 97- 5- 33( 5) , r es pect i vel y. Si ngl et on ar gues the tr i al
c o u rt e rre dw h e n it: (1 ) d e n ied S in g leto n ’s m o tio n to se v e r ce rta in c o u n ts in th e in d ictm e n t; (2 ) a d m itt e dE x h ib it 5 in to e v id e n c e ; an d(3 ) d e n ied S in g leto n ’s m o tio n to su p p re ss h is
c u s t o d i a l s t a t e me n t . W e f i n dn o e rr o ra n da f

f i rm. F ACTS AND P ROCEDURAL HI S TORY ¶2. Fr om appr oxi m at el y M ar ch 2005 t o O ct ober2012, S i ng l et on engage d i n a s exual
r el a t i on s hi p w i th D a ni e l Doe, ac hi l d w ho l i ve d ne xtd oo rt o Si ng l e t on . D a ni e l f i r s tw ent 1

### 3

t o Si ngl et on’ s hous e t o pl ay w i th Si ngl et on’ s gr ands on a nd t o do odd c hor es . W hen D ani el turned el even, how ever , the natur e of the r el at i ons hi p change d. ¶3. I ni t i al l y, Si ngl et on s how ed D ani el hi s geni t al i a and a s ked t o s ee D ani el ’ s . Si ngl et on t ol d D ani el “thati tw as norm al f orguys t o pra ct i ce f

orw hen a gi r l comes a r ound” and be gan “s tr oki ng [ D ani el ] and s tuf f l i ke that
. ” The physi calcont actes cal at ed w hen Si ngl et on s t art ed perf orm i ng oral and anal s ex w i th D aniel
. C on t em po raneou sl y t o som e of these earl i er act s, S in g leto n to o kp ictu re s o f a n u d e , p re p u b e sc e n t D a n iel. ¶4. A s D ani el gotol der , Si ngl et on br i bed hi m w i th al cohol , ci gar ett es , and pornogr aphy in ex ch an g e fo r sex , w ith the fina l enc o u n ter oc cu rri n g in O ctob er 2 0 1 2 . S h o rt ly the rea ft er, D ani el cont act ed the pol i ce r egar di ng the ac t s perpetr at ed by Si ngl et on. ¶5. O n N ovember28, 2012, i nves t i gat or s w i th the Tat e C ounty Sher i f f’ s D epartm ent
a rra n g e dfo r a stin g o p e ra tio n . D a n iel c a lled S in g leto n to talk ab o u t th e se x u a l ab u se w h ile i nves t i gat or s l i s t ened t o and r ecor ded the t el ephone c onver s at i on. ¶6. D ur i ng the phone c onver s at i on, Si ngl et on conf i rm ed s om e of

the abus e, gave D ani el advi ce abouts ex, and comm ent ed on the changes i n D ani el ’ s body f r om w hen he w as a chi l d. Si ngl et on al s o admi tt ed he e r as ed al l of the pi ctur es he t ook of

D ani el year s ear l i er . A tthe end of the conve r s at i on, Si ngl et on as ked i f D ani el r ecor ded the conver s at i on a nd a s ked t o s ee hi m agai n s oon. ¶ 7 . B a se do n D a n iel’s sta tem e n t an dth e re c o rd e dp h o n e c o n v e rsa tio n , the T a te C o u n ty Sher i f f’ s D epartm entexec ut ed s ear ch and arr es tw arr ant s f orSi ngl et on on D ece m ber3, 2012. S i ngl et on w as arr es t ed, and l aw enf or cements ei zed aper s onal comput erand

### 4

pornogr aphi c pi ctur es f r om hi s hom e. ¶8. A tthe ti m e of hi s arres t , S i ng l et on t old the o ff i cers he n eeded his m edicat i on becau se h e su ffered from h igh b loo dp ressu re, a h ea rtco n d it ion , an dch ron ic ob stru cti v e p u lm o n ary di s eas e ( C O PD )
. Si ngl et on w as al l ow ed t o bri ng hi s m edi cat i on w i th hi m and, once atthe jail, a n u rse e v a lu a ted S in g leto n . T h e n u rse n o ted S in g leto n ’s n o n c o m p lian c e w ith c e rta in
m edicat i on s, bu tdid not observe any otherm edical abn orm al i t i es. ¶ 9 . In v e stig a to rs B illE lli s a n dS teph an ie H u d d lest o n interrog atedS ing let o n foll o w in g h is
m edi calevaluat i on. Si ngl et on r emai ned t al kat i ve and r el axed dur i ng the ques t i oni ng. A tno poi ntdi d Si ngl et on i ndi cat e he f el ti l l , as k f

orthe i nt err ogat i on t o s t op, ors t at e thathe
w a n ted a n a tto rn e y p re se n t. ¶10. Si ngl et on cont i nued t o deny al l al l egat i ons agai ns thi m unt i l the i nves t i gat or s pl ayed the r ecor ded phone c onver s at i on betw een Si ngl et on and D ani el
. A f t erhear i ng the r ecor di ng, Si ngl et on conf

i rm ed the phone numberD ani elcal l ed w as hi s and the man on the r ecor di ng s o u n d e ds i mi l a rt o h i m. S i n g l e t o n e v e n tu a l l y a d mi tt e dth e a l l e g a t i o n s ma d e a g a i n s th i m. ¶11. P ri or t o h i s tr i al , Si ngl et on f i l ed a m ot i on t o s uppr es s hi s c us t odi al s t at ementa nd a
m o tio n to se v e r c e rta in c o u n ts in the in d ictm e n t. O n O c to b e r 3 1 , 2 0 1 3 , the trial c o u rt h e ld evident i ary heari ng s and u l t i m at el y d enied bo th m oti on s. ¶12. Si ngl et on w as tr i ed on N ovember18 and 19, 2013. T he j ury r eturned a ve r di ctof g u ilty o n a ll eig h tee n c o u n ts. O n N o v e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 1 3 , th e tria l c o u rt s e n ten c e dS in g leto n to
s erve thi rty year s i n cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm entof C orr ect i ons and de ni ed Si ngl et on’ s m ot i on f

ora j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ct( JN O V ) or , i n the al t ernat i ve,

### 5

a new tri al
. S i ng l et on no w app eal s. A N A L Y S IS 1. W hetherthe tr i alcour terr ed i n denyi ng Si ngleton’s m ot i on to s eve rthe charges f

orpos s es s i on of

chi ld pornogr aphy f

r om the char

ges f or sexual battery andgrati f i cati on of lust . ¶ 1 3 . S in g leto n a rg u e s th a t th e tri a l co u rt err e din th e d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to se v e r c e rta in count s i n the i ndi ctm ent . Speci f i cal l y, S i ngl et on cont ends thatthe char ges forposs es s i on of chi l d pornogr aphy s houl d have be en seve r ed f r om the char ges f

ors exualbatt ery and gr at i f i cat i on of

l us t . H e ar gues thati tw as err ort o c oncl ude thatthe t i m e per i od betw een the act s w as i ns i gni f

i cantbecause the S t at e coul d notpr ove the exa ctt i m e w hen the pi ctur es
w er e t aken. D ue t o this uncert ai nty, Si ngl et on as s ert s the phot ogr aphs coul d nei thers erve as evi dence i n the non- pornogr aphi c count s , norcoul d all the count s be cons i der ed as i nt ertw i ned. ¶14. T hi s C ourtr evi ew s a tr i al court ' s deni al of a m ot i on t o seve ra m ul t i
- counti ndi ctm ent fo r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . H a rp e r v . Sta te , 102 So. 3d 1154, 1158 (¶ 9) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2011) ( ci t i ng R u sh in gv . Sta te , 911 So. 2d 526, 532 ( ¶12) ( M i s s . 2 00 5))
. T he r el evants t atut e f or a m ult i -count i nd i ctm ent s t at es: T w o (2) or m or e of

f ens es w hi ch ar e tr i abl e i n the s ame courtm ay be c har ged i n the s ame i ndi ctm entw i th a separ at e countf oreac h of

f ens e i f: ( a) the of f ens es a r e bas ed on the s ame ac tortr ans act i on; or( b) the of f ens es ar e bas ed o n tw o (2 ) o r m o re a c ts o r tra n sa c tio n s c o n n e c ted to g e th e r o r c o n stitu tin g p a rts of a comm on s cheme orpl an. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -7-2 (1) (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶ 1 5 . “ W h e n a mo t i o n t o s e v e ri s ma d e , th e S t a t e b e a r s [ th e ] b u r d e n o f ma k i n g o u ta p r i ma

### 6

f aci e ca s e show i ng the of f ens es char ged ar e w i thi n the l anguage of the s t atut e. ” H

ar per , 102 So. 3d at1158 ( ¶9) ( ci t i ng C o rle y v . Sta te , 5 8 4 S o . 2 d7 6 9 , 7 7 2 (M iss
. 1 9 9 1 )). “ If th e S tate
m eet s i t s i ni t i al bu rden, the def endantm ay ther eaf

t err ebutthe St at e' s cas e by s how i ng the

‘ of f ens es w er e s epar at e and di s t i nctact s ortr ans act i ons . ’ ” R us hi ng , 911 So. 2d at533 ( ¶14) ( quot i ng C or ley , 5 8 4 S o . 2 dat 77 2 ). ¶16. T o compl y w i th the s t atut e, the tr i al courtm us tconducta heari ng t o det erm i ne
w h e th e r o r n o t to se v e r th e c o u n ts . G o lde n v . Sta te , 9 6 8 S o . 2 d3 7 8 , 3 8 2 (¶ 1 2 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). If the tr i al cou rtho l ds such a heari ng , this C ou rtgi ves defer ence t o the tri al cou rt ’s fi nd i ng s,
u n le s s a n ab u s e o f d is c re tio n o c c u rr e d
. B ro de ric k v. S ta te , 8 78 S o. 2d 10 3, 10 5 (¶6) ( M i ss. C t . A pp. 2003) ( ci t i ng O tt v. S ta te , 7 2 2 S o . 2 d5 7 6 , 5 7 9 (¶1 5 ) (M iss. 1 9 9 8 )). ¶17. T he M i s s i ssi pp i Supr eme C ourtout l i ned thr ee c r i t er i a a tr i al courtm us tcons i der dur i ng a hear i ng on a mot i on t o s ever : “( 1) w hetherthe t i m e per i od betw een the occ urr ence s i s i ns i gni f

i cant ; ( 2) w hetherthe evi dence pr ovi ng eac h c ountw oul d be admi s s i bl e t o pr ove eac h of the otherc ount s ; [ and] ( 3)
. . . w hetherthe cr i m es ar e i nt erw oven. ” S trib lin gv . Sta te , 81 So. 3d 1155, 1162 ( ¶29) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2011) ( ci t i ng R us hi ng , 9 1 1 S o . 2 dat 53 3 (¶1 4 )). ¶ 1 8 . A t h is h e a rin g , S in g leto n so u g h t to s e v e r th e p o ss e ss io n -o f-c h ild -p o rn o g rap h y c o u n ts f r om the s exual
- batt ery an d gr at i f i cat i on- of

- l us tcount s . Si ngl et on cont ended thatthe ph o tog rap hs al l eged l y d epict i ng chil d p ornog raphy lacked d at e and t i m e st am ps. T hu s, Si ngl et on ar gued, the S t at e coul d notpr ove Si ngl et on t ook the phot ogr aphs cont empora neous l y t o the al l eged oc curr ence s of abus e. ¶19. T he tr i al courtevaluat ed the evi dence pr of f er ed atthe hear i ng underthe C or ley

### 7

s t andar ds and s t at ed: [T ]he C o u rt s h o u ldc o n sid e r w h e th e r th e tim e p e rio db e tw e e n o c c u rre n c e s is i ns i gni f i cant , w hi ch the C ourtf i nds i ti s i n thi s m att er . W hetherevi dence proved i n each cou nt w ou l d b e adm i ssible t o p rove each of the o ther cou nts ,

. . . and then thr ee [ s i c] w hetherthe cr i m es ar e i nt erw oven. T he C ourtf i nds th ey ’re interw o v en [; ] this i s a m o ti o n to se v er fo r a se p ara te tri al on th is i s s ue[ ; ] the C ourtf

i nds thatthes e ar e al l eged p i ctures of the vi ct i m , of

the all eg ed v ict im , an dthere fore I’m g o ing to d en y the m o ti o n to se v er. T hus , the tr i al courtf

ound the phot ogr aphs and al l egat i ons of abus e metthe t es tf

ora pr oper
m ul t i
- counti ndi ctm ents etf orth i n C or ley . ¶20. T he count s i n the i ndi ctm entspanne d a per i od f r om ar ound M ar ch 2005 t o D ece m ber 2012, appr oxi m at el y seven year s . T hr ough t es t i m ony by D ani el and the i nves t i gat or s , the St at e pr of

f er ed a l i kel y t i m e per i od f orthe phot ogr aphs of

onl y one t o tw o ye ar s , begi nni ng f r om 2005 unt i l about2007, al though the exa ctt i m e per i od r emai ned unknow n. ¶21. I n s ever al c as es , the M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C ourthas uphel d tr i al courtdeci s i ons that f ound s ever al m onths oreven ye ar s t o be i ns i gni f i cantper i ods of

t i m e t o compel the
s e v e ra n c e o f m u lti- c o u n t in d ic tm e n ts . E a sle y v . Sta te , 46 So. 3d 345, 347 ( ¶12) ( M i s s . 2011) ( no r ever s i bl e err orw hen the tr i al courtdi d nots ever four count s i nvol vi ng thr ee di f f er ent
v ictim s o v e r th e c o u rse o f fo u r y e a rs) ; R us hi ng , 911 So. 2d a t536 ( ¶17) ( f i ve months dur i ng
w h ich th re e c o u n ts o c c u rre dw a s a n in sig n ific a n t am o u n t o f tim e ); E a ke s v . Sta te , 665 So. 2d 852, 861- 62 ( M i s s . 1995) ( s i m i l aract s w i th the s ame vi ct i m overa f i ve- m onth per i od an in sig n ifica n t am o u n t o f tim e ); A llm a n v . Sta te , 5 7 1 S o . 2 d2 4 4 , 2 4 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ) (s im ilar a c ts ag ains t th e sa m e v ict im o v er n ine m o n ths p art of a c o m m o n sch em e). ¶22. H er e, the tr i al courtdet erm i ned thats i m i l aract s w i th the s ame vi ct i m overs ever al

### 8

year s est abl i s hed a com m on sche m e orpl an. In B r oder i ck , th is C o u rtaffirm ed a tri al co u rt ’s f i nd i ng tha ts i mi l a ra c t s w i th tw o v i c t i ms o ve ra tw o- ye a rpe r i odc ompr i s e d ac omm on s c h e m e . B roder i ck , 87 8 S o . 2d at 1 0 5 (¶¶7 -8). W h il e a p eriod of up t o sev en ye a rs is
cons i der abl y l ongerthan the occ urr ence s i n othercas es , the t i m e per i od r emai ns i ns i gni f i cant unl es s the tr i al courtcomm i tt ed an abus e of di s cr et i on. ¶2 3 . T o iden ti fy a n a b u se o f discre ti o n , this C o u rt“firstd eterm ines w h ethe r th e tri al co u rt

‘ appl i ed the corr ectl egals t andar d. ’ ” G r eaterCant on Ford Mer cur y, I nc. v. Lane , 997 So. 2d 198, 202 (¶ 12) ( M i s s . 2008) ( quot i ng B u rke tt v. B u rke tt , 53 7 S o. 2d 44 3, 44 6 (M i ss. 1 9 8 9 )). T h is C o u rt th e n m u st d e c id e if th e trial c o u rt’s h o ld in g w a s o n e o f th e p o ss ib le
re a s o n ab le d e c is io n s th e c o u rtc o u ld h a v e re a c h e d
. I d. ¶2 4 . In d en y ing S ing let o n ’s m o ti o n to sev er, the tri al co u rtu sed the p rop er leg al st an d ard to re a c h a re a so n ab le c o n c lu sio n . T h e tri a l co u rt co n sid e re dthe fa c to rs o f sim ilar c o n d u c t, the s ame vi ct i m , a nd the t i m e per i od t o f i nd thata l l of

Si ngl et on’ s a ct s c ons t i tut ed a c om m on sch em e o r plan
. T h e tri al co u rt , there fore , d id no t abu se it s d iscreti o n in d en y ing S ing let o n ’s
m o tio n to se v e r. T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. 2
. W h e th e r th e tria l co u rt e rr e d in th e a dm iss io n o

f E x h ib it 5 . ¶25. N ext , Si ngl et on co nt ends the tr i al courti m pr oper l y admi tt ed Exhi bi t5 as char act er evi dence underM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 404( b)
. Further , Si ngl et on ar gues the pr ej udi ci al natur e of

the exhibi toutw ei ghed i t s pr obat i ve value underM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vidence 4 03 . W e fi nd that Si ng l et on fai l ed to properl y p res erve this is sue forapp eal
. T hu s, thi s C ourti s pr ocedur al l y barr ed f r om r evi ew i ng the i s s ue.

### 9

¶ 2 6 . T o p re se rv e a n iss u e fo r ap p e lla te r e v iew , “a tim e ly o b jec tio n sta tin g th e sp e c ific gr ound of

obj ect i on i s r equi r ed under[ M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence ] 103(a ) i f

err ori s t o be pr edi cat ed upon a rul i ng w hi ch adm i t s evi dence
. ” D u p u is v . Sta te , 872 So. 2d 724, 728 ( ¶17) (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). “I t h a s b e e n h e ldc o n sis te n tly th a t th e fa ilu re to
m a k e a c o n tem p o ra n e o u s o b jec tio n a t t ria l co n stitu tes a w a iv e r o f a n y e rro r su b se q u e n tly
as s i gned [ on appea l ]
. ” Mo a w a d v . Sta te , 5 31 So
. 2 d 63 2, 6 34 ( M i s s . 1 98 8) ( ci t at i ons o m itted). ¶ 2 7 . A t trial, S in g leto n fa iled to o b jec t to th e a d m iss io n o f E x h ib it 5 . W h e n th e S tate intr o d u ce dE x h ibit5 for a d m issi o n in to e v iden ce , S ing let o n ’s co u n sel an dthe tri al co u rt exchanged the f

ol l ow i ng: C O U R T : A n y o b jecti o n , M r. W alke r? D E FE N SE C O U N SE L : J udge, I don’ t obj ect as t o w hatthey demonstr at e, butI cannotconce de thatM r . Si ngl et on t ook the pictures. C O U R T : So w hat ’ s the bas i s of yourobj ect i on? D E F E N S E C O U N S E L : J udge, you kn ow, I c a n’ t a r gu e t hat t hey acc urat el y and trul y depi ctw hat ’ s s how n i n the p ictu re s, so I d o n ’t h a v e a b a sis to o b jec t o n th a t. So I guess i n s um m ary I do nothave an obj ecti on . (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶28. Further , w hen the St at e s oughtt o a dm i tthe exhi bi ti nt o evi dence , the tr i al courtas ked if S in g leto n o b

jec ted . S in g leto n ’s c o u n se l re p lied , “N o , sir , Y o u r H o n o r,” a n dth e e x h ib it
w as ent er ed i nt o evi dence w i thoutobj ect i on. Si ngl et on nei thero bject ed attr i al norr ai s ed

### 10

the i s s ue pr i ort o thi s appea l
. T her ef or e, Si ngl et on f

ai l ed t o pr oper l y pr es erve thi s i s s ue f or appea l
. T hi s i s s ue i s w i thoutm er i t , as i ti s pr ocedur al l y barr ed. 3. W hether the tr i al courterred i n denying S i ng leton ’s m oti on to sup press h is c u sto d ia l sta tem e n t. ¶ 2 9 . S in g leto n a rg u e s th a t itw a s e rro r fo r th e trial c o u rt to d e n y h is m o tio n to su p p re ss h is
cus t odi al s t at ement . Si ngl et on chal l enges the val i di ty of hi s conf es s i on d ue t o hi s al t er ed
m e n tal s tate fro m h is la c ko f m e d ica tio n a n dc e rta in re lig io u s re fe re n c e s m a d e d u rin g h is interrog ati o n , b o th o f w h ich h e a rgu es im p ed ed h is ab il ity to g ive a n ac cu rate an dv o lun tary sta tem e n t. ¶30. “D et erm i ni ng w hethera conf es s i on i s admi s s i bl e i s a f i ndi ng of factw hi ch i s not d istu rbe du n less the tri al co u rtap p li ed a n inc o rrect leg al stan d ard , c o m m itted m an if est erro r, orthe deci s i on w as contr ary t o the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence
. ” T h o rs o n v . Sta te , 895 So. 2d 85, 115 (¶73) ( M i s s . 2004) ( quot i ng L e e v . Sta te , 63 1 S o. 2d 82 4, 82 6 (M i ss. 1 9 9 4 )). ¶ 3 1 . “ T h is C o u rt h a s h e ldth a t ‘[w ]he n a c rim in a l d e fe n d a n t o b jec ts to th e a d m iss io n o f h is conf es s i on, ar gui ng i tw as i nvol unt ary, the tr i al courtm us tconducta heari ng out s i de the pr es ence of

the j ury. A tthe hear i ng, the bur den i s on the St at e t o pr ove vol unt ar i nes s beyond
a r eas onabl e doubt
. ’ ” Klec kn e r v . Sta te , 109 So. 3d 1072, 1081 ( ¶18) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2012) ( quot i ng P in k

sto n v . Sta te , 5 0 S o . 3 d1 0 2 7 , 1 0 2 9 (¶8 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 1 0 )). ¶32. W hen a tr i al courti nqui r es i nt o the vol unt ar i nes s of a con f es s i on, the tr i al court , as the fact
- f

i nder , m us t“as cert ai n, underthe t ot al i ty of the ci r cumst ance s and beyond a

### 11

r eas onabl e doubt , thatthe def endant ’ s st at ementw as fr eel y and vol unt ar i l y gi ven . . . . ” Ch im
v . Sta te , 972 So. 2d 601, 603 ( ¶9) ( M i s s . 2008) ( quot i ng B a ldw in v . Sta te , 757 So. 2d 227, 2 3 4 -35 (¶8 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 0 )). ¶33. I n evaluat i ng the t ot al i ty of the ci r cumst ance s , the tr i al courts houl d cons i der“the def endant ' s e xper i ence a nd f ami l i ar i ty w i th the cr i m i nal j us t i ce s ys t em, i nt el l ectual capa ci ty, educa t i onal ba ckgr ound, de gr ee of l i t er acy, e m ot i onal s t at e and any ment al di s eas e orother def ect . ” B ro w n v . Sta te , 839 So. 2d 597, 600 ( ¶10) ( M i s s . Ct
. A pp. 2003) ( ci t i ng H ol land v. S ta te , 5 8 7 S o . 2 d8 4 8 , 8 6 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 )). ¶34. Fora val i d conf es s i on, the tr i al courtm us tdet erm i ne i f the def endan tvol unt ar i l y, kn ow i ngl y, and i nt el l i gent l y w ai ved hi s r i ght s t o couns el and aga i ns ts el f
- i ncr i m i nat i on. Ch im , 972 S o. 2 d at603 ( ¶7) ( ci t i ng Mi r anda v. A r iz ona , 384 U . S. 436, 471 ( 1966) (m a n d a tin g th a t th e c u sto d ian re a dth e a c c u se dh is o r h e r r ig h t to re m a in sile n t an drig h t to
co u n sel p ri o r t o an interrog ati o n )). ¶35 . A vo l un t ary w aive r of on e’s Mi r anda rig h ts is o n e m a d e w ith “ fre e a n dd e lib e ra te choi ce r atherthan i nt i m i dat i on, coer ci on, ordece pt i on. ” I d. at( ¶8) ( quot i ng C over s on v. S ta te , 6 1 7 S o . 2 d6 4 2 , 6 4 7 (M iss . 1 9 9 3 )). F u rth e r, a w a iv e r is in tellig e n tly a n dk n o w in g ly
m ade i f the def endanthas a “f

ul l aw ar enes s both of

the natur e of

the r i ghtbei ng abandone d and the cons equenc es of the dec i s i on t o abandon i t . ” I d. (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶36 . Invest i gatorH ud dles t on t est i fi ed that S i ng l et on w as r ead h i s Mi r anda r i ght s and w as af f or de d the op po rtun i ty t o r e a d a nds i gn a w a i ve rof hi s r i gh t s . I nv e s t i ga t orH uddl es t on further t est i fi ed thatS i ng l et on app eared t o u nd ers t and hi s ri gh t s, did not as k an y q uest i on s,

### 12

and vol unt ar i l y si gned the w ai ver . Si ngl et on, how ever , t es t i f i ed he di d notr emem bers i gni ng a w ai ver, even tho ug h h e con ceded the si gn ature on the w ai ver w as hi s. ¶37. R egar dl es s , Si ngl et on cont ended thathe di d notvol unt ar i l y gi ve a s el f
- i ncr i m i nat i ng s t at ement . A tthe hear i ng on hi s m ot i on t o suppr es s and attr i al , Si ngl et on as s ert ed tw o bas es f orthe al l eged i nvol unt ar i nes s of hi s s t at ement : ( 1) the us e of the phr as e “c om e t o J es us ” by
one of the i nves t i gat or s expl oi t ed hi s r el i gi ous bel i ef s and i nt i m i dat ed hi m i nt o conf es s i ng, and ( 2) the d epri vati on of m edicat i on forhis high blood press ure, C O P D , and heartdis ease pl ace d hi m i n a conf

us ed and " f

oggy st at e" duri ng the port i on of the i nt err ogat i on w hen he conf es s ed. A
. R el igi ous R ef er ence ¶38. Si ngl et on ass ert s thathi s conf es s i on re s ul t ed f

r om pre s s ur e and i nt i m i dat i on f r om the i nves t i gat or s . Si ngl et on t es t i f i ed thatI nves t i gat or s E l l i s and H uddl es t on “pl ay[ ed] good cop
an dba dco p , ” w h ich led t o a feeli n g of i n ti m idation
. S ing let o n prim aril y co n tend s, h o w ev er, I nves t i gat orE l l i s coer ced Si ngl et on i nt o conf es s i ng w hen he made the r emark thati tw as tim e fo r S in g le to n to “ c o m e to J e s u s .” ¶ 3 9 . S in g leto n , a p re a c h e r fo r a p p ro x im a tely fifty -fo u r y e a rs, a rg u e s th a t In v e stig a to r E lli s t ook advant age of hi s r el i gi ous bel i ef s by us i ng J es us t o el i ci ta conf es s i on. T he U ni t ed St at e s Sup r e me Courtha s he l d “ c oe r c i ve po l i c e a c t i vi ty i s a ne c e s s a ry p r e di c a t e t o the f i ndi ng thata conf

es s i on i s not‘ vol unt ary’ w i thi n the m eani ng of the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the Fourt eenth A m endment
. ” C o lo ra do v . C o n n e lly , 4 7 9 U . S
. 1 5 7 , 1 6 7 (19 8 6 ). ¶40. T he C o n n e llyC o u rtfurthe r he ld “th e F if th A m en d m en t pri v il eg e [ag ains t sel f-

### 13

i ncri m i nati on ] i s not concerned ‘w i th m oral and psych ologi cal press ures t o co nfess emanat i ng f

r om s our ces otherthan of f i ci al coer ci on. ’ ” I

d. at170 (quot i ng O r egon v. E l s tad , 470 U . S
. 298, 305 ( 1985) )
. I n f act , the Supr eme C ourthas f ound thatthe us e of

r el i gi ous re fe re n c e s d o e s n o t a u to m a tic a lly r e n d e r a c o n fe s s io n in v o lu n ta ry . B er ghuis v . Thom

pki ns , 560 U . S. 370, 386 ( 2010) ( r el i gi ous l i ne of ques t i oni ng dur i ng i nt err ogat i on di d notamount to co erc ion an dd id n o t r en d er c o n fession inv o lun tary). ¶41 . In this i nst ance, I nv est i gatorE l l i s t old Singl et on that i tw as “t i m e t o co m e t o Jesus”
a fte r th e in v e stig a to rs p lay e dth e ta p e -re c o rd e dc o n v e rsa tio n b e tw e e n S in g leto n a n dD a n iel,
a n dS in g leto n co n tin u e dto d e n y h is in v o lv e m e n t w ith D a n iel. In v e stig a to r E lli s te stifie dh is
us e of the phr as e w as m er el y t o getSi ngl et on t o t el l the truth i n l i ghtof the i ncr i m i nat i ng evi dence
. ¶42. T he M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C ourthel d that“[ a] m er e exhort at i on t o t el l the truth i s not an i m pr operi nducementthatw i l l r es ul ti n an i nadmi s s i bl e conf es s i on. ” H

a rde n v . Sta te , 59 So. 3d 594, 605 ( ¶26) ( M i s s . 2011) ( ci t i ng R u ffi n v . Sta te , 9 92 S o. 2 d 11 65 , 1 17 2 (¶20) ( M i ss. 2008) )
. W hi l e Si ngl et on st at ed he f ound the r emark off

ens i ve, Inve s t i gat orE l l i s t es t i f i ed he di d notus e any thr eat eni ng ori nt i m i dat i ng l anguage ort one thatw oul d cons t i tut e coe r ci on. T his i nd ucem ent t o t el l the truth w i tho ut m ore do es no tri se t o the l evel of coerci on . T hu s, the r el i gi ous r ef

er ence di d notr enderSi ngl et on’ s s t at ementi nvol unt ary. B
. S in g leto n ’s U

n m e d ica tedS ta te ¶43. Si ngl et on f

urthercont ends he l acke d the pr operm ent al s t at e to c onf es s due t o a def i ci ency i n hi s m edi cat i on. S i ngl et on t es t i f i ed that , atthe t i m e of

hi s i nt err ogat i on, he t ook

### 14

app roxi m at el y h al f of

his m edicat i on becau se he co uld not af for d the other m edicat i on s. S in g leto n tes tified h e ra n o u t o f th e m e d ica tio n n e a rly ten d a y s p rio r to h is a rre st. N everthel es s , Si ngl et on m ai nt ai ns hi s unm edi cat ed st at e af f ect ed hi m dur i ng hi s conf es s i on. ¶4 4 . C o u rt s h av e h eld th at th e m en tal co n d it ion o f th e d efe n d an t do es n o t pe r se ren d er a conf es s i on i nvol unt ary, butm ent al s t at e mustbe cons i dered w i thi n the t ot al i ty of the
c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Kirc h e r v . Sta te , 753 So
. 2 d 1017, 1026 ( ¶37) ( M i s s . 1999) ( af f i rm i ng the tr i al court ’ s f

i ndi ng thata def

endant ’ s conf

es s i on w hi l e i n the h ospi t al and medi cat ed w as vol unt ary)
. Further , “ [ i ] nt oxi cat i on ors i cknes s does notaut om at i cal l y r endera conf es s i on i nvol unt ary. T he admi s s i bi l i ty of a conf es s i on depends on the degr ee of i nt oxi cat i on. ” I

d. ( quot i ng J

o h n so n v . Sta te , 5 1 1 S o . 2 d1 3 6 0 , 1 3 6 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 )). ¶45. A tthe hear i ng, the i nves t i gat or s t es t i f i ed t o Si ngl et on' s educa t i onal backgr oun d, lit e ra c y lev e l, e m o tio n a l/m e n ta l s ta te , a n dc ri m in a l h isto ry , w h ich sh o w e dh is fa m ili a rityw ith the just i ce syst em . S i ng l et on recei ved a bach el or' s degree fr om a un i versi ty, w orked a s a t est gr aderata s chool pr i ort o hi s arr es t , appear ed r el axed and notemot i onal l y s tr ai ned, and had
a p re v io u s u n re late da rre st. ¶46. I nves t i gat or s H uddl es t on and El l i s both t es t i f i ed thatSi ngl et on di d notappear conf us ed ori n any al t er ed m ent al st at e dur i ng the ent i r ety of the i nt err ogat i on. B oth s t at ed Si ngl et on gave de t ai l ed des cr i pt i ons of cert ai n geogr aphi c ar eas and f r eel y s poke dur i ng the
m a jo rity o f th e in terro g a tio n . A t n o ti m e d idS in g leto n a sk th e in terro g a tio n to sto p d u e to i l l nes s oras k f

orm edi calas s i s t ance . ¶47. Si ngl et on f

ai l s t o dem onstr at e how hi s l ack of m edi cat i on l ed t o an i nt oxi cat ed or

### 15

sic k e n e dsta te th a t a d v e rse ly a ffe c ted th e v o lu n tar in e ss o f h is c o n fe ss io n . S in g leto n m e re ly cl ai m s the unmedi cat ed s t at e compromi s ed the vol unt ar i nes s of hi s conf es s i on, even though
o th e r p o rtio n s o f th e in terro g a tio n o c c u rre dw ith o u t in c id e n t. A fte r c o n sid e rin g th e to tality of the ci r cumst ances, the tr i al courtf ound the St at e meti t s bur den i n pr ovi ng Si ngl et on
v a l i d l y wa i v e dh i s r i g h t s a n dv o l u n t a r i l y c o n f e s s e dt o th e c r i mi n a l a l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s th i m. ¶48. T he tr i al court ’ s de ci s i on s t ands i n the abs ence of the appl i cat i on of

a n i ncorr ectl egal
s t andar d, m ani f

es terr or , ora dec i s i on contr ary t o the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence
. T h e trial d idn o t co m m it an y o f th e se e rro rs. T h e re fo re , this iss u e h a s n o m e rit. ¶ 4 9 . T HE J U D GME N T O F T HE T A T E C OU N T Y C I R C U I T C OU R T OF CONVI CT I ON OF COUNT S I AND V, GRAT I F I CAT I ON OF LUS T, AND S EN T E NC E OF F I VE Y E AR S ON E AC H C OU NT ; C OU NT S I I , I I I , AN D I V, S EX UAL BA TT ER Y OF A CH I LD UNDE R F OURT EE N YE ARS OF AGE, AND S E N T E N C E O F T W E N T Y Y E A R S O N E A C H C O U N T ; C O U N T S V I, V II, A N D V III , S EXUAL BATTERY OF A CH I LD A T LEAS T FOUR TEEN BUT U NDER SI XTEEN YE ARS OF AGE, AND S EN TE NCE OF TW EN TY YE ARS ON EA CH COUNT ; AND COUN T S I X, X, XI , XI I , XI I I , XI V, XV , XV I , XV I I , AN D X VI I I , P OS S E S S I ON OF CH I LD PORNO GR APHY, AND S ENTENCE OF TEN YEARS ON EAC H C OU NT, W I TH TH E S ENTENCE I M POS ED I N CO UN T I X TO R UN C ON S ECUTI VELY W I T H S E NT E NC E S I M P OS E D I N CO UN T S I T HR OU GH V I I I , AN D WI T H T HE S EN TE NCE S I N AL L OTHE R C OUNT S T O RUN CONC URRE NT LY W I TH ONE ANOT HER , AL L 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 CO RR E CT I ON S , W I TH CR E DI T F OR 3 5 3 DA YS S E RV E D, AN D P AY M E NT OF $ 1 , 0 0 0 TO THE M I S S I S S I P P I CHI LD RE N' S TR US T F UND AN D A $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 F I NE F OR E AC H OF CO UN T S I X T HR OU GH X VI I I , W I T H $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 S US P E ND E D F OR E A C H O F C O U N T S IX T H R O U G H X V III , IS A F F IR M E D . A L L C O S T S O F T H IS AP P EA L A RE AS S ES S ED TO T AT E C OUNT Y. LE E, C. J . , I RVI NG, P . J . , BA RNES , I S HEE , ROBE RT S , CARL TON, M AXW EL L, F AI R AND J AM ES , J J . , CONCUR.