I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 2 - KA - 0 1 5 0 2 - CO A CORE Y L AT HAN A/ K/A CORE Y J AM AR LA THAN AP P EL LA NT

v. STATE O F M I SS I SS I PPI APP ELLEE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 07/ 2012 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J AM ES T. KI TCHE NS J R. CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: LOW NDES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT : J AC OB T HOMAS E VANS S T UT Z M AN 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 : L ADONN A C
. HOL L AND DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: F OR RE S T AL L GOOD NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY TRI AL C OU RT D I SP OSI TI ON : CO NV I CTED OF CO UN T I , AR M ED RO BBERY , AN D SEN TENC ED TO THI RTY YE AR S AND A F I NE OF $ 5 0 0 , AND C OUNT I I , BU RG L AR Y OF A DW E L L I NG, AND SENTENC ED TO FI FTEE N Y EAR S, W I TH FI VE Y EAR S S USPEND ED A ND TEN Y E A R S T O SE R V E , A N D A FI N E O F $500, W I TH TH E SENTENC E I N C OU NT I I TO RU N C ONS E CU T I VE L Y T O T HE S E NT E NC E I N C OUNT I , BO T H I N T HE CU STO D Y O F TH E M I SSI SSI PPI DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RR E CT I ONS D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 10/ 07/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E I R V I N G , P . J. , B A R N E S A N D C A R L T O N , JJ. CAR LTON, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. A L o w n d es C o u n ty jury fou n d C o rey L atha n g u ilty o f arm ed rob b ery an d b u rglary

### 2

of a dwel l i ng . Latha n n ow app e a l s a nd r a i s e s the f ol l owi ng i s s ue s : ( 1) w he the rthe pr os ecut orm ade i m pr opercom m ent s t o t he j ury duri ng t he St at e’ s cl os i ng ar gum ent ; and ( 2)
w hetherthe ci r cui tcourterr ed by re f us i ng L athan’ s r eques t ed j ury i ns truct i on on acc om pl i ce t e s t i mo n y . F i n d i n g n o e rr o r , we a f f i rm. FACTS ¶2. A r ound 10 p. m . on Sept ember 29, 2011, K ar en W i nt er w as w at chi ng the new s w hen
s he hea r d a knock on he ra partm entdoor
. W i nt ert es t i f i ed thats he l ooked thr ough herbl i nds
an d saw a blac k m ale stan d ing o u tsi d e the d o o r. W h en W inter ask ed w h o w as a t th e d o o r, she t houghtthe man r es ponded thathe w as herups t ai r s nei ghbor
. W hen W i nt erunl ocked the d o o r, the b lack m ale fo rce d h is w ay into h er a p artm en t and p o inted a g u n at he r. A l though the i ntruderw or e a hoodi e and ha d a banda na overhi s f ace , W i nt ert es t i f

i ed that the m an h ad d rea d lock s tha t w ere ab o u t sho u lder-len g th o r l o n g er. ¶3. A l though W i nt erw as unsur e of t he exac tnum ber , she t es t i f i ed thatseve r al other bl ack
m al es st ood behi nd t he gunm an. T he i ntruder s orde r ed W i nt ert o l i e on the f l oor , and they
c o v e re d h e r h e a d w ith a b lan k e t an d h e ld a g u n to th e b a c k o f h e r n e c k . T h e in tru d e rs s to le
a b o u te i g h ty d o l l a r s f

r o m W i n t e r ’ s p u r s e , a l a r g e j a ro f c h a n g e , a f

l a t - s c r e e n t e l e v i s i o n , two l apt op comput er s , a ce l l p ho ne, tw o cor dl es s hom e phones , a pur s e, s om e medi cat i on, and W i nter ’s key s. ¶4. Fol l ow i ng the r obbery, W i nt erasked a neighbo rt o phone the pol i ce, w ho arr i ved
s ever al m i nut es l at er . A f t ers peaki ng w i th W i nt er , the of f i cer s i s s ued an a l ertaboutthe
r obbery and the s us pect s . O f f i cerD avi d Cri ddl e t es t i f i ed thathe w as nearby i n a patr ol car

### Th e recordreflects that b othLath anan d S atterfield w ore th eir hair indread lock s. 1 

### Ho wev er , while S atterfield’s dreadlo cks w ere sho rt, Lath an’s w ere abo ut sh ou lder-len gth or l onger . 3 w hen he he ar d the al ert . A l i t t l e l at erO f f i cerCri ddl e pas s ed a da rk- col or ed vehi cl e parked at an ap artm en t com p lex s ev era l blo ck s a w ay fro m the c ri m e sce n e. B ec au se th e v eh icl e’s i n t e r i o rl i g h twa s o n , Of f i c e rCr i d d l e c o u l d s e e a l l th e v e h i c l e ’ s o c c u p a n t s wa t c h i n g h i m. As
s oon as O f

f i cerC r i ddl e pas s ed the vehi cl e, i ts ped aw ay. O f f i cerC r i ddl e then f

ol l ow ed the
v e h ic le a n d p u lle d it o v e r a ft e r o b s e rv in g a tr a ff ic v io la tio n . ¶5. O f

f i cerCri ddl e t es t i f

i ed that s i x bl ack mal es s ati ns i de the vehi cl e. T he pol i ce l at er i dent i f i ed thes e men as L athan, B obby B l ui t tJ r. , D em ont a G ar dner , M i chae l Sat t er f i el d, J er e my Bi l l up s , a nd Te vi n O gl e n. A dd i t i on a l tr i a l t e s t i mony r e ve a l e d tha t , o f the s i x men inside the v eh icl e, on ly L atha n p o sses sed d rea d lock s tha t w ere sh o u lder-len g th o r l o n g er. 1 ¶ 6
. W h ile w a iti n g fo r o th e r o ffic e rs to a rriv e a n d a ss ist h im , O ffic e r C rid d le a sk e d B lu itt t o exi tthe vehi cl e and pr ovi de i dent i f i cat i on. O f

f i cerC r i ddl e al s o as ked a pa s s engers i t t i ng i n t he vehi cl e’ s back se att o exi t , and w hen the m an di d so, O f f i cerC r i ddl e obse rved a bl ack pi s t ol on the vehi cl e f

l oorboar d. O f

f i cerC r i ddl e t es t i f

i ed thathe al s o as ked Lathan, w ho w as
s w eat i ng and ac t i ng nervous , t o r emove t he hoodi e he w as w ear i ng. ¶7. A f

t ert he addi t i onal pol i ce of f i cer s arr i ved t o ass i s tO f f i cerC r i ddl e, t he men i ns i de the vehi cl e w er e as ked t o e xi tone a ta t i m e. A s Lathan exi t ed the vehi cl e, a n of f i cerobs erved
a se co n d g u n , a .22 -ca li b er rev o lver, l y ing o n the s ea t L atha n ha d j u st v ac ated
. T h e o ffi ce rs chec ked the guns f

ound i ns i de the vehi cl e and di s cover ed thatboth w er e l oaded. I n addi t i on

### 4

t o the tw o guns, O f

f i cerC r i ddl e t es t i f

i ed thathe obs erved a Toshi ba l apt op i ns i de the vehi cl e,
w hich the p oli ce con fi rm ed w as one o f W i nter ’s st olen l aptops. ¶8
. D ur i ng Latha n’ s tr i a l , Bl ui t t , O gl e n, a nd Sa t t e r f i e l d e a c h t e s t i f

i e d a bo ut the ar m ed
r obbery and the bur gl ary and the ext entof thei ri nvol vementi n the cri m es. O gl en and Sat t er f i el d both t es t i f

i ed thatL athan act i vel y pa r t i ci pat ed i n the cr i m es and thathe w as one
o f th e m e n w h o p o ss e ss e d a g u n d u rin g th e c o m m iss io n o f th e c rim e s. O g len a n d S a tterf ield
a lso c o n firm e d th a t, at th e tim e o f th e a rm e d ro b b e ry a n d th e b u rg lar y , L a th a n w o re h is h a ir i n l ong dre a dl oc ks tha tr e a c he d a l mos tt o h i s c he s t . A l l thr e e men f urthe rt e s t i f

i e d that L a th a n w a s w ith th e m b o th p rio r to a n d d u rin g th e c o m m iss io n o f th e c rim e s a n d th a t h e d id
n o tl e a v e th e i rc o mp a n y a ta n y p o i n tb e f o r e th e p o l i c e a rr e s t e d th e m. ¶9. T es t i f

yi ng on hi s ow n behal f

, L athan s t at ed that he w as at hom e w i th hi s m otherand h alf-si ste r w h en the a rm ed rob b ery an d b u rglary too k p lace
. A cc o rdin g to L atha n ’s tes tim o n y , h e a w o k e fr o m a n a p a little a fte r 1 0 p .m . an d fix e d so m e fo o d . A fte r e a tin g h is
m ea l, h e w alke d o u tsi d e to s m o k e a ciga rett e. L atha n test if ied th at B luitt and the o thers dr ove up w hi l e he w as out si de sm ok i ng and thathe cl i m bed i nt o the vehi cl e bec aus e he
w ant ed t o vi s i ta gi r l
. L athan fur t her t es t i f i ed thathe had pos s es s ed no know l edge of the
c r i me s c o mm i t t e d e a r l i e rt h a tn i g h tb y t h e o th e rme n wh e n h e j o i n e d th e m i n th e v e h i c l e . He
a ls o c la im e d th a t h e s a w n o g u n in h is s e a t w h e n h e e n te re d th e v e h ic le
. ¶10. I n addi t i on t o L athan’ s t es t i m ony, hi s m other , C heryl , t est i fi ed that her s on w as at hom e w i th herand herdaught erw hen the cr i m es occurr ed. A l t ho ug h she coul d not
r emem bera n e xactt i m e, Cher yl s t at ed thatLathan w entout s i de t o s m oke hi s ci gar ett e af t er

### 5

the new s ended a t10: 30 p. m . C heryl al s o t es t i f i ed thatL athan had be en gone onl y a f ew
m i nut es w hen s he l earned thatthe pol i ce a rr es t ed hi m and the otherm en. ¶ 1 1
. A fte r c o n sid e rin g a ll th e e v id e n c e a n d tes tim o n y , a ju ry fo u n d L a th a n g u ilty o f b o th count s char ged i n hi s i ndi ctm ent . ForC ountI , arm ed r obbery, the ci rcui tcourtj udge
s ent ence d L athan t o thi r ty year s i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm entof C orr ect i ons (M D O C ). F o r C o u n t II, b u rg lar y o f a d w e lli n g , the c irc u it co u rt ju d g e se n ten c e d L a th a n to f i f t een ye ar s i n the cus t ody of M D O C , w i th f

i ve year s s us pended and t en yea r s t o s erve. T he ci r cui tcourtj udge al s o or der ed the s ent ence i n C ountII t o run c ons ecut i vel y t o the s ent ence in C o u n t I
. ¶12. Fol l ow i ng hi s convi ct i on, L athan f i l ed a m ot i on f

ora j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the
v e rd ict o r, in th e a ltern a tiv e , a n e w trial, w h ich th e c irc u it co u rt d e n ied . A g g rie v e d b y h is
c o n v ictio n a n d th e c irc u it co u rt’s ru lin g , L a th a n n o w a p p e a ls to th is C o u rt. DI S CU S S I ON I . W het her t he pros ecut or m ade i m proper com m ent s t o t he j ury d u rin g th e S tate ’s closin g a rg u m en t. ¶13. I n hi s f

i r s ta s s i gnm entof

e rr or , Lathan ar gues thati m pr oper comm ent s made by the S tate d u rin g its c lo sin g a rg u m e n t re q u ire re v e rsa l o f h is c o n v ictio n . In a d d re ss in g th is
ar gum ent , w e ac know l edge that“the t es tt o det erm i ne i f an i m pr operar gum entby a pr os ecut orr equi r es r ever s al i s w hetherthe natur al an d probabl e ef f ectof the .
. . i m pr oper
ar gum entcr eat ed unj us tpr ej udi ce aga i ns tt he ac cus ed r es ul t i ng i n a dec i s i on i nf l uence d by pr ej udi ce. ” D u n a w a

y v. S ta te , 551 So. 2d 162, 163 ( M i s s . 1989) ( ci t i ng C ra ft v. S ta te , 226

### 6

M iss. 4 2 6 , 8 4 S o . 2 d 5 3 1 (19 5 6 )). ¶14. L athan cl ai m s that r ever s i bl e err or occurr ed w hen t he S t at e i m pr op er l y comm ent ed
o n h is fa ilu re to c a ll h is s iste r a s a w itn e s s a n d w h e n th e S tate in v ited th e ju ry to h o ld h im
a c c o u n tab le f

o r a c rim e n o t ch a rg e d in h is in d ictm e n t. A ltern a tiv e ly , L a th a n a rg u e s th a t h is att orney pr ovi ded i nef

f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el by f

ai l i ng t o obj ectt o thes e comm ent s at trial. W e a d d re ss e a c h o f L a th a n ’s c la im s r e g a rd in g im p ro p e r c o m m e n ts, a s w e ll as h is al t ernat i ve ar gum entr egar di ng i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el , s epar at el y.
a. L atha n ’s fai l u re to callh i s si st er as a w i tness. ¶1 5. L athan f

i r s tas s er t s t ha tthe St a t e mad e a n i mpr op e rc omm e ntd ur i ng i t s cl os i ng
ar gum entabouthi s f

ai l ur e t o cal l hi s si s t er , V ani ty, as a w i tnes s . A s re f l ect ed i n t he r ecor d, the d efense f

ai l ed to objectw hen the S t at e m ade thi s com m ent duri ng cl osi ng argum ents . T h e re fo re , L a th a n is p ro c e d u r a ll y b a rr e d fr o m ra is in g th is is s u e o n a p p e a l. See Ruf f i n v. S ta te , 7 2 4 S o . 2 d 9 4 2 , 9 4 7 (¶2 1 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). N o tw ith stan d ing the p roc ed u ral ba r, h o w ev er, w e find that the c o m m en t at i ssu e fail s t o am o u n t t o erro r. O u r rev iew o f th e re co rd
s how s thatthe St at e mer el y comm ent ed on the cr edi bi l i ty of the tr i al t es t i m ony pr ovi ded by L a th a n ’s m o th e r, C h e ry l, w h o co rro b o ra ted L a th a n ’s a lib i an d tes tified th a t L a th a n ’s f a m ily
com m un i cat ed h i s al i bi t o p oli ce off i cers . ¶16. M i s s i s s i ppi cas el aw recogni zes that , “[ g] ener al l y, i t i s i m pr oper t o comm ent on the f ai l ur e of ei therparty t o cal l a w i tnes s equal l y acce s s i bl e t o bot h par t i es . ” I d. a t( ¶22) ( ci t i ng R o ss v . S ta te , 6 0 3 S o . 2 d 8 5 7 , 8 6 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 )). “ H o w e v e r, w h e n a d e fe n d a n t fa ils to c a ll
a w i tnes s m or e avai l abl e t o hi m and i n a cl os err el at i ons hi p t o hi m , the pr os ecut i on i s al l ow ed

### 7

t o comm enton the def end ant’ s f

ai l ur e t o cal l the w i tnes s . ” I d. M o reo v er, at torn ey s are
a llo w e d to c o m m e n t o n th e e v id e n c e a n d te s tim o n y p re s e n te d a t tr ia l. Se e Sh e p p a rdv . S ta te , 7 7 7 S o . 2 d 6 5 9 , 6 6 1 (¶7 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 0 ). ¶1 7. L atha n t e s t i f

i e d tha th e was a th ome w i th hi s mothe rand s i s t erw hen the ar m ed
r obbery and bur gl ary o ccurr ed. L athan’ s m other , C heryl , al s o t es t i f i ed thatL athan w as at home w i th h e ra nd he rda ug ht e r , V a ni ty, un t i l a tl e a s t10 : 30 p. m. Cheryl i ni t i a l l y t e s t i f i ed thatshe cal l ed the pol i ce a nd t ol d them L athan w as athom e on the ni ghti n ques t i on. H ow ever , Cher yl l at era dm i t t ed dur i ng c r os s - exami nat i on thats he neve ractual l y m ade s uch a phone c al l
. She i ns t ead t es t i f i ed thatherdaugh t er , V ani ty, m ade the phone c al l t o the pol i ce t o r eportL athan’ s al i bi
. W hen as ked dur i ng cr os s - exami nat i on w hetherV ani ty w as p re se n t at L a th a n ’s tria l to tes tify a n d to c o rro b o ra te th e se fa c ts, C h e ry l re p lied th a t V a n ity had moved t o T ennes s ee be caus e of herj ob. ¶1 8
. D u ri n g clos ing arg u m en ts, the S tat e m ad e the fo ll o w ing co m m en t r eg ard ing L atha n ’s al i bi and C heryl ’ s tr i al t es t i m ony: Y o u h e a rd [C h e ry l] tes tify . S h e to ld y o u o n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n [th a t sh e ] t o ld [ the pol i ce] ats om e poi ntthat[ L athan] w as ath om e [the ni ghtthe cr i m es o cc u rred ]
. A n d w h en I pre ssed h er a b o u t i t[ , ] . . . . [s] h e c h an g ed h er story agai n[
. ] [ O ] kay, i tw as n’ tme. I di dn’ tdo i t . M y da ught erdi d i t . V ani ty w as th e re . S h e c a lled [th e p o lice ] on th e p h o n e , an d I h e a rd it. W her e’ s V ani ty? She j us tm oved overt o T ennes s ee. H erbr other ’ s l i f e i s on th e lin e b e in g tri e d fo r ar m e d ro b b e ry an d b u rg lar y . S h e ’s n o t he re . S h e c o u ld have c om e bac k he r e and t es t i f i ed and s ai d he w as w i th me al l ni ght , buts he d id n ’t d o th a t. A n d C h e ry l L a th a n h a d n o e x p lan a tio n fo r it. ¶19. I n R oss , the M i s s i s s i ppi S up rem e C ou rt addr es s ed a s i tuat i on s i m i l ar t o the pr es ent

### 8

cas e. T he def

endant , Sam m y J oe R os s , w as char ged w i th burgl ary of an i nhabi t ed dw el l i ng. R oss , 603 So. 2d at860. A ttr i al , R os s t es t i f i ed thathe w as f

i s hi ng w i th hi s br otherand an
e m p lo y e e a t t h e ti m e th e b u rg la ry o c c u rr e d
. I d. a t 8 6 4 . D u rin g c lo sin g a rg u m e n ts, th e S tate
c o m m e n ted o n R o ss ’s fa ilu re to c a ll h is b ro th e r as a w itn e s s . I d. O n appea l , R os s ar gued that“the pr os ecut orpr ej udi ci al l y r ef err ed t o R os s ’ s f

ai l ur e t o cal l corr obor at i ng al i bi
w itn e s s e s a n d th a t th e tr ia l c o u rte rr e d in n o t a d m o n is h in g th e ju ry to d is re g a rd th e re m a rk s .” I d. ¶20. Fi ndi ng no m er i tt o R os s ’ s ar gum ent , the s upr eme cour ts t at ed:

R os s ’ s al l egat i on of err orher e f ai l s . T he rul e of

equal avai l abi l i ty does n o t app ly to the se fa cts b ec au se o n e re ferred -t o w itn ess, R icky R o ss, i s R o ss’s br other
. U nderthe Br o wn [ v . S ta te , 200 M i s s . 881, 887- 89, 27 So. 2d 838, 840- 41 ( 1946) ] rul e, the [ S] t at e had e very ent i t l eme nt t o comm enton the a b se n c e o f te stim o n y fro m R o ss ’s b ro th e r th a t his b ro th e r h a d fish e d w ith h im a ll d a y . G iv e n this alib i an d R o ss ’s re latio n to th e a b se n t w itn e ss , the [S ]t a te a p p ro p ria tely a rg u e d th e lo g ica l in fe re n c e tha t, b u t fo r R ick y R o ss ’s in a b ili ty t o c orr ob or a t e h i s d e f

e nd a ntb r othe r ’ s t e s t i mony, h e woul d ha ve t a ke n the sta n d . T h e fa c t th a t th e [S ]t a te c o u ld h a v e s u b p o e n e d R ick y R o ss is irre lev a n t. B y the r eas oni ng i n Br o wn , R os s ’ s br others t ood i n a “comm uni ty of per s onal in ter e st” w ith R o ss su c h th a t h e c a n n o t b e c o n sid e re d to h a v e b e e n e q u a lly avai l abl e t o the [ S] t at e. I d. at864- 65. ¶21. A s the r ecor d i n the pr es ent cas e r ef l ect s , L athan’ s m other , C heryl , i ni t i al l y t es t i f i ed thats he ca l l ed the pol i ce a nd t ol d them L athan pos s es s ed an a l i bi f orthe ni ghti n ques t i on. D ur i ng cr os s - exam i nat i on, how ever , C heryl change d hert es t i m ony and s t at ed thather daught er , V ani ty, actual l y m ade the phone c al l t o the pol i ce. A s ourc as el aw pr ovi des , the St at e w as a l l ow ed t o comm enton the cr edi bi l i ty and ver aci ty of the t es t i m ony pr ovi ded by

### 9

L a th a n ’ s a l i b i wi tn e s s , Ch e ry l
. Ba s e d o n a p p l i c a b l e c a s e l a w a n d th e f a c t s i n th e r e c o r d , we fi n d th at no error resu lt ed fr o m th e S tat e’s closin g -arg u m en t co m m en t o n L atha n ’s f a ilure to c a ll h is s is te r a s a n a li b i w itn e s s . Se e D o ra v . S ta te , 986 So. 2d 917, 923- 24 ( ¶¶13- 14) (M is s . 2 0 0 8 ). W e th e re fo re fi n d n o m e ri t to th is a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r.

b. T he i nvi t at i on f or t he j ury t o hol d L at han a c c o u n ta b le f

o r a c r im e n o t c h a r g e d in h is ind ictm en t. ¶22. L athan next as s ert s that r ever s i bl e err or occurr ed w hen t he S t at e m ade an i m pr oper
comm entr egar di ng a cri m e n otchar ged i n hi s i ndi ctm ent . T he r ecor d r ef l ect s thatthe d e fe n se faile d to o b

jec t t o this co m m e n t du rin g tri a l. T h e re fo re , o u r ca s e la w p ro c e d u ra lly b a rs L a th a n fr o m ra is in g th e is s u e o n a p p e a l. Se e R u ffi n , 72 4 S o . 2d at 9 4 7 (¶ 2 1 ). N o tw ith sta n d in g th e p ro c e d u ra l b a r, h o w e v e r, w e fin d th a t th e S ta te’ s c o m m e n t fa ils to j us t i f y the r ever s al of

L athan’ s convi ct i on. ¶ 2 3
. L a th a n ’s a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r c o n c e rn s th e fo llo w in g c o m m e n t m a d e b y th e S tate du ri ng cl osi ng argum ents : [L ]ad ies a n d g e n tlem e n , . . . W in terc o u ld h a v e d ied th a t n ig h t w ith a g u n to th e b a c k o f h e r h e a d . T h e g u n rig h t in h e r fa c e , sh e c o u ld h a v e d ied . T h is is nota [ “] s o w hat [ ”] ki nd of c as e. T hi s i s ve ry s er i ous . I t ’ s nots om ethi ng you can ove r l ook every t i m e evi dence i s i n yourf ace w hen you’ r e conf

r ont ed by it lik e th e [D ]efe n d a n t is[;] y o u c a n ’t sh ru g y o u r sh o u ld e rs a n d sa y [,] [“S ]o w hat. [ ”] Y ou hav e t o b e held accou ntabl e foral l of tho se things. ¶ 2 4
. O n a p p e a l, L a th a n a ss e rts th a t th is sta tem e n t se rv e d a s a n in v itatio n fo r th e ju ry to p u n ish h im fo r attem p ted m u rde r, a c ri m e n o t ch arg ed in h is i n d ictm en t. H o w ev er, L atha n ’s
ar gum entover l ooks the el ement s of arm ed r obbery thatthe St at e w as r equi red t o pr ove

### 10

beyond a r eas onabl e doubt
. A s pr ovi ded by M i s s i s s i ppi C od e A nnot at ed s ect i on 97- 3- 79 (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ), the S tat e h ad to p rov e that L atha n p lace d W inter “in fea r o f im m ed iat e inju ry to [h e r] p e rs o n b y th e e x h ib itio n o f a d e a d ly w e a p o n .” ¶ 2 5
. In a d d itio n , o u r c a s e la w p ro v id e s th a t “ [p ]ro se c u to rs a re lim ited to a rg u in g fa c ts i ntr oduced i n evi dence , deduct i ons and conc l us i ons thatm ay be r eas onabl y draw [ n] ther ef r om , and appl i cat i on of l aw t o f act s . ” H o lla n d v . S ta te , 705 So. 2d 3 07 , 34 3 (¶ 137) ( M i s s . 1997) ( ci t i ng Iv

y v . S ta te , 589 S o. 2d 1263, 1266 ( M i s s . 1991))
. “W i th thatl i m i t at i on i n m i nd, att orneys ar e perm i t t ed w i de l at i tude i n argui ng thei rr es pect i ve pos i t i ons and theor i es t o the j ury. ” I

d. ( ci t i ng C a m

p b e ll v. S ta te , 4 3 7 S o . 2 d 3 , 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 )). ¶26. U pon r evi ew , thi s C our tf i nds t hatt he St at e’ s com m entfe l l w i thi n the w i de l at i tude p e rm itte d to a tto rn e y s d u ri n g c lo s in g a rg u m e n t. See i d. A s th e re c o rd re fl ec ts, W inters
s t at ed dur i ng hert es t i m ony thatt he m an w ho knocked on herdoor and then f or ced hi s w ay i nt o he ra partm entpoi nt ed a gun a ther
. She al s o t es t i f i ed thats he f

el ta gun pr es s ed t o the back of he rne ck as s he l ay on the f l oorw hi l e the i ntruder s s ear ched hera partm ent . W hen po l i ce l at er arres t ed L athan an d the otherm en i n B l uitt ’s v ehicl e, they d i scovered tw o g un s, b o th o f w h ich w e re loa d e d
. A s th e tri a l t e stim o n y rev e a led , p o lice fo u n d o n e o f th e g u n s in the s eatoccupi ed by Lathan. ¶ 2 7
. B a s e d o n th e s e fa c ts, a s w e ll a s th e o th e r tes tim o n y a n d e v id e n c e p re se n ted a t trial,
w e fin d th a t th e S tate ’s c o m m e n ts to th e ju ry re m a in e d lim ited to “ fa c ts in tro d u c e d in evi dence, ded uct i ons and conc l us i ons thatm ay be r eas onabl y dr aw [ n] ther ef r om , and appl i cat i on of

l aw t o f act s . ” I d. ( ci t i ng I

vy , 5 8 9 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 6 6 ). T h e S tate ’s c o m m e n ts

### 11

att empt ed t o convey the se r i ous natur e of t he cr i m es com m i t t ed by t he i ntruder s w ho i nvaded W inter’s ho m e. T h e re co rd fa il s to su p p o rtL atha n ’s arg u m en t th at the S tat e inv it ed the jury to a lso c o n v ict h im o f a ttem p ted m u rd e r, a c rim e n o t ch a rg e d in L a th a n ’s in d ictm e n t. ¶2 8. V i e w i ng the c omm e nt s a ti s s ue i n the p r op e rc on t e xto f the St at e’ s ent i r e cl os i ng argum ent, w e fi nd that the S t at e’s com m ents fai l ed to cr eat e “un j ustprej ud i ce aga i nst [ L athan] r es ul t i ng i n a dec i s i on i nf l uence d by pr ej udi ce. ” D unaw ay , 5 51 S o. 2d at163. A c c o rd in g ly , this a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r la c k s m e rit.

c . In e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l. ¶2 9. L athan al t erna t i ve l y a r gu e s tha t hi s tr i a l a t t orne y pr ov i de d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of
couns el by f

ai l i ng t o obj ectt o the St at e’ s cl os i ng- ar gum entcom m ent s . T o prove a cl ai m of in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l, L a th a n m u st d e m o n stra te th e f o llo w in g : (1 ) th a t h is
couns el ’ s per f

orm ance w as def

i ci ent; an d ( 2) thatthe def i ci ency pr ej udi ced hi s def ens e. Str i ckland v. W

as hi ngt on , 4 6 6 U
. S
. 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (19 8 4 ). ¶3 0. The s upr eme cour t ’ s hol di ng i n D o ra v . S ta te , 986 So. 2d 917, 923- 24 ( ¶¶11- 14) (M iss. 20 0 8 ), refl ec ts that th e S tat e is all o w ed t o co m m en t on w ea k n esse s in the d efe n d an t’ s
cas e and the f

ai l ur e t o puton a s ucce s s f ul def ens e. T he opi ni on i n D ora f urtherexpl ai ns that p ro se c u to ria l co m m e n ts a re to b e re v iew e d in c o n tex t to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e sta tem e n ts
c o n s titu te p e rm is s ib le c o m m e n ts o n th e la c k o f e v id e n c e to s u p p o rtth e d e fe n s e . I d. at923 ( ¶¶ 12
- 13 )
. The r e c or d i n the pr e s e ntc a s e r e f l e c t s tha tthe St a t e ’ s c l os i ng - a r gument
co m m en ts atissue p ertaine d to the cre d ibil ity o f th e testi m o n y g iven b y L atha n ’s m o ther. A s reflected in the rec o rd, L atha n ’s m o ther init ial ly testi fi ed that sh e c o m m u n icated L atha n ’s

### 12

a lib i to th e p o lice , b u t sh e late r ad m itt e d d u rin g c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n th a t h e r d a u g h tera c tu a lly
co m m u n icated the in form ati o n to the p o li ce . T h e rec o rd reflects a w ea k n ess in the d efe n se’s theory due t o the i ncons i s t enci es i n the t es t i m ony of L athan’ s m otherand the l ack of t es t i m ony f

r om L athan’ s s i s t er , w ho appar ent l y comm uni cat ed Lathan’ s al i bi t o pol i ce. ¶31. A s r ef

l ect ed i n D ora , the St at e i s al l ow ed t o comm ent on t he absenc e of evi dence
s u p p o rt in g th e d e fe n s e ’s th e o ry . I d. at(¶ 13)
. T her ef

or e, the r ecor d f

ai l s t o r ef

l ectthatany
err oroccurr ed as a r es ul tof the St at e’ s comm ent s , part i cul ar l y i n l i ghtof the w i de l at i tude ext ended t o att orneys dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent s ; the cont exts urr oundi ng t he di s put ed
com m ents i n this case; and the deferent i al s t and ard of r eview app l i cable i n such si tuati on s. See i d. a t 9 2 4 (¶ 1 4 ). L a th a n a lleg e s h e re c e iv e d in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l b e c a u se h is
a tto rn e y fa iled to o b

jec t to c e rta in c o m m e n ts m a d e b y th e S ta te d u rin g c lo sin g a rg u m e n t. H ow ever , ourpr ece dentr ecogni zes thatthe St at e m ay comm entdur i ng c l os i ng ar gum enton any w eakne s s es i n the def endant ’ s cas e, the def

endant ’ s f

ai l ur e t o pr es enta cr edi bl e def ens e, and the def

endant ’ s f

ai l ur e t o pr ovi de s uf

f i ci entevi dence t o s uppor thi s theory of the ca s e. See i d. ¶32. I n the cont extof L athan ’s case, the prosecut or i al comm ent s m ade dur i ng cl os i ng
ar gum entcons t i tut ed the type of pe rm i s s i bl e comm ent s di s cus s ed i n D ora . See i d. T her ef or e, L athan f

ai l s t o s how def

i ci entper f

orm ance by hi s a t t orney and f ai l s t o s at i s f

y the th re s h o ld re q u ir e m e n t f o r e s ta b lis h in g a c la im o f i n e ff e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. See g e n e ra lly W

a lke r v . S ta te , 863 So. 2d 1, 11 (¶ 16) (M i s s . 2003) ( “B eca us e w e have hel d that the under l yi ng cl ai m s ar e w i t ho ut m er i t , W al kercannots how the r equi s i t e def i ci ent

### 13

per f orm ance and r es ul t i ng pr ej udi ce ne ces s ary t o est abl i s h the var i ous cl ai m s of i nef f ect i ve
as s i s t ance of

couns el
. ”)
. A s a r es ul t , L athan’ s cl ai m of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el l acks
m e rit. I I . W het her t he ci rcui t court err ed by ref usi ng L at han’s reques t ed j ury i nst ruct i on on accom pl i ce t es t i m ony. ¶33
. L atha n n ex t asserts th at the ci rcui tcourterred b y refu sing h is prefe rred jury instruct i on regar ding acco m pli ce t est i m on y. “Iti s w el l -s et t l ed thatj ury i nstruct i on s are
w ith in the d iscreti o n o f th e tri al co u rt , an d th e s tan d ard o f rev iew for the d en ial o f j u ry i ns truct i ons i s abus e of

di s cr et i on. ” T

h o m p so n v . S ta te , 1 19 S o. 3 d 1 00 7, 10 09 (¶3) (M i ss. 2013) ( ci t i ng N

e w e ll v. S ta te , 49 So. 3d 66, 73 ( ¶20) ( M i s s . 2010) )
. T his C ou rthas pr evi ous l y s t at ed: T he f ai l ur e of a courtt o gi ve a r eques t ed i ns truct i on does notprovi de gr ounds f orr ever s al i f

t he j ury w as f

ai r l y, f ul l y[ , ] and ac cur at el y i ns truct ed on the l aw g o v e rn in g th e c a s e . Sm ith v . S ta te , 572 So. 2d 847, 849 (M i ss. 1 990). T he s t andar d r equi r es r evi ew i ng j ury i ns truct i ons by r eadi ng al l i ns truct i ons to g e th e r, r a th e r t h a n re a d in g e a c h in s tru c tio n in is o la tio n . T o w n se n d v . S ta te , 6 8 1 S o . 2 d 4 9 7 , 5 0 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ).

. . . W her e one j ury i ns truct i on adequa t el y cover s the def end ant’ s theory of [ the ca s e] , ther e i s no err ori n [ the] r ef us al of a second orr edundant in s tru c tio n . Hig

g in s v . S ta te , 7 2 5 S o . 2 d 2 2 0 [, 22 3 ] (¶ 1 9 ) ( M iss . 1 9 9 8 ); C ook v . S ta te , 4 6 7 S o . 2 d 2 0 3 , 2 1 0 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 ); E v a n s v . S ta te , 457 So. 2d 957, 959 (M iss . 1 9 8 4 ); se e a lso Mu rp hy v . S ta te , 566 So. 2d 1201, 1206 ( M i ss. 1990) ( hol di ng thatthe tr i al courtm ay r ef us e an instruc t i on w hi ch i s w i thout f oundat i on i n the evi dence , i ncorr ect l y s t at es the l aw , ori s pr ovi ded i n another instruction ); C a lh o u n v . S ta te , 526 So. 2d 531, 533 ( M i s s . 1988) ( hol di ng that a tr i a l c o u r ti s n o tob l i g a t e d t o i n s tru c ta j u ry o v e ra n d o v e ro n th e s a me co n ce p t of l aw d esp it e v ariati o n s in d if feren t i n stru cti o n s). H o lm e s v . S ta te , 754 So. 2d 529, 537 ( ¶¶20- 21) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 1999) ( i nt ernal quot at i on

### 14

m ark s o m itted). ¶34. I n W

ill ia m s v . S ta te , 32 So. 3d 486 ( M i s s . 2010) , the s upr eme c our t addr es s ed w hen
a tr i a l c o u r ts h o u l d g i v e a c a u t i o n a ry j u ry i n s tru c t i o n o n a c c o mp l i c e t e s t i mo n y . Th e s u p r e me
courtexpl ai ned thatt he j ury m us tbe i ns truct ed t o vi ew an ac compl i ce’ s t es t i m ony w i th gr eat caut i on and s us pi ci on w her e the ac compl i ce’ s t es t i m ony s erves as the s ol e bas i s f orthe d e fe n d a n t’ s c o n v ic tio n . I d. at490 ( ¶12)
. T he W i l l i am s courtf

ur therem ph asi zed thatthe
o n ly req u ire m e n t ne c e ss a ry to e n tit le a d e fe n d a n t to a c a u tio n a ry ju ry in stru c tio n is th a t h is
a c c o m p lic e ’s te s tim o n y b e u n c o rr o b o ra te d
. I d. at 49 1 (¶1 7 ). “In d eterm ining w h ethe r a caut i onary jury i ns truct i on i s r equi r ed, the t es t i m ony thatm us tbe corr obor at ed i s the t es t i m ony tyi ng the def endanton tr i al to t he cr i m e . . . . ” I d. a t (¶ 1 9 ). W h e re “ th e o n ly evi dence agai ns tthe def endanti s the t es t i m ony of a n a ccompl i ce, the tr i al j udge mustacc ede t o the ac cus ed’ s r eques tand gr anta ca ut i onary j ury i ns truct i on. ” I d. at492 ( ¶20) ( ci t at i on
an d interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). ¶35. I n a s peci al concurr ence t o Wi l l i a ms j oined by f i ve other j us t i ces , Pr es i di ng J us t i ce C arl son p rovi ded the fol l ow i ng gu i dan ce on accom pli ce j ury i nstruct i on s:

Q ui t e f r ankl y, I w oul d s ugges tt o ourtr i al j udges that[ , ] w hen co n fron ted w ith the issu e o f w h ethe r t o give an ac co m p li ce instruction , if there is a n y d o u b t at a ll a s to w h e th e r th e tes tim o n y o f th e a c c o m p lice is uncorr obor at ed, the ac compl i ce i ns truct i on oughtt o be gi ven i n the f ol l ow i ng f o rm: T h e C o u rt in stru c ts th e ju ry th a t Jo h n D o e is a n a c c o m p lice in thi s cas e. T he C our thas al r eady i nst ruct ed you thatyou, as j ur or s , ar e the sol e j udges of the w ei ghtand cr edi tt o be as s i gned the t es t i m ony a nd s uppor t i ng e vi dence of e ach w i tnes s w ho has t es t i f i ed i n t hi s cas e. H ow ever , s i nce J ohn D oe i s an ac compl i ce

### 15 i n thi s cas e, any t es t i m on y of J ohn D oe w hi ch you f i nd t o be uncorr obor at ed by otherevi dence s houl d be vi ew ed w i th gr eat caut i on a nd s us pi ci on i f

you f i nd s uch uncorr obor at ed t es t i m ony to b e u n re a so n a b le, s e lf c o n tra d icto ry , o r su b sta n tially i m peac hed. I d. at 49 4 (¶3 0 ) (C arlson , P
. J. , sp ec ial ly co n cu rri n g ). ¶36. I n the pr es entc as e, the ci r cui tc our tj udge gave i nst ruct i on nu m ber D -4A , w hi ch
s t at ed: T he [ c] our ti ns truct s the [ j ] ury thatthr ee w i tnes s es c al l ed by the [ S ] t at e, M ich a e l S a tterf

ield , T e v in O g len , an d B o b b y B lu itt [] Jr.[, ] are a c c o m p lice s to th e c o m m iss io n o f th e s a m e c rim e s w ith w h ich C o re y L a th a n is c h a rg e d in th is c a se . T h e c o u rt h a s a lre a d y in stru c te d y o u th a t y o u , as ju ro rs, a re th e so le j udges of

the w ei ght a nd cr edi bi l i ty t o be as s i gned t o the t es t i m ony and su p p o rt ing ev iden ce o f ea ch w itn ess w h o h as testi fi ed in this ca se. H o w ev er, si nce M i cha el S att erfiel d , T ev in O g len, an d B o b b y B luitt[ ] Jr
. are accom pli ces, any t es t i m ony of

e i therof them, w hi ch you f

i nd t o be unc orr obor at ed by other evi dence [ , ] shoul d be vi ew ed w i th grea tcaut i on and s us pi ci on i f you f i nd such uncorroborat ed t es t i m ony t o be unreas onabl e, s el f - cont radi ct ory, or s ubst ant i al l y i m peached
. (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶37. I n hi s br i ef

, L athan ac know l edges thati ns truct i on num berD
- 4A mi rr or s the l anguage i n Wi l l i a ms ’ s speci al concurr ence and thatthe s upr eme cour t“quot ed the [ Wi l l i a ms ] i ns truct i on w i th appr oval i n K in gv . S ta te , 83 So. 3d 376, 380 [ ( ¶13) ] (M i s s . 2012). ” Even
s o, L athan ar gues that i nst ruct i on num berD
- 4A “pl ace s an unj us tqual i f i cat i on on the tr eatm entof

acc om pl i ce t es t i m ony” by addi ng t he phr as e “i f you f i nd s uch uncorr obor at ed tes tim o n y to b e u n re a so n a b le, s e lf-c o n tra d icto ry , o r s u b sta n tially im p e a c h e d .” A s a re su lt, L atha n asse rt s tha t th e c ir cu itco u rtjud g e a b u sed h is discreti o n b y refu sing L atha n ’s pr ef err ed i ns truct i on, w hi ch cont ai ned the sam e l anguage as i ns truct i on num berD
- 4A but

### 16

sim p ly o m itt e d th e p h ra se th a t L a th a n n o w c o m p lain s a b o u t in h is a p p e a l. ¶38. D ur i ng the j ury- i ns truct i on c onf er ence , the ci r cui tc our tj udge s t at ed thatthe ques t i on of w hetherL athan s houl d r ece i ve any c aut i onary i ns truct i on a ta l l w as “ a cl os e i s s ue. ” The ci r cui tcour tj udge expl ai ned that , i n addi t i on t o the ac compl i ce t es t i m ony pr es ent ed, W i nt er pr ovi ded corr obor at i ng t es t i m ony t o c onnectL athan t o the cr i m es char ged. W i nt ert es t i f i ed thatthe man w ho e nt er ed hera partm entw or e l ong dr eadl ocks , and s he f ur thert es t i f

i ed that
a jaro f c h a n g e w a s s to len fro m h e r. T h e c irc u it co u rt ju d g e sta ted : W el l , the t es t i m ony i s [ that ] the onl y one w ho had t he l ong dre adl ocks i s your cl i ent . A l s o[ , ] ther e w as s om e . . . [ t en] dol l ar s p l us in qu art er s [ f ound] appar ent l y i n hi s pocket
. . . . S o t her e i s
— i t ’ s notj us tcorr obor at i on f r om the [ acc om pl i ces ]
. T her e i s some corr obor at i on by the vi ct i m i n thi s cas e l i nki ng hi m t o the cr i m e. . . . A nd ther e’ s otherc orr obor at i on. H e’ s caughti n the ca r w i th al l thes e gent l emen i n a s hor tor deri n pr etty cl os e pr oxi m i ty. So, I thi nk i t ’ s a cl os e i s s ue of

w hetheryou even ge tthi s i ns truct i on. I ’ m goi ng t o [ gi ve] i to u to f a n a b u n d a n c e o f

c a u t i o n , b u tI ’ m g i v i n g [ i n s tru c t i o n n u mb e r ] D- 4 A. ¶39. A f

t er r evi ew i ng the r ecor d and appl i cabl e cas el aw , w e f i nd no abus e of di s cr et i on by th e c ir c u it c o u rt ’s d e c is io n to g iv e in s tru c tio n n u m b e r D -4 A
. See Thom ps on , 119 So. 3d at 1009 ( ¶3)
. A l though t he ci r cui tcourtj udge f ound thatthe r ecor d cont ai ned corr obor at i ng t e s t i mony f

r om W i nt e rt o c on ne c tLa tha n t o the a rmed r ob be ry a nd b ur gl a ry, h e gave the p roffere d jury instruc ti o n “ o u t of an ab u n d an ce o f ca u ti o n . ” A s L atha n ad m itted in h is brief, i ns truct i on num berD
- 4A m i rr or s t he l anguage pr ovi ded i n Wi l l i a ms ’ s s peci al concurr ence
re g a rd in g a c c o m p lic e -t e s tim o n y ju ry in s tru c tio n s . Se e Wi l l i a ms , 32 So. 3d at49 4 (¶30) (C a rlso n , P .J., sp e c ially c o n c u rrin g ). W e th e re fo re fin d th a t th is a rg u m e n t lac k s m e rit. ¶ 4 0
. T HE J UDGM EN T OF THE L OW NDE S COUNTY C I RC UI T CO UR T OF CO NVI CTI ON OF CO UNT I , ARM ED RO BBERY, AND S ENTENCE OF THI RTY

### 17

YE ARS AND F I NE OF $ 5 0 0 , AN D C OUNT I I , B URGL ARY OF A DW EL LI NG, AND S ENTENCE OF FI FTE EN YEARS, W I TH FI VE YEARS S USP ENDED AN D TEN YEARS TO S ERVE, AND FI NE OF $ 5 0 0 , W I TH TH E S ENTENCE I N CO UNT I I TO RU N CONS EC UT I VE L Y T O T HE S E NT E NC E I N C OU NT I , B OT H I N T HE C U S T O D Y O F T H E M ISS ISS IP P I D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T IO N S , IS AF F I RMED . AL L CO S T S OF THI S AP P E AL AR E AS S E S S E D T O T HE APP ELLANT. LE E, C. J . , I RVI NG, P . J . , BA RNE S , I S HEE , ROBE RT S , M AXW EL L A ND FAI R, J J . , CO NCU R. GR I FF I S , P. J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND I N THE R ES ULT W I THOUT S EP ARATE W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. J AM ES , J . , CONCURS I N P ART W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.