I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 3 - CT - 0 2 1 7 0 - S CT
TO MMY C H R I S TO P H ER B Y N U M a / k / a TO MMY BYN UM a / k / a TOM M Y C. BYN UM

v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 29/ 2003 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. LAR RY EUG ENE R OB ERTS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LAUDERDALE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T : J A ME S A
. W I L L I A MS ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: OFFI CE O F THE ATTO RN EY G ENER AL BY : J EFFER Y A
. K LI N G FU SS 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 - 05/ 18/ 2006 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. DI CK I NSON, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. A lth o u g h T o m m y B yn u m ’ s c o n v ictio n o f ro b b e ry b y a L a u d e rd a le C o u n tyC irc u it C o u rt ju ry w a s u n a n im o u s ly a f f ir m e d b yth e C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls , B

y n u m v. S ta te , N o. 2003- K A
- 02170- C O A , 2 0 0 5 W L 894796, at*1 ( M i s s . C t
. A pp. A pr . 19, 2005) , fourj udges d isag ree d w ith the m ajorityo v er the issue o f w h ethe r Cr aw f or d v. W as hington , 541 U
. S. 36, 124 S. C t
. 1354, 158 L
. E d. 2d 177 ( 2004) , s houl d be appl i ed re t r oact i vel y . W hi l e w e fi nd

n o me r i t t o t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d b yByn u m i n h i s p e t i t i o n t o t h i s Co u r tf o rwr i to f

c e r t i o r a r i , wenevert hel es s gr anthi s pet i t i on forr evi ew beca us e w e r ega rd as impor t antt he ques t i on of

w hethert he C our tof A ppeal s s houl d have a ppl i ed Craw ford r e t r o a c t i v e l y. B AC KGR OU ND F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S ¶2. W e beg i n w i t h a b ri ef revi ew of the fact s as s etforth b ythe C ou rtof A pp eal s:

O n O c to b e r 1 1 , 2 0 0 2 , T o m m yB yn u m a n d a n o th e r in d iv id u a l d ro v e to a gr ocerys t or e pa rkin g lot in M er i di an. C i ndyG i l es w as i n the parki ng l ot w a lk in g to w a rd h e r v e h icle . T o m m yB yn u m a p p ro a c h e d h e r a n d a ttem p ted to t ake he rpur s e. B y n u m an d G i l es s t ruggl ed, and B ynum pus hed G i l es t o t he gr ound. A s G i l es fel l t o t he gr ound her pur s e s t r ap br oke and By num r an aw ay w i t h herpur s e. G i l es chas ed B ynum acr o ss t he parki ng l ot , s hout i ng as s he ran . T h is co m m o ti o n alerted tw o b y stan d ers: A d albe rt o M e d in a a n d P erry T ubby
. M edi na w as w or ki ng i n an adj ace nt s t or e, and he sa w B ynum runni ng w i t h G i l es ’ s pur s e. M edi na s aw B ynum geti nt o a ca ri n t he parki ng l ot , and M edi na w r ot e dow n t he vehi cl e’ s l i cens e num ber
. M eanw hi l e, T ubby , w ho sa w B yn u m ru n n in g w ith G iles ’ s p u rse , rec o g n ize d th a t a c rim e w a s in pr ogr es s and s hout ed at B ynum . T ubby t es t i fi ed t hat he w at ched B ynum run fr om G i l es , t hen geti nt o a vehi cl e w i t h another m an and fl ee t he s cene . T ubby fol l ow ed behi nd t he get

- aw aycari n hi s ow n vehi cl e, and col l ect ed G i l es’s per s on a l i t e ms whi c h Byn u m h a d t h r o wn o u t o f t h e c a r wi n d o w. T ubby r etur ned t o t he cr im e sce n e w her e he ga ve G i l es the per s onal i t ems he ha d r ecove r ed. H e al s o gave a des cr i pt i on of B ynum t o t he pol i ce. Fourd ay s af

ter the r obbery , pol i ce r es ponded t o a ca l l of s us pi ci ous act i vi t yat a l ocal gas s t at i on. T he get - aw ay car us ed i n t he G i l es r obberyw as at that locat i on. T he vehi cl e w as i m pounded and G i l es ’ s change pur s e w as di s cover ed i n t he ca r . T he dr i ver w as arr es t ed and he i m pl i cat ed a w hi t e man in th e G iles ro b b e ry . A c tin g o n in f o rm a ti o n th e yd e v e lo p e d d u rin g th e ir i n v e s t i g a t i o n , p o l i c e c o n d u c t e d a p h o t o l i n e - u p f o r G i l e s , M e d i n a , a n d T u b b y. E ach i dent i fi ed B y n u m as t he r obber , how ever , none of the w i t nes s es had got t en a good l ook at t he dr i verof the get

- aw aycar . B ynum w as i ndi ct ed for ro b b e ry, a n d tr ie d a s a c o -d e f e n d a n t w ith th e v e h ic le d ri v e r. Bynum , 2005 W L 894796, at*1.¶ 3
. A t tria l, th e d riv e r w a s a c q u itt e d , a n d B yn u m w a s f o u n d g u ilty . B yn u m ’s a p p e a l to t hi s C our tw as as s i gned t o t he C our tof A ppeal s , w hi ch af fi r m ed. A N A L Y S IS ¶4. B ynum as s er t s w e s houl d cons i derhi s appea l i n t he l i ghtof Craw ford , i n w hi ch the U n ite d S tat es S u p rem e C o u rth eld th at ou t- o f-c o u rtstat em en ts byw itn esse s tha t are t es t i m oni al ar e barr ed, undert he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e, unl es s w i t nes s es ar e unava i l abl e and d e f e n d a n t s h a d p r i o r op po r tu n i t yt o c r o s s - e x a mi n e , r e g a r d l e s s o f wh e t h e rth e c o u r td e e ms
s u c h s ta te m e n ts re lia b le
. Cra wf ord , 5 41 U
. S. at1365. T he C our tof A ppeal s , not i ng Cr aw f or d w as de cide d so m e sev en m o n ths a fter B yn u m ’s co n v ict ion , o p ined that this C o u rt “has nots poken on the r etr oact i vi t yof Cr aw f or d
. . . . ” Bynum , 2 0 0 5 W L 8 9 4 7 9 6 , a t*7. W e gr antcert i or ar i i n t hi s cas e t o corr ectthi s stat em ent r egar di ng ourpr i orappl i cat i on of Craw ford
. ¶5. I n Cla rk v. S ta te , 891 So. 2d 136, 138- 39 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ), the d ef en d an thad no oppor tuni t y t o cr os s - exami ne an a l l eged a ccompl i ce, w ho r efus ed t o t es t i fyattr i al
. R el y i ng
on Craw ford , w e hel d t he tr i al cour terr ed i n admi t t i ng the ac compl i ce’ s t es t i m oni al

s ta te m e n t. I

d. a t 1 4 0 . H o w e v e r, af

ter c o n sid e rin g th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f a d m iss ib le

e v id e n c e , w e f

o u n d th e C o n f

ro n t a t i o n C la u s e v io la tio n to b e h a rm le s s e rr o r. Id
. at142. W hi l e w e di d not s peci fi cal l ypr ocl ai m i n Cl ark th a t Cr aw

f or d i s t o b e a p p l i e d r e t r o a c t i v e l y,
w e cl ear l yr el i ed on Cr aw f or d a n d a p p l i e d i t s h o l d i n g r e t r o a c t i v e l y.¶ 6
. A ccor di n g l y , b e c a u s e Byn u m l a c k e d t h e o p p o r tuni t yt o cr os s - exami ne hi s codefe ndant , w e fi nd t he t r i al cour t err ed i n al l ow i ng t he pol i ce offi cer t o t es t i fyconce r ni ng t he

co- defe ndant ’ s s t at ement
. H ow ever , upon car eful r evi ew of the evi dence , w e fi nd t he

err oneous admi s s i on of the s t at ement w as harm l es s err or . H arm l es s err or s ar e thos e “w hi ch i n t h e s e t t i n g o f

a p a r t i c u l a rc a s e a r e s o u n i m p o r t a n ta n d i n s i g n i f i c a n tth a tth e y m a y,
c o n sis ten t w ith th e F e d e ra l C o n stitu tio n , b e d e e m e d h a rm les s, n o t re q u irin g th e a u to m a tic

r ever s al of t he convi ct i on. ” Ch a p m a n v. Ca lifo rn ia , 3 8 6 U. S. 1 8 , 2 2 , 8 7 S. Ct
. 8 2 4 , 1 7 L. E d. 2d 70 5 (196 7). W e f in d t he im pact of t he err on eou sl yadm i t t ed st at em ent w as so in sig n if ica n t th a t itc o u ld n o t h a v e c o n trib u ted in a n ym e a n in g f u l w a yto th e g u iltyv e rd ict. See A riz o n a v. Fu lm in a n te , 499 U
. S. 279, 296, 111 S. C t
. 1246, 113 L
. E d. 2d 302 ( 1991) (th e im p ac t o f th e erron eo u sly ad m itted ev iden ce sh o u ld b e w eigh ed to d eterm ine w h at errors
a r e h a r ml e s s )
. T h e o v e r wh e l mi n g e v i d e n c e o f g u i l ti n c l u d e s t h e v i c t i m’ s a n d t wo ey ew i t n e s s e s ’ i d e n t i fi cat i on of B ynum , t es t i m onythatB ynum thr ew the vi ct i m ’ s pr oper t yout
o f th e c ar w ind o w , an d the p rese n ce o f th e v ictim ’s ch an g e p u rse in the g et-aw ayca r. C o n sid e rin g th e e v id e n c e , w e f in d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t th e trial c o u rt’s e rro r in adm i t t i ng t he co -defend ant’ s st at em ent w as harm l ess. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 7
. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls p ro p e rly a f f irm e d B yn u m ’s c o n v ictio n . W e g ra n t c e rtio ra ri in

o rd e r to c lar if

y– a n d w e n o w sp e c if

ica llyh o ld – th a t Craw

ford m u s t b e a p p l i e d r e t r o a c t i v e l y.¶8. THE J UDGM EN T OF THE COURT OF APPEAL S I S AF F I RM ED .

CO NV I CT I ON OF RO B B E RY AN D S E NT E NC E OF T W E L VE ( 1 2 ) YE AR S I N T HE CUSTODY OF THE M I S S I S S I PP I DEPARTM ENT OF CO RRECTI ON S , W I TH CO ND I T I ON S , P AY M E NT OF A F I NE OF $ 5 , 0 0 0 , P AY M E NT OF RE S T I T UT I ON I N T HE AM OUNT OF $ 3 9 0 , AND OT HER F EE S AND COS TS , AF F I RM ED . S M I T H , C .J ., W A L L E R A N D C O B B , P .J J ., C A R L S O N A N D G R A V E S , J J ., CO NCU R. EAS LEY, J. , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY W I THO UT S EPARATE W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . DI AZ AN D R AN DO L P H, J J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .