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 5 - CT - 0 0 1 0 8 - S CT K EN N E T H B R O WN 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 : 12/ 10/ 2004 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . BET TY W . S AND ERS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W ASHI NGTON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT : P HI L L I P BR OADHE AD 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 : DE I RD RE M c CR OR Y DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : J OY CE I . CH I LES NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S RE VE RS E D. T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CI RC UI T CO UR T OF W ASH I NG TON CO UN TY I S REVERSED A N D R E M A N D E D - 06/ 26/ 2008 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 . DI CK I NSON, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s i s a convi ct i on f oraggr avat ed as s aul tand s hoot i ng i nt o a dw el l i ng hous e. D ur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent , the pr os ecut orr epea t edl y s ugges t ed t o the j ury thati ts houl d r etur n a v e r d i c to f

g u i l ty f o rr e a s o n s o th e rth a n th a tth e d e f e n d a n ti n th i s c a s e wa s a c tu a l l y g u i l ty . On one s uch occa s i on, a f

t erde f ens e couns el ’ s obj ect i on w as s us t ai ned, the pr os ecutorargued w i th the t r i al j udge, fa l s el y re pr es ent i ng t o hert hatevery deci s i on fr om thi s C our tal l ow ed hi m t o m ake “ s end- a- m es s age” ar gum ent s t o the j ury.“The Supreme Court’s review on the gr ant of c e rti o ra rishall b e co nd uc ted on therec ord 1 and briefs previ ously filed inthe Co urt of Appeals, and on any supplemental bri efs filed. The Su pre m e C ourt maylimit the questi on on review.” Mis s. R. App. P. 17(h) (emphasis added) . Se e als o Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. of M iss. v. Hawkins , 78 1 So . 2d899 , 90 0- 01 (M is s 2 00 1) (S up re me Co urt not li mite d to re view of

issu es rais ed

on appe al) ; McD an iel

v . R itt er , 556 So. 2d 303, 306-07 (Mi ss. 19 89 ) (“ Our appe llate j uri sdiction e xtend s to c ase s an d n ot j us t is su es. . . . M ore ov er, on ce a ca se b eco m es s ub

jec t to our appe llate j uri sdiction , w e h av e aut ho rity to addre ss al l m att ers as may appe ar in th e interest s o f j us tic e an d e co no my. . . .” ). 

### 2 ¶2. T he j ury r eturned a gui l ty ver di ct , and the def endantappeal ed. W e r ef err ed the mat t er t o the C our tof

A ppeal s , w hi ch af

f i r m ed the convi ct i on butor der ed the pr os ecut ort o pay t he c o s ts o f a p p e a l. B ro w n v. S ta te , 2006 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 924 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. D ec. 12, 20 06 ). T he S t at e fi led a p eti ti on forw ri tof cer t i orar i t o revi ew the C ou rtof A pp eal s’ deci s i on t o ass es s t he cos t s of the appe al t o the pr os ecut or . W e gr ant ed the St at e’ s pet i t i on and, pur s uantt o ourau t ho ri t y t o re vi ew al l i s s ues r ai s ed i n the C our tof A ppeal s , w e now

1
rev erse the c o n v ict ion an d the a sses sm en t of co sts ag ains t th e p rose cu tor.

B AC KGR OU ND F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S ¶ 3 . W e b o rro w a n d re sta te h e re th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls’ e x c e llen t sta tem e n t o f th e fa c ts in thi s cas e: O n M ay 2 , 2003, atappr oxi m at el y 8: 00 p. m . , E arnes tM oor e and L at oya C art erw er e i ns i de thei rbedr oom at115 W es tS econd Str eet , i n L el and, w hen they hea r d noi s es fr om out s i de. C art erw entt o m ake s ur e the f r ontdoor w as l ocked. M eanw hi l e, M oor e w as s hoti n the l ef tha nd a s a s hotw as f

i r ed i nt o hi s bedr oom w i ndow f r om out s i de. A ttr i al , C art ert es t i f

i ed t hatshe l ooked outt he hal l w i ndow on the ni ght of the s hoot i ng and s aw thati tw as B r ow n s t andi ng out s i de of thei rbedr oom w i ndow w i th s om ethi ng s i l veri n hi s hand. She s ai d thats he t ol d M oor e that i tw as B r ow n and t o getoutof the r oom . I n herf

i r s ts t at ementt o the pol i ce, ther e w as no m ent i on thats he eve rl ooked outof the w i ndow and s aw the p e rp e tra to r a t all. It w a s n o t u n til h e r se c o n d p o lice sta tem e n t th a t C a rte r sa id thats he s aw Brow n. C art ert es t i f i ed thats he and M oor e both t ol d pol i ce that s ame ni ghtthati tw as B r ow n.

### 3 T he j ury hear d t es t i m ony thatdur i ng the thr ee w eeks l eadi ng up t o the s hoot i ng, B r ow n m ade thr eat s a gai ns tthe hous ehol d a nd w as c aughtpr ow l i ng out s i de. M oo r e ’ s br othe r - i n- l a w , Ri c ha r d Cha ne y t e s t i f i e d tha tB r ow n br agged thathe had s hotM oor e and gott en aw ay w i th i t . H ow ever , B r ow n deni ed the cr i m e and ga ve an a l i bi . T he j ury f ound hi m gui l ty. B ro w n v. S ta te , 2 0 0 6 M iss. A p p . L E X IS 9 2 4 (M iss. C t. A p p . D ec . 1 2 , 2 0 0 6 ). ¶4. D ur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent , A s s i s t antD i s tr i ctA t t orney B r ad M cC ul l ouch’ s ser i al m isc o n d u c t b e g a n w h e n h e u rg e d th e ju ro rs to w al k aw ay f

r om ouroppr es s i on a nd pr ej udi ce and m ake the types of deci s i ons thatm ake us her oes and r i d c r i m e f r om ours tr eet s . Y ou know , w e al w ays s ay s om ethi ng coul d have be en d on e. I m ean, have you he ar d that ? Som ethi ng coul d have be en done. Som ethi ng coul d hav e been done i n the f utur e. A nd the fu ture is no w . W e g et t o d o so m ethin g ab o u t th e c ri m e in th is co u n ty. It i s [ s i c] epi demi c pr opor t i on. ( E m phas i s a dded) . B r ow n’ s c ouns el obj ect ed. I m m edi at el y a f t erthe tr i al j udge sust ai ned the obj ect i on, M cC ul l ouch s t at ed t o the j ury that T h e re w e re sm a ll ch ild re n th a t w a s [s ic] in tha t h o u se m in u tes b e fo re th a t sh o t. H ow m any chi l dren are sl eepi ng on the f l oorw i th thei rm om m a s l eepi ng on the f l oori n G r eenvi l l e and Lel and? ( E m phas i s a dded) . A gai n, Brow n’ s c ouns el obj ect ed. R es pondi ng t o the o bject i on, M cC ul l ouch s t at ed t o t he tr i al j udge: J udge, every Supr eme C ou rto pi ni on thatI have r ead ha s s ai d the l at i tude gi ven t o pr os ecut or s i n c r os s - exami nat i on, e ven t o us e thats end a m ess age ar gum ent , i s pr operbeca us e i ti s a broa d l at i tude t hatw e’ r e s uppos ed t o have f ora f r ee f l ow of i deas , t o m ake i nf

er ence s on the – t o zea l ous l y r epr es entthe St at e and the peopl e of

the s t at e. I m ean w e j us thave – w e have gr eatl at i tude h e re . I am n o t sa y in g a n y th in g im p ro p e r in th is a rg u m e n t. ( E m phas i s added) . U nco nv i nced by thi s i nacc ur at e ar gum ent , the tr i al j udge admoni s hed M cC ul l ouch, i ns truct i ng hi m nott o us e s uch t act i cs i n hercourtr oom . R athert han re sp e c tfu lly a p o lo g izin g , M c C u llo u c h s tate d , “ I’v e d o n e n o th in g im p ro p e r. T h e ju d g e in th isIn recallingthi s in cident du rin g th e h earingon

po st- tri al moti on s, Ju dg e S an de rs s tat ed , “ I 2 be lie veit i s th e f

irs t ti m e in

my c are er o f almos t 15 ye ars on thebe nc h th at Ihaveha d tosay to an attorney t o step back from the bench.” 

### 4 – I m e a n Y o u r h o n o r h a s sa id n o t i n m y co u rtro o m , b u t th e S u p re m e C o u rt – .”A t th is p o in t, the t r i al j udge i nt errupt ed t he pr os ecut or , t el l i ng hi m t hatshe w as notatt empt i ng t o enf or ce ru les d iffe re n t fro m th o se w h ich a p p lied to all c o u rts in th e sta te. M c C u llo u c h c o n tin u e d to ar gue w i th the tr i al j udge: M cC U L L O U C H : Y ourH onor , the Supr eme C our thas s ai d – C O U R T : I h e a rd y o u sa y th a t. M cC U L L O U C H : – overand overagai n – C O U R T : Y ou don’ thave t o t el l m e tw i ce. I hear d you w hen you

sa id it. M c CULL OUCH: Th e n h o w c a n i tb e i mp r o p e ra r g u me n ti f th e S u p r e me C o u rth as sa id tha t i t i s p rop er? C O U R T : I d o n ’t a g re e w ith y o u th a t th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s s a id

that . . . . L etm e s ay thi s s tr ai ghtup t o you. I have rul ed. St ep bac k f

r om the bench, c ont i nue w i th yourcl os i ng, or be s eat ed. 2 ¶ 5 . A s h e c o n tin u e d h is c lo sin g a rg u m e n t, M c C u llo u c h n e x t sta ted to th e ju ry : “T a lk a b o u t w itn e ss e s lie. H is [th e d e fe n d a n t’s] lib e rty is a t sta k e . W h a t ab o u t o u r lib e rty to w a lk th e stre e ts . . . .” (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). B ro w n ’s a tto rn e y o b jec ted a n d , afte r h e a rin g a rg u m e n t, the tr i al j udge s t at ed, T h e c o u rtis go ing to su stai n it . T h e c o u rtis go ing to ca u ti o n y o u that w e’re notgoi ng t o go i nt o the cr i m e i n t he U nit ed St at es , the FB I s t at i s t i cs , that G r eenvi l l e i s tr yi ng t o ge ti nt o the s af e cr i m e comm uni ty. W e’ re not go i ng ther e. M cC ul l ouch cont i nued:W e al so no te that M cC ull ou chmad e thefo llo wingina ccu rat e an d misl eadingstatement to 3 thejur y: “ [T ]h ink

o f thec on seq

ue nc es of a v oteo f no t guilty. Th e co mm un itys ay s they v ote d h im inn oc ent. Im ean , it

might be no t gui lty , but wh at yo u’re do ingis say inghe’s inno cent. That’s wh at it means.” 

### 5 T hes e peopl e have a r i ghtt o f eel s af e i n thei rhom e and notha ve t o l eave , not have t o s l eep on the f

l oor . W e have a r i ght– they have a ri ght . T hatw om an in th e n e x t ap a rtm e n t h a s a rig h t n o t to h a v e to w o rry th a t h e r c h ild is g o in g to gethi tby a bul l eti n ourcounty. ( E m phas i s added) . B r ow n’ s att orney obj ect ed, and, agai n, the tr i al j udge s us t ai ned. ¶6. I n w i ndi ng dow n his clos i ng ar gum ent , M cC ul l ouch t ol d the j ur or s : “W e s t and up h e r e try i n g o u rb e s tt o r e p r e s e n tth e p e o p l e , th e p e o p l e o f t h e St a t e o f

M i s s i s s i p p i , f

r o m c r i me thatm ay happe n . . . . ” ( emphasi s a dded) . Brow n’ s a t t orney obj ect ed, butbe f or e the tr i al ju d g e c o u ld su sta in th e o b jec tio n , M c C u llo u c h “ w ith d re w ” th e in a p p ro p ria te c o m m e n t. 3 ¶7. T he j ury f

ound B r ow n gui l ty on both char ges , and h e w as s ent ence d t o concurr ent t erm s of i m pr i s onm entof t en and f i ve year s , w i th one yeart o serve on eac h count , and the r emai nders us pended w i th f i ve yea r s s upervi s ed pr obat i on. B r ow n t i m el y per f ect ed an appea l w hi ch w e r ef

err ed t o t he C our tof A ppeal s . B r ow n’ s i s s ues on appea l w er e ( 1) t hat the ver di ctw as agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence , a nd ( 2) thatM cC ul l ouch engage d i n pr os ecut or i al m i s conducti n hi s cl os i ng ar gum entt o the j ury. ¶ 8 . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a ffirm e d th e c o n v ictio n s a n d tax e d th e c o sts o f th e a p p e a l to W a sh in g to n C o u n ty . A s a s a n c tio n fo r h is in a p p ro p ria te c o n d u c t d u rin g c lo sin g a rg u m e n t, the C our tof

A ppeal s or der ed M cC ul l ouch per s onal l y t o re i m bur s e W as hi ngt on C ounty f or al l cos t s of

the appe al . T he St at e f i l ed a pe t i t i on f

orw r i tof

cert i or ar i , w hi ch w e gr ant ed.As qu ote d f rom therec ord

lat er in this opinion , th e p ros ecutor stated toth e tri al judgethat, 4 in “ ev ery cas e” h e h as read , th e “S up reme C ourt”has said “s en d-a -m ess ag e” argum ents are p rop er. Give n th at e ve ry c aseaddre ssingthesu bje ct f or t hepa st tw enty ye ars states th e o pp os ite , it is f air to conclude that the pros ecutor ei ther rea d no cases, or was nottelli ng the tri al judge the truth. 

### 6 A N A L Y S IS ¶9. B eca us e B r ow n’ s s econd a s s i gnm entof err or– that , due t o M cC ul l ouch’ s m i s conduct dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent , t he t r i al cour tshoul d have gr ant ed a m i s tr i al – i s di s pos i t i ve of t he cas e, w e w i l l notad dress h i s fi rs tas s i gnm entof err or . W e al s o w i l l addr es s the C our tof A ppeal s’ order that r equ i res M cC ull ou ch p ers on al l y to r ei m bu rs e W ashi ng t on C ounty f orthe c o sts o f a p p e a l. I. ¶ 1 0 . J u s tic e A rm is H a w k in s o n c e w a rn e d th a t a “ ru le w h ic h i s n o t e n fo rc e d is n o ru le .” B ox v. S ta te , 437 So. 2d 19, 2 1 (M i ss. 1 983) . W hi l e w e agr ee w i th the s pi r i tof J us t i ce H aw ki ns ’ s s t at ement , w e ar e notso i ntr act abl e and i nf l exi bl e thatw e bel i eve e very err orand m i s s t at ementby a pr os ecut ordur i ng cl os i ng ar gum entm er i t s a mi s tr i al . H ow ever , w e have se a rc h e d in v a in fo r a c a se a s e g re g io u s a s th e o n e b e fo re u s to d a y . M c C u llo u c h re p e a ted ly w as cal l ed dow n by the tr i al judge f orbl at ant l y vi ol at i ng the rul e aga i ns tm aki ng i nappr opr i at e s t at ement s t o t he j ury, al l the w hi l e l ectur i ng the tr i al judge on the a p p ro p ria ten e ss o f h is o b jec tio n a b le c o m m e n ts. F u rth e rm o re , M c C u llo u c h b ra z e n ly m i s r epr es ent ed thi s C our t ’ s pr ece dentt o the tr i al j udge. 4 ¶11 . F or tw o d ecade s, this C ou rthas w arned prosecutor s not t o en cou rage j uri es t o u se thei rver di ctt o “s end- a- m es s age” t o the publ i c ort o otherpo t ent i al cr i m i nal s . W hi l e, h o p efu ll y , the th rea t of p u n ishm en t serve s as a d eterren t to crim e, itis th e fu n cti o n o f th e jurySe e a lso Evan s v. St ate , 7 25 So . 2 d 6 13 , 675 (Mi ss. 19 97 ); Wil ch er v . S tat e , 697 So. 2d 5 11 23 , 1 13 9 (M iss . 1 99 7); Hu nt er v. Sta te , 6 84 So . 2 d 6 25 , 6 37 (Mi ss. 19 96 ); Wil liams v . S tat e , 52 2 S o. 2d

20 1, 20 9 (M iss . 1 98 8). In Sp icer , the “send a message” statement m ade by the prosecutorwas: “W e can’t keep you 6 from doing it, but you wil l pay the pri ce for doing it. And otherpeople are goi ng to know that you paid t hepri ce. ” Sp icer , 9 21 So . 2 d, at 3 17 . N o ob jec tio n w as mad e to theco mm ent, and it h appe ne d on ly o nc e. 

### 7 i n a part i cul arc as e t o r endera ve r di ctba s ed s ol el y on the evi dence i ntr oduced a tthe tr i al of thatcas e. A s thi s C our ts t at ed tw enty year s ago: T he j ur or s ar e r epr es ent at i ves of t he comm uni ty i n one s ens e, butthey ar e not t o vot e i n a r epr es ent at i ve capaci t y. E ach j ur ori s t o appl y the l aw t o the evi dence and vot e ac cor di ngl y. T he i s s ue w hi ch eac h j ur orm us tr es ol ve i s not w hetherornothe ors he w i s hes t o "s end a m es s age" butw hetheror nothe or s h e b e l i e v e s th a tth e e v i d e n c e s h o we d th e d e f e n d a n tt o b e g u i l ty o f

th e c r i me char ged. T he j ury i s an arm of the St at e buti ti s notan arm of the pr os ecut i on. T he St at e i ncl udes both the pr os ecut i on a nd the ac cus ed. T he f unct i on of

the j ury i s t o w ei gh the evi dence and det er m i ne t he f act s . W hen the pr os ecut i on w i s hes t o s end a mes s age they s houl d empl oy W es t ern U ni on. M i s s i s s i ppi j urors are notm essenger boy s. W ill ia m s v . S ta te 5 2 2 S o . 2 d 2 0 1 , 2 0 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). ¶12. D ependi ng upon t he f act s and ci r cumst ance s of eac h cas e, “s end- a- m es s age” a rg u m e n ts m a y – s ta n d in g a lo n e – c o n s titu te re v e rs ib le e rr o r. P a y to n v. S ta te , 785 So. 2d 26 7, 2 71 ( M i s s . 1999) . I n P ayton , thi s Courtf ou nd the f

ol l owi ng “ s e nd - a - mes s a ge ” 5 stat em en t t o b e re v ersible e rror: S e n d a m e ss a g e to th e se o ld e r, m o re m a tu re , c rim in a ls, " W e a re n o t g o in g to l e ty o u ru i n y o u n g p e o p l e 's li v e s li k e y o u h a v e ru i n e d th e s e th r e e p e o p l e 's liv e s , a n d a ll th e s e liv e s y o u e n d a n g e re d in th e p ro c e s s ." Id . at270. ¶13. W e r ece nt l y addr es s ed thi s i s s ue i n S p ice r v . S ta te , 9 2 1 S o . 2 d 2 9 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ), in 6
w hich w e setfor th tw o thr eshold i nq uir i es, fol l ow ed b y a tw o-prong ed test . T h e fi rs tIn Sp icer , we actually intende d the State’ s burden to be di fficult. We stated that we have 7 “cauti on e d

a g a in s t u s ingh armle s s e rro r an a ly s is to‘t ran s gre s s th e rule s o f

f a ir argum e nt t

h at are rep eat edly p rom

ulg ate d b y this C ourt’ . ” Id. citing Payton , 785 So. 2d at 271. 

### 8 thr es hol d quest i on i s w hetherdef ens e couns el obj ect ed. W e not ed that , des pi t e the abs ence of obj ect i on, w e w i l l notpr ocedur al l y barthe i s s ue w her e “the [ s end- a- m es s age] ar gum ent i s s o ‘ i nf l amm at ory’ thatthe tr i al j udge s houl d ha ve obj ect ed on hi s ow n m ot i on. ” Id . at317 (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). ¶14. S p icer’s sec ond t hr es hol d i nqui ry i s w hetheri tappear s , i n exami ni ng the s urr oundi ng c ir c u m s ta n c e s , th a t d e fe n s e c o u n s e l in v ite d th e c o m m e n t. Id . at318. I f s o, of cour s e, t he i s s ue may be w ai ved. ¶ 1 5 . O n c e th e tw o th re s h o ld q u e s tio n s a re s a tis fi e d , Spi cerpr ovi des that , f ora f i ndi ng of r ever s i bl e err or , “the courtm us tde t erm i ne ( 1) w hetherthe r emar ks w er e i m pr oper , and ( 2) i f so, w hetherthe r emar ks pr ej udi ci al l y af f ect ed the ac cus ed’ s r i ght s . ” Id . ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . I n att empt i ng t o cl ar i f y t he appl i cat i on of

the t es t , w e s t at ed that [i ] t m u st b e c lear b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t, that ab sen t th e p rose cu tor’s comm ent s , the j ury coul d have f ound t he def

endantgui l ty. T hi s goes beyond a f i ndi ng of s uf f i ci entevi dence t o s us t ai n a convi ct i on. Id . (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). ¶16. I n anal yzi ng thi s l anguage i n Spi cer , w e find w e sh o u ld h av e e m p lo y e d th e term “w ou l d” inst ead o f “coul d. ” T hu s, t o m eetthe secon d prong of the t est , w e hold that i tm ust 7 be cl earbeyond a r eas onabl e doubtt hat , abs entthe pr os ecut or ’ s i nappr opr i at e comm ent s , t he j ury w oul d have f

ound the def

endantgui l t y. T his , of c our s e, amount s t o a harm l es s - err or anal ys i s , and i s the ana l ys i s t o be us ed f orthe s econd pr ong of

the Spi certes t.Also unli ke today’s c ase, the defense couns el in Payton f ail ed too bje ct to thepro secuto r’s 8 “send-a-message” statement t o the jury. Peyton , 78 5 So . 2d at 2 70 . This Co urt

ha s st ate d, ho we ve r, that “if the argument is so 'inflammatory' that the tr ial judge s hould have objec ted on his own motion thepo int m aybeco ns idered ." Gray v. St ate , 487 So.2d 1304, 1312 (Miss.1986) (citi ng Griff in v. St ate , 2 92 So . 2 d 1 59 , 1 63 (Mi ss. 19 74 )). 

### 9 ¶17 . In this case, w e fi nd , as di d the C ou rtof A pp eal s, that bo th threshol d qu est i on s m ust be r es ol ve d i n f

a vo rof Br own. H i s c ou ns e l r e pe a t e dl y o bj e c t e d, a nd w e f i nd no thi ng w hats oev er i n the r ecord w hich i nd i cat es that he i nv i t ed the i nap propri at e com m ents . ¶18. W e al s o a gr ee w i th the C our tof A ppeal s thatthe f

i r s tpr ong of

the Spi certes t is m e t. M cC ul l ou c h’ s r e marks wer e i nd e e d i mpr op e r . W e n ow ad dr e s s the s e c on d pr on g, u s i ng a harm l es s - err ors t andar d. ¶19. W e f

i r s tnot e t hatt hi s cas e i s f arm or e egr egi ous than P ayton , w h ich w e rev erse d . In P ayton , 785 So. 2d at268 t he pr os ecut orm ade the m i s t ake onl y once, and t he evi dence of 8 the d efe n d an t’ s g u il t i n clud ed the testi m o n y o f th ree accom pli ces and several otherw i tnesses. ¶ 2 0 . B y c o n tra st, in th e c a se su b ju d ice , M c C u llo u c h v io late d th e ru les fiv e tim e s a n d , in the pr oces s , att empt ed t o m i s l ead the t r i al j udge as t o t he pr evai l i ng l aw . Fur therm or e, t he evi dence agai ns tB row n w as har dl y overw hel m i ng. H e w as convi ct ed pr i m ar i l y on t he t es t i m ony of

the vi ct i m ’ s gi r l f

r i end, L at oya C art er , w ho cl ai m ed s he s aw som eone w ho l ooked l i ke B r ow n out s i de t he w i ndow w i th s om ethi ng s hi ny i n hi s hand. H ow ever , i n her hand- w r i t t en st at ementt o pol i ce on the day of the i nci dent , C art erm ade no ment i on of B r ow n, st at i ng onl y t hatshe s aw “s om eone” out s i de the w i ndow . I n a l at ers t at ement , t yped by one of the pol i ce of

f i cer s , Car t ers t at ed thatB r ow n w as the per s on s he s aw . H ow ever , s he al s o s t at ed el s ew her e i n the s t at ementt hat“a shotw entoff and E rnes t[ the vi ct i m ] f el l t o the fl o o r I ra n to th e o th e r r o o m . E rn e s t to ld m e to g o a n d s e e w h o it w a s a n d I t o ld h im n o .”

### 10

T hi s i s a cur i ous s t at ement , gi ven thatthe tr i al t es t i m ony w as thatboth E rnes tand C ar t er id e n tified th e p e rso n p rio r to th e sh o t. ¶21. T her e w er e numer ous othercontr adi ct i ons i n C art er’ s t es t i m ony, as w el l as i n the test im o n y o f the v ict im , E rne st M o o re. W e d o n o t po int o u t th ese co n tr ad ict ion s to sa y there w as i ns uf

f i ci entevi dence f

ora j ury t o convi ctB r ow n. R ather , w e f ocus on thi s t es t i m ony t o demonstr at e thatthe evi dence agai nstB r ow n w as notoverw hel m i ng; and ce r t ai nl y not e n o u g h so to o v e rc o m e th e p re ju d ice en g e n d e re d b y M c C u llo u c h ’s n u m e ro u s in a p p ro p ria te s t at ement s t o the j ury dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent . T hus , w e hol d thatM cC ul l ouch’ s num er ous i nappr opr i at e s t at ement s t o the j ury do notcons t i tut e harm l es s err orand, due t o pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct , B r ow n’ s convi ct i on m us tbe r ever s ed. ¶22 . W e turn no w t o the C ou rtof A pp eal s’ order r equ i ri ng M cC ull ou ch to r ei m bu rs e W a sh in g to n C o u n ty fo r its p a y m e n t o f th e c o sts o f a p p e a l. II. ¶ 2 3 . In its P e tit io n F o r W ri t o f C e rtio ra ri, th e S tate in fo rm s u s th a t th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls “i s s ued an opi ni on af

f i r m i ng B r ow n’ s convi ct i on an d s ent ence , butas s es s i ng cos t s of t he a p p e a l t o A ss ista n t D istric t A tto rn e y B ra d M c C u llo u c h .” W e fin d th is s tate m e n t is n o t fu lly s uppor t ed by the r ecor d. ¶24. I ti s true enough that , w i thi n i t s opi ni on, the C our tof A ppeal s s t at ed: “ W e hol d that th e p ro se c u to r B ra d M c C u llo u c h b e p e rso n a lly a ss e ss e d w ith th e c o sts o f th is a p p e a l.” H o w e v e r, in th e n e x t se n ten c e , the c o u rt sta ted : “A s s u c h , w e h o ld th a t M c C u llo u c h is or der ed t o re i m bur s e W as hi ngt on C ounty f ors uch cos t s w i thi n thi r ty days of the i s s uance of

### 11

the mandat e. ” Fur therm or e, i n t he di s pos i t i on of t he cas e att he conc l us i on of the opi ni on, the C our tof

A ppeal s s t at ed: T HE CO S T S OF T HI S AP P E AL AR E AS S E S S E D T O W AS HI NGT ON CO UNT Y, AND T HE CO UR T OR DE RS T HAT T HE P RO S ECUT OR BR A D M CC O LLO U CH , IN D I V I D U A L L Y , SH A LL R EI M BU RSE W A S H IN G T O N C O U N T Y F O R A L L C O S T S O F T H E A P P E A L W IT H IN THI RTY DA YS O F THI S M AN DA TE. (E m p h a sis a d d e d ). F u rth e rm o re , the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls m a d e it c lea r th a t it d re w its a u th o rity t o r equi r e M cC ul l ouch t o r ei m bur s e W as hi ngt on C ounty fr om our pr i orcas es w hi ch s peak i n t erm s of s anct i ons . Fori ns t ance , ci t i ng L ivin gsto n v. S ta te , 525 So . 2d 13 00 , 13 08 (M i ss. 1 9 8 8 ), th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls sta ted th a t “[f]o r a p p ro x im a tely tw e n ty y e a rs, th e a p p e llate c o u rt s o f t h is s ta te h a v e w a rn e d th a t p ro s e c u to rs m a y b e s a n c tio n e d fo r s u c h c o n d u c t.” Br o wn , at*15. C i t i ng P a y to n v. S ta te , 785 So. 2d 267, 271 (M i ss. 1 99 9), the C our tof A ppeal s s t at ed thats uch puni s hm ent“i ncl udes s anct i ons atthe tr i al courtl evel as w el l as t he a p p e lla te le v e l.” Id . at*16. ¶ 2 5 . B e c a u se o f th e a m b ig u ity o f th e q u e stio n , tha t is, w h e th e r th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls i nt ended t o t ax M cC ul l ouch w i th cos t s ors anct i on hi m ; and bec aus e the author i ty f ort axi ng c o sts is d iffe re n t fro m th e a u th o rity to sa n c tio n a n a tto rn e y , w e s h a ll ad d re ss b o th po ssi bil i t i es. T a x a tio n o f co sts ¶26. T axat i on of

cos t s on appeal i s governed by R ul e 36 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of A pp el l at e P rocedu re, w hich st at es: (a ) T o W h o m A llo w e d . E x c e p t a s o th e rw ise p ro v id e d b y law , if an a p p e a l is di s m i s s ed, cos t s s hal l be t axed a gai ns tthe appe l l antunl es s otherw i s e agr eed b y the p arti es o r ord ere d b y the S u p rem e C o u rto r th e C o u rto f A p p ea ls. If aW e parenthe tic ally po int out th at Mi ssi ssipp i Co ns tit uti on artic le 14 , s ection

26 1, pro vides: 9 “Theexp en ses of criminal pro secuti on s shall beborn e by the co unty in

wh ich su chpro secuti on

sh all bebe gun; and

allfine s an d f

orf eit ure s sh allbe pai d into thetrea sury of su chco unty. De fend ants, in cases of convicti on, may be taxed with the costs.” 

### 12 j ud gm ent is aff

i rm ed, cost s shal l be taxed ag ai nstthe ap pell ant unl ess otherw i s e or der ed. I f

a j udgm enti s r ever s ed, cos t s s hal l be t axed a gai ns tthe a p p e llee u n les s o th e rw ise o rd e re d . If a ju d g m e n t is a ffir m e d o r re v e rse d in part , ori s vaca t ed, cos t s s hal l be a l l ow ed onl y as or der ed by the courtw hi ch deci ded the ca s e. ( b) C os t s Forand A gai ns tt he St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi . C os t s m ay be a w ar ded f or oragai ns tthe St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi orany of i t s agenc i es , orof

f i cer s , or p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n s u n l e s s o th e rwi s e p r o v i d e d b y l a w. ¶ 2 7 . W e a g re e w ith th e S tate th a t, w h e re a n a p p e a l is d e c id e d b y a n a p p e llate c o u rt, su b sec ti o n (a) o f R ul e 36pr ovi des onl y f orthe as s es s m entof

cos t s agai ns tthe appe l l antor the appe l l ee, “unl es s otherw i s e or der ed. ” A nd w e vi ew the “otherw i s e or der ed” l anguage as author i ty, underappr opr i at e ci r cumst ance s , t o t ax partoral l of the cos t s of appea l t o t he w in n in g p a rty . S u b se c tio n ( b ) s im p ly p ro v id e s th a t th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i “o r a n y o f its agenc i es , orof

f i cer s , or pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i ons ” ar e f ai rgame f

orcos t s . B uti ts ays not hi ng of t axi ng cos t s t o any of these en t i t i es out s i de thei rof f i ci al capa ci t i es . Fur therm or e, the pr ovi s i on pr es uppos es thats uch of f i ci al ent i t i es ar e part i es t o the l i t i gat i on. ¶2 8 . W e a re p rov ided no cit ati o n o f au tho ri ty fo r th e p rop o sit ion that an ap p ell ate c o u rt ’s p o w e r to a ss e ss th e c o sts o f a p p e a l purs uantt o R ul e 36ext ends beyond the part i es t o t he l i t i gat i on. T hus , beca us e M cC ul l ouch, i n hi s i ndi vi dual capa ci ty, w as nota party t o t he l i t i gat i on, R ul e 36 pr ovi des no author i ty f ort axat i on of

cos t s agai ns thi m , per s onal l y. 9The S up reme Co urt h as co ns tit

uti on al autho rity to san cti on atto rneys whic h ex cee ds the 10 authority of the Court of Appeals. See e.g. Broome v. Missi ssippi Bar , 60 3 So . 2d

34 9 (M iss . 1 99 2). See generally Munford, Mis sissippi Appellate Pra ctice, Pe na lti es a nd Sa nc tio nsAg

ainst 11 Pa rti es , ¶¶

19 .1 -19 .4 (O ctobe r 1, 20 06 ). 

### 13 Sanct i ons ¶ 2 9 . If w e re a d the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls’ a c tio n to b e a sa n c tio n , th e n th e sa lien t q u e stio n is w h e th e r th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h a d a u th o rity to sa n c tio n M c C u llo u c h , ind iv id u a lly , fo r h is i nappr opr i at e conduc tbef or e the C i r cui tC our tof W as hi ngt on C ounty. ¶30 . T he C ou rtof A pp eal s’ authori ty to sanct i on i s gov erned b y several of the M i ssi ss i ppi 10 R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e, none of w hi ch ar e appl i cabl e her e. R ul e 2( a) al l ow s t he 11 C our tof A ppeal s t o di s m i s s an appe al w her e ce r t ai n proc edur al r equi r ement s ar e not fo llo w e d . T h is ru le is in a p p o site to th is c a s e , a s M c C u llo u c h ’s c o n d u c t is u n re late d to p ro c e d u ra l re q u ire m e n ts fo r p ro se c u tin g th e a p p e a l. R u le 2 (b ) a llo w s th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls t o is sue sancti on s f

or f ai l ure “t o co m ply w i th these rules or any o rderi ssued pu rs uan tt o these rul es . ” Such i s notthe ca s e her e. R ul es 28( k) and 40(c) do notappl y, s i nce they al l ow s anct i ons f

ordi s r es pectf

ul l anguage i n a party’ s br i ef orm ot i on f

orr ehea r i ng. R ul e 38, w hi ch al l ow s an aw ar d of s anct i ons f

orf r i vol ous appea l s i n ci vi l cas es , al s o i s i nappl i cabl e. ¶31 . T hu s, w e f

i nd no authori ty forthe C ou rto f A p p ea ls’ o rde r of sa n cti o n s ag ainst M cC ul l ouch per s onal l y. ¶32. I n i t s m aj or i ty opi ni on, the C our tof A ppeal s ci t ed s ever al cas es w hi ch i tf el ts t ood as author i ty f

orthe di r ecti m pos i t i on of s anct i ons by the C our tof A ppeal s agai ns tM cC ul l ouch. S e e e .g . P a

y to n v. S ta te , 7 8 5 S o . 2 d 2 6 7 , 2 7 1 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ). T o th e e x ten t P ayton and other cas es s ugges tthats anct i ons s houl d be ass es s ed agai ns tpros ecut or s per s onal l y, w e hol d thatCh ief Ju dg e Kingarticulat ed

thi s p os iti on

in writing for

theCo urt

of Appe als dis sent. 12 Judge King also noted that this Courtin Northern ElectricCompany v. Phillips , 673 So. 2d 1384, 13 85 (Mi ss. 19 96 ), h eld

that th e disc retion

inh ere nt w ith in t

herul e is limite d bya

p res um pti on that costs are awarded to the party prevai ling on appeal . 

### 14 – b ecause the off

end i n g c o n d u ct o cc urr ed in the tr i al cou rt– the tri al j ud ge m ustasses s w hethers anct i ons ar e appr opr i at e. 12 ¶33. W e f

i nd thatC i r cui tJudge B etty S ander s di s pl ayed exc ept i onal j udi ci al r es tr ai ntand t emper m enti n r es pons e t o M cC ul l ouch’ s i nappr opr i at e behavi orw hi ch, w e emphas i ze, t ook p lac e in h e r c o u rtro o m , n o t h e re . T h u s, w e d e c lin e to in q u ire b e h in d h e r d e c isio n n o t to s anct i on M cC ul l ouch. CO NC L US I ON ¶34 . E l even ye ar s ago, addr es s i ng r eca l ci tr antprosecut ors w ho stub bo rnl y co nti nu ed to use “s end- a- m es s age” a r gum ent s , J us t i ce B anks s t at ed that" i ti s hi gh t i m e thatthe benc h and bar t ake s er i ous l y ouradmoni t i ons aboutsuch i m pr opr i et i es . H arm l es s err oranal ys i s s houl d not b e c o n sid e re d a s a lice n se to tra n sg re ss th e ru les o f fa ir a rg u m e n t t h a t ar e re p e a ted ly prom ulgat ed b y thi s C ou rt . " W e lls v. S ta te , 6 9 8 S o . 2 d 4 9 7 , 5 1 9 (M is s . 1 9 9 7 ). ( B a n k s , J ., co n cu rri n g in p art an d d issen ti n g in p art). ¶ 3 5 . W e fin d c o n sid e ra b le p re ju d ice re su lted fro m M c C u llo u c h ’s in a p p ro p ria te s tate m e n ts t o the j ury, and w e ar e unabl e to say, b eyond a r eas onabl e doubt , thats uch pr ej udi ce w as o v e r c o me b y th e e v i d e n c e . W e th e r e f o r e r e v e r s e B r o wn ’ s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e a n d we r emand t hi s cas e t o t he tr i al courtf ora new tr i al cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. ¶36. W e f

ur therfi nd thatt he C our tof A ppeal s w as w i thoutaut hor i ty ei thert o as s es s t he cos t s of appea l t o M cC ul l ouch per s onal l y, ort o s anct i on hi m f orconductw hi ch t ook pl ace

### 15

out s i de the C our tof

A pp eal s. W e t her ef

or e r ever s e the C our tof A ppeal s ’ or derr equi r i ng M c C u llo u c h to re im b u rse W a sh in g to n C o u n ty fo r th e c o sts o f a p p e a l. ¶37. T HE J U D GME N T O F T HE C OU R T O F A P P E A L S I S R E V E R S E D. T HE JU D G M E N T O F TH E C I R C U I T C O U R T O F W A SH I N G T O N C O U N T Y IS RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P . J . , CARL S ON AND L AM AR, J J . , CONCUR. G R A V E S A N D R A N D O L P H , J J ., C O N C U R I N R E S U L T O N L Y . D I A Z , P .J ., CONCURS I N P ART AND I N RES UL T A ND DI S S EN TS I N P ART W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. EA S LE Y, J . , CONCURS I N PART AND DI S S E NT S I N P AR T W I T H S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . EAS LEY, J UST I CE, CO NCU RRI NG I N PART A ND D I S S ENTI NG I N PART: ¶ 3 8 . I c o n c u r w ith th e C o u rt’s f in d in g th a t th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls w a s w ith o u t a u th o rity eith er to a sses s co sts or t o san cti o n th e p rose cu tor i n th is ca se. I dissen t f rom the m ajority ’s deci s i on t o r ever s e and r emand B r ow n’ s convi ct i on, ther ef or e I w r i t e s epar at el y. ¶ 3 9 . I h a v e s e r i o u s d i f f i c u l ty wi th th i s Cou r t ’ s de c i s i o n t o r e v e r s e Br o wn’ s c o n v i c t i o n . To begi n, thi s C our tgr ant ed ce r t i or ar i atthe r eques tof the St at e, notthe def

endant , w ho nei ther part i ci pat ed i n, norr es ponded t o thi s pe t i t i on. T he C our tha s now t aken upon i t s el f , by w hat i tsays is in t he i nter est s of j ust i ce and econ om y, t o reverse B row n’s conv i ct i on , atthe requ est of no one. T hi s deci s i on s m acks of j ur i s di ct i onal expedi ency by means of i nf l at ed j udi ci al s upr emacy. ¶40. Si nce thi s C our tal s o i s r emandi ng thi s cas e f ora new tr i al , the ques t i on now becomes d o e s th e S ta te h a v e th e a u th o ri ty to re tr y B ro w n . See ge ner al l y U n itedS ta tes v. D in itz , 424 U . S. 600, 96 S. C t . 1075, 47 L . E d. 2d 267 ( 1976) ( the i m por t antcons i der at i on, f orpurpos es of the D ou ble Jeopardy C l ause, i s that the defend ant ret ai n pri m ary cont rol over the co urse t o be f ol l ow ed i n t he eve ntof pr os ecutor i al err or ) . A s s um i ng thatthe D oubl e J eopar dy

### 16

C l aus e does notbarthe St at e’ s r i ghtt o r etr i al , and B r ow n i s once a gai n convi ct ed, and as s um i ng ther e appe ar s i n t he r ecor d s ubs equentt o the f i r s tt r i al event s t o j us t i f

y an i ncr eas ed s e nt e nc e , do e s t he c i r c ui tc ou r tha ve the a utho r i ty t o e nh a nc e Br own’ s a l r e a dy l eni ent s ent ence ? N

or th Car olina v. P ear ce , 3 9 5 U . S . 7 1 1 , 8 9 S . C t. 2 0 7 2 , 2 3 L . E d . 2 d 6 5 6 (19 6 9 ). A nd f i nal l y, a s s um i ng thats uch a s cena r i o c om es t o f rui t i on, a nd i f

ther eaf t er on dir ect ap p ea l th is C o u rto r th e C o u rto f A p p ea ls i s u n w il li n g to interfere w ith the tri al co u rt ’s j ur i s di ct i onal s ent enci ng author i ty, how i s the r evi ew i ng courtgoi ng t o r espon d t o w hat s houl d be B r ow n’ s onl y ar gum ent : I di d notas k the Supr eme C our tt o r ever s e my cas e. ¶41. I al s o t ake i s s ue w i th the C our t ’ s ef f or tt o keep Spi cer in g o o d stan d ing for all futu re cas es pas tthi s one, by pl aci ng w i t h the vi ct i m s i n thi s cas e–Lat oya C art er , es peci al l y–and the evi dence pr ovi ded by both, a bas i s f oranchor i ng i t s r eas oning w hy thi s cas e mustbe re v e rs e d . S

p ice r v . S ta te , 9 2 1 S o . 2 d 2 9 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ). I g a v e c o n sid e ra b le th o u g h t to m aki ng the ent i r e r ecor d partof m y di s s ent ; and i f

I bel i eved thati tw oul d be re ad cl os el y by a ll, I w o u ld h a v e . H o w e v e r, I c a n p o in t o u t en o u g h o f th e o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e w ith in it w i thoutdoi ng s o. ¶ 4 2 . W h ile th e C o u rt m a y b e sa tisfie d w ith th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls’ su m m a tio n o f th e fa c ts i n thi s cas e, I am not . T he r eci t at i on pr ovi des t oo gener al , t oo i ncompl et e an a ccountof w hat t ook pl ace i n t hi s m att er , m os tes peci al l y f orw hati s ats t ake he r e. ¶ 4 3 . A p p ro x im a tely tw o to th re e w e e k s b e fo re th e M a y 2 , 2 0 0 3 , F rid a y -e v e n in g in c id e n t, a f i ghtbr oke outbetw een the def endant B r ow n and R i char d C haney i n the yar d of t he r es i dence at115 W es tSecond St r eeti n t he t ow n of L el and; the s ame r es i dence w her e the s hoot i ng w oul d l at ert ake pl ace . T he al t er cat i on w as the r es ul tof R i char d havi ng conf

r ont ed

### 17

B r ow n w i th an acc us at i on thatBrow n ha d s t ol en St ephani e M oor e C haney’ s w al l etw hi l e s he w as aw ay i n j ai l . St ephani e i s R i char d’ s w i f e. ¶4 4 . A ft er B row n p icke d h im self u p o ff th e g rou n d , h e w alke d tow ard h is go d m o ther’s ca r, w her e s he s atw ai t i ng f

orhi m . B r ow n t ol d hi s godm othert o pop hert runk s o he coul d get a g u n . S h e sa id n o , an d o rde red h im to g et i n th e ca r. B row n po inted his f ing er a t R icha rd and t ol d hi m he w as a dea d m an. B r ow n goti n the car , a nd the tw o then dr ove s tr ai ghtt o the L el and Pol i ce D epart m entw her e B r ow n f i l ed a s i m pl e- ass aul tchar ge aga i ns tR i char d. W eeks l at er , s hor t l y af

t ert he M ay 2 shoot i ng i nci dent , R i char d w as ar r es t ed on t hatchar ge (m o re o n that lat er). ¶45. F oll ow i ng t he day of the f i ght , appr oxi m at el y one w eek bef or e the M ay 2 s hoot i ng i nci dent , the Lel and Pol i ce r ece i ved t he f i r s tof m ul t i pl e ca l l s f

r om M ary Si m el t on aboutan i ndi vi dual pr ow l i ng ar ound her house a t115 W es tSecond St . , A pt . A . M r s . Si m el t on, t he m otherof

St ephani e M oor e C haney, W hi tney M oor e, R amonda M oor e, and Ear nes tM oor e, sai d thather dau gh t er W hitney heard n ois es outs i de o ne o f the w i nd ow s of the h ou se. M rs . Si m el t on then w entt o the w i ndow , peeke d out , and s aw a n i ndi vi dual run of f . She t ol d t he pol i ce thatt he i ndi vi dual w as K enneth B r ow n. M r s . S i m el t on t es t i f i ed thataf

t erthe pol i ce lef t, sh e a g a in h e a rd a n o is e o u tsid e th e w in d o w , w h ich so u n d e d lik e so m e o n e ra k in g h is hand ac r os s the s cr een. T es t i f yi ng agai n, thi s t i m e on r ebutt al f ol l ow i ng the def

ens e’ s cas e, M r s . Si m el t on s t at ed t hatdays bef or e t he M ay 2 shoot i ng i nci dent , she had r ece i ved a phone ca ll from h er da u g h ter, R am o n d a. R am o n d a, the m o ther o f th e B row n ’s ch il d , w as B row n ’s g ir lfrien d at th e ti m e. M rs. S im elt o n told the jury that R am o n d a h ad ca ll ed to w arn h er,

### 18

t el l i ng hert o getever ybody outof the hous e bec aus e B r ow n w as act i ng cr azy, s ayi ng t hat he w as goi ng t o s hootup i n t he hous e and then burn i tdow n t o the gr ound. ¶ 4 6 . R a m o n d a , w h o o rig in a lly w a s sla ted a s a w itn e s s fo r th e S tate , w a s re m o v e d a s its w i tnes s af

t ershe arr i ved att he cour thous e t he day of t he t r i al , havi ng r i dden w i th B r ow n, and h av i ng then i nform ed t he prosecutor s that she had no tcal l ed her m othert o w arn h er. R amonda di d, how ever , t es t i f y f orthe def

ens e, t el l i ng the j ury dur i ng cr os s - exami nat i on by the St at e thats he di d notc al l he rm other , butper s onal l y w entovert o herm other ’ s hous e a co u p le o f d ay s b efo re M ay 2 an d w arn ed h er tha t B row n h ad d isap p ea red an d w as stil l very angry aboutthe f

i ghtw i th R i char d. ¶47. A t 8:19 p. m . on M ay 2, 2003, O f f i cer J ef f N as s ar of the L el and Pol i ce D epart m ent r ece i ved a c al l f

r om hi s di s pat cheraboutan i nci dentat11 5 W es tSecond Str eet . O f f i cer N as s ararr i ved atthe s cene at8: 21 p. m . T her e he f ound E arnes tM oor e, w i th hi s hand bleedi ng , i n an excit ed, agg ravat ed, and ang ry st at e. A ccordi ng t o O ff i cer N assar , E arnest s t at ed thathe heard a noi s e out s i de hi s w i ndow , and w entt o the w i ndow t o s ee w ho w as th e r e . As h e l o o k e d ou t , he s a w a b l a c k ma l e wi th a l i g h tc o mpl e x i o n , wea r i n g a whi t e Tsh irt, sta n d in g o u tsid e th e w in d o w . H e s a id h e re c o g n ize d th e su b jec t as b e in g K e n n e th B r ow n. E arnes ts ai d thathe hear d gunshot s , t hen f el ta st i ngi ng i n hi s hand, w hi ch ther eaf t er w entnum b. H e then turned and r an bac k i nt o the hous e. O f f i cerN as s arl ooked ar ound inside the h o u se a n d fou n d a b u llet h o le in th e w ind o w . F rom there , h e trace d itto w h ere E a rn e st h a d b e e n sta n d in g in sid e th e h o u se . H e th e n fo u n d a n o th e r b u llet h o le in th e w a ll, w hi ch l ed t o anotherhol e i n t he bathr oom w al l . T he of f i cerw enti nt o the bathr oom and r ecove r ed a . 380 cal i berbul l etpr oj ect i l e f r om the f l oor . T he of

f i cera l s o t es t i f

i ed thatupon

### 19

l earni ng atthe s cene thatB r ow n w as a s tudentatM i s s i s s i ppi V al l ey St at e, both campus sec u ri ty a t th e co ll eg e an d the In d iano la P o li ce D ep artm en t (B row n h ad b ee n stay ing there w i th hi s godm other ) w er e i m m edi at el y not i f i ed t o be on the l ookoutf orB r ow n. ¶48. A nei ghbort ol d O f f i cerN as s art hata w hi t e C adi l l ac w as par ked i n fr ontof he r hous e. She s ai d i thad depart ed ata hi gh r at e of s peed s hor t l y bef

or e the pol i ce a rr i ved. I nves t i gat or B y ro n V a u g h n , als o w ith the L e lan d P o lice D e p a rtm e n t, tes tified tha t th e d a y B ro w n a n d h is godm othercame t o the pol i ce s t at i on t o f i l e a s i m pl e as s aul tchar ge aga i ns tR i char d, they had arr i ved i n a w hi t e C adi l l ac. T he def endantand hi s gi r l f

r i end, R amonda, t es t i f

i ed thatt he godm otherdi d notow n a w hi t e C adi l l ac. T he godmot herdi d nott es t i f y. ¶49 . M rs . S i m el t on , this t i m e t est i fyi ng du ri ng the S t at e’s case- i n-chi ef, sai d that Earnest cal l ed h er on t he ph on e sayi ng , “M om m a, I ’ve been sho t. . . . K enn y d on e shot m e. ” M rs . S i me l t o n s a i d th a twh e n s h e g o tt o th e h o u s e , L a t o y a t o l d h e rh e wa s a r o u n d th e wi n d o w. ¶5 0 . B row n w as a rrested by th e L elan d po li ce th e follow ing S u n d ay . W h il e in jail , R icha rd w as a rrested for the sim p le assa u ltch arg e fil ed b y B row n the d ay o f th e fi g h t. R icha rd t es t i f i ed t hatB r ow n w as bra ggi ng i n t he j ai l t hathe had shotE arnes t( R i char d’ s br other - i nlaw ). R ich a rd tes tified th a t h e tried to g e t th e jail sta ff to p la c e h im in th e sa m e c e ll w ith B ro w n . T h e y d id n o t. ¶51. For B r ow n’ s def ens e, hi s att orney vi gor ous l y chal l enged the St at e’ s proof . A s any good def ens e att orney w oul d do, B r ow n’ s att orney ca l l ed i nt o ques t i on t he S t at e’ s l ack of phys i cal evi dence : no w eapon, no f i ngerpr i nt s , and no D N A f ound atthe cr i m e s cene . T he d efe n se a lso b rou g h t t o the ju ry’s a tt en ti o n the fa ct th at so m e o f th e fam il y m em b ers ( i ncl udi ng thos e w ho di d nott es t i f y) ha d c r i m i nal ba ckgr ounds and bad r eput at i ons , cal l i ng

### 20

i nt o ques t i on the cr edi bi l i ty of the St at e’ s w i tnes s es . T he def ens e s ei zed, though s t eal thi l y, upon both Lat oya’ s ha ndw r i t t en s t at ementa nd the one typed ther eaf t erby a pol i ce of

f i cer ( m or e on thi s i nf

r a) . Fi nal l y, the def

ens e att empt ed t o setforth B r ow n’ s al i bi def ens e by b lam ing the S tat e fo r crea ti n g a lac k there o f. ¶5 2. W hen the Cour t of A pp e a l s r e vi e w e d t hi s c a s e , the f i r s t pr os e c ut or i a l e rr or i tnot ed w a s th e p ro se c u to r’s c o m m e n t at tria l th a t B ro w n ’s th re e a lib i w itn e ss e s d id n o t sh o w u p to t es t i f y on hi s behal f

. T he tr i al courts us t ai ned the def ens e’ s o bject i on butoverrul ed the r eques tf ora m i s tr i al . T he tr i al courtgave a l i m i t i ng i ns truct i on, r emi ndi ng the j ury thatt he courtrul es on t he l aw and the j ury de ci des the f act s of the cas e. T he courtthen i nf or m ed the j ury thatthe pr os ecut orhad i m pr oper l y comm ent ed on the f actthatthe def

endanthad p rod u ce d n o ali b i w itn esse s. In m y o p inion , this w as e rror. ¶53. B r ow n t ook the s t and and t es t i f i ed that he had pr ovi ded the pol i ce w i th thr ee na m es an d that the p o li ce h ad n ev er c o n tacted them . H e h ad also told the p o li ce that h e w o u ld try t o l ocat e them “so a s t o getthem t o come i n and gi ve thei rs t at ement s . ” I nves t i gat orV aughn t es t i f i ed thatthey w er e unabl e t o l ocat e any of al i bi w i tnes s es . H ow ever , the def endant t es t i f i ed thathi s w i tnes s es had ca l l ed hi s l aw yer , bu tw er e t ol d thathe coul d nott ake a s t at ementoverthe phone. ¶54. T he rul e r egar di ng s uch s i tuat i ons i s cl ear : T he f ai l ur e of ei ther party t o exami ne a w i tnes s equal l y acc es s i bl e t o bot h i s nota pr opers ubj ectof comm entbef

or e the j ur y by e ith e r o f t h e p a rt ie s . He a fn e r v. S ta te , 17 So. 2d 806, 808 ( M i s s . 1944) . Y etthe f ai l ur e of a party t o pr oduce s uch a w i tnes s w ho w as equal l y acc es s i bl e t o both part i es "notonl y gi ves r i s e t o a l egi t i m at e i nf

er ence thati t s pr oduct i on w oul d have r es ul t ed unf avor abl y t o hi m , but

### 21

al s o r i gh t f

ul l y e nt i t l e s c ou ns e l f

orthe op po s i ng pa r ty, i n the c ou r s e of hi s a r gu mentt o the j ury, t o co m m ent upon his ad versary' s f ai l ure t o h ave p roduce d such evidence. " B r ow n v. S ta te , 27 So. 2d 838, 841 ( M i s s . 1946) ( overrul i ng B ro w n v. S ta te , 98 M i s s . 786; 54 So. 305 ( 1 9 1 0 ) ) . I n th i s c a s e , th e r e c o r d d o e s n o ti n d i c a t e wh e r e th e s e i n d i v i d u a l s we r e a tth e t i me o f tria l. N e v e rth e le ss , B ro w n p u t b e fo re th e ju ry w h a t h e c laim s w a s th e S tate ’s f a ilu re to cont acthi s thr ee a l i bi w i tnes s es . W hen he a dm i t t ed thathi s att orney had t al ked t o them by t el eph on e w i tho ut m aking an y further at t em pt t o sub po ena them or procure theirst at em ents , he thr ew the doorw i de open. N otonl y w as the St at e al l ow ed t o r es pond, i tw as , as our adver s ary s ys t em sur el y envi si ons , r equi r ed t o br i ng t o the j ury’ s att ent i on thati tw as perm i t t ed t o m ake a n i nf er ence f r om the f actthatthe def

endantdi d notbr i ng any of the thr ee a lib i w itn e ss e s in to c o u rt. ¶55 . In m y opini on , even w i tho ut the eyew i tness t est i m on y of L at oy a C art er and E arnest M oo r e , the w e i ghtof

the evi dence agai ns tB r ow n, though ci r cumst ant i al , w as overw hel m i ng. A ny r eas onabl e j ur or , af t erl i s t eni ng t o the pr es ent ed evi dence i n t hi s cas e, coul d det erm i ne thatthi s def

endanthad s om e k i nd o f ong oi ng beef w i th thi s f

ami l y. A nd f

r om that , al ong w i th a l l the otherf

actual i nf er ence s a nd de ducement s ther ef r om , c oul d i nf

erthatB r ow n had f i r ed a w eapon i nt o the f

ami l y’ s hous e i n the ea r l y eveni ng of M ay 2. T he pr os ecut ordi d not e v e n h a v e t o s t a n d a n d s u m i tu p f o rth e m. ¶56. T hi s , of

cour s e, w as nott he ent i r e t r i al . L at oya and E arnes tdi d t es t i f y t o w hatt hey s aw ; and tw o s t a t e ment s , on e w r i t t e n i n La t oy a ’ s ha nd , the othe rtyp e d b y a po l i c e of f i c er af t eradvi s i ng hert o r ead ove rheror i gi nal , handw r i t t en ac countt o m ake sur e the typed

### 22

s t a t e mentwas c ompl e t e , wer e e nt e r e d i nt o e vi de nc e b y the d e f e ns e . Letu s s e e how m uch damage w as done. ¶57. W e w i l l begi n f

i r s tw i th E arnes tM oor e, w ho t es t i f i ed l as tf orthe St at e. The t es t i m ony he p rovi ded , w hich app ears t o b e i gn ored by this C ou rt , w as i n p ert i nen tpartas f oll ow s: Q . D o y o u re m e m b e r th e n ig h t o f M a y 2 , 2 0 0 3 ? W h a t h a p p e n e d th a t n ig h t? A . Y es, si r. Q . W hathappene d? A. Ok a y . I twa s me a n d my g i r l L a t o y a Ca r t e r . W e we r e i n th e r o o m, a n d me a nd he rw e w e r e j us tp l a yi ng a r ou nd . She h e a r d a c l i c k. She he a r d a c l i c k. So s he j um ped up. She j um ped u p off m e, and s he s ay, E arnes t , w hatK enny d o in g a ro u n d y o u r w in d o w , jus t li k e th a t. A n d I w a s lik e fo r re a l. Q . D id y o u g o lo o k o u t th e w in d o w a t th a t p o in t? A . A tthatt i m e? Q . D id y o u g o lo o k o u t th e w in d o w w h e n sh e sa id th a t? A . D id I g o ? Y es, si r. Q . D i d you s ee a nythi ng? A . O kay. W hen s he s ai d K enny–s he s ai d K enny ar ound yourw i ndow , j ust l i ke that . So I sai d, forre al , l i ke t hat . S o I gotup r eal eas y. So w hen I l ooked outthe w i ndow , you know w hatI ’ m s ayi ng, that ’ s w ho I s een, you know w hat I ’ m s ayi ng. S o as I w as s eei ng hi m , that ’ s w hen the guns hotcame up thr ough th e wi n d o w. Q . D i d i tcaus e you bodi l y i nj ury? A . Y eah. I ts hotm e i n m y l ef thand.

. . . Q . W h a t d id y o u d o a t th a t p o in t? A . I j us tgotdow n on the f l oorand gotl ow w hen thatguns hotcame thr ough ther e. I j us tgotl ow l i ke the A r m y, you know , j us tgotl ow . I s t art ed cr aw l i ng, a n d th e n , y o u k n o w , I w e n t an d c a lled th e p a ra m e d ics a n d a m b u lan c e to m y self. Q . C an you i dent i f

y t he per s on w ho s hotyou? A . Y es, si r. Q . Pl eas e do.

. . . A . R i ghtther e ( Poi nt i ng) . K enny B r ow n.

. . . Q. I ’ m s a y i n g a r e y o u s u r e i twa s h i m? A . Y es , s i r , I s een hi s f ace .

### 23

¶58. T he def

ens e di d notcr os s - exami ne E arnes t . Forpurpos es of thi s opi ni on, w e turn back i n the r ecor d t o L at oya C art er ’ s t es t i m ony, w ho t es t i f i ed f i rs tfor t he S t at e. L at oya w as s event een a tt i m e of

the s hoot i ng, and by the t i m e of tr i al s he w as no l ongerw i th Earnes t . H er t est i m on y in pert i nen tpartw as as f oll ow s: Q . I w a n t to tak e y o u b a c k to M a y 2 , 2 0 0 3 . D o y o u re c a ll th a t n ig h t? A . Y es, si r. Q . A l ong about8 o’ cl ock w hatw er e you doi ng, and w ho al l w as i n the hous e? A . I tw as m e and Earnes t . W e w er e i n the bedr oom atthe t i m e, and I hear d a noi s e l i ke a c l i nki ng s ound. So i tki nd of bother ed me. So I ki nd of j um ped up qui ck, and I t ol d–w el l , E arnes tt ol d m e t o m ake s ur e the doorw as l ocked. Q . W hy w er e y’ al l w orr i ed aboutthe doorbei ng l ocked? A . B eca us e I h e a r d the n oi s e , a nd i tk i nd o f s c a r e d me. O n my w a y t o m ake s u r e th e d o o rwa s l o c k e d , I h e a r d a n o th e rc l i n k i n g s o u n d , a n d s o th a tma d e me s t op, and then I hear d som eone w al ki ng. W el l , I hear d the l eave s ar ound the h o u se. S o I st o p p ed an d loo k ed o u t th e b li n d , an d I said E arn est, I said - - Q. W e r e y o u i n h i s b e d r o o m? A . N o , sir . Q . O k a y . W h e re w a s E a rn e st? A. Ea r n e s twa s s t i l l i n th e b e d r o o m.

. . . Q . W hatdi d you s ay? A . I s ai d E arnes t , I sai d, w hati s K enny doi ng s t andi ng atyourbedr oom w i ndow . T hat ’ s w hen he s ai d, w ho. A nd I s ai d, yours i s t er ’ s boyf r i end. Q . A n d w h o is th at? W h o is the sister’s b o y fri en d ? I m ea n w h o is th e sister? A . R amonda M oor e. Q . S h e w as k ind o f see ing - - A . K enny B r ow n. Q . W hatdi d he s ay? A. He a s k e d wh o , a n d th e n I t o l d h i m t o c o me o u to f th e r o o m. I s a i d , c o me outof the r oom beca us e they s t andi ng r i ghti n f r ontof you.

. . . Q . S o y o u saw h im an d y o u said to E arn est - - A . I s ai d, E arnes t . I sai d, come outof the bedr oom . I s ai d, K enny–I s ai d, w hat is K e n n y d o in g s ta n d in g o u ts id e y o u r w in d o w , lik e th a t, a n d h e s a id w h o . I s ai d, yours i s t er ’ s boyf

r i end. T hat ’ s w hen he c ame out , and then he s ai d w ho, and then I s ai d K enny. T hat ’ s w hen he l ooked, a nd then he s ai d thati s K enny. T h at’s w h en the g u n sh o t w en t off. Q . D i d you s ee K enny w i th t he gun? A . Y eah.

### 24

Q . W h at kin d o f gu n d id itloo k li k e? C an y o u rem em b er? A . I know i tw as s i l ver . I tw as ki nd of s i l ver . I s een the s i de w hen he w as h o ld in g it fro m th e sid e . I se e n th e sid e o f it. Q . W hatdi d you do w hen thathappene d? A. Th a t ’ s wh e n I t o l d Ea r n e s tt o c o me o u to f th e r o o m. Q . I m e a n a fte r h e g o t sh o t. A . M e and hi m , w e r an i nt o the ki t chen pa r tof the hous e. Q . D o you have a chi l d? A . Y es, si r. B u t m y a u n t, sh e h ad just, n o t ev en , n o t ev en a few m inu tes b efo re th a t - Q . It’s a ll righ t. A . (W itn e s s c ry in g .) B Y T H E C O U R T : A re y o u a ll righ t, M s. C a rte r? A re y o u g o in g to b e ab le to cont i nue? B Y T H E W IT N E S S : ( N o d d in g H e a d .) Q . So, L at oya, you w er e t el l i ng me s om ethi ng aboutw her e you keptthe - - or thatE arnes tw oul d s om et i m es hol d thatbaby? A . Y es, si r. Q . T el l the j ury w hatyou w er e s ayi ng. A . I s ai d thatnor m al l y E arnes tw oul d be hol di ng the baby, butw hen my aunt ca m e, she said that so m ethin g just told h er to c o m e a n d g et him , b u t she d idn ’t know w hati tw as . So she j us tcame r i ghtaw ay, and no teven a f ew m i nut es af t ers he l ef

tthathappene d. Q . A r e you s ur e i tw as K enneth? A . Y es, si r.

. . . Q . N o w , afte r y o u s a w th is , d id th e a m b u lan c e c o m e , o r w h a t h a p p e n e d in otherw ords? A . E arnes t , he cr aw l ed i nt o the bedr oom , and he c al l ed 911, and the ambul ance and the pol i ce a r r i ved. Q . D i d you t el l the pol i ce? A . Y es, si r. Q . D i d you t el l the pol i ce w ho di d i tr i ghtthen? A . Y es, si r. Q . W as ther e any doubti n yourm i nd? A . N o , sir . Q . H ave you be en s car ed s i nce then? A . Y es, si r. Q . It’s a ll righ t.

### 25

A . (W itn ess c ryin g . ) I ha d w en t abo u t f ive o r six m o n ths a ft er th at I co u ldn ’t getany s l eep.

. . . Q . D i d you s ee w hathe had on? A . A w hit e T -s hirtand som e blue j eans, l on g p ants . Q . D i d you s ee i n w hatdi r ect i on he w entaf t erthe s hoot i ng? A . N o , sir . Q . D id y o u se e w h e re th e b u llet w e n t? A . Y es, si r. Q . W her e di d i tgo once i tgoti nt o the hous e? A . W hen i tw ent t hroug h hi s hand - - he w as l i ke thi s , and i tw entthr ough w h en h e d id tha t, an d itca m e thro u g h , an d itw en t th rou g h the w all h ere ( poi nt i ng t o an exhi bi t ) , and i tw entt hr ough the bathr oom w al l and hi tthe other s i de of the bathr oom w al l , and i ts t opped.

. . . ¶59. T he f

ol l ow i ng excha nge, i n r el evant part , t ook pl ace dur i ng cr os s - exami nat i on by t he def ens e, and depi ct s w hatw as pr obed i nt o r egar di ng L at oya’ s s t at ement s t o the pol i ce: Q . Y ou sai d thatthere w ere - - you h eard som eon e w al king i n the l eaves? A . Y es, si r. Q . A n d th is w a s M a y 1 s t. A . I ’ m nots ur e. I ’ m nots ur e. Q . Y ou’ r e nots ur e w hatday thi s happene d? A . N o , I’m n o t. Q . D o y ou kn ow w hat day o f the w eek itw as? A . I tw as a Fr i day ora Satur day. I ’ m notr eal l y s ur e.

. . . Q . D i d you gi ve a s t at ementt o the pol i ce? A . Y es, si r. Q. An d h o w d i d y o u g o a b o u td o i n g th a t ? Di d y o u j u s tt e l l th e m? A . T hey ca m e t o the hos pi t al . W hen w e w entt o the hos pi t al , they c ame and g o t ev e ry b o d y to c o m e a n d m a k e a sta tem e n t. Q . D i d you t al k t o t hem, though, ordi d you w r i t e i tdow n? A . I t al ked t o t hem. W el l , they t ol d m e t o w r i t e dow n w hathappene d. Q . D id y o u d o th a t? A . Y es, si r.

. . . Q . I w antyou t o l ook a tthat , a nd t el l me i f that ’ s the s t at ementyou gave t o the pol i ce. A . Y es, si r. Q . O kay. D i d you type outany s t at ementt o the pol i ce?T h e fo llo w in g is L a to y a C a rte r’s h a n d w ritten sta tem e n t; th e re c o rd c o n tain s o n ly 13 a copy of the or i gi nal , a f

ew of the w or ds ar e cutof

f by the mar gi n: O n the ni ghtof

M ay the 1s tI L at oya and Er nes t( s i c) L . M oor e w as [ i n] the hous e i n ourbedr oom and E rnes taske d m e t o go and make s ur e the doorw as [l o ] ck ed and as I go tup I [ h] eard a cl i cking soun d, s o I t old ErnestI he ard so m ethin g , b u t I w en t on to lock the d o o r an d I h ea rd the so u n d [a] g ain th at’s w hen I l ooked outthe w i ndow and sa w someone [ pu] l l i ng on s om ethi ng s o I cal l ed Erne s toutof

the r oom and he c ame and [ l oo] ked outthe w i ndow and I s ai d i tl ooks l i ke he’ s hol di ng a gun, and I s ai d [ m ] ove f r om the w i ndow baby and that ’ s w hen he s hotthr ew ( s i c) the w i ndow and [ s ] hotE rnes ti n the hand. (E m p h asis ad d ed ). T h e ty p e d sta tem e n t: O n the ni gh tof M ay the 1st . I Latoya an d E arnestL . M oo re w as i n the hou se 

### 26 A . H e ty p e d it o u t af

ter I w ro te it. Q . H e ty p e d it o u t af

ter y o u w ro te it? A . Y es, si r.

. . . Q . D id y o u tell th e m a n y th in g e lse b e sid e s th a t sta tem e n t? A . N o , sir . Q . M a’ am, I ’ m s orr y? A . N o , sir . Q . Y o u d id n ’t.

. . . Q . H ave you e vers een thatbef or e? A . T h is is th e sta tem e n t th a t h e ty p e d o u t. Q . T h e sta tem e n t th a t th e p o lice m a n ty p e d o u t? A . Y es , s i r . I tw as goi ng f r om the s t at ementthatI w r ot e dow n. Q . O kay. Y ou s ai d i tw as goi ng f r om the s t at ementthatyou w r ot e dow n? A . Y es, si r. Q . I s ther e more t o t hi s s t at ementthan thi s one? A . I do n ’t- - no , sir . Q . S o ev ery thing that’s he re - - A . Y es, si r. Q . A nd everythi ng that ’ s i n her e i s i n her e? A . Y es, si r. Q . O kay.

. . . (E X H IB IT S D -1 A N D D -2 R E C E IV E D IN T O E V ID E N C E .) 13i n ourbedr oom and Ear nes tas ked me t o go and make s ur e the doorw as l ocked

and as I gotup I hear d a cl i cki ng s ound, s o I t ol d E arnes tI heard s om ethi ng butI w enton t o l ock the doorand I he ar d the s ound agai n that ’ s w hen I l ooked outthe w i ndow and s aw s om eone pul l i ng on s om ethi ng s o I cal l ed Ear nes tout of t he r oo m an d he c a me a nd l oo ke d ou tthe wi nd ow an d I s a i d i tl oo ks l i ke he’ s hol di ng a gun, and I s ai d m ove f r om the w i ndow baby and that ’ s w hen he s hotthr ew ( s i c) the w i ndow a nd s hotEarnes ti n the hand. See I w as l ooki ng o u t th e w ind o w fir st an d h e said w h o is i t and I said itloo k s (si c) y o u r si ster’s b o y frie n d K e n n e th B ro w n . T h a t is w h e n h e lo o k e d o u t th e w in d o w a n d I to ld hi m t o m ove. I tw as about8: 00 ors o and K enneth w as atE arnes tr oom and E arnes tdoes nothave a bl i nds up buthe does have a dr es s ernearthe ( s i c) and K e n n e th w a s s tan d in g th e (sic ) T V lig h t a n d I w e n t to th e w in d o w a n d sa w h is fa c e . K e n n e th w a s s tan d in g sh a k in g o r d o in g s o m e th in g w ith w h a t h e h a d in hi s hand and I know i tl ooked s i l vers o I t old E arnes tt o m ove f r om the w i ndow . A f

t erI t ol d E arnes tt o m ove f r om the w i ndow a s hotw entof f and E arnes tf el l t o t he f

l oorI r an t o the otherr oom . E arnes tt ol d m e t o go and s ee w ho i tw as and I t ol d hi m no. E arnes tgoton the f l oors coot ed ac r os s the f l oor a n d c a lle d th e p o lice . I d id n o t k n o w E a rn e st w a s h it u n til h e c a lled h is m ot her . Ri c ha r d hi s b r othe r - i n- l a w c a me i n a nd tha ti s when Ea rne s ts a i d I b ee n sh o t. W e the n ca ll ed the a m b u lanc e. (E m p h asis ad d ed ). 

### 27 Fol l ow i ng ent r y of the t w o exhi bi t s i nt o evi dence , and w i thoutt ouchi ng any f ur therupon t he d isc re p a n c ies , the d e fe n se w ise ly m o v e d o n to u n re late d m a tte rs – tac tica lly a n d e ffe c tiv e ly l eavi ng the l ack of

compat i bi l i ty betw een the tw o s t at ement s t o be ques t i oned and w ei ghed by an appe l l at e court . B r i l l i ant . T he f ol l ow i ng w as then hea r d dur i ng the St at e’ s r edi r ect exami nat i on of

L at oya: Q . L etm e ask yo u thi s. H ow m any ti m es did y ou tal k t o the p oli ce abo ut this ? A . O ne. Q . D i d you s ay anythi ng t o t hem w hen they gotther e outt o the hous e? A . T h e y w e re m o re c o n c e rn e d a b o u t E a rn e st. Q . D id y o u tell th e m rig h t th e n w h o d id it? A . Y es, si r. Q . So you s poke t o them atthe hous e a l i t t l e bi t . D i d you s peak t o them atthe hos pi t al a l i t t l e? A . N o. O nl y w hen he c ame t o t ake us t o the pol i ce s t at i on. Q . O k a y . T h e n y o u w e n t an d g a v e a sta tem e n t? A . Y es, si r.

### 28

Q . N ow , you w ere t el l i ng m e ea r l i eron di r ectexami nat i on s om ethi ng about you saw a gun, and i n thi s handw r i t t en s t at ement , you di dn’ tm ake a m ent i on of the gun. I m ean, I know how i ti s . Som et i m es you r emem berthi ngs . A nd th e n in th is ty p e d sta tem e n t - - d id y o u ty p e th is s tate m e n t? A . N o , sir . Q . O k a y . D id y o u sig n th is s tate m e n t? A . Y es, si r. Q . I s everythi ng i n both s t at ement s true? A . It sh o u ld b e in th a t sta tem e n t. Q . I ti s , butthi s one ends . T he handw r i t t en st at em entends up i n her e. T hen ther e’ s s om e s tuf

f aboutthe gun. D i d you evert el l t he pol i ce a boutthe s i l ver gun? A . Y es, si r. Q . W h e n d id y o u tell th e m th a t? A . A ft er I fi n ishe d , h e a sk ed m e - - h e to ld m e to re ad o v er itan d m ak e su re th a t I h a d e v e ry th in g in th e re b e fo re h e ty p e d it. Q . W e re th e re so m e th in g s y o u lef t o u t? A . Y es, si r. Q . L i ke the gun? A . Y es, si r. Q . A nd then he typed i tal l dow n? A . Y es, si r. Q . A n d th e n y o u re a d it? A . Y es, si r. Q . A n d sig n e d it? A . A n d sig n e d it. Q . D o y o u h a v e a n y d o u b t w h a tso e v e r w h o sh o t E a rn e st? A . N o , sir . Q . W h o w a s it? A . K e n n e th B ro w n . ¶60. T hi s i s s tr ong t es t i m ony, gi ven underoath by both L at oya and Earnes t , w i th natur al and p e rc e p tib le in c o n sis ten c ies th a t alw a y s o c c u r b e tw e e n tes tify in g e y e w itn e ss e s. T h e C o u rt, how ever , f

ocus es upon contr adi ct i ons betw een Lat oya’ s handw r i t t en s t at ementand the one typed ther eaf

t erby a pol i ce of

f i cer , bot h t aken j us thours af t erthe s hoot i ng, w hen Lat oya w as t aken f r om the hos pi t al t o t he pol i ce s t at i on.

### 29

¶61. Fort he sa ke of

t hor oughnes s , I poi ntoutthatone s uch contr adi ct i on notm ent i oned w as the date. In bo t h st at ement s , L at oya i ndi cat ed thatthe i nci denthappene d on M ay 1. T he d e f e n s e c e r t a i n l y d i d n o tmi s s th i s . T h r o u g h o u ttr i a l , th e d e f e n s e a t t o rn e y , a s d i d Br o wn dur i ng part s of

hi s t es t i m ony, cont i nuous l y–buts ubt l el y–keptr ef err i ng t o the i nci dentt hat t ook pl ace on M ay 1, a dat e w hen he c l ai m ed he w as w i th hi s buddi es att he col l ege s hoot i ng bas ketbal l . B r ow n even s t at ed thathe w as i n I ndi anol a on M ay 2, the day a f t erthe M ay 1 i nci dent . T he St at e ca ughti ta f ew t i m es , and obj ect ed. T hi s w as f ai rga m e, e ven w i th al l t he othert es t i m ony thatthe s hoot i ng t ook pl ace on M ay 2, due t o both of L at oya’ s s t at ement s and heradmi s s i on w hi l e on the s t and t o notbei ng s ur e of the dat e t hat t he shoo t i ng happene d. St i l l , s uc h a c on tr a di c t i on was a s tr a i gh ti s s ue o f f a c tf orthe j ury t o c on s i de r , a s wer e any otherdif fer ences b et w een the tw o st at em ents . ¶ 6 2 . W h a tth i s Co u r t s e i z e s u p o n , h o we v e r , i s L a t o y a ’ s h a v i n g n o ti n c l u d e d Br o wn ’ s n a me i n the f i r s ts t at ement . B uta s f

ara s thes e eyes a r e conce rned, the onl y j udi ci al f i ndi ng thatcan be m ade fr om the factthat Latoya d i d n ot m enti on B row n w hen she w rote o u t t h e fi rs t s t at ement , i s the f

actthatL at oya did no tm ent i on B r ow n. Putanotherw ay: s o w hat . T he reas on s forhernothavi ng w r i t t en the name “K enny B r ow n” i n herf i r s ts t at ementcoul d be a n y . M a y b e sh e d id n o t se e h im ; m a y b e sh e fe lt p re ss u re fro m th e fa m ily ; m a y b e R ich a rd to ld hernott o i nvol ve the pol i ce, thathe w oul d t ake c ar e of i t ; m aybe s he has been l etdow n by the s yst em bef

or e; m aybe s he had a pr emoni t i on, notunl i ke heraunt ’ s ear l i erthateveni ng, thatsom et hing s tr ange w oul d happen ye ar s l at eri n the appe l l at e court s , s o w hy bother ; or m aybe i tw as beca us e s he, l i ke eve ry one of us , i s noti nf

al l i bl e, and s he s i m pl y m ade a m i s t ake.Al th o u g h f o o tn o t e 1 c o n t a i n s th e e x a c tl a n g u a g e c o n t a i n e d wi t h i n th e t wo 14 stat em en ts, itd o es n o t pro v ide a n ac cu rate d ep ict ion o f th e e x h ibit s the m selv e s. B o th are copi es of the ac tual pol i ce f

or m s w hi ch ar e i dent i cal , i n thatboth pr ovi de the s ame am ount o f spa ce for a n y w ri ti n g to b e c o n tai n ed there in. I t i s w o rth n o ti n g that in L atoy a’s h a n d w ri tte n s ta te m e n t, s h e ra n o u t o f r o o m w ith h e r p ri n tin g . 

### 30 ¶63. I ndeed, i ti s a ver y di f f i cul tproc es s w hen w r i t i ng t o si m ul t aneousl y re f or m ul at e and comm uni cat e a s equent i al s er i es of pa s te vent s . Such di f

f i cul ty i ncr eas es gr eat l y w hen havi ng t o do s o w hi l e s i t t i ng i n a pol i ce s t at i on j us thour s af t era tr aumat i c expe r i ence . 14 ¶ 6 4 . R e g a rd les s, th is w a s s o lely fo r th e trier (s) o f f a c t to c o n sid e r. A n d w h e n w e ig h e d w ith al l the addi t i onal evi dence adduce d att r i al , and t aki ng i nt o consi der at i on t hatbef or e Lat oya e v e n p u t p e n to p a p e r th e re w a s a lre a d y an all-p o in ts b u lletin o u t o n B ro w n , itis n o t d iffic u lt t o under s t a nd ho w the j ury r e a c he d i t s c on c l us i on . I n my f i r m opi ni on , i f

the of f e ndi ng rem ark s are rem o v ed fro m this rec o rd, itrem ains clea r, b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t, that there w as s uf f i ci entevi dence f

orthe j ury t o f

i nd Brow n gui l ty of

aggr avat ed as s aul tand s hoot i ng i nt o an occ upi ed dw el l i ng, and the j ury s t i l l w oul d have f ound the def

endantgui l ty. ¶65. I al s o dis agree w i t h t he C ou r t ’ s compar i s on w i th P ayton ; not i ng that , unl i ke her e, P a y t o n h a d s tr o n g e v i d e n c e p r o v i d e d b y th r e e a c c o mp l i c e s a n d o th e rwi tn e s s e s a g a i n s th i m. P a y to n v. S ta te , 785 So. 2d 267 ( M i s s . 1999) . I poi ntoutthatthi s C our tal s o r ever s ed on the c a s e ’s le a d is s u e , fi n d in g th a t t h e tr ia l c o u rt e rr e d b y d e n y in g P a y to n ’s m o tio n to s e v e r. Id . at270. T he C our t ’ s onl y m ent i on of the evi dence pr ovi ded by hi s t hr ee ac compl i ces w as t hat it s e v e re ly p re

ju d ic e d P a y to n ’s d e fe n s e . Id . a t 2 6 7 -7 3 . ¶6 6. Fur t her m or e, t he s econd thr es hol d i nqui ry s e tf or t h i n Spi cerr equi r es al l t he s u rr o u n d in g c ir c u m s ta n c e s b e e x a m in e d . Spi cer , 9 2 1 S o . 2 d a t 3 1 8 . I h a v e se e n e n o u g h trials

### 31

i n m y t i m e t o know the purpos e thatl ay behi nd def ens e couns el ’s o w n com m ent s of f er ed dur i ng cl os i ng, s uch as : “K i nd of r emi nds of

the pol i ce” ; “Y ou’ ve gotf el ons . . . . Y ou’ ve got r obber s , and I ’ m notsure w hat St ephani e ( w ho di d nott es t i f y) di d, buts he’ s a f

el on t oo, appar ent l y. ” N ordi d I m i s s w hatdef ens e couns el propounde d t o t he veni r e dur i ng voi rdi r e: H ow m any of

you have e vergot t en a s peedi ng t i cket , s how of hands? H ow m any of you w earyour s eatbel tevery t i m e you geti n t he car ? H ow m any of you do i tbeca us e i t ’ s the s af e thi ng t o do? H ow many of you do i ta nd onl y do it b e c a u se y o u ’re g o in g to g e t a tic k e t? D o y o u fe e l li k e m a y b e th a t’s a little obtrus i ve? D o you f

eel l i ke the St at e has any busi nes s t el l i ng you w hetheror n o t to w e a r y o u r se a t b e lt? ¶6 7. W i nk- nod t a c t i c s s uc h a s the s e d e s e r ve a r e s po ns e . The St at e, char ged w i t h t he obl i gat i on t o pr ot ectthos e uni t ed t ogetherf orc om m on be nef

i tand mut ual s af

ety, s houl d at lea st h a v e fa ir o p p o rtu n ity to a rg u e a g a in st a n y a ttem p t, no m a tter h o w sk ill fu lly n u a n c e d , to n u llif y th e la w . C

f. D a v is v . S ta te , 520 So. 2d 493, 494 ( M i s s . 1988) ( the j ury has the pow er t o acq uita cri m i nal def end ant f or w hatever r eason e v en tho ug h the evi den ce supp ort s a convi ct i on, and thi s pow eri s an i m por t antpartof the cons t i tut i onal s cheme of ourcr i m i nal l aw s ys t em). O rel s e, w hatdoes thi s C our tm ean by the conc ept , “f ai rar gum ent . ” See Payton , 7 85 S o. 2 d at271 ( ci t i ng W e lls v. S ta te , 69 8 S o. 2d 49 7, 51 9 (M i ss. 19 97 ) ( B ank s, J. , co n cu rri n g in p art an d d issen ti n g in p art). ¶68. A s the r ecor d i ndi cat es , on the others i de of the l as tba thr oom w al l , w hi ch bounce d the bul l et - pr oj ect i l e t o the f

l oor , l i ved a w om en and he rf our - year - ol d daught er . T hi s w as r el evant i nf or m at i on br oughtoutdur i ng t he tr i al , and i tw as abs ol ut el y appr opr i at e f orthe pr os ecut or to p o in t ito u t.

### 32

¶ 6 9 . T h e p ro se c u to r’s a rg u m e n t d id n o t m a n ip u late o r m iss tate th e e v id e n c e , n o r d id it i m pl i cat e, as w as the ca s e i n P ayton , o th e r s p e c if ic ri g h ts o f t h e a c c u s e d . P ayton , 785 So. 2d at26 7. In m y op i nion, a w ei gh t ed beli ef that rem arks such as tho se m ade i n this case can so eas i l y di s s uade ourci t i zens f r om per f or m i ng prope r l y i n thei rr ol es as j ur or s , s ugges t s j udi ci al e l i t i s m. ¶70. B r ow n re cei ved a f ai rt r i al w i th good l egal re pr es ent at i on, pre s i ded overby a r es pect ed and expe r i ence d t r i al j udge. I am convi nced thatthe tw el ve mem ber s of B r ow n’ s j ury heede d J udge Sander s ’ s i ns truct i ons and vot ed t o convi ctB r ow n forno otherre as on than the evi dence p re se n ted to th e m sh o w e d g u iltb e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. ¶7 1 . F o r th e a fo re m e n tio n e d rea so n s, I stron g ly d issen t f rom the m ajority ’s de cisi o n to r ever s e B r ow n’ s convi ct i on, w hi ch–al though notaske d of thi s C our t–I w oul d af f i r m . I c oncur w i th the maj or i ty as t o P artII conce rni ng the i m perm i s s i bl e cos t s and/ ors anct i ons as s es s ed ag ains t th e p rose cu tor.