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 8 - KA- 0 0 6 8 4 - S CT CAROL YN M

ARI E BARNES
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 11/ 2008 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. F RA NK G. VOL L OR COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W ARREN COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F I ND I GEN T APPEALS BY : ERI N ELI ZAB ETH PRI DG EN TON I DEM ETRESS E TERRETT LESL I E S. LEE 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 : DE I RD RE M c CR OR Y DI S TRI CT AT TORNEY: RI CHARD EARL S M I TH, J R. 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 - 03/ 04/ 2010 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 G R A V E S, P . J. , L A M A R A N D K I T C H E N S, JJ. GR AVES, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. C ar ol yn B arnes w as convi ct ed of one count of embezzl ement i n t he C i r cui t C our tof W arr en C ount y and sent ence d t o t en year s i n t he cus t ody of t he M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons . B arnes ’ pos t - t r i al m ot i on w as deni ed and s he f i l ed t his ap peal
. W e f

i nd t hat the i s s ues r ai s ed by B arnes ar e w i t houtm er i tand thatherconvi ct i on s houl d be af f i r m ed. FACTS

### 2

¶ 2 . C a ro ly n B a rn e s w a s a h o m e c a re g iv e r fo r L o ttie M o n tag u e ’s h u sb a n d . U p o n h is d e a th , the fa m ily c o n tin u e d to e m p lo y B a rn e s to a ss ist 8 6 -y e a r- o ld L o tti e M o n tag u e w ith dai l y act i vi t i es . B arnes had a key t o M ont ague’ s hom e, keptM ont ague’ s vehi cl e f orper s onal
us e and t o t ake M ont ague on e r r ands , and w as pai d an hour l y w age. O n M ay 8, 2006, B arnes dr ove M ont ague t o a seni or ci t i zens cent eri n V i cks bur g. A f t erl eavi ng t he ce nt er , B arnes dr ove M ont ague t o B ancorpSout h, w her e M ont ague c as hed a c heck f or$3, 000 w i t h t he inten ti o n o f de p o sit ing the m o n ey into the cre d it u n io n ac co u n t of M o n tagu e’s d au g h ter, J oyce. T he pai rpi cked up l unch and pr ocee ded t o M utual C redi tU ni on, w her e B arnes of f er ed t o t ake the money i ns i de and depos i ti ti n Joyce ’ s acc ountbeca us e s he s ai d s he knew the t el l er . B arnes t ook the m oney and ent er ed t he cr edi tuni on. W hen B arnes e xi t ed the
cr edi tuni on, M ont ague’ s s on, C har l es , cam e w al ki ng up. C har l es , w ho w or ked ac r os s t he
s tr eetf r om t he cr edi tuni on, a s ked w hatM ont ague a nd B arnes w er e doi ng t her e and Bar nes ind icated sh e w o u ld tell h im lat er. ¶3. T he pai rr etur ned t o M ont ague’ s hous e and at e l unch. M ont ague t hen t ol d B arnes s he
w as goi ng t o t ake a nap and thatB arnes coul d l eave f orthe day. B arnes s ai d s he w oul d l ock the doorand then l ef

t . Shor t l y ther eaf

t er , M ont ague w as aw akene d by s om eone s t r addl i ng herand hol di ng a pi l l ow overf ace and rubbi ng i tba ck and f or t h. M ont ague t es t i f

i ed thats he i ni t i al l y s truggl ed, butthen s he t houghts he w as goi ng t o di e and j us tr el axed. T he att acke r
r emoved t he gol d and di amond ri ng f r om M ont ague’ s f

i nger s , t ook herl eatherw al l et cont ai ni ng $ 30 0 a nd h e rc r e di tc a r ds , a nd h e rk e ys . M on t a gu e was u na bl e t o i de nt i f y he r at t acke r , butw as abl e t o t el l t hatt he per s on w as t al l , thi n and w ear i ng a w hi t e s hi r tw i th a bl ue s tr i pe. M ont ague c al l ed 911. L aw enf or cementand emer gency medi cal per s onnelA bank employee also testified r egarding the video. 1 

### 3 a rriv e d o n th e sc e n e . M o n tag u e p ro v id e d d e tails o f th e a tta c k a n d w a s la ter tra n sp o rte d to the e m erg en cy roo m . B arn es re turn ed to M o n tag u e ’s h o u se a n d sp o k e w ith inv esti g ators fr om the W arr en C ou n ty S heri ff’s off i ce, i ncludi ng T od d D yk es and R and y L ew i s. I nves t i gat or s f

ound no s i gns of

f or ced e ntr y. B arnes ne verr eturned t o w or k f orM ont ague. H ow e ve r , Barne s k e pti n c on t a c twi t h i nv e s t i ga t or s , want i ng t o kn ow how t he cas e w as pr ogr es s i ng. ¶ 4 . O n M a y 9 , 2 0 0 6 , th e d a y f o llo w in g th e a ttac k , B a rn e s c a lled D y k e s. B a rn e s to ld D ykes t hat , al t hough the i ni t i al r epor tm ade by M ont ague w as that$300 w as t aken , an a d d iti o n a l $ 3 ,0 0 0 a c tu a lly h a d b e e n ta k e n . H o w e v e r, B a rn e s fa iled o n a t lea st tw o se p a ra te
occa s i ons t o m ent i on anythi ng aboutgoi ng t o M utual C r edi tU ni on t o dep osi tthe money. D ykes r el ayed the i nf

or m at i on pr ovi ded by B arnes t o L ew i s , w ho w as w orki ng the ca s e. A f t erB arnes t ol d i nves t i gat or s t hatan addi t i onal $3, 000 had bee n t aken, i nves t i gat or s t al ked
w i th M ont ague, and s he t ol d t hem t hatB arnes w as s uppos ed t o have de pos i t ed the money into Jo y ce ’s a cc o u n t. H o w ev er, th e m o n ey w as n ev er d ep o sit ed
. F u rth er, i n v esti g ators obt ai ned s urvei l l ance phot ogr aphs , t aken f r om s urvei l l ance vi deo f r om M utua l C r edi tU ni on, 1 thats how ed B arnes , w ear i ng a w hi t e shi r tw i t h a bl ue str i pe, ent erthe bank, go t ow ar d t he d e p o sit c o u n ter a n d d o n o th in g . B a rn e s w a s w e a rin g a d iffe re n t sh irt w h e n s h e re tu rn e d to M o n ta g u e ’s h o m e fo llo w in g th e a tta c k
. ¶5. I nves t i gat or s as ked B arnes t o go t o t he sheri ff’s o ff i ce o n M ay 23 , 2 00 6, f or an i nt ervi ew . D ur i ng t he cour s e of the i nt ervi ew a nd ba s ed on di s cr epanc i es i n he rve r s i on ofMiranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966) 

### . 2 

### 4 the e v en ts, B arn es w as re ad h er Mir anda ri ght s and w as l at erar r es t ed. O n M ay 24, 2006, 2
a u th o r i t i e s e x e c u t e d a s e a r c h w a r r a n to n Ba r n e s ’ h o me , b u td i d n o tf i n d a n y o f

th e i t e ms t aken f r om M ont ague ort he w hi t e s hi r tw i t h a bl ue s t r i pe thatB arnes w as w ear i ng on t he
s u rv e illa n c e v id e o . ¶6. B arnes w as i ndi ct ed on cha r ges of embezzl ementa nd r obbery. B arnes w as convi ct ed onl y of embezzl ementand s ent ence d t o s erve t en yea r s i n t he cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D e p a rtm e n t o f C o rre c tio n s. S u b se q u e n tly , B a rn e s file d th is a p p e a l. A N A L Y S IS I . W he t he r t he t r i a l c o ur t m i s a pp l i e d t he l a w i n a dm i t t i ng Ba r ne s ’ s t a t e m e nt s m ade d u rin g cu stod ial i n ter ro g a ti o n , th u s d ep rivin g B a rn es o f h er co n sti tu ti o n a l R igh t to C o u n se l. ¶7. B arnes as s ert s t hatt he tr i al cour tshoul d have s uppr es s ed hers t at ement s beca us e they
w er e t aken i n vi ol at i on of hercons t i tut i onal R i gh tto C ouns el
. B arnes as s ert s thats he
a ttem p ted to in v o k e h e r F ifth A m e n d m e n t R ig h t to C o u n se l d u rin g h e r in ter v iew w ith author i t i es on M ay 23, 2006. B arnes f ur t herasser t s thathers t at ementt o pol i ce w as t aken i n vi ol at i on of

t he Fi f t h and Four t eenth A m endment s t o t he U
. S. C ons t i tut i on and Sect i on 26 of A r t i cl e 3 of

t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on. ¶8. T hi s C our t w i l l r ever s e a t r i al cour t ’ s deni al of a m ot i on t o s uppr es s onl y i f t he rul i ng is m a n if e s t e rr o r o r c o n tr a ry to th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e . R u ffin v. S ta te , 99 2 S o. 2d 11 65 , 116 9 (M i ss. 200 8) ( ci t at i on s om i t ted). U n d er Mir anda v. Ari z ona , 384 U . S. 436, 86 S. C t . 1602, 16 L . E d. 2d 694 ( 1966) , cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on m us tbe pr ece ded

### 5

b y a d v is in g th e d e fe n d a n t o f h is ri g h t to re m a in s ile n t a n d h is ri g h t to a n a tto rn e y . Id . at479. U p o n i n v o c a tio n o f t h e ri g h t to re m a in s ile n t, th e in te rr o g a tio n m u s t c e a s e . Id . I f t he d e fe n d a n t in v o k e s h is rig h t to c o u n se l, th e in ter ro g a tio n m u st c e a se u n til a n a tto rn e y is p re s e n t. Id . “I f

t he i nt err ogat i on cont i nues w i t houtthe pr es ence of an at t orney and a
s t at ementi s t aken, a he avy bur den r es t s on the governm entt o demonstr at e thatt he def endant k n o w in g ly a n d in tellig e n tly w a iv e d h is p riv ileg e a g a in st s e lf-in c rim in a tio n a n d h is rig h t to
r et ai ned orappoi nt ed couns el
. ” Id . a t475. O nce a def endantas ks f

orcouns el , he ca nnotbe in ter ro g a ted fu rth e r u n til c o u n se l h a s b e e n m a d e a v a ilab le, “ u n les s th e a c c u se d h im se lf i ni t i at es f

ur t hercomm uni cat i on, excha nges , orc onver s at i ons w i t h the pol i ce. ” E dw ar ds v. Ari z ona , 4 5 1 U . S . 4 7 7 , 4 8 4 -85 , 1 0 1 S . C t. 1 8 8 0 , 6 8 L . E d
. 2 d 3 7 8 (19 8 1 ). ¶9 . H o w ev er, th e “ ap p li ca b ili ty o f th e ‘“ ri g id” p rop h y lacti c ru le’ of E dw ar ds r equi r es cour t s t o f

i r s t‘ det erm i ne w hethert he ac cus ed actual l y i nvoke d

hi s r i ghtt o c ouns el
. ’ ” D a v is
v. U . S. , 5 1 2 U . S . 4 5 2 , 4 5 8 , 1 1 4 S . C t. 2 3 5 0 , 1 2 9 L . E d
. 2 d 3 6 2 (19 9 4 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). D et erm i ni ng w hethera def endantactual l y i nvoked hi s r i ghtt o couns el is an obj ect i ve in q u ir y . Id . at459. A def endant“m ustart i cul at e hi s des i r e t o have c ouns el pr es ent
s uf f i ci ent l y cl ear l y t hata r eas onabl e pol i ce of f i ceri n the ci r cumst ance s w oul d under s t and the s t at ementt o be a r eques tf ora n a t t orney. I f

the s t at ementf

ai l s t o m eetthe r equi s i t e l evel
o f c la ri ty , E dw ar ds d o e s n o t r e q u ir e th a t th e o f f ic e r s s to p q u e s tio n in g th e s u s p e c t. D a v is , 51 2 U . S. at459. Fur t her , t he U
. S. Supr eme C our ti n D a v is r e i t e r a t e d t ha tt her e i s no
r equi r ementt hatpol i ce c l ar i f y w hetherornota def

endanta ctual l y w ant s an att orney w hen th e d e fe n d a n t m a k e s a n a m b ig u o u s o r e q u iv o c a l s ta te m e n t. D a v is , 512 U . S. at461. T he C our ts ai d that , a l t hough c l ar i f yi ng que s t i ons a r e good pol i ce pr act i ce, “ w e decl i ne t o adopt

### 6

a rul e r equi r i ng of

f i cer s t o ask cl ar i f

yi ng ques t i ons . I f

t he s us pect ’ s s t at ementi s notan unambi guous orunequi vocal r eques tf orcouns el , the of

f i cer s hav e n o obl i gat i on t o s t op ques t i oni ng hi m . ” Id . at461- 62.

T o r eca pi tul at e: W e hel d i n Mir anda thata s us pecti s ent i t l ed t o t he ass i st ance of

couns el dur i ng cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on even though t he C ons t i tut i on does notpr ovi de f ors uch as s i st ance. W e hel d i n E dw ar ds that i f t he sus pecti nvokes t he r i ghtt o couns el atany t i m e, t he pol i ce mu st im m ed iat ely c ea se q u esti o n ing h im u n ti l an a tt o rne y is prese n t. B u t w e a re unw i l l i ng t o cr eat e a thi r d l ayerof pr ophyl axi s t o pr eventpol i ce que s t i oni ng w h e n th e su sp e c t m ightw anta l aw yer . U nl es s t he s us pectactual l y r eques t s an at t or ney, ques t i oni ng m ay cont i nue. D a v is , 5 1 2 U .S . a t 4 6 2 . See al s o D e la sh m it v. S ta te , 9 9 1 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 5 , 1 2 2 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ); and Ch a m b e rlin v. S ta te , 9 8 9 S o . 2 d 3 2 0 , 3 3 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ). ¶ 1 0 . D u rin g th e h e a rin g o n the m o tio n to su p p re ss , L e w is tes tified th a t B a rn e s w a s n o t a
s u s p e c twh e n h e c a l l e d h e ra n d a s k e d h e rt o c o me t o h i s o f f i c e f o ra n o n c u s t o d i a l i n t e r v i e w. B arnes ’ i nt ervi ew w as vi de ot a pe d a nd l a t e rtr a ns c r i bed. H ow ever , L ew i s t es t i f i ed thatdur i ng the cour s e of

the i nt ervi ew , Bar nes made s om e contr adi ct ory s t at ement s , w hi ch ar e di s cus s ed f ur therher ei n, t hatm ade he ra per s on of i nt er es t . A tt hatpoi nt , L ew i s s ai d B arnes w as gi ven h er Mir anda r i ght s and a w ai ver . L ew i s f ur t hert es t i f

i ed thatB arnes s t i l l w as nota s us pect atthat poi nt, bu tt hat he w as aw are that s he h ad m ade co ntr adict ory st at em ents . L ew i s al so t es t i f i ed thatB arnes neveras s ert ed herr i ghtt o have a n at t orney pr es ent , butt hats he w as o ff e re d a n a tto rn e y . ¶11. I n the mot i on t o s uppr es s hers t at ement , B arnes ar gued thats he had as s ert ed her r i ght t o couns el m ul t i pl e t i m es . T he tr i al cour tdeni ed B arnes ’ m ot i on, f i ndi ng t hatB arnes under s t ood herr i ghtt o ge ta n at t or ney, thatB arnes neveras ked f oran att orney, and thather

### 7

s t at ement s w er e f

r ee and vol unt ary. T he t r i al cour tal s o not ed thatB arnes neverm ade a ny i ncu l patory st at em ents . ¶12. B arnes ar gu es on ap peal t hat t he fi rs tas s ert i on af t ers he w as gi ven the Mir anda
w arn ing w as w h en sh e m a d e th e s tate m en t, “S o , I do n ’tn ee d lega l, o k ay . . . . ” H o w ev er, thi s i s notan as s er t i on of herr i ghtt o couns el , butr atheran att empt t o cl ar i f y w hethers he
m usthav e an at t orney present . B arnes t est i fi ed d uri ng the h eari ng on the m oti on t o sup press thats he made t he s t at ement“[ t ] o s ee di d I need t o have a l aw yerther e, di d I need s om e l egal
r epr es ent at i on . . . . ” Fur t her , af t erB arnes m ade thi s s t at ement , L ew i s expl ai ned t o herthat h e h ad to ad v ise h er o f he r ri g h ts an d m ak e su re s h e u n d erstoo d b efo re h e ask ed h er a n y m o re ques t i ons . B arnes i ndi cat ed thats he under s t ood. ¶13. B arnes nextcl ai m s t hats he aga i n as s ert ed herri ghtt o couns el w hen s he s ai d, “B ut I don’ tha ve an att or ney her e. ” H ow ever , a gai n, thi s s t at ementr ead i n the cont exti n w hi ch i tw as m ade doe s noti ndi cat e an e xpl i ci tr eques tf oran att orney. B arnes cont i nued t al ki ng. L ew i s i nt errupt ed heron t w o sepa r at e occa s i ons and advi s ed hert o “hol d on j us ta s econd” unt i l he had the i nf

or m at i on w ri t t en on t he w ai vers o s he coul d r ead ove ri t . L ew i s t hen
r evi ew ed the w ai ver w i t h B arnes . B arnes i ndi cat ed thats he under s t ood. Fur t her , B arnes a g a in tes tified d u rin g th e h e a rin g o n the m o tio n to su p p re ss tha t th is sta tem e n t w a s m e re ly
a q u e s tio n a s to w h e th e r s h e n e e d e d to h a v e a n a tto rn e y p re s e n t. ¶14. B arnes cl ai m s t hat t he “cl ear es t exampl e” t hat s he had asser t ed her r i ght t o couns el
w a s w h e n sh e sa id , “N o w if I d o n e e d to g e t a la w y e r . . . I w ill g e t o n e .” H o w e v e r, L e w is
a s k e d w h e th e r t h a t w a s w h a t s h e w a n te d to d o a n d s h e re p lie d , “ It d o n ’t m a tte r t o m e .” L ew is ag ain a sk ed w h ethe r she w an ted to , an d sh e rep li ed , “ W h atev er I’v e g o t t o d o , b u t I ’m

### 8

notf i xi ng t o ge tr ai l r oad [ s i c] up i n thi s mess be caus e J oyce i s the one t hatget s . . . gett i ng all
. . . g ett ing h er a n d h er h u sb an d sinc e s h e b o u g h t him from Iraq , sh e’s the o n e tha t’ s t al ki ng aboutshe’ s been br oke si nce s he got‘Farkad’ [ J oyce’ s hus band] overher e. ” B arnes tes tified a t th e h e a rin g o n th e m o tio n to su p p re ss th a t th is s ta te m e n t m e a n t ex a c tly w h a t it
s ays , “[ m ] eani ng i f

I neede d t o ge ta l aw yer , thatI w oul d ge tone, w hat everI have t o do. ” ¶15. W e f

i nd t hatt he r ecor d s uppor t s a f i ndi ng thatBar nes r ece i ved the Mir anda w arni ng, th a t sh e k n o w in g ly a n d in tellig e n tly w a iv e d th e rig h ts, a n d th a t sh e f re e ly a n d v o lu n tar ily
m ade the s t at ement s . Pur s uantt o D a v is , B arnes fa i l ed t o m ake an unambi guous , unequi vocal
re q u e s t f o r a n a tto rn e y , a n d L e w is h a d n o o b lig a tio n to s to p q u e s tio n in g h e r. Id . at461- 62. See al s o Ch a m b e rlin , 9 8 9 S o . 2 d a t 3 3 3 . T h e re fo re , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I I . T he t ri al court err ed i n denyi ng B arnes ’ m ot i on f or a new t ri al as t he v erd i ct was agai nst t he overwh el m i ng w ei ght of t he evi dence. ¶16. B arnes w as i nd i c t e d f ore mbez z l i ng the $3 , 00 0 u nd e rM i s s i s s i pp i C ode Sect i on 99- 23- 1 9 , w h ich p ro v id e s, in re lev a n t p a rt: I f any di r ect or , agent , cl erk, s ervant , orof f i cerof any i ncorpor at ed company, ori f any trus t ee orf

act or , carr i erorbai l ee, orany cl erk, agentors ervantof an y p ri v ate p erso n , sha ll em b ez zle o r f rau d u lently sec rete, co n ce al, o r co n v ert to h is ow n u se, or m ak e w ay w ith , o r sec rete w ith inten t t o em b ez zle o r co n v ert t o hi s ow n us e, any goods , r i ght s i n a ct i on, m oney, orotherval uabl e s ecur i t y, ef f ect s , orpr opert y of any ki nd or des cr i pt i on w hi ch sha l l have c om e orbeen i ntrus t ed t o hi s car e orpos s es s i on by vi r tue of hi s of f i ce, pl ace , or em p loy m en t, eith er in m ass o r o therw ise, w ith a v alue o f F ive H u n d red D o ll ars ( $500. 00) or m or e, he s hal l be gui l t y of f el ony embezzl ement , and, upon convi ct i on t her eof, shal l be i m pr i s oned i n t he Peni t ent i ary notm or e than t en ( 10) year s , orf

i ned notm or e t han T en T hous and D ol l ar s ( $10, 000. 00) , orbot h. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -23 -19 (R ev . 2 0 0 3 ).

### 9

¶1 7 . T h is C o u rt rev iew s a tr ial co u rt ’s d en ial o f a m o ti o n for n ew tr ial u n d er an ab u se-o fd isc re tio n s ta n d a rd
. D ilw o rth v. S ta te , 909 So. 2d 731, 737 ( M i s s . 2005)
. “A gr eat er quantum of

evi dence f

avor i ng t he [ S] t at e i s nece s s ary f orthe [ S] t at e t o w i t hs t and a mot i on f ora ne w tr i al , a s di s t i ngui s hed f r om a mot i on f

orJ . N . O . V . ” Id . ( quot i ng P h a rrv. S ta te , 465 So. 2d 294, 302 ( M i ss. 1 98 4) )
. “A ccor di ngl y, w e def ert o t he di s cr et i on of

the tr i al j udge, and ‘ [ w ] e w i l l notor dera new t r i al unl es s convi nced thatt he verdi ct i s s o contr ary t o t he
overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof t he evi dence t hat , t o al l ow i tt o st and , w ou l d be t o s anct i on an uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ’ ” Mc Clen do n v. S ta te , 945 So. 2d 372, 385 ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng G ro se c lo se v. S ta te , 440 So. 2d 297, 300 ( M i s s . 1983) )
. T hi s C our tf ur t herhas s ai d: H ow ever , t he evi dence s houl d be w ei gh ed i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the ver di ct . A r ever s al on t he gr oun ds tha tt he ver di ctw as agai ns tt he overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence , unl i ke a r ever s al base d on i ns uf f i ci ent evi dence , doe s notmean thata cqui t t al w as the onl y pr operve r di ct . R ather , as the “thi r t eenth j ur or , ” the courts i m pl y di s agr ees w i t h the j ury’ s r es ol ut i on of the conf l i ct i ng t es t i m ony. T hi s di f f er ence of opi ni on doe s nots i gni f

y acqui t t al any more t han a dis agr eementamong t he j ur or s themsel ves . I ns t ead, the p ro p e r re m e d y is to g ra n t a n e w trial. D ilw o rth , 909 So. 2d at737. ¶18. B arnes as s ert s t hat t he ver di ct w as not s uppor t ed by t he overw hel m i ng w ei ght of t he
e v id e n c e b e c a u se to o m u c h w e ig h t w a s p lac e d o n M o n tag u e ’s te stim o n y . B a rn e s a lso a ss e rts that M on t agu e’s t est i m on y w as “r i dd l ed w i t h inconsi st encies and con t radi ct i on s. ” B arnes’
c la im is a n e x a g g e ra tio n n o t s u p p o rt e d b y th e re c o rd in th is m a tte r. ¶19. B arnes as s ert s t hats t at ement s aboutw hethers he r eturned t o t he home af t ert he at t ack
an d w h ethe r M o n tagu e h ad an a d d it ion al set of h o u se k ey s w ere co n tr ad ict o ry. H o w ev er, i ti s r at i onal t o as s um e thats i nce M ont ague ha d j us tbeen a t t acke d, w as t r eat ed att he s ceneAt thi s p oint, L ew is a dv ise d B arn es o f h er rights. 3 

### 10 and then t aken t o t he hos pi t al , s he may nothave r eal i zed w hetherB arnes r eturned t o the
s cene . Fur t her , var i ous part s of t he r ecor d ar e contr adi ct ory as t o w hi ch keys w er e eve n t a ke n. M or e i mpor t a nt l y tho ug h, ne i t he rof the s e s t a t e ment s ha s a ny t hi ng t o d o wi th the
e m b e z z lem e n t. ¶20. B arnes f

ur t herass ert s t hat“M ont ague’ s m os tdamagi ng contr adi ct i on occurr ed w hen sh e a c k n o w led g e d C a ro ly n ’s c o n v e rsa tio n w ith C h a rle s, h e r so n , o u tsid e th e M u tu a l C re d it U ni on. ” Bar nes a s s ert s thatbe caus e M ont ague admi t t ed t hatChar l es a s ked w hatthe pai rw as doi ng atthe cr edi tuni on and B arnes r es ponded she w ou l d t el l hi m l at er , t hati ts om ehow p ro v e s th a t M o n tag u e w a s h id in g so m e th in g fro m C h a rle s. H o w e v e r, th is a rg u m e n t is
n o n se n sic a l. T h e re is no co n tra d ictio n in th e rec o rd reg a rd in g w h a t w a s s a id b y a n d to C harl es att he creditun i on . T he on l y con t radi ct i on s r egardi ng t he creditun i on are B arnes’
v a rio u s v e rsio n s o f w h a t o c c u rre d th e re . B a rn e s fa iled to m e n tio n a n y th in g a b o u t th e c re d it uni on t o i nves t i gat or s . W hen L ew i s spec i f i cal l y aske d B arnes duri ng t he i nt ervi ew w hether the p ai r s t op ped att he creditu n ion , B arnes i nd i cat ed thatt he p ai r s t op ped att he b ank so M o n tag u e c o u ld w ith d ra w m o n e y . F u rth e r, B a rn e s sa id th e p a ir th e n p ro c e e d e d to th e c re d it uni on becau se M on t ague w ant ed t o w i t hdr aw m or e money, butt hatt hey s aw C har l es and M on t a gu e c ha ng e d he rmi nd
. Barne s the n i nd i c a t e d t ha t , u po n c ha ng i ng h e rm i nd, 3 M ont ague t ol d B arnes t o go i n and gets om e cha nge. H ow ever , t hi s s cena r i o w as contr adi ct ed by bot h B arnes her s el f and ot herevi dence i n t he r ecor d. B arnes t es t i f i ed att r i al th a t , a f t e rth e y l e f

tt h e b a n k a n d a s th e y we r e d r i v i n g , M o n t a g u e i n d i c a t e d s h e n e e d e d s o me change , s o Bar nes s t opped atthe cr edi tuni on. The s ur vei l l ance vi deo i ndi cat ed thatB arnes

### 11

di d nothi ng, and di d noteven getchange, upon ent er i ng t he cr edi tuni on. Fur t her , the vi deo, M ont ague, and B arnes ’ st at ementest abl i s hed t hatC har l es w as notther e bef or e B arnes w ent i nt o t he cr edi tuni on, butcame up as B arnes e xi t ed. T he evi dence pr es ent ed att r i al
es t abl i s hed thatB arnes w as em ployed by M ont ague. T he evi dence al s o es t abl i s hed that M on t ague entrus t ed B arnes w i t h $3, 000 t o depos i ti nt o J oyce’ s acc ount . Fur t her , B arnes fa ile d to d e p o s it th e m o n e y , b u t in s te a d s e c re te d it f o r h e r o w n u s e . ¶21. B arnes has f

ai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hat t he t r i al cour t abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n de nyi ng t he
m ot i on f ornew tr i al
. Fur t her , B arnes has f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hatthe ver di cti s contr ary t o the
o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e . T h e re fo re , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶22. Forthe r eas ons s t at ed her ei n, w e af f i r m the j udgm entof

c onvi ct i on of embezzl ement i n t he C i r cui tC our tof W arr en C ounty and s ent ence of t en years i n t he cus t ody of t he M i ssi ssi pp i D epart m ent of C orr ect i on s. ¶2 3 . CONVI CT I ON OF EM BE Z Z L E M E NT AN D S EN TE NCE OF TE N ( 1 0 ) YE ARS I N TH E C U STO D Y O F T H E M I SSI SSI PPI D E P A R TM EN T O F C O R R EC TIO N S, AF F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON, P . J . , DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H, LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR.