### Henr y late r di ed f

rom theinj uries he sust ained in thewre ck. His death oc cur re d 1 

### befo re trial. I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 0 - KA- 0 0 6 7 8 - S CT JU L ESC O R B IN
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 05/ 2010 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 A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N T: O FFI CE O F I N D I G EN T A PPEA LS BY : J US T I N T AYL OR CO OK LESL I E S. LEE 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 : W . G LEN N W A TTS SCOTT STUA RT DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: W I L L I E DE W AYNE RI CH AR DS ON 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: AF F I RMED I N P AR T ; RE VE RS E D AND R E M A N D E D I N PA R T - 09/ 22/ 2011 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 W A L L E R , C . J. , L A M A R A N D P I E R C E , JJ. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . Ju les C o rb in , T a m m y L o u is, a n d Ja m e s H e n ry , Jr. w e re in v o lv e d in a n a u to m o b ile
w r eck thatl ef

tL oui s dead and H enry s ever el y i nj ur ed. C orbi n w as i ndi ct ed f orcapi t al 1
m ur der , ag gravat ed as s aul t , and f el ony f l eei ng the s cene of

an ac ci dent . H ow ever , he w as convi ct ed by a j ury i n W ashi ng t on C ounty C i r cui tC our tof the l es s er - i ncl uded of

f ens e of

### At tri al, L ou is’ s s on and da ughte r t es ti fi ed that

Corbin had bor

rowe d theMercur

y 2 

### Gran d M arqu is, andthat it b elon gedto L ou is’s son , Mario Rh od es. 2 m ur der , as w el l as aggravat ed ass aul tand f el ony f l eei ng the s cene . C orbi n w as s ent ence d t o l i f e i m pr i s onm entform ur der , t en year s foraggr avat ed as s aul t , and t hr ee ye ar s f orf el ony f l eei ng . A gg r i e ve d, Corbi n a pp e a l s , a nd c l a i ms, a mong o the rthi ng s , tha thi s Si xt hA m endmentr i ghtt o con fr on t at i on w as vi ol at ed. W e agr ee a nd f i nd thatthe err orw as not h a rm les s a s to th e c h a rg e s o f m u rd e r a n d a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt, b u t t h a t itw a s h a rm les s a s to th e c h a rg e o f fe lo n y fle e in g th e sc e n e o f a n a c c id e n t. T h u s, w e rev e rse an d re m a n d in p a rt,
a n d a ffirm in p a rt. F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S ¶ 2 . T h e fo llo w in g fa c ts w e re g lea n e d fro m th e tes tim o n y a n d e v id e n c e p re se n ted a t trial. L oui s and C orbi n had l i ved t ogetherf ortw o year s pr i ort o the aut om ob i l e w r eck that
occu rr ed on A ug ust1 5, 2 00 8. O n the day in qu est i on , C orbi n asked L ou i s i f he cou l d u se hers on’ s car , a gr ay M er cury G r and M ar qui s , s o he coul d dr i ve t o L el and, M i s s i s s i ppi , and g e t m o n e y fro m h is m o th e r. L a ter th a t af ter n o o n , L o u is b e g a n to g e t rea d y to g o to a p a rty 2
w i th herf

r i end, H enry. L oui s a nd H enry l ef tthe hous e ar ound 8 p. m . i n a gr een, f our - door E x p e d itio n . ¶3 . L oui s ’ s d a ug ht e r , Sh a ki l a , h ad bee n t ext - m es s agi ng herm ot hert hr oughout t he eveni ng, w hen the t ext s f r om L oui s s uddenl y s t opped ar ound 11 p. m . T he pol i ce a rr i ved
s hor t l y ther eaf

t er and t ol d Shaki l a thatherm otherhad bee n ki l l ed i n a ca rw r eck. U pon a rr iv in g a t th e w re c k s c e n e , S h a k il a s a w h e r m o th e r’ s E x p e d itio n “ ja m m e d in to a p o le .” L o u is h a d p a ss e d a w a y a t th e sc e n e o f th e w re c k , b u t H e n ry w a s ta k e n to a lo c a l h o sp ital.

### Lat er , a bla ck pur sewith stra

ps was disc over ed ne ar

a tra sh bin. I t wa s de te rm ine d 3 

### that th e purse belo ng ed to L ou is. Co rbin ’s tak ing o f th e purse andLo uis’s subsequent death wer e grounds f

or the c api ta l- murder

charge . Howe ver , Cor

bin wa s c onvic te d of murde r. 3 E ven tuall y, he w as transf err ed to the R egional M edical C enter(“Th e M ed”) i n M em ph i s, T e n n e s s e e . ¶ 4 . D a m a rc u s L o tt a n d H e n ry H o u se w e re n e a rb y w h e n th e w re c k o c c u rre d . T h e y b o th t es t i f i ed attr i al t o hear i ng a l oud cr as h, and then s eei ng a gr ay M ar qui s s m as hed i nt o the r ear end of a gr een Expedi t i on. B oth L ot tand H ous e s t at ed thatthey s aw a man i n a M ar qui s get o u t o f h is c a r, w a lk to th e p a ss e n g e r s id e o f th e E x p e d iti o n , tak e a d a rk -c o lo re d o b jec t w ith
s traps “l i ke a pur s e” f

r om the vehi cl e, and dr i ve of f . L ot tt es t i f

i ed thathe had s een the 3
m a n ’s fa c e , a n d th a t th e m a n w a s w e a ri n g a w h ite s h ir t, j e a n s , a n d h a d “ a c a p o n h is h e a d .” H o u se d id n o t se e th e m a n ’s fa c e , b u t sa id tha t th e m a n “h a d a fitted c a p o n , w h ite T -sh irt, [a n d ] b lu e je a n s .” ¶ 5 . M e a n w h ile, S a m a n th a D a v e n p o rt a n d h e r h u sb a n d , Jo h n H a g g a rd , w e re e n ro u te to p ick u p H a g g a rd ’s p a y c h e c k a t a lo c a l ca sin o , w h e n C o rb in fla g g e d th e m d o w n . B o th D avenportand herhus band t es t i f i ed attr i al . C orbi n t ol d them t hathi s car ha d been s t ol en, and that he need ed a ri de. T he cou ple r efused t o g i ve C orbi n a ri de. W i thin a f ew m i nu t es, C orbi n s ai d he s aw hi s carand r an of f . H aggar d s t at ed thatCorbi n ha d l ooked nervous , as i f “he w as t r yi ng t o hi de s om ethi ng. ” A ddi t i onal l y, both w i tnes s es obs erved thatC orbi n had a dark- col or ed obj ectw i th s tr aps tucked underh i s shi r t . H aggar d s t at ed thatC orbi n w as w ear i ng a w hi t e s hi r tand a c ap.

### Miranda v. Ari zona , 384 U. S. 436, 86 S. Ct . 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966) . 4 

### At the tim e this state me nt was played f or the j ury, it

had be en e st abl is hed that “Poo” 5 

### was Jul es Corbin. 4 ¶6. Shor t l y t her eaf

t er , C orbi n w entt o t he G r eenvi l l e pol i ce st at i on and re por t ed hi s car stolen . S ince o ffi ce rs h ad rec eive d info rm ati o n tha t C o rbin h ad b ee n d ri v ing o n e o f the ca rs i nvol ved i n the w r eck, they arr es t ed C orbi n and cha r ged hi m , i ni t i al l y, w i th l eavi ng the s cene of an accidentand bu rgl ary. A cou ple of day s af t er hi s arr est , C orbi n w ai ved his Mir anda ri g h ts an d sp o k e w ith In v esti g ator G ary C astl eb erry a b o u t th e w rec k . H e told C astl eb erry 4 th a t h e “ w a s in v o lv e d in th e a c c id e n t,” b u t th a t “th e y [L o u is a n d H e n ry ] ca u se d it. ” C o rb in f ur thers ai d that , once he had see n t he dr i verof the vehi cl e, he had “ turned ar ound and bega n chas i ng them. ” C orbi n neveradmi t t ed t o hi t t i ng the E xpedi t i on w i th the ca rthathe had be en dr i vi ng. ¶7. A ppr oxi m at el y one mont h af t er t h e w reck, C ast l eberry r ece i ved a phone cal l and l earned thatH enry, t he dr i verof t he gr een Expedi t i on, w as no l ongeron l i f e s uppor t , and that he w as a bl e t o s peak aboutthe w r eck. C as t l eberry dr ove t o M emphi s , Tennes s ee, and
r ecor ded the f

ol l ow i ng s t at ementf

r om H enry. Q . D o y o u re c a ll w h a t h a p p e n e d th e n ig h t o f th e a c c id e n t? A . W el l , l i ke I say, he p ull ed u p o n the si de o f us. Q . Y ou s ay he pul l ed up the [ s i c] s i de of you. W ho? A . Poo. Q . Poo. D o you know Poo’ s gi ven name? A . I j us tcal l hi m Poo. 5

### 5

. . . Q . N o w , w h at w as sa id an d w h at do y o u rem em b er? A . I aske d herw ho i tw as . S he s ai d i tw as Poo. A nd s he s ai d go ahea d on. So I w entahea d on. H e goti n behi nd us on G l os t er . H e hi tt he carone m o re tim e . Q . Y o u say h e w as h itti n g the c ar? A . U h- huh. Q . H e w as hi t t i ng the Expedi t i on you w er e i n. W hatw as he dr i vi ng? A . H e w as i n M ar i o’ s car , M er cury. Q . D o y ou rem em ber w hat col or i tw as? A . I tw as gr ay.

. . . H enry di ed f

r om the i nj ur i es he had s us t ai ned i n the w r eck appr oxi m at el y s i x m onths af t er the r ecor ded i nt ervi ew . A tt r i al , and overa hear s ay obj ect i on by def ens e couns el , the t ape w a s p la y e d fo r t h e ju ry a n d a d m itte d in to e v id e n c e . ¶8. A ttr i al , C orbi n t es t i f i ed i n hi s ow n defense. H e st at ed t hat he had borr ow ed the M ar qui s and had gone t o L el and t o “t ake c ar e of s om e bus i nes s . ” C orbi n cl ai m ed that , w hen he r eturned t o G r eenvi l l e, he w entt o a fr i end’ s house t o s m oke mar i j uana. C orbi n s ai d t hat
w hen he w entto l eave the hous e, he coul dn’ tf i nd the ca r . C orbi n s t at ed thathe f l agged d o w n D a v e n p o rt a n d H a g g a rd a n d a sk e d th e m fo r a rid e , w h ich th e y re fu se d . C o rb in t es t i f i ed thathe then w al ked t o t he pol i ce s t at i on and r eport ed the ca rs t ol en. C orbi n s t at ed thathe neve r“had a conve r s at i on” w i th C as t l eberry r egar di ng hi s i nvol vementi n the w r eck.

### Crawf ord v. Washi

ngton , 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004). 6

### Id . 7 

### Sm ith v. S

tate , 986 So. 2d 290, 294 ( Mis s. 2008 ) (citing Deb rowv. Sta te , 972 So. 8 

### 2d 550 (Mi ss . 2007) ). Id . 9 

### 6 ¶9. C orbi n w as convi ct ed of m ur der , aggr avat ed as s aul t , and f el ony f l eei ng the s cene of
an a c c i de nt . He was s e nt e nc e d t o l i f e i mpr i s on mentf

ormur de r , t e n ye a r s f

oraggr avat ed
as s aul t , and t hr ee yea r s forfe l ony fl eei ng the s cene of an ac ci dent . O n appea l , C orbi n r ai s es f i ve i s s ues , the f

i r s ti s s ue bei ng thathi s Si xth- A m endmentr i ghtt o c onf r ont at i on w as vi ol at ed
w h e n th e trial c o u rt allo w e d the S tate to p lay th e re c o rd e d sta tem e n t b y H e n ry . B e c a u se th is iss u e is d isp o sitiv e , w e d e c lin e to a d d re ss th e o th e r iss u e s ra ise d o n a p p e a l. DI S CU S S I ON ¶1 0. O n a pp e a l , Corbi n c l a i ms tha th i s Si xth A m endment r i ghtt o conf r ont at i on w as v iolated b y the a d m issi o n o f th e re co rdin g o f H en ry’s statem en t, in v iolati o n o f Craw ford
v. W as hington . C orbi n’ s tr i al couns el f ai l ed t o m ake a Craw

ford obj ect i on r egar di ng t he 6 admi s s i on of

the s t at ement , and C orbi n now as ks thi s C our tt o addr ess the i s s ue undert he d o ctri n e o f plain e rror. 7 ¶1 1. “U ndert he doct r i ne of pl a i n e rr or , w e c a n r e c og ni z e ob vi ou s e rr orw hi c h was not p ro p e rly ra ise d b y th e d e fe n d a n t o n a p p e a l, an d w h ich a ffe c ts a d e fe n d a n t’s ‘f u n d a m e n tal,
su b sta n tiv e rig h t.’” A v io latio n o f th e C o n fro n tatio n C lau se is a v io latio n o f a “ fu n d a m e n tal, 8
s ubs t ant i ve r i ght , ” w hi ch s er i ous l y af f ect s the “f

ai rnes s , i nt egr i ty orpubl i c r eput at i on of 9

### Unit ed St ate s v . Ol ano , 507 U. S. 725, 732, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1776, 123 L. Ed. 2d 10 

### 508, 518 ( 1993). See Sm ith , 986 So. 2d at

294. 11 

### Lee v. Ill ., 47 6 U.S. 530, 540, 106 S. Ct . 2056, 90 L. Ed. 2d 514 (1986) (quoting 12 

### Point er v. Texas , 380 U. S. 400, 405, 85 S. Ct. 1065, 13 L. Ed. 2d 923 ( 1965)) . Davi s v . Washingt

on , 547 U.S. 813, 821, 126 S. Ct. 2266, 2273, 165 L. Ed. 2d 224 13 

### (2006) (c iting Cra wfo rd, 541 U. S. at 59) . Id . 14 

### 7 j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” T her ef or e, w e w i l l addr es s w hethert he adm i s s i on of the r ecor di ng 10 of H enry’ s s t at ement , w hi ch i m pl i cat ed C orbi n, vi ol at ed C orbi n’ s r i ghtt o conf r ont at i on, and if so , w h e th e r su c h e rro r re q u ire s re v e rsa l. 11 I . W het her H enry’ s prere corded s t at em ent t o pol i ce vi ol at ed C o rb in’s c o n sti tu ti o n a l ri g h t of c o n fro n tation u n d er th e S ixth A m en d m en t. ¶12. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas s ai d: [ T her e] ar e f

ew subj ect s , per haps , upon w hi ch thi s courtand othercourt s have been mor e nea r l y unani m ous than i n t he expr es s i ons of bel i ef t hatthe r i ghtof conf r ont at i on and cr os s- exam i nat i on i s an es s ent i al and f undament al r equi r ementf

orthe ki nd of

f ai rtr i al w hi ch is thi s country’ s cons t i tut i onal g o a l. 12 ¶13. T he C onf

r ont at i on C l aus e of the Si xth A m endment guar ant ees that “[ i ] n al l cr i m i nal prosecuti on s, the accu sed sha l l en j oy the ri gh t. . . to be con fr on t ed w i th the w i tnesses agai nst hi m . ” A r t i cl e 3, Sect i on 26 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on pr ovi des an al m os ti dent i cal

13
s af eguar d. T hus , the admi s s i on of a t es t i m oni al s t at ementof a w i tnes s w ho does notappea r attr i al i s barr ed, unl es s thatw i tnes s i s unavai l abl e, and the de f endanthas had a pr i or oppor tuni ty f

orcr os s - exami nat i on. A s not ed i n Cra wf or d v. W as hington , th is b a r o n ly 14

### Cra wfo rd, 541 U. S. at 68. 15 

### Nea l v. Sta te , 15 So. 3d 388, 403 ( ci ting Cra wfo rd, 541 U. S. at 51) . 16

### Id . at 403- 404 (c iting Cra wfo rd, 541 U. S. at 52) . 17 

### Cra wfo rd, 541 U. S. at 51- 52. 18 

### 8 a p p lies to sta tem e n ts th a t a re “ tes tim o n ial.” A n d w h ile th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s d e c lin e d to 15 p r o v i d e a d e f

i n i t i o n o f “ t e s t i mo n i a l , ” i th a s s a i d th a t“ ‘ [ t ] e s t i mo n y ’ . . . i s ty p i c a l l y ‘ a s o l e mn d e c lar a tio n o r a ffirm a tio n m a d e fo r th e p u rp o se o f e sta b lish in g o r p ro v in g so m e fa c t.’” T h is 16
nece s s ar i l y i ncl udes , among ot her s , “pol i ce i nt err ogat i ons ” and “ s t at ement s thatw er e made underci r cumst ance s w hi ch w oul d l ead an obj ect i ve w i tnes s r eas onabl y t o bel i eve thatt he
s ta te m e n t w o u ld b e a v a ila b le fo r u s e a t a la te r t ri a l.” 17 ¶1 4. H enr y’ s st at ement t o C as t l eberr y i m pl i cat i ng C orbi n a s the dr i ve rw ho hi t t he E xpedi t i on and the per s on r es pons i bl e f orthe w r eck ce r t ai nl y qual i f i es as t es t i m oni al under the cor e cl as s of

s t at ement s enumer at ed i n Craw ford . T he s t at ementw as s uch thatan

18 “obj ect i ve w i tness” w ou l d reasonab l y b el i eve thatthe st at em ent w ou l d b e avail able f or use a t a la ter trial. B e c a u se H e n ry ’s s tate m e n t w a s m a d e fo r th e p u rp o se o f a ss istin g p o lice w ith i t s i nves t i gat i on, the purpos e w as pr os ecut or i al . T hus , the s t at ementw as t es t i m oni al , and
s h o u ld h a v e b e e n e x c lu d e d . ¶15. M or eover , t he excep t i on pre s cr i bed i n Craw ford i s barr ed, beca us e C orbi n di d not have a pr i oroppor tuni ty t o cr os s - exami ne H enry before hi s death. C onf r ont at i on and the ab il ity to cro ss-ex am in e w itne sses are fun d am en tal elem en ts of a fa irtr ial . H ere , the ju ry

### Cra wfo rd, 541 U. S. at 61- 62. 19

### Dela wa re v. Va n A rsda ll, 475 U. S. 673, 106 S. Ct . 1431, 89 L. Ed. 2d 674 ( 1986) 20 

### (a vio lationof th e Co nfro ntatio n C lau se i s sub ject to “h armless error” an alysis); see also Ea rl v. Sta te , 672 So. 2d 1240, 1243- 44 (Mi ss . 1996) . Dela wa re v. Va n A rsda ll, 475 U. S. at 684. 21 

### Id . 22 

### 9 w as al l ow ed t o heari ncr i m i nat i ng evi dence as t o C orbi n’ s gui l t , w i thouti tbei ng t es t ed i n t he

“ c ru c ib le o f c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n .” 19 ¶16. N ow w e m us t det erm i ne w hether thi s vi ol at i on of C orbi n’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtw as harm l es s er r or . In D e la w a re v. V a n A rs da ll , th e S u p rem e C o u rtex p lai n ed the p ara m eters 20 that s ho uld be co nsi dered b y an app el l at e cou rtw hen revi ew i ng a C on fr on t at i on -C l ause v iolati o n as h arm less erro r. T he co rr ectinquiry i s w hether , assum i ng the da m aging p otent i al of the crossexami nat i on w er e f

ul l y r eal i zed, a r evi ew i ng courtm i ghtnonet hel es s say that th e e rro r w a s h a rm les s b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. W h e th e r su c h an err o r is h a rm les s in a p a rticu lar c a se d e p e n d s u p o n a h o st o f fa c to rs, a ll rea d ily acces si ble t o r evi ew i ng court s . T hes e f act or s i ncl ude the i m por t ance of the w i tnes s ’ t es t i m ony in t he pros ecut i on’ s cas e, w hetherthe t es t i m ony w as cumul at i ve, the pr es ence of evi dence corr obor at i ng orcont radi ct i ng the t es t i m ony of

the w i tnes s on m at er i al poi nt s , the ext entof cr os s - exami nat i on o therw ise p erm itted, an d , o f co u rse, the o v era ll str en g th o f th e p rose cu ti o n ’s cas e. 21 ¶17. I n or derf

orthe v i olat i on o f C orbi n’s con st i tuti onal r i ghtt o conf r ont at i on t o be
c o n sid e re d h a rm les s, th e a d m iss io n m u st b e h a rm les s b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. 22 M i s s i s s i ppi C od e S ect i on 97- 3- 7 pr ovi des : “[ a] per s on i s gui l ty of aggr avat ed as s aul ti f

he

. . . (b) a tt em p ts t o ca u se o r pu rpo sely o r k n o w in g ly ca u ses b o d il y injury to an o ther w i th a

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 97-3- 7 (Re v. 2006) . 23 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 97-3- 19 (Re v. 2006) . 24 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 97-3- 7 (Re v. 2006) . 25 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 97-3- 19(2) (e ) ( Rev. 2006). 26 

### 10 dea dly w eapon orothe rmea ns l i ke l y t o p r od uc e de a th o rs e r i ou s bo di l y h a r m. ” A nd 23 Sect i on 97- 3- 19 s t at es that : “[ t ] he ki l l i ng o f a h u ma n b e i n g wi th o u tth e a u th o r i ty o f l a w by
any m ean s or i n a ny m an ner s hal l be m ur deri n the f ol l ow i ng cas es : [ w ] hen done i n t he
c o m m iss io n o f a n a c t em in e n tly d a n g e ro u s to o th e rs a n d e v in c in g a d e p ra v e d h e a rt,
r egar dl es s of

hum an l i f

e, al though w i thouta ny pr emedi t at ed des i gn t o ef f ectthe dea th of

any part i cul ari ndi vi dual . ” H enry’ s r ecor ded s t at ementw as the onl y pi ece of evi dence attr i al 24 thatacc us ed C orbi n of

purpos el y or know i ngl y hi t t i ng t he E xpedi t i on and caus i ng the w r eck. S u c h e v id e n c e w a s v itally im p o rta n t to p ro v e , b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t, th a t C o rb in purpos el y orknow i ng l y had us ed the ca ras “a de adl y w eapon, ” and thathe had ki l l ed a 25 hum an bei ng “ w i thoutthe author i ty of l aw by any m eans ori n a ny manne r. ” N o o t her 26
w i tnes s pr ovi ded s i m i l art es t i m ony. A nd C orbi n deni ed hi t t i ng the ca rand ca us i ng the w r eck i n hi s s t at ementt o C as t l eberr y. T hus , w e cannotsay thatt he adm i s s i on of the s t at ementw as h a rm le s s b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. ¶ 1 8 . W ith re g a rd to th e c h a rg e o f fe lo n y f le e in g th e s c e n e o f a n a c c id e n t, th e e rro r is h a rm les s. M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 6 3 -3 -4 0 1 re q u ire s th a t: T h e d riv e r o f a n y v e h icle in v o lv e d in a n a c c id e n t re su lti n g in in ju ry to o r d e a th of any per s on s hal l i m m edi at el y s t op s uch vehi cl e att he sc ene of s uch ac ci dent

. . . b ut s hal l then f

or ew i th r eturn t o and i n every events hal l r emai n atthe s cene of the ac ci dentunt i l he has f ul f i l l ed the r equi r ement s of Sect i on 63- 3- 405.

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 63-3- 405 (Re v. 2004) . 27 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 63-3- 405 (Re v. 2004) . 28 

### 11 S e c tio n 6 3 -3 -4 0 5 sta tes th a t th e d riv e r o f a n y v e h icle in v o lv e d in a n a c c id e n t re su lti n g in i nj ury ordeath t o any per s on, or damage t o any vehi cl e, s hal l gi ve hi s name, addr es s , and the regi strat i on nu m ber of the v ehicl e he is d ri ving, am on g o ther things. S ect i on 63 -3- 40 5 als o 27
s t at es thatthe dr i verof

any vehi cl e i nvol ved i n an ac ci dentr es ul t i ng in i njury s hal l r ender
re a so n a b le a ss ista n c e to a n y p e rso n in ju re d in su c h a c c id e n t. 28 ¶19. D emar cus L ot tt es t i f i ed t hathe had see n C orbi n get ou t of the M ar qui s , w al k t o t he pas s engers i de of

the Expedi t i on, “geta pur s e” f r om the vehi cl e, and dr i ve of f . L ot tt es t i f

i ed thathe had s een the man’ s f ace , and he ga ve a des cr i pt i on t o pol i ce. Lot t ’ s des cr i pt i on of C orbi n w as corr obor at ed by the t es t i m ony of D avenport , H aggar d, and H ous e. L ot tm ade an i n- courti dent i f

i cat i on of

C orbi n as the per s on he had w i tnes s ed l eavi ng the s cene of the
w r eck. H ous e al s o t es t i f i ed thathe had s een am an geto ut of the M ar qui s , w al k t o t he pas s engers i de of

the Expedi t i on, t ake a dark- col or ed obj ectw i th s tr aps f r om the vehi cl e, and dr i ve of f . T hus , i n l i ghtof

thi s evi dence , H enry’ s r ecor ded s t at ementw as ci rcum s t ant i al evi dence thatC orbi n fl ed t he sc ene and w as cum ul at i ve t o the t es t i m ony of L ot tand H ous e. ¶ 2 0 . C o rb in a rg u e s th a t h is tria l co u n se l w a s in e ffe c tiv e fo r fa ilin g to o bje c t w h e n L o tt
m ade the i n- cou rtident i f i cat i on. C orbi n al l eges thatthe i n- courti dent i f i cat i on w as bas ed upon an “i m perm i s s i bl y s ugges t i ve pr e- tr i al ident i f i cat i on pr ocedur e. ” Thi s ar gum enthas
n o m e rit, a s th e re c o rd is c lea r th a t L o tt w a s n e v e r sh o w n a p ictu re o f C o rb in p rio r to trial. T h e S tate s h o w e d L o tt a p ictu re o f C o rb in a t trial, b u t o n ly a fte r L o tt h a d id e n tified C o rb in
as the man he had s een on the ni ghti n qu est i on. L ot tt es t i f i ed thathe had gott en a “ good

### Cra wfo rd, 541 U. S. at 68- 69. 29

### Id . at 61. 30

### Id . 31 

### 12 l ook” a tCorbi n, a nd tha th e was f a mi l i a rwi th Corbi n f

r om s e e i ng h i m ar ou nd t ow n. A nd hi s des cr i pt i on of

C orbi n w as corr obor at ed by the t es t i m ony of D avenport , H aggar d, and H ous e. A ccor di ngl y, C orbi n’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence r egar di ng thi s char ge s t and. ¶21 . L ast l y, w e no t e t hat, i n it s bri ef, the S t at e argues t hat H enry’s st at em ent w as otherw i se re liab le, a n d its a d m iss io n a t trial sh o u ld b e d e e m e d h a rm les s e rro r. W h e n d e a lin g w ith t es t i m oni al evi dence , a f i nd i ng of r e l i abi l i ty does notcr eat e an e xcept i on t o the C onf r ont at i on C lau se . “[W ]he re tes tim o n ia l sta tem e n ts a re a t issu e , the o n ly in d iciu m o f re liab ili ty suff i ci ent t o sat i sf

y co nst i tuti on al dem and s i s the o ne the C on st i tuti on actuall y p res cri bes: conf r ont at i on. ” “ A dmi tt i ng s t a t ement s deemed r el i abl e by a j udge i s f undament al l y atodds 29
w ith th e rig h t o f c o n fro n tatio n .” T h u s, a n y n o tio n th a t H e n ry ’s s tate m e n t w a s a d m iss ib le 30 becau se i tw as r el i able overl oo ks t he u nd eniabl e factthat the C on fr on t at i on C l ause i s a pr ocedur al , r atherthan a s ubs t ant i ve, guar ant ee. 31 CO NC L US I ON ¶22. B eca us e the admi s s i on of H enry’ s unc onf

r ont ed s t at ementr es ul t ed i n the vi ol at i on of C orbi n’s const i tuti on al ri gh tt o co nfr on t at i on , im ped i ng his ri gh tt o a fai r tri al , w e revers e a n d rem a n d the co n v ictio n s fo r m u rd e r a n d a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt fo r a n e w trial c o n sis ten t w ith

### HWCC-Tunica, Inc . v . Jenkins , 9 07 S o. 2d94 1, 9 44 (Miss. 2 00 5) (“[I]n o rder to 32 

### re ver seunder

theplain e rror doc trine , the r evi ewing court m ust find both e rror and har

m. ”) . 13 thi s opi ni on. W e af

f i r m C orbi n’ s convi ct i on forf el ony f l eei ng the s cene of

an ac ci dent , as 32
overw hel m i ng evi dence of C orbi n’ s gui l tw as pr oper l y s ubm i t t ed t o the j ury. ¶ 2 3 . CO UN T I : CO N V I C TIO N O F M U R D ER A N D SEN TE N C E O F LIFE I M P RI S ON M E NT I N T HE C US T OD Y OF 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 , RE VE RS E D A ND RE M AN DE D. CO UN T I I : CO NV I CT I ON OF AG GR AV AT E D A S S AU L T AN D S E NT E NC E OF T E N ( 1 0 ) YE AR S I N T HE C U STO D Y O F T H E M I SSI SSI PPI DE PA R TM EN T O F C O R R EC TIO N S, RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDED. COUNT I I I : CONVI CT I ON OF F EL ONY L E A V I N G T H E SC E N E O F A N A C C ID E N T A N D SE N T E N C E O F T H R E E ( 3) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF C O R R E C T I O N S , A F F I R M E D . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARLS ON, P. J . , RANDOLP H AND L AM AR, J J . , CONCUR. KI TCHEN S , J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND DI S S ENTS I N PART W I TH SEP ARA TE W R I T T E N O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y D I C K I N SO N , P. J. , C H A N D L E R A N D K I N G , JJ. K IT C H E N S , JU S T IC E , C O N C U R R IN G IN P A R T A N D D ISS E N T IN G IN PART: ¶ 2 4 . I a g re e w ith th e m a jo rity ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t th e trial c o u rt v io late d Ju les C o rb in ’s S ix th A m endmentr i ghtt o conf r ont at i on w hen the pr evi ous l y r ecor ded pol i ce i nt ervi ew of J ames H enry, Jr. , w as admi t t ed i nt o evi dence . A s s uch, I agr ee that , w i th r es pectt o C ountI f or m ur derand C ountII foraggr avat ed as s aul t , t he convi ct i ons and sent ence s shoul d be r ever s ed and r emanded f

ora new tr i al . H ow ever , I r es pect f ul l y di s a gr e e w i th the maj or i ty’ s concl us i on th a t th is e rro r w a s h a rm les s re g a rd in g C o u n t III, fe lo n io u s fle e in g th e s c e n e o f a n a c c id e n t; th e re fo re , I w o u ld re v e rs e a n d re m a n d fo r a n e w tr ia l o n a ll c h a rg e s . ¶2 5 . H arm less erro rs are “c o n sti tuti o n al erro rs w h ich in the sett ing o f a p arti cu lar ca se a re s o uni m por t anta nd i ns i gni f i cant ” they do notr equi r e the aut om at i c r ever s al of a convi ct i on.

### 14

Ch a p m a n v. Ca lif

o r n ia , 3 8 6 U . S . 1 8 , 2 2 , 8 7 S . C t. 8 2 4 , 8 2 7 , 1 7 L . E d . 2 d 7 0 5 (19 6 7 ). W h ere a vi ol at i on of

the C onf r ont at i on C l aus e has oc curr ed, the “t es t i m ony err oneous l y admi t t ed”
m us tbe “me r e l y c umul a t i ve of othe rov e rw he l mi ng a nd l a r ge l y u nc on tr ov e r t e d e vi de nc e p ro p e rl y b e fo re th e ju ry ” in o rd e r t o b e c o n s id e re d h a rm le s s e rr o r. Bro wn v. U . S. , 4 11 U . S. 223, 231, 93 S. Ct . 15 65 , 15 70 , 36 L. Ed. 2d 20 8 ( 19 73 ) . M or e ov e r , “ be f or e a f e de r al
con st i tuti on al err or can b e held harm l ess, ” t his C ou rtm ustfi nd thatthe err or w as harm l ess b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. Ch a p m a n , 386 U . S. a t24. The St at e i s bur dened w i th pr ovi ng th a t t h e e rr o r w a s h a rm le s s b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. Sm ith v. S ta te , 986 So. 2d 290, 300 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng A riz o n a v. Fu lm in a n te , 499 U . S. 279, 296, 111 S. C t . 1246, 1257, 113 L . E d . 2 d 3 0 2 (19 9 1 )). ¶ 2 6 . W ith re g a rd to th e c h a rg e o f felo n io u s flee in g th e sc e n e o f an a c c id e n t, th e m a jo rity opi ni on as s ert s thatthe tr i al court ’ s err ori n adm i t t i ng J ames H enry’ s t aped i nt ervi ew w as h a rm les s, g iv e n th a t th e S tate ’s w itn e ss , D e rm a rc u s L o tt, tes tified th a t h e h a d se e n C o rb in l eavi ng the s cene of

the ac ci dent , and gi ven that L ott ’s d es cr i pt i on of C orbi n w as corr obor at ed by thr ee otherw i tnes s es . I n l i ghtof the t es t i m ony of

thes e w i tnes s es , t he
m a jo ri ty c o n c lu d e s H e n ry ’s re c o rd e d s ta te m e n t w a s “ c u m u la tiv e .” M a j. O p . a t ¶ 1 9 . ¶27. A s f

orthe t aped i nt ervi ew of J ames H enry, the r ecor d i ndi cat es that , a ttr i al , the t ape b e c a m e in a u d ib le, a n d th a t a c o m p lete tra n sc rip tio n o f w h a t w a s p lay e d b e fo re th e ju ry c o u ld notbe achi eved. I n t he por t i on of the t ape thatw as tr ans cr i bed, H enry i ndi cat ed thathe had been dr i vi ng T amm y L oui s ’ s vehi cl e w hen i tw as s truck m ul t i pl e t i m es by a ca rdr i ven by a
m a n w h o m h e ide n tified o n ly as P o o . H e n ry d id n o t rec a ll C o rb in ’s h a v in g d riv e n h is v e h icle al ongs i de the Expedi t i on, w hi ch H enry an d L ou i s occup i ed, fol l ow i ng the w reck. H enry s t at ed

### 15

thathe di d notr eca l l bei ng t r ans por t ed t o t he hospi t al , and t hathe di d notr eca l l anythi ng af t er the cr as h. H ow ever , the r ecord t hen i ndi cat es thatthe t ape c ont ai ni ng the i nt ervi ew , w hi ch
c o n tin u e d to p lay fo r th e ju ry , b e c a m e in a u d ib le in “ m a n y p o rtio n s.” It is u n c lea r fro m th is
n o tat ion in the rec o rd w h ethe r it w a s ina u d ible to the jury , o r j u st t o the c o u rtrep o rt er. T her ef or e, ther e i s no w ay t o know w hetherthe l att erpor t i on of the t ape i ncl uded a s t at ement fro m H e n ry th a t C o rb in h a d fle d th e sc e n e o f th e a c c id e n t. B e c a u se it i s im p o ss ib le to d e ter m in e w h a t th e ju ry a c tu a lly h e a rd , the re is n o w a y to a sc e rta in w h e th e r in a d m iss ib le
e v id e n c e w a s a d d u c e d b e fo re th e ju ry c o n c e rn in g C o u n t I II . ¶ 2 8 . T h e tes tim o n y o f th e w itn e ss e s a t o r n e a r th e sc e n e o f th e a c c id e n t d o e s n o t su p p o rt a f i ndi ng of harm l es s err or . J ames H ous e, w ho w i tnes s ed a m an dr i vi ng aw ay f r om the ac ci dent in a g ra y c a r, w a s u n a b le a t trial to id e n tif y C o rb in a s th e d riv e r. H e tes tified th a t h e c o u ld
m er el y des cr i be the man he had s een thatn i ght . Sam antha D avenportt es t i f i ed that , on t he ni ghtof the acc i dent , C orbi n had fl agged herdow n and aske d herfora ri de beca us e hi s car had bee n s t ol en. D avenpor t ’s p as s enger , J ohnny H aggar d, al s o t es t i f i ed thatC orbi n had f l agged them dow n, i nf

or m ed them hi s c arha d be en s t ol en, a s ked f ora r i de, butthen s ai d he di d notneed a r i de af

t eral l . N ei therD avenportnorH aggar d w as pre s entatthe s cene of the
a c c id e n t, an d n e ith e r w itn e ss e d C o rb in ’s f lee in g th e sc e n e o f a n a c c id e n t. T h u s, th e o n ly
w i tnes s among t hos e enumer at ed by t he m aj or i ty w ho actual l y i dent i f i ed C orbi n as the man fl e e in g th e s c e n e w a s D e m a rc u s L o tt. ¶2 9. For t he above r e a s on s , I c a nn otc on c l ud e tha tthe i na dmi s s i bl e s t a t e ment s made by H enry w er e “mer el y cum ul at i ve of ot herover w hel m i ng and l ar gel y uncontr overt ed evi dence pr oper l y be f

or e the j ury. ” B r o w n , 411 U . S. at231. I bel i eve thatt he St at e has fa i l ed t o m eet

### 16

its b u rd e n o f sh o w in g b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t th e e rro r w a s h a rm les s w ith re g a rd to C o u n t I II . Sm ith , 986 So. 2d at300. T her ef or e, I am unabl e t o j oi n the maj or i ty i n af f i r m i ng the convi ct i on of

the cha r ge l ai d i n C ountI I I of the i ndi ctm ent . I w oul d r ever s e al l t hr ee c o n v ictio n s a n d re m a n d th e c a se fo r a n e w trial. DI CKI NS ON, P . J . , CHANDL ER AND KI NG, J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.