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 0 8 3 7 - S CT J A MESB RA D L E Y

B R O WN v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 09/ 2006 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. BO BBY BU RT D ELAU GH TER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N T: V I RG I N I A LY N N W A TK I N S W I LL I AM R. LABARRE 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: E L E ANOR J OHNS ON P E T E RS ON 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 - 08/ 02/ 2007 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 R A N D O L P H , JJ. DI CK I NSON, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. I n t hi s del i ber at e- des i gn m ur dercas e, t he D ef endantcl ai m s the tr i al court comm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err orby i m pr op erl y adm i t t i ng evi dence and pr ohi bi t i ng ques t i oni ng r egar di ng a w itn ess’s info rm an t statu s. T h e d efe n d an t also clai m s th at th e ev iden ce w a s le g a lly in su ffic ien t to su p p o rt h is c o n v ictio n . F in d in g n o re v e rsib le e rro r, w e a ffirm th e c irc u it court ’ s di s pos i t i on.Fo r cl ari fi cation of thelayo ut of

th e are a, D ete ctiveC linton te sti fi ed that th ereis “ a b eauty 1 shop, which is on Terry Road. Directly behi nd the beauty shop i s Shiloh Drive, and di rectly be hind Sh ilo h D riv e is Rebe lw oo d Ap art m ents. It i s p retty m

uc h at a s traight angle . I mean they’re dire ctly be hin d o nean oth er. ” 

### 2

S T AT E M E NT OF F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S ¶2 . In the ea rl y m o rnin g h o u rs o f Ju ly 2 5 , 2 0 0 4 , Ja ck so n , M issi ssipp i, fir efigh ters w ere r es pondi ng t o a 911 r eportof a bus i nes s f

i r e on Terry R oad, w hen they w er e di r ect ed by an u n id e n tified m o to rist to lo o k b e h in d th e U n iq u e H a ir S a lo n . T h e re , th e y fo u n d a n a u to m o b ile e n g u lfe d in fla m e s a n d th e b u rn in g b o d y o f a m a n late r id e n tified a s E d w a rd L e e N ich o ls ( “N i chol s ”) . A n aut ops y r evea l ed thatN i chol s had di ed of bl untf or ce tr auma t o the bac k of the hea d. ¶3. W hi l e i nves t i gat i ng the cr i m e s cene , D et ect i ves A m os C l i nt on and Eri c Sm i th not i ced a pathw ay thr ough the w oods t o t he back of a re s i dence on Shi l oh D r i ve, w her e they f ound a gas can a nd part i al l y burned r ags . T hey al s o not ed thatthe pathw ay cont i nued f r om t he res i den ce t o the R ebelw oo d A partm ents . 1 ¶4 . T he pol i ce w er e w i tho uts us pe c t s un t i l Sha nt a Pa yn e c a me f orw a r d a nd i dent i f

i ed J a me s Br a d l e y Br o wn a s th e k i l l e r . S h e s t a t e d th a ta r o u n d 4 : 3 0 a . m. o n J u l y 2 5 , Br o wn knocked on he rR ebel w ood apar t m entdoor and t ol d hert hathe had ki l l ed s om eone. Payne al s o i dent i f

i ed anotherre s i dentof R ebel w ood A part m ent s , R as heeda N ew t on, as a pot ent i al w i tness. T he po l i ce f

oll ow ed u p b y o btai ning t w o st at em ents fr om N ew t on , on e i n A ug ust 2004 and anotheri n J anuary 2005. N ew t on w oul d l at ert es t i f y attr i al that , al though her Au g u s ts t a t e me n twa s f a c tu a l l y a c c u r a t e , s h e p u rp o s e l y f a i l e d t o i n f

o r m p o l i c e th a tBr o wn had conf es s ed t o herhe ki l l ed N i chol s beca us e, atthe t i m e, s he w as i n l ove w i th B r ow n.Altho ugh th e re co rd does no t expli citly s tat e whyButle r w as in jail at th is tim e, his 2 incarcer ation is unr elated t o the events at issue i n this case . 

### 3 N ew t on t es t i f

i ed that , i n an ef

f or tt o cl earhercons ci ence , s he r eturned t o the pol i ce s t at i on tw o w eeks bef

or e B r ow n’ s tr i al and s i gned anot hers t at ements peci f yi ng thatB r ow n had knocked on he rdoorar ound 4: 30 a. m . on July 25, 2004. N ew t on s t at ed thatB r ow n w as

“ a c tin g a ll cra z y ,” a n d th a t he h a d sa id h e “g o t i n to it” w ith E d w a rd N ich o ls, a n d h e h a d to ld her“the boy w as de ad. ” She al s o t es t i f i ed thatw hen s he t ol d Brow n s he di d notbel i eve he k ill e d N ich o ls, h e left h e r a p a rtm e n t an d re tu rn e d w ith h is s iste r, S h a n n o n B ro w n , w h o “ to ld [N e w to n ] th a t [B ro w n ] w a s n ’t ly in g ; th a t it w a s a ll tr u e .” ¶5. D ur i ng the i nves t i gat i on, pol i ce tr ace d the 911 ca l l t o a ce l l phone re gi s t er ed t o J ames B u tl er, w h o told p o li ce h e w as th e d ri v er o f th e c ar tha t i n tercep ted a n d d ir ec ted firefi g h ters t o the bl aze behi nd the U ni que H ai rSal on. B ut l ert es t i f i ed he s aw J ames B r ow n runni ng t ow ar d the R ebel w ood A part m ent s bet w een 4: 00 and 4: 30 a. m . on the morni ng i n ques t i on, an d that the d ay after th e m u rd e r, B ro w n co n fesse d to h im that h e “ too k ab o u t a gra n d o ff [ N i chol s ] ” and hi thi m . B ut l erf ur thert es t i f

i ed thatB r ow n t ol d hi m he had burned the ca r t o getr i d of

hi s f i ngerpr i nt s atthe cr i m e s cene . ¶6 . T he t r i al cour t al l owed the St a t e t o i ntr od uc e i nt o e vi de nc e a l e t t e r But l e rt e s t i f i ed B r ow n w r ot e hi m w hi l e the tw o w er e i n j ai l t ogether . A ccordi ng t o B ut l er , the l ett erw as 2 del i ver ed t o hi m by hi s cel l m at e, w ho w as a pri son t rus t ee a s s i gned t o w or k i n the barber s hop. B ut l erc l ai m ed that , w hi l e B r ow n w as ge t t i ng a hai r cut , he as ked the trus t ee t o del i ver the lett er to h is cell m ate. B u tl er fu rth er testi fi ed tha t, so m eti m e after h e rec eive d the lett er,

### 4

B r ow n acknow l edged t o hi m t hathe aut hor ed t he l ett er , w hi ch addr es s ed B ut l er ’ s t es t i m ony ab o u t th e m u rde r. ¶7. T he def

ens e ca l l ed M arki a Fel der , w ho t es t i f i ed thatB r ow n w as w i th heron the ni ght i n ques t i on. J os eph N i x, a pas s engeri n James B ut l er ’ s caron Jul y 25, al s o t es t i f i ed f orthe d e f e n s e a n d d i s p u t e d Bu t l e r ’ s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f

Br o wn a s t h e p e r s o n ru n n i n g f r o m th e c r i me s cene t o R ebel w ood A part m ent s . B r ow n’ s s i s t er , Shannon B r ow n, t es t i fi ed t hats he neve r we n tt o Ra s h e e d a Ne wt o n ’ s a p a r t me n tth e n i g h to f J u l y 2 5 . Br o wn t e s t i f i e d o n h i s o wn behal f , af t erw hi ch the def

ens e r es t ed. ¶8. T he j ury foun d B row n gu i l t y of deli berat e-desi gn m urder, an d t he t r i al j udge s ent ence d hi m t o l i f

e i m pr i s onm ent . Fol l ow i ng pos t - tr i al m ot i ons , B r ow n t i m el y per f ect ed th is a p p e a l. A N A L Y S IS ¶9 . B row n p rese n ts for o u r rev iew the foll o w ing assig n m en ts o f erro r: (1) the tr ial co u rt err ed i n i t s deni al of f

ul l i m peac hm entof J ames B ut l er ; (2) t he t r i al courterr ed i n admi t t i ng a lett er p u rpo rt ed ly from Jam es B row n ; (3) th e tr ial co u rterred i n ad m itti n g test im o n y o f a sta tem e n t alle g e d ly m a d e b y J a m e s B ro w n ; (4 ) th e trial c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in ad m itti n g a g as tan k fou n d n ea r th e sc en e; an d (5 ) th e ev iden ce w as insu ffi cien t t o su p p o rt th e ju ry v e rd ict. ¶10. W hen r evi ew i ng evi dent i ary rul i ngs m ade by the tr i al court , t his C ou rt em pl oys an a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . P e terso n v. S ta te , 67 1 So . 2d 64 7, 65 5 ( M i s s . 19 96 ) ( c i t i ng B a ine v. S ta te , 6 0 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 7 6 , 1 0 7 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ); W a de v. S ta te , 583 So. 2d 965, 967 (M is s . 1 9 9 1 )) . T h is C o u rt m u s t f ir s t d e te rm in e if

th e p ro p e r le g a l s ta n d a rd s w e re a p p lie d . I d.

### 5

at65 5-56 (ci t i ng B a in e, 606 So. 2d at1078) . W her e err ori nvol ves the admi s s i on or exclusi on of evi den ce, this C ou rt"w i l l no trever se unles s the err or adve rs el y aff ect s a subst anti al ri g h t of a p art y. " L a dn ierv. S ta te , 878 So. 2d 926, 933 ( M i s s . 2004) ( quot i ng W hitten v. Cox , 7 9 9 S o . 2 d 1 , 1 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 )). E vi dence of

a pl ea agr eem ent ¶11. Pr i ort o addr es s i ng t he i s s ues pre s ent ed on appeal , w e addr es s B r ow n’ s as s ert i on that evi dence of

a pl ea de al B ut l err ece i ved af t erthe conc l usi on o f B r ow n’ s tr i al s houl d be cons i der ed atthi s s t age of r evi ew . H ow ever , thi s evi dence w i l l notbe cons i der ed on appe al p er o u r O rde r da ted J an u ary 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 , in w h ich th is C o u rtrefu sed to allow the a p p ell an t’ s m ot i on t o s uppl ementthe r ecor d w i th thatevi dence . B r ow n chos e t o i gnor e s uch rul i ng and r ef er ence d thi s i m pr operm at er i al thr oughouthi s br i ef . T he St at e has m oved t o st ri ke that i nf or m at i on. ¶12 . “T h is C o u rt w il l n o t co nsi der m at t ers that do no t app ear i n the recor d, and i tm ust conf i ne i t s r evi ew t o w hatappea r s i n the r ecor d. ” P u lp h u s v . S ta te , 782 So. 2d 1220, 1224 ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng R o b in so n v. S ta te , 662 So. 2d 1100, 1104 ( M i s s . 1995) ) . T hi s C our thas s t a t e d , " we h a v e o n ma n y o c c a s i o n s h e l d th a twe m u s td e c i d e e a c h c a s e b y th e f a c t s s h o wn in th e re c o rd , n o t a s s e rt io n s in th e b ri e f, h o w e v e r s in c e re c o u n s e l m a y b e in th o s e a s s e rt io n s ." R obinson , 662 So. 2d at1104. A s s ert ed err orgr ounded i n f act s out s i de the r ecor d m ay not b e p re se n ted o n d ire c t ap p e a l, bu t is m o re a p p ro p ri a te ly p re se n ted in a p e tit io n fo r p o stc o n v ictio n re lief. W e g ra n t th e S tate ’s m o tio n to strik e , an d w e m u s t d is re g a rd a ll i m properl y-i ncluded evidence in m aking t od ay’s f i nd i ng s.

### 6

D eni alof

f ul li m peachm ent ¶ 1 3 . D u rin g d isc o v e ry , B ro w n lea rn e d th a t B u tler w a s a n in fo rm a n t fo r th e H in d s C o u n ty S h e r i f f’ s De p a r t me n t . I n a n e f f o r tt o s h o w B u t l e r ’ s b i a s t o wa r d l a w e n f o r c e me n t , Br o wn att empt ed t o i ntr oduce e vi dence of B ut l er ’ s r el at i ons hi p as an i nf or m ant . T he tr i al j udge r ef us ed t o al l ow the ev i dence , hol di ng thatthe Sher i f f’ s D epart m entw as t ot al l y di f f er ent f r om the Jackson P ol i ce a nd Fi r e D epart m ent s , and thatB ut l er ’ s r el at i ons hi p w i t h the S h e riff’s D e p a rtm e n t d id n o t af fe c t h is c re d ib ili ty a s a w itn e s s . O n a p p e a l, B ro w n a ss e rts th a t he w a s d e n ied h is rig h t t o fu lly im p e a c h B u tler o n h is re latio n sh ip w ith th e H in d s C o u n ty S h e riff’s D e p a rtm e n t. ¶14 . B row n ci t es Banks v. D r et ke , 5 40 U . S . 6 68 , 1 24 S. C t . 1256, 157 L . E d. 2d 1166 (20 0 4 ), fo r the p rop o sit ion tha t his co n v ict ion sh o u ld b e re m an d ed b ec au se th e juro rs w ere u n a w a re tha t B u tler w a s a c o n fid e n tial in fo rm a n t fo r th e H in d s C o u n ty S h e riff’s D e p a rtm e n t. H ow ever , thatcas e i s har dl y i ns truct i ve her e. I n B anks , the St at e ac t i vel y concea l ed t he
w i tnes s ’ s pai d i nf

or m ants t atus and al l ow ed t hatw i tnes s t o t es t i f y untruthf

ul l y on the s t and w ith o u t co rre c tio n . T h e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t w h e re th e S tate c o n c e a ls im p e a c h in g m a ter ial in its p o ss e ss io n , itis in c u m b e n t o n th e S tate to se t th e re c o rd stra ig h t. I d . at675- 76. H er e, no i m peac hi ng m at er i al w as conce al ed 

### Sthe defense w as f ull y aw are thatB ut l erhad coope r at ed w i th the H i nds C ounty Sher i f f’ s D epart m entw el l i n advanc e of tr i al . M or eover , w e f

i nd J ames B utl er’ s s t atus as a conf i dent i al i nf

or m antt o the H i nds C ounty Sher i f

f’ s D epart m enti rr el evantt o thi s case. S uch i nf or m at i on does nothave “ the ten d e n c y to m a k e the ex iste n c e o f an y fa c t thatis of cons equenc e t o the det erm i nat i on of t he act i on m or e pr obabl e orl es s pr obabl e than i tw oul d be w i thoutthe evi dence . M . R . E . 401

### 7

(e m p h a sis a d d e d ). B e c a u se th e H in d s C o u n ty S h e riff’s D e p a rtm e n t h a d n o in v o lv e m e n t w ith the ca s e bef

or e us , B r ow n’ s as s ert i on i s unf ounded. R ul e 402 of

the R ul es of

E vi dence s peci f i cal l y provi des t hat“[ e] vi dence w hi ch i s notre l evanti s notadmi s s i bl e. ” See Johnson v. Far go , 604 So. 2d 306, 309 ( M i s s . 1992) ( “A tr i al j udge has the di s cr et i on t o excl ude i rr el evantevi dence ”) . A ccor di ngl y, the tr i al courtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on by excl udi ng e v id e n c e o f Ja m e s B u tler’ s re latio n sh ip w ith th e H in d s C o u n ty S h e riff’s D e p a rtm e n t, as it w as notthe i nves t i gat i ng l aw enf or cementagenc y i n B r ow n’ s cas e. A dm is s i on of

l et t erw i thoutauthent i cat i on ¶ 1 5 . Br o wn a s s e r t s t h a tt h e tr i a l c o u r tc o m m i t t e d e rr o ri n a d m i t t i n g t h e l e t t e r Br o wn al l egedl y w r ot e t o B ut l erw hi l e i n pri s on. Speci f i cal l y, B r ow n cl ai m s t hatt he l ett erpr es ent ed attr i al w as notpr oper l y authent i cat ed, w as notthe or i gi nal , and t hat a ch ai n of cus t ody betw een Brow n and B ut l erhad notbeen e s t abl i s hed. ¶16. R ul e 90 1 o f the M i ssi ssi pp i R ules of E vidence g ov erns the au t hent i cat i on of document s i n ourtr i al court s . Speci f i cal l y, subs ect i on ( a) of thatR ul e s t at es that“the re q u ire m e n t o f a u th e n tica tio n o r id e n tifica tio n a s a c o n d iti o n p re c e d e n t to a d m iss ib ili ty is s a tis fi e d b y e v id e n c e su ffic ien t to su p p o rt a fin d in g th a t th e m a tter in q u e stio n is w h a t it s pr oponentcl ai m s . ” The R ul e goes on t o expl ai n thata w r i tt en documentm ay be authent i cat ed by a l ay w i tnes s f ami l i arw i th handw r i t i ng notacqui r ed f orpurpos es of l i t i gat i on, orby a n e xpertby compar i ng s peci m ens thatha ve been pr evi ous l y authent i cat ed. See M .R .E . 9 0 1 (b )(2 ), (3 ). R u le 9 0 1 fu rth e r p ro v id e s th a t tes tim o n y o f a w itn e ss w ith k n o wl e d g e i s s uf

f i c i e n ta u th e n t i c a t i o n th a ta ma t t e ri s wha ti ti s c l a i me d t o b e . M . R. E. 9 0 1 (b )( 1 ).

### 8

¶ 1 7 . Bu t l e rt e s t i f

i e d th a t , a f

t e rth e tru s t e e d e l i v e r e d th e l e t t e rf r o m Br o wn t o h i m, Br o wn acknow l edged thathe w r ot e the l ett er . A ccor di ngl y, the l ett erw as s uf f i ci ent l y authent i cat ed u n d e r R u le 9 0 1 (b )(1 ). T h e tria l c o u rt d id n o t er r in o v e rru lin g th e d e fe n d a n t’s o b jec tio n to i ntr oduct i on of

the l ett eron the bas i s of authent i ci ty. ¶18. U nderM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 1003, a dupl i cat e i s admi s s i bl e t o the s ame ext ent a s th e o rig in a l u n les s a g e n u in e q u e stio n is ra ise d a s to th e a u th e n ticity o f th e o rig in a l, or if i n the ci r cumst ance s i tw oul d be unf ai rt o admi tthe dupl i cat e i n l i eu of t he or i gi nal . B ut l er sta ted o n th e sta n d th a t th e lette r p re se n ted in c o u rt w a s a n e x a c t d u p lica te o f th e o rig in a l, w h ich w a s in h is a tto rn e y ’s p o ss e ss io n d u rin g trial. T h e d e fe n se o ffe re d n o re a so n w h y it w o u ld b e u n fa ir t o ad m it th e d u p lica te in li e u o f th e o rig in a l, an d th e lette r w a s s u ffic ien tly au then ti ca ted a s n o ted a b o v e. T h ere fore , the tri al co u rtp rop erly a d m itted th e lett er. ¶ 1 9 . B ro w n a lso a rg u e d th a t a c h a in o f c u sto d y w a s n e v e r e sta b lish e d to c o n n e c t h im w ith the l ett er . “ W hethera c hai n of c us t ody ha s be en pr oper l y e s t abl i s hed i s l ef tt o the di s cr et i on of the tr i al court . ” B ro w n v. S ta te , 682 So. 2d 340, 350 ( M i s s . 1996) ( ci t i ng N a lls v. S ta te , 6 5 1 S o . 2 d 1 0 7 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 5 ); W e lls v. S ta te , 604 So. 2d 271 (M i s s . 1992)) . A l though t he tr i al j udge di d note xpl i ci t l y ove rrul e the chai n of c us t ody obj ect i on made by the def ens e, t he j udge di d acknow l edge thati n l i ghtof the def endant ’ s admi s s i on thathe w r ot e the l ett erand beca us e B ut l ert es t i f

i ed thatthe trus t ee s peci f i cal l y not ed thatthe l ett erc ame f r om B r ow n, the l ett erw as admi s s i bl e. W e agr ee w i t h t he t ri al court ’ s di s pos i t i on r egar di ng chai n of cust od y an d fi nd that th e t ri al cou rt ’s dis cret i on w as not abused in accepti ng w i tness tes tim o n y th a t th e letter w a s w h a t B u tler c laim e d it t o b e . T h u s, th is a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit.

### 9

A dm is s i on of

s tat em ent

m ade to pol i ce ¶ 2 0 . A fte r b e in g a rre ste d a n d a d v ise d o f h is M ira n d a rig h ts, B ro w n in v o k e d h is ri g h t to r emai n s i l ent . H ow ever , acc or di ng t o D et ect i ve C l i nt on’ s t es t i m ony, w hi l e the det ect i ves w er e handl i ng pr ocedur al m att ers rel at ed to hi s arres t , B r ow n s pont aneous l y as ked D et ect i ves C lin to n a n d S m ith h o w th e y c o u ld h e lp h im “ if h e w a s th e in d iv id u a l th a t w a s re sp o n sib le f orE dw ar d N i chol s ’ s death. ” B r ow n’ s at t orney obj ect ed t o t he i ntr oduct i on of thats t at ement o n th e b a sis th a t itw o u ld b e a n in d ire c t c o m m e n t o n th e d e fe n d a n t’s rig h t to re m a in sile n t. In a precauti on ary m ov e, the tr i al j ud ge requ i red the S t at e t o p rof ferD et ect i ve C li n ton ’s test im o n y o u tsi d e o f th e jury ’s pre sen ce to en su re th e d efe n d an t’ s ri g h ts w ere p rotec ted. In decl ar i ng the t es t i m ony pr obat i ve of the def endant ’ s gui l ty cons ci e nc e , the tr i al j udge w arned the part i es nott o ment i on thatthe def endant“ exer ci s ed hi s r i ghtt o r emai n s i l entoreven a ny part i al i nvocat i on of hi s M i randa r i ght s . ” O n appea l , B r ow n as s ert s thatthe t es t i m ony of D et ect i ve C l i nt on m akes cl earthatther e w as no f ur thers t at ementby B r ow n, otherw i s e, the j ury w oul d have hear d t es t i m ony of i t . T her ef or e, B r ow n ass ert s t he det ect i ve’ s t es t i m ony w a s a “ b a c k d o o r e ff

o rt to p la c e b e fo re th e ju ry th e fa c t th a t M r. B ro w n re m a in e d s ile n t.” ¶21. I n a cas e si m i l ar t o thi s one, dur i ng the booki ng process on a ki dnapi ng char ge, t he def endantst at ed, “I w antt o know w hathappens t o l i t t l e gi r l s nat cher s i n thi s t ow n. ” Hers i ck v. S ta te , 904 So. 2d 116, 126- 27 ( M i s s . 2004) . T his C ou rtfound no abus e of di s cr et i on w h ere the tri al co u rtruled th e statem en t w as sp o n tane o u s an d ad m issi b le. Ind ee d , this C o u rt has de t erm i ned thatvol unt eer ed and unpr om pt ed s t at ement s a r e admi s s i bl e, s o l ong as they a re n o t th e re su lt o f q u e stio n in g b y o ffic e rs a fte r a d e fe n d a n t h a s e x e rc ise d th e rig h t to re m a in s ile n t. See S ta llw o rth v. S ta te , 797 So. 2d 905, 912 ( M i s s . 2001) . W e f i nd no abus e of

### 10

d iscreti o n in the tr ial c o u rt’s d ec isi o n to allow D etec ti v e C li n ton to testi fy to B row n ’s s pont aneous , uncoer ced s t at ement , and w e appl aud t he t r i al j udge’ s ef f or t s t o as s ur e thatt he St at e made no r ef

er ence t o, orcomm entabout , B r ow n’ s r i ghtt o r emai n s i l ent . Fo r the re a so n s s tate d , this a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit. A dm is s i on of

gas tank f

ound atr es i dence ¶22. B r ow n nextass ert s t hatt he t r i al cour ter r ed by adm i t t i ng i nt o evi dence t he gas t ank f o u n d i n t h e v i c i n i ty o f

t h e c r i me s c e n e , a s i twa s n o tr e l e v a n t . Ad d i t i o n a l l y , Br o wn c l a i ms th a t th e tri a l co u rt faile d to w e ig h the g a s ta n k ’s p ro b a tiv e v a lu e ag a in st th e d a n g e r o f u n fa ir pr ej udi ce. ¶23. W i th f

ew e xcept i ons , thi s Courthas enforced t he rul e t hat pr ov i des, w here no obj ect i on i s m ade a ttr i al t o an as s ert ed err or , a party i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed f r om as s er t i ng th e e rr o r o n a p p e a l. Flem in gv. S ta te , 604 So. 2d 280, 294 ( M i s s . 1992) ( hol di ng the abs ence of t i m el y obj ect i on caus es the def endantt o be pr ocedur al l y barr ed f r om as s ert i ng the al l eged err oron appea l ) . T he def ens e pr oper l y pr es erved, by m ot i on i n l i m i ne and obj ect i on dur i ng tr i al , i t s pr ot es tt o the i ntr oduct i on of the gas t ank bas ed on the f actthati tw as evi dence of arso n , an u n ch arg ed crim e. T h e tri al co u rto v erru led th e m o ti o n in li m in e an d B row n ’s co n ti n u ing o b

jecti o n o n the b asis that the g as tan k w a s p ro b ati v e o f th e d efe n d an t’ s conce al m entof

the murde r . B ef

or e admi t t i ng the gas t ank i nt o e vi dence , the j udge as ked the def ens e f orany f ur therobj ect i ons . T he def ens e then obj ect ed bas ed on ch ai n of cus t ody, w hi ch the tr i al j udge overrul ed. The de f ens e neverobj ect ed t o i ntr oduct i on of the gas t ank on the bas i s thatthe tr i al courtdi d notper f or m a R ul e 403 bal anci ng i nqui ry.

### 11

¶24. I ti s i ncumbenton the party as s ert i ng err ort o m ake a cont empora neous obj ect i on and o b ta in a ru lin g in o rd e r t o p re s e rv e th e o b je c tio n . B ill

io t v. S ta te , 454 So . 2d 44 5, 45 6 (M i ss. 1 9 8 4 ), cer t . deni ed , 4 6 9 U .S . 1 2 3 0 , 1 0 5 S . C t. 1 2 3 2 , 8 4 L . E d . 2 d 3 6 9 , r eh. deni ed , 47 0 U. S. 1 0 8 9 , 10 5 S . C t. 18 5 8 , 85 L . E d . 2d 15 4 (19 8 5 ). T h u s, th e d efe n se is n o w p ro c e d u ra lly barr ed f r om ar gui ng on appea l thatthe tr i al courtcomm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err orby not perf orm i ng a R ule 403 b al ancing an al ysi s. Suf f i ci ency of

the ev i dence ¶ 2 5 . B ro w n c laim s th e e v id e n c e p re se n te d b y th e S ta te w a s in s u ff ic ie n t t o su p p o rt a co nv i c t i on . Thi s Court ’ s s t a nd a r d of r e vi e w f

ors uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nce ha s been est abli shed as fol l ow s: Shoul d the f

act s and i nf

er ence s cons i der ed i n a cha l l enge t o the s uf f i ci ency of t he evidence ‘ poi nti n f avorof the def endanton any el ementof the of f ense w i th s uf f i ci entf or ce thatr eas onabl e men coul d nothave f ound b eyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe def endantw as gui l ty, ’ t he pr operre m edy i s forthe a p p e lla te c o u rt to re v e rs e a n d re n d e r. E dw a rd s v. S tate , 4 69 S o. 2d 68, 70 ( M i s s . 1985) ( ci t i ng Ma y v. S ta te , 460 So . 2d 77 8, 78 1 (M i ss. 19 84 )) ; see al so D y c u s v . S ta te , 875 So. 2d 140, 164 ( M i s s . 2004) . H ow ever , i f a r evi ew of

the evi dence r evea l s thati ti s of s uch qual i ty and w ei ghtthat , ‘ havi ng i n m i nd the beyond a r eas onabl e doubtbur den of pr oof s t andar d, r eas onabl e f

ai r - m i nded m en i n the exer ci s e of

i m part i al j udgm entmi ghtr eac h di f f er entconcl us i ons on every elem ent of

the of f ens e, ’ the evi dence w i l l be dee m ed t o have be en s u ff ic ie n t. E dw ar ds , 469 So. 2d at70. B u sh v. S ta te , 8 9 5 S o . 2 d 8 3 6 , 8 4 3 (M is s . 2 0 0 5 ). ¶ 2 6 . W h e n re v iew in g a c a se fo r s u ff ic ie n c y o f th e e v id e n c e , th e r e lev a n t q u e stio n is wh e th e r“ a n y r a t i o n a l t r i e rof f a c tc o u l d h a v e f

o u n d th e e s s e n t i a l e l e me n t s o f th e c r i me beyond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” I d. a t843 ( quot i ng J

a c kso n v. V

irg in ia , 443 U . S. 307, 315, 99 S . C t. 2 7 8 1 , 6 1 L . E d . 2 d 5 6 0 (19 7 9 )).

### 12

¶27. B r ow n w as i ndi ct ed and co nv i ct ed un der M i ss. C ode A nn. Sect i on 97- 3- 19( 1) ( a) ( R ev. 2006) . T he s t atut ory def i ni t i on of del i ber at e- des i gn m ur deri s as f ol l ow s : “ T he ki l l i ng of a h uman b e i ng wi tho utthe a utho r i ty of l a w b y a ny mea ns o ri n a ny man ne rs ha l l be m ur der . . . w hen done w i th del i ber at e des i gn t o ef f ectthe dea th of the per s on ki l l ed, orof any hum an bei ng. ” M i s s . C od e A nn . § 97- 3- 19( 1) ( a) ( R ev 2006) . T hi s C our thas enumer at ed the el ement s the pr os ecut i on i s r equi r ed t o pr ove beyond a r eas onabl e d oubtas : ( 1) the d e fe n d a n t k ill e d th e v ictim ; (2 ) w ith o u t au th o rity o f la w ; an d (3 ) w ith d e lib e ra te d e sig n to e ff e c t h is d e a th . D ilw o rth v. S ta te , 909 So. 2d 731, 736 ( M i s s . 2005). B r ow n ass ert s thatt he St at e f ai l ed t o adduce evi dence s uf f i ci entt o s at i s f

y the del i ber at e- des i gn el ementas r equi r ed b y l a w. ¶ 2 8 . “ [D ]e lib e ra te d e sig n to k ill a p e rso n m a y b e fo rm e d v e ry q u ick ly , a n d p e rh a p s o n ly m om ent s bef

or e the ac tof

cons um m at i ng t he i ntent . ” G o ss e tt v. S ta te , 660 So. 2d 1285, 1293 ( M i s s . 1995) ( quot i ng W in dh a m v. S ta te , 5 2 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 , 1 2 7 (M iss . 1 9 8 7 )). T h is C our thas a cknow l edged thatde l i ber at e- des i gn c onnot es a n i nt entt o ki l l a nd may be i nf err ed thr ough the i nt ent i onal us e of any i ns trum entw hi ch, bas ed on i t s m annerof us e, i s cal cul at ed to p ro d u c e d e a th o r s e ri o u s b o d ily in ju ry . W ilso n v. S ta te , 936 So. 2d 357, 364 ( M i s s . 2006) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . I n W il s on , thi s C ourtfound suf f i ci entevi dence t o convi ctt he d e fe n d a n t o f d e lib e ra te -d e s ig n m u rd e r w h e re th e v ictim h a d b e e n b e a ten a n d re p e a ted ly s t abbed by the def

endant . T hi s C our tal s o has r ecogni zed thats hoot i ng a vi ct i m w i th a gun c o n s titu te d d e lib e ra te -d e s ig n m u rd e r. See J o n e s v . S ta te , 7 1 0 S o . 2 d 8 7 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ); H a w th o rn e v. S ta te , 8 3 5 S o . 2 d 1 4 (M is s . 2 0 0 3 ).

### 13

¶2 9 . N icho ls’ s ca u se o f de ath w as o ffi ciall y n o ted as “ b lun t f o rce tr au m a” to the h ea d . D r. S teve n H ay n e, a fo ren sic p atho log ist , test if ied th at, b ase d o n the a u top sy an d h is r ep o rt pr epar ed i nci dentther et o, N i chol s s us t ai ned mul t i pl e bl ow s t o the hea d, ches t , abdomen and b ac k . D r. H ay n e fu rth er testi fi ed that the a m o u n t of forc e n ec essa ry to p rod u ce the v ict im ’s i nj ur i es w as unl i kel y t o have be en i nf l i ct ed w i thouta n obj ecta nd mostl i kel y w as m ade by cont actw i th a bl untobj ect . I ndeed, J ames But l eral l eged thatB r ow n t ol d hi m the day a f t er th e m u rd e r th a t h e h a d h it N ich o ls. B u tler te stifie d , “H e n e v e r to ld m e w h a t h e h it h im w ith orw hatdi d he do ordi d he s hoothi m ora nythi ng. H e j us ts ai d he had hi thi m . ” R as heeda N ew t on l i kew i s e t es t i f

i ed thatBrow n t ol d he rhe ha d “ got [ t en] i nt o i t ” w i th N i chol s and that t he bo y w a s d e a d. Thus , b a s e d on the t e s t i mony a nd e vi de nc e p r e s e nt e d, we f i nd thatt he S tate p ro d u c e d e n o u g h e v id e n c e fo r a ju ry to fin d a “ d e lib e ra te d e sig n ” b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. ¶30. A s t o the r emai ni ng el ement s , the pr os ecut i on put f or th corr obor at i ng t es t i m ony of thr ee w i tnes s es t hatB r ow n had conf es s ed t o ki l l i ng E dw ar d L ee N i chol s . A ddi t i onal l y, t he St at e pr es ent ed a w i tnes s w ho i dent i f i ed B r ow n runni ng fr om t he di r ect i on of the cr i m e s cene t o wa r d Re b e l wo o d Ap a r t me n t s a n d wh o l a t e rr e c e i v e d c o rr e s p o n d e n c e f r o m B r o wn re g a rd in g the crim e . M o re o v e r, th e S tate in tro d u c e d th e sp o n tan e o u s s tate m e n t o f B ro w n to D et ect i ves C l i nt on and Sm i th r egar di ng w hetherthey coul d do anythi ng f orhi m i f he ki l l ed the vi ct i m . A c om pet entj ury c oul d ha ve det erm i ned that , on the bas i s of a l l the evi dence , J ames Bra dl ey B r ow n w as the per s on r es pons i bl e f orN i chol s ’ s death. T her ef or e, thi s i s s ue is w ith o u t m e rit.

### 14 CO NC L US I ON ¶3 1. For t he r eas ons s t at ed her ei n, w e f i nd tha tthe St a t e p r ov e d a l l the el ement s of del i ber at e- desi gn m ur derby l egal l y s uf f i ci entevi dence . M or eover , w e f i nd thatthe tr i al courtdi d notabuse i t s dis cr et i on i n the admi s s i on and exc l us i on of evi dence i n thi s cas e. T her ef or e, f i ndi ng no r ever s i bl e err or , w e af f i r m J ames Bra dl ey B r ow n’ s m ur derconvi ct i on and s ent ence . ¶ 3 2 . CONVI CT I ON OF M URDE R AND S EN TE NCE OF LI F E I M P RI S ONM EN T I N T H E C USTO DY O F TH E M I SS I SS I PPI DE PAR TM EN T O F CO RR EC TI O N S, AF F I RM ED . SM I TH , C. J . , W AL LER , P. J . , EASLEY , CA RL SON , G RA VE S, RA ND O LPH AND L AM AR, J J . , CONCUR. DI AZ , P. J . , CONCURS I N RE S UL T ONL Y.