I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 6 - KA- 0 2 1 4 9 - S CT GREGORY S

M I TH a / k / a J R.
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 30/ 2006 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. RO BERT W ALTER B AI LEY COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LAUDERDALE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: BENJ AM I N A. S UBER AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : S T E P HANI E B. W OOD DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : BI LBO M I TCH ELL NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM 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: B E F O R E W A L L E R , P . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D L A M A R , JJ. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. I n the C i r cui tCourtof Lauderdal e C ou nty, a j ury found G r egory Sm i th gui l ty of capi t al m ur der , and he w as s ent ence d t o l i f e i m pr i s onm entw i thoutthe pos s i bi l i ty of par ol e. S m ith filed a m o tio n fo r ju d g m e n t n o tw ith sta n d in g th e v e rd ict a n d a m o tio n fo r a n e w trial, bo th o f w hich the tr i al cou rtden i ed. S m i th ap peals . FACTS ¶2. I n the ear l y m orni ng hour s of M ay 29, 2004, J er emy Scot t w as s hot f our t i m es i n t he head i n the M er i di an hom e of re l at i ves . A 911 cal l w as pl ace d ar ound 2: 49 a. m . , t o w hi ch

### 2

the M er i di an Pol i ce D epart m ent(“ M PD ”) re s ponded short l y t her eaf t er . Scot tdi ed f

r om t he guns hotw ounds t o the hea d. ¶3. A s s i gned t o i nves t i gat e the murde rone yearaf t eri toccurr ed, D et ect i ve A ndy H avar d, M P D c rim in a l in v e stig a to r, lea rn e d fro m S c o tt’s m o th e r th a t S c o tt h a d p u rc h a se d a c e ll phone abouttw o w eeks bef or e he w as m ur der ed. T he det ect i ves s ubpoenae d the ce l l phone
r ecor ds f orcal l s m ade f

r om S cott ’ s phone fr om 2: 45 a. m . on M ay 29, 2004, thr ough the next thr ee da ys . B eca us e the phone w as us ed pos t - m or t em, the det ect i ves concl uded thatper s ons in th e h o u se d u rin g o r a fte r S c o tt’s d e a th to o k h is p h o n e . T h ro u g h in v e stig a tio n re late d to the phone r ecor ds , t he det ect i ves det erm i ned thatA nthony Evans , L ew i s T hom as G r een, and G regory S m i th w ere s uspects . P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶4 . A gra nd j ur y i n L auder dal e County i nd i c t e d Eva ns , G r e e n, a nd Smi th f or ar m ed ro b b e ry a n d c a p ital m u rd e r. T h e tri a l co u rt g ra n ted E v a n s’s req u e st fo r se v e ra n c e fro m h is codef endant s . Sm i th al s o f

i l ed a mot i on f

ors ever ance . H ow ever , t he m ot i on w as nei ther
n o tice d fo r a h e a rin g n o r ru led o n b y th e trial c o u rt. ¶ 5 . A t th e jo in t tr ia l o f S m ith a n d G re e n , s ix w itn e s s e s te s ti f ie d . J a s o n M c E lh e n n e y , a f or m erM PD cr i m i nal i nves t i gat or , t es t i f i ed abouthi s obs ervat i ons atthe s cene of the cr i m e. D r. S teve n H ay n e, a p atho log istw h o p erfo rm ed an au to p sy o n S co tt , d esc ri b ed S co tt ’s g u n sh o t w o u n d s a n d o p in e d a s to S c o tt’s c a u se o f d e a th . B e rn ice C o lli n s, fo rm e r liv e -in g irlfrien d o f G re e n , tes tified th a t E v a n s, S m ith , an d G re e n w e re re g u lar ly to g e th e r. S h e sa id thats he w as w i th Sm i th and G r een unt i l about1: 00 a. m , l es s than tw o hour s bef or e the

### 3

m u rd e r, an d th a t w h e n sh e sa w G re e n a g a in a ro u n d 5 :0 0 a .m ., G re e n told h e r E v a n s w a s w ith h im . M P D O ffic e r Jo e H o a d ley , initia lly th e lea d d e tec tiv e o n th e c a s e , te s tif ied a b o u t h is inv estig a tion , w h ich d id n o t l ea d to the iden ti fi ca ti o n o f an y su sp ec ts. D etec ti v e H av ard t es t i f i ed aboutthe f

rui t s of hi s i nves t i gat i on, w hi ch i ncl uded hi s i nt err ogat i on of Sm i th and G ree n . A n o ther M P D crim inal inv esti g ator, D etec ti v e J.C . B o sw ell , w h o assisted H av ard i n the i nt err ogat i on of

Sm i th a nd G r een, a l s o t es t i f i ed abouts t at ement s m ade by Smi th and G reen du ri ng theirres pecti ve int err og at i on s. ¶6 . D et ect i ves Hava r d a nd Bos w e l l t e s t i f i ed t hatt hey i nt er r ogat ed Sm i t h on t hr ee occa s i ons : D ece m ber8, 2005; D ece m ber13, 2005; and February 9, 2006. O n eac h occa s i on, Sm i th w as i ncar cer at ed on otherchar ges . Sm i th’ s appar entknow l edge of t he
m ur derexpande d w i th e ach i nt ervi ew , cul m i nat i ng i n hi s conf es s i on dur i ng the February 9 i nt ervi ew . D et ect i ve H avar d t es t i f i ed thatSm i th s t at ed i n the f i nal i nt err ogat i on thathe and G re e n h a d b e e n a t t h e sc e n e o f th e c rim e , an d th a t h e h a d b e e n a lo o k o u t. A c c o rd in g to H avar d, Sm i th sai d t hey had gone i n t o comm i tr obbery. Sm i th al s o s ai d G r een ha d s hot Scot t . T he St at e ent er ed di s c r ecor di ngs of Sm i th’ s i nterr ogat i ons as w el l as tr ans cr i pt s of tho se r e c o rd in g s. G ree n o b jected n u m ero u s ti m es to the testi m o n y reg ard ing S m ith ’s s t at ement s on the gr ounds of c onf r ont at i on a nd he ar s ay. The tr i al courteventual l y gr ant ed G r een a cont i nui ng obj ect i on. ¶ 7 . De t e c t i v e s Ha v a r d a n d Bo s we l l t e s t i f i e d t h a tt h e y h a d i n t e rr o g a t e d Gr e e n o n two o c c a sio n s: O c to b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , an d M a rc h 2 , 2 0 0 6 . G re e n a lso w a s in ter ro g a ted w h ile in cus t ody on otherchar ges . A tthe f i r s ti nt err ogat i on, G r een de ni ed know i ng anythi ng aboutGreen als o a pp eal ed but later m ov ed to w ith draw h is appe al, an d th at moti on wa s granted 1 by order of the Court dat ed June 5, 2008. 

### 4 t he mur de r . A tthe s e c on d i nt e r r og a t i on , whi c h, a c c or di ng t o the d e t e c t i ve s , l a s t ed about f or ty- f i ve mi nut es , the det ect i ves be gan t o r ecor d G r een’ s i nt err ogat i on; how ever , af t erthe det ect i ves pl ayed f

orG r een the port i on of

Sm i th’ s i nt err ogat i on i n w hi ch G r een w as named as a n a ccompl i ce, G r een r eques t ed thatthe r ecor derbe s t opped, and the det ect i ves compl i ed. A f t ert hi s re ques t , t he det ect i ves t es t i f i ed thatG r een a dm i t t ed he a nd Sm i th had bee n pr es ent atthe murde r . D et ect i ve H avar d t es t i f i ed thatG r een s t at ed thathe and Smi th had gone t o r ob Scot tand thatG r een had ha d a gun. D et ect i ve H avar d f ur thert es t i f

i ed thatG r een s ai d he had sea rch ed the h o u se w h il e S m ith h ad w atch ed the fro n t do o r, an d G ree n said h e h ad h ea rd thr ee t o f i ve s hot s f

i r ed w hi l e he w as sea r chi ng t he house . A ccor di ng t o the of f i cer s , G r een a lso sa id h e h a d tak e n d ru g s a n d m o n e y fr o m th e h o u se . G re e n to ld th e o ffic e rs th a t S m ith had a c hr om e handgun, and thata s m al l gun l i ke a . 380- cal i berand a l ong handgun had be en inv o lved . S m ith o b

jected n u m ero u s ti m es to the o ffi ce rs’ t esti m o n y reg ard ing G ree n ’s s t at ement s on the gr ounds of conf r ont at i on and hea r s ay. T he tr i al courtoverrul ed ea ch obj ect i on. ¶8. A f

t ert he St at e r es t ed, t he t r i al cour tcal l ed ea ch def endanti ndi vi dual l y and expl ai ned t o hi m hi s r i ghtt o t es t i f y ornott es t i f

y. E ach de f

endantdecl i ned t o t es t i f y, and nei therput on any evi dence . A f

t era thr ee- day tr i al , bo t h S m i t h and G r een w er e convi ct ed of capi t al
m ur derand s ent ence d t o l i f e i m pr i s onm entw i thoutthe pos s i bi l i ty of par ol e. ¶9. Sm i th f

i l ed pos t - tr i al m ot i ons , w hi ch w er e deni ed. Sm i th appea l s hi s convi ct i on. 1

### 5 DI S CU S S I ON ¶ 1 0 . S m ith ra ise d tw o issu e s o n a p p e a l: (1 ) W h e th e r S m ith w a s irre p a ra b ly a n d u n fa irly prej ud i ced b y the adm i ssi on of charact er evi den ce of pri or bad act s, i ncludi ng pri or arres t s, c h a rg e s, b o n d h e a rin g s, an d o th e r u n re late d crim e s; an d (2 ) w h e th e r S m ith w a s d e n ied a fa ir trial d u e to th e trial c o u rt’s f a ilu re to se v e r th e tria ls o f S m ith a n d G re e n . F u rth e r, S m ith i m pl i ci t l y aver s a C onf

r ont at i on C l aus e vi ol at i on i n hi s s ever ance i s s ue w her e he a r gues “[ a] s epar at e tr i al w as nece s s ary t o ens ur e a f ai rdet erm i nat i on of

Sm i th' s gui l tori nnocenc e w i thoutG r een' s hear s ay and c onf r ont at i onal st at ement s . ” R ul e 28( a) ( 3) of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e s t at es : “A s t at ements hall ident i f y the i s s ues pr es ent ed f or r evi ew . ” T he rul e al s o s ays “ the courtm ay, ati t s opt i on, not i ce a pl ai n err ornoti dent i f i ed ordi s t i nct l y s peci f

i ed. ” M . R . A . P. R ul e 28( a) ( 3) . U nderthe pl ai n-e rr ordoctr i ne, w e ca n r ecogni ze obvi ous err orw hi ch w as notpr oper l y r ai s ed by the def endanton appea l , and w hi ch af f ect s a def endant ’ s “f

undament al , s ubs t ant i ve r i ght . ” See D e b ro w v. S ta te , 972 So. 2d 550 ( M i s s . 2007) ( r ecogni zi ng as pl ai n err orthatthe adm i s s i on of evi dence of def endant ’ s bl ood
a lco h o l co n ten t w a s in v io latio n o f h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to c o n fro n tatio n ); S an ders
v. S ta te , 678 So. 2d 663, 67 0 (M i ss. 1996) ( quot i ng G ra y v. S ta te , 549 So. 2d 1316, 1321 ( M i s s . 1989) ( “I thas been es t abl i s hed t hatw her e f undament al r i ght s ar e vi ol at ed, pr ocedur al
rul es gi ve w ay t o pr eventa m i s carr i age of j us t i ce” ) ) . P l ai n- err orre vi ew i s pr oper l y ut i l i zed f or“corr ect i ng obvi ous i ns t ance s of i nj us t i ce orm i s appl i ed l aw . ” N e w p o rt v . Fa c t Co n c e rts , 4 5 3 U .S . 2 4 7 , 2 5 6 , 1 0 1 S . C t. 27 4 8 , 6 9 L . E d . 2 d 6 1 6 (1 9 8 1 ). B e c a u s e w e fin d th a t a v i o l a t i o n o f

th e Co n f r o n t a t i o n Cl a u s e i s a v i o l a t i o n o f a “ f u n d a me n t a l , s u b s t a n t i v e r i g h t , ” weSmithob jec ted to t heco nf rontation error in trialco urt . T o De tec tiv e Havard’ s te stim ony a s 2 to what Green sai d of Smith’s i nvolvement in the murder, Smith stat ed: [S mith ’s C ouns el] :Y our H on or, wearego ingto ob jec t to anything– th e sam e b asi s Mr. St ephenson ha d. I realiz e the Court has al ready overruled those object ions, but it’s defini tely confrontat ional and al so hearsay. Court: Yes, sir . I understand. Overruled.


### 6 al s o w i l l addr es s w hetherG r een’ s s t at ement , w hi ch i m pl i cat ed Sm i th, vi ol at ed Sm i th’ s r i ght t o conf r ont at i on, as pr ovi ded by the Si xth and Four t eenth A m endment s t o the U ni t ed St at es C o n stitu tio n , an d if so , w h e th e r su c h e rro r re q u ire s re v e rsa l. 2 I. W h e th e r th e T r ia l C o u r t C o m m itte d R e v e r sib le E r r o r in A dm i t t i ng C haract er Evi dence or Pri or B ad A ct s about Pri or A rrest s, C h arg es, B on d H earings, an d O ther U n rel ated C ri m es. ¶11. Sm i th ar gues that the tr i al court err ed w hen i t admi t t ed charact er evi dence thr ough Sm i th’ s ow n s t at ement s conce r ni ng pr i orarr e s t s , c ha r ge s , bo ndhe a r i ng s , and otherunr el at ed cr i m es . T he St at e r es ponds thatSm i t h i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed f r om r ai s i ng as err ort he admi s s i bi l i ty of

hi s s t at ement s as char act erevi dence s i nce he di d nots peci f i cal l y obj ecton th a t g ro u n d in th e trial c o u rt. ¶1 2. T hi s Cour t r e vi e w s the tr i a l c ou r t ' s de c i s i on t o a dmi t or e xc l ud e e vi de nc e un deran a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w . J o n e s v . S ta te , 962 So. 2d 1263, 1268 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng J o n e s v . S ta te , 9 0 4 S o . 2 d 1 4 9 , 1 5 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 )). ¶1 3 . T h is C o u rt h as h eld “ [a] n o b jecti o n m u st be m ad e w ith sp ec if ici ty, and failu re to art i cul at e t he gr ounds forobj ect i on cons t i tut es a w ai verof the al l eged e rr or . ” R o ss v. S ta te , 9 5 4 S o . 2d 96 8 , 98 7 (M iss. 19 7 3 ). F u rth er, w e h av e h eld th at “a n o b jecti o n o n o n e o r m o re

### 7

s peci f i c gr ounds c ons t i tut es a w ai verof al l othergr ounds . ” S

p ice r v . S ta te , 921 So. 2d 292, 316 (M i s s . 2006) ( quot i ng Co n n e r v . S ta te , 6 3 2 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 5 5 (M is s . 1 9 9 3 ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds by W

eat hers poon v. S ta te , 7 3 2 S o . 2 d 1 5 8 , 1 6 1 -62 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ); Mor gan v. S ta te , 741 So. 2d 246, 253 (M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng S trin g e r v . S ta te , 279 So. 2d 156, 158 ( M i s s . 1973) ) . T hi s C our tnot ed i n Mor ga n thatan obj ect i on cannotbe enlar ged in the
re v ie w in g c o u rt to e m b ra c e a n o m is s io n n o t c o m p la in e d o f a t tr ia l. Mor gan , 741 So. 2d at 25 3 ( c i t i ng Mc G a r r h v . S ta te , 2 4 9 M iss . 2 4 7 , 2 7 6 , 1 4 8 S o . 2 d 4 9 4 , 5 0 6 (1 9 6 3 )); Str inger , 279 So. 2d at158- 59. T hi s C our tcannotf i nd that a tr i al j udge comm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err or o n a m a tte r n o t b ro u g h t b e fo re h im o r h e r t o c o n s id e r. Mo n tg o m e ry v. S ta te , 891 So. 2d 179, 1 8 7 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); Str inger , 279 So. 2d at158. ¶14. W hen Sm i th’ s s t at ement s w er e of f er ed i nt o evi dence , Sm i th j oi ned an obj ect i on m ade by G r een on the gr ounds of hear s ay and the r i ghtt o conf r ont at i on. Sm i th f

ai l ed t o obj ecton the gr ound he r ai s es on a ppeal – i m pr operc har act erevi dence . Sm i th w ai ved any a r gum ent c o n c e rn in g c h a ra c ter e v id e n c e w h e n h e fa iled to ra ise it i n th e trial c o u rt. I I . W het her t he T ri al C ourt C om m i t t ed R eversi bl e E rror i n N ot Se ve r i ng t he t r i al s of

G r e go r y Sm i t h and Le wi s G r e e n. ¶15. Sm i th al s o as s ert s that the tr i al court comm i t t ed err or by f ai l i ng t o s ever the tr i al s of Sm i th and code f

endantG r een. T he St at e ar gues thats i nce Sm i th f i l ed a m ot i on f

ors ever ance butnevers etthe mot i on f orhear i ng, thi s as s i gnm ental s o i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed. ¶16. U ni f

or m R ul e of C i r cui t and C ounty C our t P ract i ce 9. 03 pl ace s i n the di s cr et i on of th e trial ju d g e th e g ra n t o r re fu sa l o f se v e ra n c e o f d e fe n d a n ts in c a se s n o t in v o lv in g th e d e a thAlthough this i s a capita l murder case, the Stat e did not seek the death penal ty. 3 

### 8 penal ty. T hi s C our thas hel d that , even w hen a def endanthas a r i ghtt o a s epar at e tr i al f r om 3 thatof a code f endant , “thi s r i ght , as any otherf undament al an d abs ol ut e r i ght , can be
w ai ved. ” Sm ith v. S ta te , 724 So. 2d 280, 3 07 ( M i s s . 1988) . U ni f orm R ul e of

C i r cui tand C ou nty C ou rtP ract i ce 2.04 st at es: I ti s the duty of

the movant , w hen a mot i on orotherpl eadi ng i s f i l ed, i ncl udi ng m ot i ons f

ora ne w tr i al , t o pur s ue s ai d m ot i on t o hear i ng and dec i s i on by the court . Fai l ur e t o pur s ue a pr et ri al m ot i on t o hear i ng and dec i s i on bef or e tr i al is de em ed an ab an d o n m en t o f th at m o ti o n ; h o w ev er, said m o ti o n m ay be h ea rd a fte r th e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f tria l in th e d isc re tio n o f th e c o u rt. T hi s C our thas r epea t edl y hel d that“i ti s the r es pons i bi l i ty of the movantt o obt ai n a rul i ng f r om t he cour ton m ot i ons . . . and f ai l ur e t o do s o cons t i tut es a w ai ver . ” E v a n s v . S ta te , 725 So. 2d 613, 708 ( M i s s . 1997) ( quot i ng J o h n so n v. S ta te , 461 S o. 2d 1288, 1290 ( M i s s . 1984) ) . “I s s ues notbr oughtbef or e the tr i al courtar e dee m ed w ai ved and m ay notbe
r ai s ed f ort he f i r s tt i m e on appe al . ” T

a te v . S ta te , 912 So. 2d 919, 928 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng W ilch e r v . S ta te , 4 7 9 S o . 2 d 7 1 0 , 7 1 2 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 )). ¶17. W e f

i nd no r ecor d of a rul i ng by the tr i al court on Sm i th’ s m ot i on f or s ever ance nor any evi dence thatthe mot i on w as not i ced f orhear i ng by the def

endant . B y f

ai l i ng t o pur s ue a hea r i ng orrul i ng on t he mot i on f r om the tr i al court , Sm i th eff ect i vely a bandoned the
m o tio n a n d w a iv e d th is iss u e fo r a p p e a l. II I. W h e th e r th e T r ia l C o u r t C o m m itte d R e v e r sib le E r r o r in A dm i t t i ng G r e e n’ s St at e m e nt A ga i ns t Sm i t h.

### 9

¶ 1 8 . T h is C o u rt re v ie w s d e n o v o a C o n fr o n ta tio n C la u s e o b je c tio n . See H

a y de n v. S ta te , 972 So. 2d 525, 535- 36 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng B a k e r v . S ta te , 8 0 2 S o . 2 d 7 7 , 8 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 )). ¶19. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas not ed: [ ther e] a r e f

ew s ubj ect s , pe r haps , upon w hi ch thi s Courta nd othercourt s have been mor e near l y una ni m ous than i n the expr es s i ons of bel i ef thatthe r i ghtof conf r ont at i on and cr os s - exami nat i on i s an es s ent i al and f undam ent al re q u ire m e n t fo r th e k in d o f f a ir tria l w h ich is th is c o u n try ' s c o n stitu tio n a l g o a l. L e e v. Ill. , 476 U . S. 530, 540, 106 S. C t . 2056, 90 L . E d. 2d 514 ( 1986) ( quot i ng P ointerv. T exas , 3 8 0 U .S . 4 0 0 , 4 0 5 , 8 5 S . C t. 10 6 5 , 1 3 L . E d . 2 d 9 2 3 (1 9 6 5 )). T h e rig h t to conf r ont at i on: ( 1) i ns ur es thatthe w i tnes s w i l l gi ve hi s s t at ement s underoath -
- thus im p re ss in g h im w ith th e s e rio u sn e ss o f th e m a tter a n d g u a rd in g a g a in st th e lie b y th e p o ss ib ili ty o f a p e n a lty fo r p e rju ry ; (2 ) f o rc e s th e w itn e ss to su b m it t o cro ss-ex am ination , the ‘g rea testlega l en g ine ev er inv en ted fo r th e d isco v ery of truth’ ; ( 3) perm i t s the j ury thati s t o deci de the def endant ' s f

at e t o obs erve th e d e m e a n o r o f th e w itn e ss m a k in g h is s tate m e n t, th u s a id in g th e ju ry in as s es s i ng hi s cr edi bi l i ty. L e e, 476 U . S. at540 ( quot i ng Cali f or ni a v. G r een , 3 9 9 U. S. 1 4 9 , 1 5 8 , 9 0 S. Ct . 1 9 3 0 , 2 6 L. E d . 2 d 4 8 9 (1 9 7 0 )). “ [T h e ] tru th fin d in g fu n c tio n o f th e C o n fro n tatio n C lau se is u n iq u e ly thr eat ened w hen an a ccompl i ce' s conf es s i on i s soughtt o be i ntr oduced a gai ns ta cr i m i nal def endantw i thoutthe bene f i tof cr os s - exami nat i on. ” L ee , 476 U . S. at541. ¶20. I n Cr aw

f or d v. W as hington , the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thel d thatt es t i m oni al
s t a t e me n t s o f

wi tn e s s e s a b s e n tf

r o m tr i a l c a n b e a d mi t t e d , i n a c c o r d a n c e wi th c o mm o n l a w, o n ly w her e the dec l ar anti s unavai l abl e and the defend ant had a pri or oppo rtun i ty to cr osse x a m in e . Cr aw

f or d v. W as hington , 541 U . S. 36, 68, 124 S. C t . 1354, 1364, 158 L . E d. 2d

### 10

177 (2 00 4) ( e mpha s i s a dd e d) . The Sup r e me Courtdi s t i ng ui s he d n on t e s t i moni a l he a r s ay fr o m te s tim o n ia l h e a rs a y . I d . N ont es t i m oni al hear s ay i s s ubj ectt o evi dent i ary rul es conce rni ng r el i abi l i ty r atherthan bei ng s ubj ectt o s crut i ny underthe C onf r ont at i on C l aus e. Id . H o w e v e r, t e s tim o n ia l h e a rs a y m u s t b e fi lte re d b y th e C o n fr o n ta tio n C la u s e . I d. at53. ¶21. T he C our tde cl i ned i n Craw ford t o def i ne “t es t i m oni al ” s t at ement s , butnot ed thatt he t erm , a ta mi ni m um , i ncl udes “ pr i ort es t i m ony ata pr el i m i nary hear i ng, bef or e a gr and j ur y, orata f or m ertr i al ; and t o pol i ce i nt er r ogat i ons . ” I d. at68 (e m phas i s added) . Subse quent l y, the C our taddres s ed the nee d t o “det erm i ne more pr eci s el y w hi ch pol i ce i nt err ogat i ons pr oduce t es t i m ony. ” D avis v. W as hington , 547 U . S. 813, 822, 126 S. C t . 2266, 165 L . E d. 2d 2 24 ( 20 06 ) . I n D a v is , the C o u rt fu rth e r d istin g u ish e d sta tem e n ts m a d e in re sp o n se to p o lice in ter ro g a tio n s, e x p lain in g th a t: [ s ] t at ement s ar e nont es t i m on i al w hen made i n the cour s e of pol i ce interrog ati o n u n d er c irc u m stan ce s o b jecti v ely in d icati n g that the p ri m ary purpos e of

the i nt err ogat i on i s t o enabl e pol i ce a s s i s t ance t o m eetan ongoi ng e m e rg e n c y . T h e y a re te stim o n ial w h e n th e c irc u m sta n c e s o b jec tiv e ly in d ica te thatther e i s no s uch ongoi ng e m er gency, a nd thatthe pr i m ary purpos e of the i nt er r ogat i on i s t o es t abl i s h orpr ove pas tevent s pot ent i al l y r el evantt o l at er cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on . D a v is , 547 U . S. at822. A ccor di ngl y, the s t at ement s m ade dur i ng pol i ce i nt err ogat i on i n the pr e s e ntc a s e a r e u nq ue s t i on a bl y t e s t i moni a l a nd thu s woul d be a dmi s s i bl e o nl y i f t he d e c la ra n t w a s u n a v a ila b le a n d th e d e fe n d a n t h a d a p ri o r o p p o rt u n ity to c ro s s e x a m in e . See Craw ford , 541 U . S. at52, 68. ¶ 2 2 . Cr aw

f or d ci t es B ruton v. U

n ited S tates, 391 U . S. 123, 126, 88 S. C t . 1620, 1622, 20 L . E d. 2d 476 ( 1968) , f ort he pr opos i t i on t hat t he admi s s i on of a code f endant ’ s s t at ement

### 11

agai ns ta def

endantw i thoutthe opportuni ty t o cr os s - exami ne the codef endanti s a vi ol at i on o f th e C o n fr o n ta tio n C la u s e . Craw ford , 541 U . S. at57. Fol l ow i ng B r uton , thi s C our thas hel d that“the pr os ecut i on s houl d notoff er , and t he t r i al j udge s houl d notadmi t , i n evi dence , i ncri m i nati ng st at em ents of a cod efendan t(i m pli cat i ng the d efendan t ) dur i ng the s t at e’ s cas ein -c h ief , sin c e it co u ld n o t b e k n o w n w h e th e r th e c o d e fe n d a n t w o u ld te s tif y a fte r th e sta te r es t ed. ” Cla rk v. S ta te , 891 So. 2d 136, 140 ( M i s s . 2004) ( quot i ng B ro w n v. S ta te , 340 So. 2 d 7 1 8 , 7 2 1 (M iss. 1 9 7 6 )). ¶23. T he tr i al court al l ow ed the i ntr oduct i on of Sm i th’ s and G r een’ s s t at ement s bas ed on the r el i abi l i ty t es ts etf

or th i n S e a les v. S ta te , 495 So. 2d 475 ( M i s s . 1986) . I n Seales , att he jo in t trial o f th e d e fe n d a n ts, o u t-o f-c o u rt sta tem e n ts o f e a c h d e fe n d a n t m a d e to o ffic e rs w h ile i n pol i ce c us t ody w er e admi t t ed i nt o evi dence i n the St at e' s cas e- i n- chi ef , r el yi ng on the O h io
v. R o b e rts , 448 U . S. 56, 66, 65 L . E d. 2d 597, 100 S. C T . 2531 ( 1980) , “i ndi ci a of r el i abi l i ty” t es t . U nderthi s t es t , the s t at ementof a nont es t i f yi ng codef

endantw as admi s s i bl e w hen the decl ar antw as unavai l abl e and the s t at ementbor e adequa t e “i ndi ci a of r el i abi l i ty. ” Seales , 4 9 5 S o . 2 d a t 4 8 0 . R o b e rts h e ld th a t relia b ili ty is su ffic ien t “w h e re th e e v id e n c e fa lls w ith in a f i r m l y r oot ed hea r s ay exc ept i on” ori s s how n t o cont ai n “part i cul ar i zed gua r ant ees of trus tw or thi nes s . ” R o b e r ts, 4 4 8 U .S . a t 6 6 . Seales , i n f ol l ow i ng R o b e rts , det erm i ned thatt he admi s s i on of

the s t at ement s i n thatc as e w as notr ever s i bl e err or , st at i ng “‘ part i cul ar i zed guar ant ees of

trus tw or thi nes s ’ ar e pr es ent , t hati s , thatthe s t at ement s corr obor at e one a not her on the cor e det ai l s of

the cr i m e. ” Seales , 495 So. 2d at479. A nal ogi zi ng Seales t o the case

### 12

athand, the tr i al courtfoun d the s t at ement s r el i abl e s i nce “ both D ef endant s , bas i cal l y, c o rr o b o ra te d e a c h o th e rs ’ s to ry , g e n e ra lly , u n til y o u g e t to w h o th e s h o o te r w a s .” ¶ 2 4 . H o w e v e r, Seales and R o b e rts ar e i n conf l i ctw i th Cr aw

ford as t hey rel at e t o t he
a d m is s ib ility o f t e s tim o n ia l s ta te m e n ts . Craw ford hel d thatthe R o b e rts re lia b ility te s t, i.e ., w hetheri tf

al l s undera “f

i r m l y root ed hear say exc ept i on" orbear s "pa r t i cul ar i zed gua r ant ees of trus tw or thi nes s , ” s tr ays unacc ept abl y f r om the or i gi nal i nt ent i on of the C onfr ont at i on C l aus e. Cra w

fo r d , 54 1 U . S . at60. T he unpar donabl e vi ce of the R o b e rts tes t is “ its dem on strat ed cap aci ty to adm i tcore t est i m on i al st at em ents that the C on fr on t at i on C l ause pl ai nl y m eantt o excl ude. ” I d. at63. T he C our tf

ound that , underthe t es tl ai d outi n R o b e rts , tr i al court s cont i nued r out i nel y t o adm i taccompl i ce conf es s i ons i m pl i cat i ng t he acc us ed and
o th e r s o rt s o f p la in ly te s tim o n ia l s ta te m e n ts . I d. ¶25. A s t o the R o b e rts tes t, th e S u p re m e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e a d m iss io n o f sta tem e n ts upon a mer e f

i ndi ng of

r el i abi l i t y fai l ed t o m eetthe cor e conc erns of the C onf

r ont at i on C la u s e a n d fa ile d to p ro te c t a g a in s t p a ra d ig m a tic c o n fr o n ta tio n v io la tio n s . I d . at60. [w ] h ere test im o n ial stat em en ts are inv o lved , w e d o n o t th ink the F ram ers m eantt o l eave t he Si xth A m endment ' s prot ect i on t o the vaga r i es of the rul es of evi dence , m uch l es s t o amorphous not i ons of “r el i abi l i ty. ”. . . A dm i t t i ng s t at ement s deemed r el i abl e by a j udge i s funda m ent al l y atodds w i th t he r i ght o f c o n fro n tatio n . T o b e su re , the C lau se ' s u lti m a te g o a l is to e n su re re liab ili ty o f ev iden ce , b u t i t i s a p roc ed u ral rath er tha n a su b stan ti v e g u ara n tee. I t comm ands , notthatevi dence be r el i abl e, butthatr el i abi l i ty be as s essed i n a part i cul arm anner : by t es t i ng i n the cruci bl e of cr os s - exami nat i on. I d. at61.The appli cabl e progeny of Seale sinc ludes Har

rin gto n v . S tat e , 7 93 So . 2 d 6 26 (Mi ss. 4 20 01 ) (f indingaf ter ex aminatio n o f an all eg ed c on frontation

cla us e er ror that th e st ate m ents w ere ina dmiss ibl e sinc e th eydid no t satis fy

the Ro bertsreliabi lity te st a s set out in Seale s ) ; Sm ith v. St ate , 7 54 So . 2 d 1 15 9 (M iss . 2 00 0) ( same); Wil liams v . S tat e , 6 67 So . 2 d 1 5, 21 (Mi ss. 19 96 ) (i f the stat ement bears partic ularize d guarante es o f trustworthine ss so that “ the testof cro ss- ex aminatio n w ould b e o f marg inal utili ty, ” th e st ate m ent is admiss ibl e at tri al) ; Jo hn son v. St ate , 512 So. 2d 1246, 1254 (Miss. 1987) ( “ if the tri al court de termines ata suppr ession hear ing pri or to trialthat th e st ate m ents c ontain ‘p articularize d guarantee s o f t rus tw ort hin ess ’ . . . th at i s, that thestatements c orrob orate o nean oth er o n th e co re details of thecrim e, ” th enthestatement is a dmis s ibl e); Mitch ell

v. St ate , 4 95 So . 2 d 5 , 9 (Mi ss. 19 86 ) (the Bruton pre sum pti on ag ain st admiss ion

of a co -de fend ant's state m ent ag ain st a de fend ant w ith out th e o pp ort un ityto cro ss- ex aminetheco -de fend ant m aybereb utt ed so as to m eet

Co nf rontation Cl au se s tan dards if

it is s uppo rte d b y a

sh ow ingof

parti cularize d gua

rantee s o f t

rus tw ort hin ess ). 

### 13 ¶ 2 6 . Cr aw

f or d h o ld s th a t w h e n d e a lin g w ith tes tim o n ial e v id e n c e , a fin d in g o f re liab ili ty d o e s n o t c re a te a n e x c e p tio n to th e C o n fr o n ta tio n C la u s e . Craw ford , 54 1 U. S. at 61 . “W h ere t es t i m oni al s t at ement s ar e ati s s ue, the onl y ind ici u m o f reli ab il ity su ffi cien t t o sati sfy cons t i tut i onal de m ands i s the one the C ons t i tut i on a ctual l y pr es cr i bes : con fr on t at i on. ” I d. at68- 69 ( emphasi s added) . W e overrul e Seales a nd i t s pr ogeny t o the ext entthatthey al l ow 4 admi s s i on of

t es t i m oni al s t at ement s w hen f ound t o be r el i abl e underthe “i ndi ci a of re liab ili ty ” tes t in the ab se n c e o f cr o ss -e x a m in a tio n . W e d e c lin e to a d d re ss th e a p p lica b ili ty o f Seales t o n on t est i m on i al st at em ents . ¶27. T he tr i al courtadmi t t ed the s t at ement s a nd a t t empt ed t o a ddr es s a ny conf r ont at i onal i s s ues by gi vi ng a c aut i onary i ns truct i on. W i th r egar d t o G r een’ s s t at ement s , j ury i ns truct i on C - 16 s t at ed: [ t ] he courti ns truct s the j ury thats t at ement s attr i but ed t o L ew i s G r een ha ve b e e n a d m itt e d in to e v id e n c e . T h e c o u rt in stru c ts th e ju ry th a t y o u a re to di s r e ga r d a ny s uc h s t a t e mentr e ga r di ng G r e go ry Smi th a nd hi s a l l e ge d in v o lv e m e n t in a n a rm e d ro b b e ry a n d m u rd e r th a t is th e su b jec t o f th is tria l. Y o u a re fu rth e r in stru c ted to d isre g a rd an y o th e r sta tem e n t attrib u ted to L e w is

### 14

G ree n reg ard ing G reg o ry S m ith as e v iden ce in this ca se a g a in st G reg o ry Sm i th. Y ou ar e notperm i t t ed t o us e any s t at ementattr i but ed t o L ew i s G r een i n r egar d t o G r egory Sm i th as evi dence i n thi s cas e aga i ns tG r egory Sm i th. ¶28. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas r ej ect ed a jur y i nst ruct i on as a cur e f or the vi ol at i on of

the C onf

r ont at i on C l aus e, expl ai ni ng: A defend ant i s ent i t l ed t o a f ai rtr i al butnota per f ectone. I ti s not unr eas onabl e t o c oncl ude thati n many s uch cas es the j ury can a nd w i l l f ol l ow th e tr ia l ju d g e ' s in s tru c tio n s to d is re g a rd s u c h in fo rm a tio n . N e v e rt h e le s s , . . . . the re a re so m e c o n tex ts in w h ich th e r isk th a t th e ju ry w ill n o t, or c a n n o t, f ol l ow i ns truct i ons i s s o gr eat , a nd the cons equenc es of f ai l ur e s o vi t al t o the def endant , thatthe pr act i cal and hum an l i m i t at i ons of the j ury s ys t em cannot b e ig n o re d . S u c h a c o n tex t is p re se n ted h e re , w h e re th e p o w e rfu lly i ncr i m i nat i ng e xtr aj udi ci al s t at ement s of a c odef endant , w ho s t ands accus ed s i de- by- s i de w i th the def endant , ar e del i ber at el y s pr ead bef ore t he j ury i n a j ointt r i al . N otonl y ar e the i ncr i m i nat i ons devas t at i ng t o the def endantbut thei rcr edi bi l i ty i s i nevi t abl y s us pect , a f actr ecogni zed w hen ac compl i ces do tak e th e sta n d a n d th e ju ry is in stru c ted to w e ig h th e ir tes tim o n y c a re fu lly g iv e n th e re c o g n ize d m o tiv a tio n to s h ift b lam e o n to o th e rs. T h e u n re liab ili ty of s uch evi dence i s i nt ol er abl y compounded w hen the al l eged a ccompl i ce, as here, does not t est i fy and cann ot be t est ed by cr oss- exam i nati on . I tw as agai nst s uch thr eat s t o a f

ai rtr i al thatthe C onf

r ont at i on C l aus e w as di r ect ed. B r uton , 3 9 1 U .S . a t 1 3 5 -3 6 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itt e d ). B r uton f ound t he j ury i ns truct i on i ns uf

f i ci entt o cur e a Confr ont at i on C l aus e vi ol at i on and rever sed the pet i t i oner ’ s convi ct i on be caus e of “ s ubs t ant i al r i s k thatthe j ury, des pi t e i ns truct i ons t o t he co n tr ary , loo k ed to the incrim inating e x tr ajud ici al st atem en ts i n d eterm ining p eti ti o n er’s gui l t . ” B r uton , 391 U . S. at126. T hi s C our thas f ol l ow ed B r uton . S e e e .g ., H a rr is v . S ta te , 861 So. 2d 1003, 1022 ( M i ss. 2 003) ( ci t i ng B r uton f orthe pr opos i t i on that“w her e a codef endant ' s s t at ementi s i ntr od uced ata j oi nttr i al w hi ch pow er f ul l y i m pl i cat es the d e f e n d a n ti n a c r i m e , a j u r y i n s tru c t i o n o rr e d a c t i o n s w h i c h n a tu r a l l y s u g g e s tt h e d e f e n d a n t 's

### 15

n a m e h a s b e e n re m o v e d is n o t su ffic ien t p ro tec tio n o f th e d e fe n d a n t' s rig h t to c o n fro n t h is
a c c u se r w h e re th e c o d e fe n d a n t d o e s n o t tak e th e sta n d a n d su b jec t h im se lf to cro ss-ex am ination b y the d efe n d an t”). ¶2 9. I n a ccor dance w i t h B r uton , thi s C ou rtcont i nues t o hol d thata vi ol at i on of the C onf r on t a t i on Cl a us e by a dmi s s i on of a c od e f

e nd a nt ’ s ou t - of

- c ou r ts t a t e mentw hi ch im p li ca tes th e d efe n d an t i n a c ri m e c an n o t be c u red b y th e g ra n ti n g o f a c au ti o n ary i ns truct i on s uch as the ones ent er ed i n thi s cas e. ¶3 0 . H av i ng determ i ned tha t neither thro u g h estab li sh m en t of reli ab il ity u n d er R o b e rts and S eales, n o r th ro u g h th e iss u a n c e o f a ju ry in stru c tio n , w e re G re e n ’s s tate m e n ts p ro p e rly adm i t t ed, w e m ustfi nall y d et erm i ne w hether , as the S t at e assert s, the C on fr on t at i on C l ause v io la tio n w a s h a rm le s s e rr o r. See D e la w a re v. V a n A rs da ll

, 4 7 5 U .S . 6 7 3 , 6 7 4 , 1 0 6 S . C t. 1 4 3 1 , 8 9 L . E d . 2 d 6 7 4 (1 9 8 6 ) (v a c a tin g a n d re m a n d in g th e c a se fo r h a rm les s-e rro r a n a ly sis
w h ere , tho u g h the tri al co u rtco m m itted a C o n fro n tat ion C laus e v iolati o n , the D elaw are Supr eme C our terr ed “w hen i t[ r ej ect ed the s t at e’ s argum entand] decl i ned t o cons i der
w h ethe r [ the tri al co u rt ] ruli n g w as h arm less in the co n text o f th e tri al as a w h o le”). ¶ 3 1 . T h e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt h a s e x p lain e d th a t “ a d e fe n d a n t is e n tit led to a fa ir tr ia l b u t n o t a p e rf

e c t o n e ,” fo r th e re a re n o p e rf e c t t ri a ls . B r ow n v. U

nited States , 41 1 U. S. 223, 231, 93 S. C t . 1565, 36 L . E d. 2d 208 ( 1973) ( quot i ng B r uton , 391 U . S. at135 ( quot i ng L utw ak v. U

nited States , 3 4 4 U .S . 6 0 4 , 6 1 9 , 7 3 S . C t. 4 8 1 , 9 7 L . E d . 5 9 3 (1 9 5 3 ))). W h ile “ther e ar e s om e cons t i tut i onal r i ght s s o bas i c t o a f ai rtr i al thatthei ri nf

r act i on c an neve rbe tr eat ed as harm l es s err or , ” Ch a p m a n v. Ca lifo rn ia , 386 U . S. 18, 23, 87 S. Ct . 824, 17 L . E d.

### 16

2d 705 ( 1967) , “mostconst i tuti onal err or s can be harm l es s . ” N ederv. U

nited States , 527 U . S. 1, 8, 119 S. Ct . 1827, 144 L . E d. 2d 35 ( 1999) ( ci t i ng A riz o n a v. Fu lm in a n te , 49 9 U. S. 279, 306, 111 S. Ct . 1246, 113 L . Ed. 2d 302 ( 1991) ) . T he Supr eme C our thas r ecogni zed a l i m i t ed cl as s of

f undament al cons t i tut i onal er r or s , “structur al er r or s , ” thatar e nots ubj ect to h a rm le s s -e rr o r a n a ly s is a n d re q u ir e a u to m a ti c r e v e rs a l. N eder , 527 U . S. at7 ( ci t i ng F u lm in a n te , 4 9 9 U .S . at 3 0 9 ). H o w e v e r, fo r a ll o th e r c o n stitu tio n a l er ro rs, re v iew in g c o u rts m ustapp l y h arm l ess- err or anal ysi s i n o rdert o d et erm i ne w hether the e rr or w as harm l ess “beyond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” N eder , 527 U . S. at7 ( ci t i ng Chapm an , 3 8 6 U .S . a t 2 4 ). “ [A ]n otherw i s e val i d convi ct i on s houl d notbe s etas i de i f the r evi ew i ng courtm ay conf i dent l y s ay, o n th e w h o le re c o rd , th a t th e c o n s titu tio n a l 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.” V a n A rs da ll , 475 U . S. at681. O nce the cons t i tut i onal err orhas been e s t abl i s hed, the bur den is o n th e S ta te to d e m o n s tr a te th e e rr o r i 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. F u lm in a n te , 499 U . S. at296. ¶32. A l though thi s C our tdi d hol d i n Mc C u llo c h v. Sta te , 194 M i s s . 851, 855, 13 So. 2d 8 2 9 (M is s . 1 9 4 3 ), th a t “ [t]h e v io la tio n o f a c o n s titu tio n a l rig h t c a n n o t b e h a rm le s s e r ro r,” the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tl at erexpl ai ned i n Chapm an the app l i cabil i ty o f harm l esserr oranal ys i s t o cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons . I n acc or dance w i th Chapm an , thi s C our thas
r ecogni zed thatthe admi s s i on of s t at ement s made by a non- t es t i f yi ng de f endanti n vi ol at i on o f t h e C o n fr o n ta tio n C la u s e c a n b e h a rm le s s e rr o r. Clark , 8 9 1 S o . 2 d a t 1 4 1 ; B ynum v. S ta te , 929 So. 2d 312, 314- 15 ( M i s s . 2006) ( f i ndi ng beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe tr i al
c o u rt ' s e rr o r i n a d m ittin g th e c o -d e fe n d a n t' s s ta te m e n t w a s h a rm le s s ). Cl ark f ol l ow ed Br o wn

### 17

v. U nited States , w hi ch hel d thatadmi s s i on i nt o evi den ce o f a st at ementm ade by a nont es t i f yi ng codef

endant– a Bruton e rr o r – is h a rm les s w h e re “ [t] h e tes tim o n y e rro n e o u sly admi t t e d was mer e l y c umul a t i ve of otheroverw 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. ” Br o wn , 4 1 1 U .S . at 2 3 1 ; Clark , 8 9 1 S o . 2 d a t 1 4 1 . See H aynes v. S ta te , 934 So. 2d 983, 991 ( M i s s . 2006) ( T hi s Courthas hel d “err or s i nvol vi ng a vi ol at i on of an ac cus ed’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s m ay be de emed harm l ess be yond a r eas onabl e doubt
w her e the w ei ghtof

the evi dence agai ns tthe ac cus ed i s overw hel m i ng. ”) ¶33. T he St at e as s ert s thati n the pr es entc as e the f act s cons t i tut i ng the el ement s of m ur der comm i t t ed dur i ng the comm i s s i on of a r obbery w er e es t abl i s hed by overw hel m i ng evi dence and thr ough the use of pr operm eans ; thus , the err orof admi t t i ng G r een’ s s t at ement s w as h arm less. S m ith w as c h arg ed w ith ca p it al m u rde r co m m itted d u ri n g the c o m m iss io n o f a robbery. M i ssi ssi pp i C od e A nn otat ed § 97 -3- 19 (2) (e) (R ev. 20 06 ) def i nes cap i t al m urder as: ( 2) T he ki l l i ng of a h um an bei ng w i thoutthe author i ty of l aw by any means or i n an y m ann er w i l l be cap i t al m urder i n the f oll ow i ng cases:

. . . . ( e ) W he n d on e w i th o rw i tho uta ny de s i gn t o e f f e c tde a th, by a ny pe r s on e n g a g e d in th e c o m m is s io n o f t h e c ri m e o f . . . r obber y . . . ori n any att empt to c o m m it s u c h fe lo n ie s . . . . ( emphasi s a dded) . T he under l yi ng cr i m e cha r ged i n thi s cas e w as r obbery. T he el ement s of
r obbery a r e: “( 1) f

el oni ous i nt ent , ( 2) f

or ce orput t i ng i n f

earas a means of

ef f ectuat i ng the in ten t, an d (3) by th at m ea n s t ak ing an d carry ing aw ay th e p rop erty o f ano ther from h is per s on ori n hi s pr es ence . ” W a lk e r v . S ta te , 913 So. 2d 198, 223 (M i ss. 2 00 5) ( quot i ng Ca ldw e ll v. S ta te , 4 8 1 S o . 2 d 8 5 0 , 8 5 3 (M is s . 1 9 8 5 )) .

### 18

¶34. T he St at e ar gues thatthe f act s cons t i tut i ng the el ement s of murde rcomm i t t ed dur i ng the comm i s s i on of

a r obbery w er e es t abl i shed by over w hel m i ng evi dence and thr ough t he use of proper m eans. ¶ 3 5 . O u tsid e o f G re e n ’s e rro n e o u sly a d m itt e d sta tem e n ts, th e o n ly e v id e n c e th a t ti e s S m ith to the crim e are the sta tem e n ts S m ith m a d e d u rin g h is in ter ro g a tio n w h ich w a s p re se n ted to the j ury thr ough t he di s c r ecor di ngs and tr ans cr i pt s of thos e i nt err ogat i ons . W hi l e w e have d e ter m in e d th a t S m ith ’s s tate m e n t w o u ld h a v e b e e n in a d m iss ib ile a g a in st G re e n , itis admi s s i bl e agai ns tSm i th hi m s el f . “[ W ] hi l e Cr aw

f or d cert ai nl y pr ohi bi t s the i ntr oduct i on of a code f endant ' s out - of

- courtt es t i m oni al s t at ementagai ns tthe other defendant s i n a m ul t i pl e- def

endanttr i al , i tdoes nots i gnal a depa r tur e f r om the rul es go ver ni ng the admi t t ance of

s uch a s t at ementagai ns tthe s peake r - def endanthi m s el f

, w hi ch cont i nue t o be pr ovi ded by B r uton , Ri c har ds on [ v. Marsh , 481 U . S. 200, 107 S. Ct . 1702, 95 L. E d. 2d 176 ( 1987) ] , and G r ay [ v. Mar y land , 523 U . S. 185, 188 , 118 S . C t . 1151, 140 L . E d. 2d 294 ( 1998) ] . ” U

nited States v. R am os - Car denas , 5 2 4 F .3 d 6 0 0 , 6 0 9 -1 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). See a l so U nited States v. R odr i

guez -D uran , 5 0 7 F . 3 d 7 4 9 , 7 6 8 -70 (1st C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (un d er Craw ford , in a jo in t trial, ev e n th o u g h a d e fe n d a n t’s sta tem e n t is in a d m iss ib le a g a in st c o d e fe n d a n ts, it
ca n b e a d m issi b le as to h im ); B r uton , 391 U . S. at127 ( “[ B rut on’ s codef endant ’ s ] or al
c o n fe ss io n s w e re in fa c t tes tified to , an d w e re . . . leg iti m a te e v id e n c e a g a in st [h is co d efe n d an t] an d to tha t exten t [ w ere ] p rop erly b efo re the jury d u ri n g it s d eli b era ti o n s”). ¶3 6 . S m ith told H av ard a n d B o sw ell d u ri n g interrog ati o n that h e w en t t o the h o u se w h ere Scot tw as m ur der ed i n or dert o comm i tr obbery, thathe a ct ed as the l ookout , thatG r een s hot

### 19

S c o tt, a n d th a t h e re c e iv e d so m e o f th e sto len m o n e y . W e n o te th a t S m ith m a d e n o e ffo rt to s uppr es s hi s ow n s t at ement s and the onl y obj ect i on m ade t o the i ntr oduct i on of hi s s t at ement w as hi s j oi ni ng G r een’ s obj ect i on on the gr ounds of he ar s ay and conf

r ont at i on. N o obj ect i on w as m ade w hi ch w oul d chal l enge e i therthe truthf ul nes s , orthe vol unt ar i ness , orthe
r el i abi l i ty of

Sm i th’ s st at ement s . S m i th’ s conf es s i on w as t he m os tpr obat i ve and da m agi ng e v id e n c e a d m itt e d a g a in st h im , an d it c o n stitu ted d ire c t ev id e n c e o f th e fa c ts re late d to Scot t ’ s m ur der . Sm i th’s ow n s t at ement s conce rni ng hi s part i ci pat i on i n the r obbery and
m ur derof Scot tw er e uncontr adi ct ed and unc hal l enged. T her ef or e, w e f i nd thatthe evi dence i n the r ecor d w as overw hel m i ng and w as s uf f i ci entt o s upportthe j ury’ s ver di ct , and t hatt he in tro d u c tio n o f G re e n ’s s tate m e n t 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. CO NC L US I ON ¶37. W e f

i nd that the i s s ues of char act er evi dence and s ever ance ar e pr ocedur al l y barr ed. Fur ther , even c ons i der i ng t he vi ol at i on of Sm i th’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtunderthe C onf r on t a t i on Cl a us e , we f

i nd tha tthe tr i a l c ou r t ’ s a dmi s s i on o f Gr e e n’ s s t a t e ment w as harm l es s err or . A ccor di ngl y, w e af f i r m the j udgm entconvi ct i ng Sm i th of capi t al m ur derand the r es ul t i ng s ent ence . ¶ 3 8 . COUNT I : CONVI CT I ON OF ROBB ER Y BY US E OF A DEAD LY W EA P ON, AF F I RM ED . AP P EL LA NT RE CE I VE D NO S EN TE NCE ON COUNT I , THAT OF F E NS E B E I NG E NC OMPA S S E D I N C OU NT I I . COU NT I I : CO NV I CT I ON OF CA P I T AL M UR DE R AND S E NT E NC E OF L I F E I M P RI S ON M E NT 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, AF F I RM ED . THI S S EN TE NCE I S CONS EC UT I VE TO ANY OTHE R S EN TE NCE AND THI S APP ELLANT S HA LL BE E LI GI BLE F OR PAROLE, BUT UNDER 4 7 -7 -3 M C A , T H I S S H A L L B E W I T H O U T P A R O L E C O N S I D E R A T I O N .

### 20

S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P . J . , EA S LE Y, CARL S ON, DI CKI NS ON AND RAN DO LPH, J J . , C O NC UR. GR AVES, J . , DI S S ENTS 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 A Z, P . J.

GR AV E S , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶39. T he m aj ori t y fi nd s t hat t he t ri al co urt ’ s admi s s i on of Sm i th’ s non- t es t i f

yi ng cod e fe n d a n t’s s tate m e n t w a s in v io latio n o f S m ith ’s r ig h t to c o n fro n tatio n , a n d the n fin d s th a t, w h ile th e a d m iss io n o f su c h e v id e n c e d id v io late S m ith ’s c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to c o n fr o n ta tio n , th e e rr o r w a s h a rm le s s . In lig h t o f th e la c k o f e v id e n c e in th e in s ta n t c a s e , I cannotagr ee w i th the maj or i ty’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe vi ol at i on of Sm i t h’s c ons t i tut i onal ri g h t to c o n fr o n ta tio n w a s m e re h a rm le s s e rr o r. T h e re fo re , I r e s p e c tf u lly d is s e n t. ¶40. Such a vi ol at i on of a def endant ’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght t o conf r on t at i on i s cons i der ed harm l es s err oronl y w hen “t es t i m ony err oneous l y admi t t ed w as m er el y cumul at i ve of ot her
overw hel m i ng and l ar gel y uncontr overt ed evi dence pr oper l y bef or e the j ury. ” B r ow n v. U nited States , 4 1 1 U . S . 2 2 3 , 2 3 1 , 9 3 S . C t. 1 5 6 5 , 3 6 L . E d . 2d 20 8 (19 7 3 ) ( em p h asis ad d ed ). F urt herm or e, “[ h] arm l es s err or s ar e thos e ‘ w hi ch i n the s ett i ng of a part i cul arcas e ar e so uni m por t antand i ns i gni f i cantthatthey may, cons i s t entw i th the Feder al C ons t i tut i on, be deemed harm l es s , notr equi r i ng the aut om at i c r ever s al of the convi ct i on. ’ ” B

y n u m v. S ta te , 929 S o. 2d 312, 314 (M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng Ch a p m a n v. Ca lifo rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 1 8 , 2 2 , 8 7 S . C t. 8 2 4 , 1 7 L . E d . 2 d 7 0 5 (1 9 6 7 )) . Br o wn is a n e x a m p le o f s u c h a n in s ta n c e . ¶41. I n Br o wn , the de fendan t s w er e cha r ged w i th and convi ct ed of tr ans por t i ng s t ol en g o o d s a n d o f c o n s p ir a c y to tr a n s p o rt s to le n g o o d s in in te rs ta te c o m m e rc e . Br o wn , 41 1 U. S.

### 21

at224. T he tr i al cou rterr ed i n admi t t i ng pol i ce t es t i m ony as t o s t at ement s m ade by a c o -d e fe n d a n t im p lica tin g th e d e fe n d a n t in th e c rim e s c h a rg e d , e v e n th o u g h th e se sta tem e n ts w e re m a d e o u t o f t h e d e fe n d a n t' s p re s e n c e . Id . at230- 31. D es pi t e the B r uton err or , t he
e v id e n c e w h ic h w a s p ro p e rl y b e fo re th e ju ry c o u ld b e c o n s id e re d o v e rw h e lm in g . B r uton v. U n ited S tates, 391 U . S. 123, 126, 88 S. C t . 1620, 1622, 20 L . E d. 2d 476 ( 1968) . I n Br o wn , s t ol en mer chandi s e w hi ch w as s ei zed f r om a co- cons pi r at or ’ s s t or e w as r ece i ved i n evi dence . P o lice -o ffic e r e y e w itn e ss e s te stifie d a n d fu lly d e sc rib e d th e ir o b se rv a tio n s o f d e fe n d a n ts lea v in g th e w a re h o u se fro m w h ich th e g o o d s w e re sto len w h ile th e d e fe n d a n ts w e re in p o ss e ss io n o f sto len g o o d s; tw e n ty p h o to g ra p h s o f th e c rim e in p ro g re ss w e re a d m itt e d in to evi dence ; and i ncr i m i nat i ng t es t i m ony w as gi ven by t he ow nerof the s ervi ce s t at i on, f r om w hom pet i t i oner s had r ent ed trucks us ed i n the thef t s . A l s o, f

i ve w i tnes s es t es t i f

i ed they had s een pe t i t i oner s unl oadi ng boxes f r om a truck l at e atni ghtand ca rryi ng the boxes i nt o the coc o n s p ir a to r’ s s to re , w h e re th e s to le n g o o d s w e re s e iz e d . Id . at226. ¶4 2 . In th e ins tan t c a se , S c o tt ’s ca u se o f de ath w as e stab li sh ed b y the testi m o n y o f D r. H ayne. H ow ever , ev i den ce of the r emai ni ng el ement s of the cr i m e of

w hi ch Sm i th w as co n v ict ed w ere su p p li ed so lel y b y th e stat em en ts of the d efe n d an ts. D etec ti v e H av ard t es t i f i ed thathe det erm i ned thatSm i th w as a s us pectthr ough cel l ul arphone r ecor ds of t he vi ct i m . T hes e phone r ecor ds w er e neve rent er ed i nt o evi den ce. T her e w as no t es t i m ony f r om any w i tnes s w hi ch t i ed Sm i th t o the phone. T her e w as no e vi dence thatScot t ’ s cel l ul ar phone w as e verr ecove r ed. Fur ther , no evi dence w as pr es ent ed f r om any eye w i tnes s es att he c rim e sc e n e . N o p e rso n s w h o ac tu a lly co llec ted ev id e n c e o r p e rfo rm e d a n y e v id e n tiary tes ts

### 22

w ere ca ll ed as w itn esse s. F o u r . 3 8 0 -ca li b er sh ell casin g s w ere fou n d ne ar the b o d y , b u t w ere neverm at ched t o a part i cul argun. A bs ol ut el y no phys i cal evi dence w as pr es ent ed t o connec t Sm i th t o the cr i m e. ¶4 3. A bs entt he s t at ement s of Sm i t h an d G r e e n, the r e was n o e vi dence – di r ect or ci r cumst ant i al – w hi ch t i ed Sm i t h t o the murde r . T her ef or e, i tcannotbe f

ound thatthe s t at em ent w as “mer el y cumul at i ve of otheroverw hel m i ng and l ar gel y uncontr overt ed evi dence pr oper l

y bef or e the j ury, ” w hen the onl y evi dence of f er ed before the j ury w hi ch lin k e d S m ith to th e c ri m e w e re th e tw o s ta te m e n ts . Br o wn , 4 1 1 U .S . at 2 3 1 . A s th e m a jo rity
co n ce d es, th e se v era b il ity issue is i n ex tr icab ly li n k ed to the v io latio n o f S m ith ’s con st i tuti on al ri gh tt o co nfr on tthe w i tnesses agai nsthim . “S m i th im pli ci t l y av ers a conf r ont at i on vi ol at i on i n hi s s ever ance i s s ue w her e he ar gues ‘ [ a] s epar at e tr i al w as nece s s ary t o ens ur e a f

ai rdet erm i nat i on of

Smi th' s gu i l tori nnoc ence w i thoutG r een' s hear s ay and conf r ont at i onal s t at ement s . ’ ” I f , as the maj or i ty f

i nds and I agr ee, the admi s s i on of G reen’ s st at em ent vi olat ed S m i th’s r i gh tt o co nfr on t at i on , then i tfol l ow s that Sm ith ’s s ta te m e n t w a s a d m itte d in v io la tio n o f G re e n ’s ri g h t to c o n fr o n ta tio n . ¶44. W hi l e Sm i th does nothave pr operst andi ng t o ra i s e t he cons t i tut i onal r i ght s of hi s cod e fe n d a n t G re e n , this C o u rt w o u ld b e re m iss to ig n o re th a t th e tw o d e fe n d a n ts w e re , in fa c t, tr ie d to g e th e r. S m ith ’s s ta te m e n t w a s u n q u e s ti o n a b ly in a d m is s ib le a g a in s t G re e n . See B r uton , 3 9 1 U .S . at 1 2 6 ; Cla rk v. S ta te , 891 S o. 2d 136, 140 ( M i s s . 2004) ( quot i ng Br o wn v. S ta te , 3 4 0 S o . 2 d 7 1 8 , 7 2 1 (M iss . 1 9 7 6 )); H a rr is v. S ta te , 8 61 S o. 2 d 1 00 3, 10 22 (M i ss. 2 0 0 3 ) (c ita tio n o m itt e d ). It is im p o ss ib le to e x trica te w h a t h a p p e n e d a t th e trial a n d a p p ly

### 23

i tas i f Sm i th w er e t r i ed se par at el y fr om G r een. H e w as not . Sm i th’ s s t at ements i m pl y w as i nadmi s s i bl e atG r een’ s tr i al . U nf or tunat el y, G r een’ s tr i al w as a l s o Sm i th’s tri al . T he
m a jo rity re lies o n S m ith ’s o w n sta tem e n t, w h ich a lso w a s e rro n e o u sly a d m itt e d a t trial in
v iolati o n o f G ree n ’s ri g h t t o c o n fron tat ion , to fi n d tha t th e e rron eo u s ad m issi o n o f S m ith ’s
n o n -te stify in g c o -d e fe n d a n t 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.” H e n c e , the m a jo rity is ig n o rin g w h a t ac tu a lly o c c u rre d d u rin g th e tria l. F u rth e rm o re , the m a jo rity ’s o p in io n is in c o n sis ten t w ith the U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt h o ld in g in Br o wn thats uch vi ol at i ons of
a def endant ’ s c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o c onf r ont at i on a r e cons i der ed harm l es s err oronl y w hen

“ tes tim o n y e rro n e o u sly a d m itt e d w a s m e re ly c u m u lativ e o f o th e r o v e rw h e lm in g a n d lar g e ly uncontr overt ed evi dence pr oper l y bef or e the j ury. ” Br o wn , 4 1 1 U .S . a t 2 3 1 (e m p h a sis added) . N ei therthe s t at ementof G r een northatof

Sm i th w as “ pr oper l y” bef or e the j ur y, as r equi r ed by Br o wn . ¶4 5. A dm i t t edl y, had t he c as es been s ever ed, Sm i t h’ s s t at ement w oul d have been admi s s i bl e aga i ns tSm i th. B utther e w as a j oi nttr i al of G r een and Sm i th. A f

i ndi ng thatt he ad m issi o n o f th e statem en ts o f bo th G ree n an d S m ith v iolated th eir resp ec ti v e c o -de fen d an t’ s co n sti tuti o n al righ t t o co n fron tat ion furthe r ev iden ce s the fac t th at th e v iolati o n o f S m ith ’s
r i ghtt o c on f

r on t a t i on c a nn otbe c on s i de r e d h a r ml e s s e rr or . I f the e rr on e ou s l y a dmi t t ed s t at ement s ha d notbe en of f er ed attr i al , the onl y evi dence thatthe pr os ecut i on w oul d have o ff e re d w o u ld h a v e b e e n th e te s tim o n y o f D r. H a y n e .

### 24

¶46. For the f

or egoi ng r eas ons , I w oul d r ever s e Sm i th’ s convi ct i on of capi t al m ur derand re m a n d th e c a se fo r a trial a t w h ich S m ith w o u ld b e p e rm itt e d , in a c c o rd a n c e w ith h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts , to c o n fr o n t a ll w itn e s s e s a g a in s t h im , c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n . DI AZ , P . J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.