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 4 3 8 - S CT ER IC L E W IS W IL L IA M Sa/k/ a E ER IC
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 01/ 23/ 2008 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. M I CH AE L M
. T AYL OR COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: P I KE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: BEN J AM I N A LLEN SUB ER LESL I E S. LEE GUS GR AB L E S E RMOS 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 I S A L YNN B L OUNT DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : DEE B ATES 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 - 02/ 12/ 2009 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. , R A N D O L P H A N D P I E R C E , JJ. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. Sevent een- year - ol d Er i c L ew i s W i l l i ams w as i ndi ct ed f orc api t al m ur der , cons pi r acy to c o m m it ca p ital m u rd e r, ag g ra v a ted a ss a u lt, an d c o n sp ira c y to c o m m it ag g ra v a ted a ss a u lt. Fol l ow i ng a j ury t r i al i n t he C i r cui tC our tof Pi ke C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi , W i l l i ams w as f ound g u ilty o n the co u n ts o f ca p ital m u rd e r, ag g ra v a ted as sa u lt, an d co n sp ira c y to c o m m it aggr avat ed as s aul t . H e w as then s ent ence d t o l i f e w i thoutthe pos s i bi l i ty of par ol e i n t he
cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons (“ M D O C ”) forcapi t al m ur der , t o t en y e a rs f o r a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt, a n d to fiv e y e a rs f o r c o n sp ira c y to c o m m it ag g ra v a ted a ss a u lt,

### 2

al l t o run cons ecut i vel y. Fol l ow i ng deni al of hi s pos t - tr i al m ot i ons , W i l l i ams f i l ed not i ce of
a p p e a l. FACTS ¶2. O n J anuary 27, 2007, J ani ce Bonds w as atW i l l i ams’ s t r ai l er , al ong w i th heri nf ant s on and A l exande rH ym es . A ccor di ng t o B onds , H ym es aske d t o borr ow herbl ack 2006 Chevy M al i bu “t o g o to the st ore t o g etsom e ci garet t es. ” B on ds fur ther t est i fi ed thatH ym es:
a s k e d [ W i l l i a ms ] t o r i d e a l o n g wi th h i m. [ W i l l i a ms ] r e f u s e d t o g o a tf

i r s t . He w as l i ke, m an, I don’ tw antt o go t o the s t or e. So [ H ym es ] j ustkepton p re ss u rin g [W ill iam s] . . . to g o to th e sto re w ith h im . S o e v e n tu a lly [ W i l l i ams] di d de ci de t o getup and go. So I gave [ H ym es ] the keys t o go, and they w entt o t he s t or e. ¶ 3
. T rish M in to n w a s th e sto re c ler k a t th e M S F o o d M a rt o n H ig h w a y 4 8
. A c c o rd in g to M i nt on, W i l l i ams and H ym es ent er ed the s t or e and H ym es as ked “t o s ee a hat
. ” A f t er
s how i ng the hatt o H ym es , M i nt on t es t i f i ed that“[ h] e s ai d he di dn’ thave a ny m oney, buthe
w a n ted to lo o k a t th e m a n y w a y . A n d [W ill iam s] w a s in th e b a c k o f th e s to re .” W h ile
conver s i ng w i th H ym es , M i nt on “asked hi m di d he go t o Sout hw es t[ C om m uni ty C ol l ege (“ S o u th w e s t” ) ]. H e s a id y e s . A n d I a s k e d h im h a d h e lo s t h is ID , a n d h e . . . s a id y e s .” T her eaf t er , M i nt on t es t i f

i ed thats he:
w en t aro u n d t o ge t h is ID for him
. T h e g u y that w as a t th e b ac k [of] the s tore [ W i l l i ams] s tuck a gun t o m y head a nd s ai d, g i ve m e al l the money. So I opened the r egi s t er . W hen I opened the r egi s t er , he s hotthe gun, and I w ent dow n t o the f

l oor . H e gotthe money outof the r egi s t er , and t hen he w al ked a ro u n d , b e h in d th e c o u n te r w h e re I w a s a t . . . . A ccor di ng t o M i nt on, s he “a s ked [ W i l l i ams] t o pl eas e don’ ts hootm e bec aus e I w as pr egnant . H e t ol d m e t o s hutup. So I j us ts atther e. T hey w er e l ooki ng ats om e s tuf f behi nd

### The s tore s urve il lancevide o cor roborated Minton’ s a ccoun t. As the St at e’ s brie f 1 

### no tes: [i ] n thesur

vei ll anc e vide o you se e Hyme s and Wil li am s exi t the ir vehic le , and the n ent er thes tore. When Serigny ent er s thest ore , Wi ll iams is se en wa lking up behind thevic tim and brut al ly shooting Serigny in t he f ore hea d. Ne xt you se e Wi ll iams running toward the door a nd thetwo e xit

thest ore . 3 the count erand w entovert o l ook atthe hat s . ” A tt hatt i m e, James S er i gny pul l ed up t o t he
s t or e i n hi s truck and w al ked i n. M i nt on t es t i f i ed thatSer i gny: l o o k e d a tme o n th e f

l o o ra n d h e l o o k e d a tth e m. Th e n h e l o o k e d b a c k a tme and h e w al ked t o the bac k of the s t or e. T he one w i th the gun [ W i l l i am s] f o l l o we d h i m. A nd I di dn’ ts ee i t , butthe nextthi ng I hear d w as a s hotand [ Ser i gny] f al l i ng on the fl oo r. I didn’tl oo k ov er orsay any thing atthat t i m e. I know [ H ym es] w as s t andi ng by the door , w ai t i ng f or[ W i l l i ams]
. T he nextthi ng I know , they w er e gone a nd I cal l ed 9- 1- 1. M i n t o n ’ s 9 1 1 c a l l wa s r e c e i v e d a t1 2 : 5 6 p . m. ¶4
. A t ap p rox im ately 1 :15 p.m . , D etec ti v e D av is H ay g o o d of the P ike C o u n ty S h eriff’s D epart m entarr i ved atthe cr i m e s cene , t en mi nut es af t erotherof

f i cer s f i r s tarr i ved. M i nt on i nf or m ed H aygood thatthe vi deo s ur vei l l ance camer a w as oper at i on al atthe t i m e of t he in c id e n t. A d d iti o n a lly , H a y g o o d tes tified tha t M in to n “ a d v ise d th a t o n e o f th e d e fe n d a n ts

1

. . . had come i n pr evi ous l y, a coupl e days pr i or , and had l ef ta [ Sout hw es t ] I D , w hi ch w as ta k e n b a c k d u ri n g th e [in c id e n t].” ¶5. H aygood then t ook M i nt on t o Sout hw es t“t o try and att empt t o i dent i f y the i ndi vi dual on the I D
. ” A tSout hw es t , H aygood t es t i f i ed thathe:
rec eive d a p h o n e c all fro m D etec ti v e Jam es S p ara ce ll o , b ec au se w h en w e w ere on t he sc ene e ar l i er , w e had be en t al ki ng aboutpos s i bl e s us pect s and w e had r e membe r e d tha twe h a d a n a t t e mpt e d a r med r ob be ry a tthe Hi gh w a y 24 BP,

### On Januar y 5, 2007, a .40 ca liber

Sm it h & Wes son handgun was reporte d st ole n by 2 

### Raym ond Pri ce . Pri cet es ti fi ed that Wil li am s was hi s “c ousin’s s on, st ep- son. ” Ac cording to P rice, Williams livedina trailer “abo ut 3 00 yard s from where I stay [,]” and w ou ld “co me ov er [to] sho ot b asketb all withmy d aug hter an d his bro thers.” Price testifiedthat W illiams had s ee n him

take hi s guns out s hooting, a lt hough he was unsureif

Wil li am s kne w wher e the g un s were k ept. Acc ording to Haygood, “ [t ] he whi teshirt that [ Hyme s] was w earing at the tim e of 3 

### therobbery wa s rec over ed during t he s earc h . .
. . ” Mor eove r, H ayg oo d te stif ie d that Hyme s’ s Sout

hwes t I D card wa s f

ound ins idehis wal le t and that a hat was re cove re d from his cl ose t “ whic h was des cribe d by [Minton] and the [ st ore ] owner s a s be ing hats that t hey hadin th eir store an d tak en durin g th e [incid ent].” Acc ording to Haygood, “ther e i s a pri ceta g and i t’ s not at ed on the s ti cke r of the 4 

### brand of the hat. That

i s thes am e pri cet ag that is us ed by the c onveni enc e s tore whe rethe arme d rob be ry t oo k p l a c e . ” Furthe rm ore , Bo nd s t e s t i f i e d that s hef i r s t s aw thehat s found in th e residen ces of W illiams andHymes “[w]hentheyreturn ed fro m the sto re.” 4 and al s o thatA m i t e C ounty had cont act ed us ea r l i eri n t he mont h thatthey had

. . . a bur gl ary on I r ene R oad, ri ghtal ong t he A m i t e C ounty l i ne, w her e a . 40 cal i bergun had bee n s t ol en. [ ] D ur i ng thatt i m e they had gave us s om e names 2 of s om e pos si bl e s us pect s thatw e w er e l ooki ng atf orthe H i ghw ay 24 att empt ed r obbery, and al s o the bur gl ary. D et ect i ve Spar ace l l o cont act ed t he m, was a bl e t o ge tthe n a mes b a c k f r om the m. W e k ne w tha to ne of t he in d iv id u a ls w e n t to [S o u th w e s t]. D et ect i ve Spar ace l l o c ont act ed m e w hi l e I w as ther e w i th [ M i nt on] and gave m e the name of [ H ym es ]
. A tthatt i m e, I as ked the l ady thatw as oper at i ng the comput ert o pul l the phot o up. . . . [ A ] s s oon as i tbecome f ul l f ace , [ M i nt on] s t a t e d , . . . th a t ’ s h i m. ¶6. H ym es w as s ubs equent l y arr es t ed, hi s hom e w as s ear ched, and Spar ace l l o obt ai ned 3
a w r i t t en s t at ementf

r om hi m . B as ed upon H ym es ’ s w r i t t en st at ement , W i l l i ams w as arr es t ed athi s r es i dence l at erthateveni ng. W i l l i ams’ s uncl e, H enry Si bl ey, gave c ons entt o s ear ch th e tra iler, d u rin g w h ich H a y g o o d tes tified th a t “th e b lac k h a t . . . w e re c o v e re d in h is bedr oom . . . m at ched the des cr i pt i on of hat s at the st or e w her e the arm ed r obbery t ook pl ace . ” A tt he s her i f

f’ s depart m ent , H aygood t es t i f i ed thathe r ead W i l l i ams “hi s r i ght s and 4

### Th is was co rrob oratedbyBo nd s wh o testifiedthat Williams “askedme to get inmy 5 

### car and go home .”Howeve r, Bonds a ls o te stif ie d that s he t ook Hyme s hom e. The c api tal- murder

count provid ed that Wi ll iams and Hym es “di d fe loni ously, 6 

### wilf u ll y , an do f th eir malice aforeth ou ght, kill an d murder [S erigny] . . . bysho otin g h im with a f irearm , at a

timewh en they
. . . wer e then and the reenga ged in thecommi ss ion of thec ri meof

robber y of the MS Food Mart, c ontrar y t o and in vi olati on of Section97 -3- 19 (2)(e) . . . .” The a ggravat ed- as sa

ult count st ated that Wi ll iams and Hym es “di d unlawful ly, 7 

### fe loni ously, pur

pose ly and knowingly atte mpt to c aus e bodi ly injur

y to another , name ly, 5 w ai verof

r i ght s , w hi ch he s i gned, s t at i ng thathe under s t ood both of thos e, I [ then] conduct ed an i nt ervi ew w i th hi m . . . . ” A ccor di ng t o H aygood: [W ill iam s] . . . s tate d . . . a t firs t h e d id n o t k n o w a n y th in g . T h e n w e to ld h im thatw e knew thathe w as i nvol ved. Atth a tt i me , h e th e n d e c i d e d t o t e l l u s th a t , y e s , h e h a d c o mmi t t e d th e c r i me and had s hot[ Ser i gny] , butdi d notw antt o gi ve the i dent i ty of the other i ndi vi dual thatw as i nvol ved w i th hi m . I tw as notunt i l w e di s cl os ed that [H y m e s] ha d alre a d y g iv e n u s a sta tem e n t, th a t h e m a d e th e d e ter m in a tio n to

. . . gi ve us a det ai l ed s t at ementof w hatt ook pl ace . W i l l i ams’ s “St at ementFor m , ” s i gned at12: 36 a. m . on J anuary 28, 2007, pr ovi ded: [ l ] astni ght[ H ym es ] w on’ t[ s i c] t o go hi ts om e l i cks and s how ed me a gun. T h en that n ex t m o rnin g I g o t m y g ir lf ri en d [’ ] s ca r an d w en t t o the s tore. I park a t a g as p u m p an d [ H y m es] w en t in th e store fi rstth en m e. [H y m es] w en t to w here t he hat s w as and I w ant[ s i c] ar ound the s t or e, then I w entt o the f i r st [ s i c] and t ol d the w om en [ s i c] t o open the r es i ger[ s i c] and [ H ym es ] gotthe m oney outand I s hotatt he w om en [ s i c]
. T hen I w entt o geta cap then a men [ s i c] w al k i n t o the s t or e and s een me and [ H ym es ’ s ] f ace and I gotnervos [ s i c] and shot the m an, then w ent [ si c] I w as abou tt o run o ut of the st ore [ H ym es] poi ntt o the w om en [ s i c] t el l i ng m e t o s hot[ s i c] her , butI di dn’ t . T hen w e got i n the ca rand gi ve [ H ym es ] back hi s gun and s pl i t[ s i c] the money, then I t ook h im h o m e th e n I w e n t h o m e a n d to ld m y g irlfrien d w h a t I d id an d I to ld h e r to g o h o m e .[ ]

5 ¶7. O n M arc h 2 7 , 2 0 0 7 , W il li am s an d H y m es w ere ind ict ed for cap it al m u rde r, 6
c o n sp ira c y to c o m m it ca p ital m u rd e r, ag g ra v a ted a ss a u lt, a n d c o n sp ira c y to c o m m it 7

### [Minton]
. . . wi th a dea dly we apon, to wit: a Smith& Wess on .40 c al ibe r handgun, by sho otin g at saidvictim, co ntraryto an d invio lationof S ection97 -3-7 (2) . . . .” 6 aggr avat ed as s aul t . O n J anuary 22, 2008, t he j ury tr i al of W i l l i ams comm ence d. D ur i ng t he S tat e’s ca se-in-c h ief, the v ideo su rve il lanc e foo tage fro m M S F o o d M art w as p laye d b efo re the j ury. T her eaf

t er , St eve Byrd of

the M i s s i s s i ppi C r i m e Labor at ory w as t ender ed and
acc ept ed as an expe r t“i n f or ens i c s ci ence , s peci al i zi ng i n f i r earm s and mar k i dent i f i cat i on and exa m i nat i on. ” A f

t erexami ni ng . 40 c al i bers hel l cas i ngs f ound atboth the cr i m e s cene and ar ound P r i ce’ s re s i dence , B yr d concl uded “thatal l thes e ca r tr i dge ca s es w er e f i r ed f r om the s ame gun[ , ] ” and thatgun w as cons i s t entw i th the . 40 cal i berSm i th & W es s on handgun rep o rt ed stolen b y P ri ce . T h e p atho log istw h o p erfo rm ed the a u top sy o n S erign y o n Jan u ary 28, 2007, w as then t ender ed and acce pt ed as an expe r ti n the f i el d of f or ens i c pathol ogy. B a se d u p o n th e a u to p sy , h e tes tified th a t: [ t ] he entr ance guns hotw ound had one unus ual char act er i s t i c t o i t– i thad tatto o in g o r u n b u rn e d fra g m e n ts o f p o w d e r th a t w e re lo c a ted p re d o m in a tely o n th e sid e a n d lo w e r p a rt o f th e e n tra n c e g u n sh o t w o u n d . A n d tatto o in g is i ndi cat i ve thatthe w eapon w as f i r ed i n cl os e pr oxi m i ty t o t he dece dentw hen f i r ed. H e a d d e d th a t th e “ [c]a u se o f d e a th I ru led a s g u n sh o t w o u n d to th e fo re h e a d , n e a r c o n tac t, p e n e tr a tin g , p ro d u c in g c ra n io c e re b ra l tr a u m a . T h e m a n n e r o f d e a th I r u le d h o m ic id e . . . .” T he St at e then r es t ed and W i l l i ams m oved f ora di r ect ed ver di ct , w hi ch mot i on w as overrul ed by the ci r cui tcourt . A f t erW i l l i ams r es t ed, w i thoutoff er i ng any w i tnes s es , the j ury f ound hi m g uil ty of

capi t al m ur der , aggr avat ed as s aul t , and cons pi r acy t o comm i taggr avat ed
as s aul t , and notgui l ty of conspi r acy t o com m i tcapi t al m ur der
. T he se nt enci ng orde rof the ci rcui tcou rtprovided thatW i l l i am s:

### 7

f or. . . hi s cr i m e of

C api t al M ur der( C ountO ne) , A ggr avat ed A s s aul t( C ount [ T hr ee] ) , and C ons pi r acy t o C om m i tthe C r i m e of A ggr avat ed A s s aul t( C ount [ Four ] ) be s ent ence d .
. . i nt o the cus t ody of the [ M D O C ] for and dur i ng the s pace of l i f e w i thoutthe pos s i bi l i ty of par ol e ( C ountO ne), ten (10) year s on C ountT hr ee, and f

i ve ( 5) year s on C ountFour [ , ] w i th al l count s runni ng cons ecut i vel y. [ W i l l i ams] i s or der ed t o pay f ul l r es t i tut i on as i tm ay appe arand al l cos t s as s oci at ed w i th thi s cas e and r ei m bur s e Pi ke C ounty i n the amountof $2 , 50 0. 00 forcou rtapp oint ed att orney fees. O n February 1, 2008, W i l l i ams f i l ed a “ M ot i on f

orJ udgm entN otw i ths t andi ng the V er di ct
or , i n the A l t ernat i ve, f

ora N ew T r i al , ” w hi ch w as deni ed by the ci r cui tcourt . W i l l i ams then filed tim e ly n o tice o f a p p e a l. I S S UES ¶8
. T h is C o u rtw il l con side r: (1) W hetherthe cir cuitcou rtab u sed i t s di scr et i on i n ad m i t t i ng autopsy p h o t o g r a p h s o f

th e v i c t i m. (2 ) W h e th e r W ill iam s 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. A N A L Y S IS I . W he t he r t he c i r c ui t court abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n adm i t t i ng a u t o p s y p h o t o g r a p h s o f t h e v i c t i m. ¶ 9
. T h e S tate o ffe re d tw o a u to p sy p h o to g ra p h s o f S e rig n y in to e v id e n c e . A c c o rd in g to th e p a th o lo g ist: [o ]ne sh o w s th e e n tra n c e g u n sh o t w o u n d w ith a n A F B O c a lib ra ted ru ler to documentthe s i ze of

the i nj ury. T he second s how s the entr ance guns hot w ound agai n, w i t houta ca l i br at ed rul er . A nd both s how the t att ooi ng, the s m al l spec kl ed ar eas – they l ook l i ke pi npoi ntar eas – of hemorrhage, l ocat ed nearthe entr ance guns hotw ound. W i l l i ams obj ect ed, cont endi ng thatthe phot ogr aphs “s erv[ e] no us ef ul purpos e[ , ] ” and that the “pr obat i ve val ue i s fa rout w ei ghed by the dange rof unf ai rpr ej udi ce. ” The ci r cui tj udge

### 8

di s agr eed a nd admi t t ed the p ho t og r a ph s , f i nd i ng they w er e “pr obat i ve of the mannerof

death, the pr oxi m i ty of

the w eapon t o t he vi ct i m , w hi ch w as the s ubj ectof t es t i m ony, as w el l as t he
s ubj ec tof

the s urve i l l a nc e mat e r i a l w hi c h was s ho w n. ” The c i r c ui tj ud ge a dd e d tha tt he pr obat i ve val ue of

the phot ogr aphs w as “notoutw ei ghed by any da ngerof undue pr ej udi ce[ , ] ” and thatthey w er e not“ r edundanti n the s ens e of ther e’ s no othere vi dence t hat p re s e n ts th is s a m e th in g , th is s a m e w a y .” ¶ 1 0
. T h is C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t: M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of

E vi dence 403 pr ovi des , in per t i nentpart , thatr el evant evidence “m ay be excluded if it s proba t i ve value i s s ubs tant i al l y outw ei ghed by t he dange rof

unf ai rpr ej udi ce, conf

us i on of the i s s ues, orm i s l eadi ng the j ury, orby consi derat i ons of
. . . needl es s pr es ent at i on of cumul at i ve evi dence
. ” M i s s. R
. E vi d. 403 ( emphasi s added)
. “The adm i s s i on of p h o to g ra p h s is a m a tte r l e ft to th e s o u n d d is c re tio n o f t h e tr ia l ju d g e a n d
. . . his decis i on f

avo ri ngadm issi bil i t

y w i l ln ot be disturbedab senta clear abu se of thatj udi ci aldis cr et i on . ” N o e v. S ta te , 616 So. 2d 298, 303 ( M i s s . 1993) ( ci t i ng G a rdn e r v . S ta te , 573 So. 2d 716 ( M i s s . 1990) ) ( emphasi s a dded)
. T he dis cret i on of the tr i al j ud ge is “ alm ostunl i m i t ed .
. . r egar dl es s of the grues om enes s , re pet i t i venes s , and t he ext enuat i on of pr obat i ve val ue. ” N oe , 616 So. 2d at303 ( quot i ng W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 54 4 S o . 2 d 7 82 , 78 5 (M i ss. 1987) )
. So l ong as a phot ogr aph “ha s pr ob at i ve val ue and i t s i ntr oduct i on se rv e s a m e a n in g fu l e v id e n tiary p u rp o se [,] ” it m a y still b e a d m iss ib le d e sp ite bei ng “grues om e, gr i s l y, unpl eas ant , oreven i nf l amm at ory. ” Id
. ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. . . . “P ho t og raphs a r e cons i der ed t o have e vi dent i ary val ue i n the f ol l ow i ng i ns t ance s : ( 1) ai d i n des cr i bi ng the ci r cumst ance s of the ki l l i ng; ( 2) des cr i be the l ocat i on of t he body and c aus e of death; ( 3) suppl ementor [ cl ar i f y] w i tnes s t es t i m ony. ” McIn to sh v. S ta te , 917 So. 2d 78, 84 ( M i ss. 2005) ( quot i ng S

p a n n v. S ta te , 7 7 1 S o . 2 d 8 8 3 , 8 9 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 )). D a m p ierv. S ta te , 9 7 3 S o . 2 d 2 2 1 , 2 3 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ) (em p h asis in o ri g inal). ¶11. W i l l i ams cont ends that“the c o rp u s d e licti of the char ges and i dent i ty of the dece as ed
we r e c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d a n d u n c h a l l e n g e d
. ” As s u c h , h e ma i n t a i n s th a t“ th e g ru e s o me t es t i m ony aboutthe vi ct i m ’ s f at al i nj ur i es f

r om [ the pathol ogi s t ] w er e m or e than s uf f i ci ent

### 9

t o es t abl i s h everythi ng the [ S] t at e nee ded t o pr ove i n thi s c as e. ” I n W i l l i ams’ s es t i m at i on,

“ th e re w a s n o t a le g iti m a te re a so n h e re to d isp lay the g a sh e d h e a d o f th e v ictim
. . . . T h e so le pu rpo s e s of

the [ e ] xh i bi t s w a s t o a r ou s e the i nh e r e nthu man e mot i on s of vi e w i ng the he ad of the vi ct i m . ” C onver s el y, the St at e ar gues thatthe phot ogr aphs w er e notgrues om e i ns of ar
as they “f

ocus ed onl y on the guns hotw ound i n [ Ser i gny’ s ] f or ehea d and di d notcont ai n a l otof unnece s s ary bl ood, br ai n m att erorgor e. ” M or eover , the St at e as s ert s thatt he phot ogr aphs “as s i s t ed the j ury i n under s t andi ng [ the pathol ogi s t ’ s ] t es t i m ony, as w el l as
c o rr o b o ra tin g h is te s tim o n y .” ¶12. T hi s C our t f

i nds that by s uppl ement i ng the pathol ogi s t ’ s t es t i m ony, the phot ogr aphs h a v e e v id e n tia ry v a lu e . See McIntosh , 917 S o. 2d at84 ( quot i ng Spa nn , 7 7 1 S o . 2 d a t 89 5 ). A s the ci r cui tj udge s t at ed, the phot ogr aphs w er e pr obat i ve as t o “ the m annerof death” and “the pr oxi m i ty of

the w eapon t o the v i ct i m [
. ] ” See Ho w a rdv. S ta te , 785 So. 2d 297, 301 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2001) ( “[ t ] he phot ogr aphs as s i s t ed t he j ury i n under s t andi ng [ the pathol ogi s t ’ s ] t es t i m ony, as w el l as c onf i r m i ng the i nf

or m at i on thatw as bei ng pr ovi ded by hi m . ”)
. Fur therm or e, as i n D am pier , thi s C our tfi nd s t hat“the tr i al court ’ s bur den w as
s u b s ta n tia lly le s s e n e d , a s th e p h o to g ra p h s fa ile d to e x h ib it e le m e n ts o f g ru e s o m e n e s s .” D am pier , 9 7 3 S o . 2 d a t 2 3 0
. C om par e to McN

e a l v. S ta te , 551 So. 2d 15 1 (M i ss. 1989) ( s ol i t ary i ns t ance of

phot ogr aphs bei ng hel d pr ej udi ci al i nvol vi ng a cl os e- up phot ogr aph of a part l y decompose d, m aggot - i nf es t ed s kul l )
. I n thi s C our t ’ s es t i m at i on, “[ w ] hi l e the phot ogr aphs are no tp l eas ant , they ar e nots o grues om e, hi deous , and naus eat i ng as t o be i nf l amm at ory and appeal t o t he pas s i on and pr ej udi ce of the j ury. ” He w lett v . S ta te , 607 So. 2d 1 09 7, 1 10 2 ( M i s s . 1 99 2) ( ci t i ng W ill ie v . S ta te , 5 8 5 S o . 2 d 6 6 0 , 6 7 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 )). In

### 10

s um , the ci r cui tcourtpr oper l y appl i ed the t es tof M i ssi ssi pp i R ule of

E vi dence 403 t o t he phot ogr aphs , det erm i ni ng t hatt hei rproba t i ve val ue w as “notout w ei ghed by any da ngerof undue pr ej udi ce. ” M or e ov e r , the c i r c ui tc ou rtnot ed the “meani ngf ul evi dent i ary purpos e and p ro b a tiv e v a lu e ” o f t h e p h o to g ra p h s . D am pier , 9 7 3 S o . 2 d at 23 0 . T h e refo re, th is C o u rt
c o n c lu d e s th a t th e c ir c u it c o u rt d id n o t a b u s e it s d is c re tio n in a d m ittin g th e p h o to g ra p h s . See N oe , 6 1 6 S o . 2 d a t 3 0 3 . A c c o rd in g ly , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. II . W h e th e r W ill ia m s r e 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. ¶ 1 3
. T h is C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t: [t] h e tes t to b e a p p lied in c a se s in v o lv in g a lleg e d in e ffe c tiv e n e ss o f c o u n se l is w hethercouns el ’ s over - al l per f or m ance w as ( 1) def

i ci e nta ndi f

s o, ( 2) w hether th e d e fi c ie n t p e rf

o rm a n c e p re

ju d ic e d th e d e fe n s e . Str i ckland v. W as hington , 466 U
. S. 668, 104 S. C t . 2052, 80 L
. E d. 2d 674 ( 1984)
. T he bur den i s on the d e fe n d a n t t o d e m o n s tr a te b o th p ro n g s . L e a th e rw o o d v. S ta te , 473 So. 2d 964, 968- 69 ( M i s s . 19 85 ). T hi s C our tadopt ed the Str i ckland t es ti n Str ingerv. S ta te , 4 5 4 S o . 2 d 4 6 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). T h is state rec o g n izes a str o n g b u t r eb u tt ab le pre su m p ti o n that co u n sel’s conductf

al l s w i thi n a br oad r ange of r eas onabl e pr of

es s i onal as s i s t ance . G ill ia rdv. S ta te , 4 6 2 S o . 2 d 7 1 0 , 7 1 4 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 ). A lso , this C o u rt b a se s its deci s i ons as t o w hethercouns el ’ s ef f or t s w er e ef

f ect i ve on the t ot al i ty of

the c ir c u m s ta n c e s s u rr o u n d in g e a c h c a s e . W a ldro p v. S ta te , 506 So. 2d 273, 275 (M is s . 1 9 8 7 ) . . . . Mc Q u a rte r v . S ta te , 5 7 4 S o . 2 d 6 8 5 , 6 8 7 (M is s . 1 9 9 0 ). See al s o Co lem a n v. S ta te , 749 So. 2d 1003, 1012 ( M i s s . 1999) ( “[ i ] n orde rt o fi nd fort he def endanton the i s s ue of

i nef f ect i ve assi st ance o f counsel, this C ou rtw ou l d h ave to con cl ud e t hat co u nsel ’s perf orm ance a s a
w hol e f el l bel ow the s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s and thatthe mi s t akes m ade w er e s er i ous
en o u g h to ero d e c o n fi d en ce in the o u tcom e o f th e tri al be low
. ”).See f ootnot e 2 and pa r agr aph 7 supra . 8 

### Mississip pi Rule o f Ev iden ce 40 4(b ) states: 9 

### [e ] vide nceof other cri me s, wrongs , or ac ts is not a dmi ss ibl e t o provethe chara ct er of a per son in orde r t o show that he a ct ed in c onfor

mi ty t her ewi th. It may, however, be a dmi ss ibl e f or other purpos es suc h as proof

of m otive, opport unit y, inte nt, preparation, plan, know ledge , i dentit y, or abs enc e of mistake o r accident. Mis s. R. Evi d. 404(b). 11 ¶1 4
. W il li am s’s ineffec ti v e-a ssist an ce -of-co u n sel arg u m en t is b ase d u p o n tr ial co u n sel’s f ai l ur e t o obj ectdur i ng the t es t i m ony of both Pr i ce a nd B yrd, in w hi ch the w eapon us ed dur i ng the s ubj ecti nci dentw as connec t ed t o a . 40 cal i berSm i th & W es s on handgun pr evi ous l y s t ol en fr om Pr i ce’ s r es i dence
. Pr i ce t es t i f i ed thatW i l l i ams, hi s “cous i n’ s s on, 8
s t ep- s on” w ho l i ved onl y 300 yar ds aw ay, had pr evi ous l y s een the s t ol en w eapon, al though he w as uns ur e i f

W i l l i ams knew w her e i tw as kept
. W i l l i ams as s ert s that“[ t ] he f actt hat Pr i ce’ s gun w as s t ol en and thatW i l l i ams had s een the gun bef or e have absolut el y not hi ng t o d o wi th th i s c a p i t a l mu r d e ro ra g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t . By th e S t a t e i n d i c a t i n g th a tW i l l i a ms
s to le th e g u n , th e S ta te is in tr o d u c in g e v id e n c e o f W illia m s [’ s ] p ri o r b a d a c ts a n d c h a ra c te r.” 9 M o re o v e r, W ill iam s m a in tain s th a t ev en if this ev ide n c e is a d m iss ib le u n d e r M iss iss ip p i R u le
o f E v id e n c e 4 0 4 (b ), it s p ro b a tiv e v a lu e is “s u b sta n tially o u tw e ig h e d b y th e d a n g e r o f u n fa ir p re ju d ic e ,” p u rs u a n t to M is s is s ip p i R u le o f E v id e n c e 4 0 3
. See Cra w fo rdv. S ta te , 754 So. 2d 1211, 1220 ( M i s s . 2000) ( ci t i ng J e n k in s v . S ta te , 5 0 7 S o . 2 d 8 9 , 9 3 (M iss . 1 9 8 7 )) (“ R u le 4 0 3 is an u lt im ate fil ter th rou g h w h ich a ll o therw ise ad m issi b le ev iden ce m u st pa ss.”). Speci f i cal l y, “[ t ] he evi dence thata gun w as s t ole n f r om Pr i ce’ s hous e i s i rr el evantand pr ej udi ci al t o W i l l i ams i nvol vi ng hi s tr i al f orcapit al m ur der , aggr avat ed as s aul t , and

### 12

cons pi r acy t o comm i taggr avat ed as s aul t . ” A s s uch, W i l l i ams ar gues that“tr i al couns el w as in e ff e c tiv e in n o t o b

je c tin g to th is p re

ju d ic ia l e v id e n c e .” ¶ 1 5
. T h e S tate re sp o n d s th a t: R ul e 404( b) i s i nappl i cabl e i n the ca s e s ub j udi ce . T he evi dence w as not of f er ed t o s how W i l l i ams’ char act er , pr opens i ty forcr i m i nal conduct , or pr i or b a d a c ts o f b re a k in g in P ri c e ’s h o u s e . T he evidence w a s o

ff eredt o est ab l ish thatthe m ur derw eapon w as one- i n- the- s am e gun as the w eapon s t ol en f r om P ric e ’s h o u se a n d

th a t [W ill ia m s] kn e w th e g u n w a s in P ric e ’s h o u se p rio r to i tbei ng s t ol en . (E m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e S tate fu rth e r m a in tain s th a t a n y p re ju d icia l e ffe c t a risin g fro m th is evi dence i s out w ei ghed by i t s pr obat i ve val ue, as i t“es t abl i s hes the gun us ed i n the murde r
w as the gun s t ol en f

r om Pr i ce a nd t i es W i l l i ams t o the murde rw eapon. ” A ccor di ngl y, t he St at e ar gues thatW i l l i ams f ai l ed t o pr ove thatthe abs ence of obj ect i on b y t r i al couns el
co n sti tuted d eficien t perfo rm an ce u n d er St r ic kl and
. H ow ever , even a s s um i ng ar guendo t hat “the s ubj ectevi den ce w as i nadmi s s i bl e and hi s tr i al couns el ’ s per f or m ance def

i ci entf or f ai l i ng t o obj ectt o i t s admi s s i on, ” the St at e pos i t s that“[ t ] he st or e survei l l ance vi deo, the eye
w i tness ide n ti fi ca ti o n b y [M inton ] , the item s rec o v ere d from the s ea rch o f [ W il l i am s’ s] ho use and [ W i l l i ams’ s ] ow n adm i ssi on of gui l tw er e more than s uf f i ci entevi dence t o convi ct W illia m s .” ¶ 1 6
. T h is C o u rt fin d s th a t th e in a d m iss ib ili ty p ro v isio n s o f R u le 4 0 4 (b ) a re in a p p lica b le her e. T he s ubj ectevi dence w as of f er ed t o connec tthe murde rw eapon t o the handgun p r e v i o u s l y s t o l e n f

r o m P r i c e ’ s r e s i d e n c e . P r i c e t e s t i f i e d th a tW i l l i a ms p o s s e s s e d s o me know l edge r egar di ng t hathandgun. Such evi dence coul d be admi s s i bl e unders ever al of t he
e x c e p tio n s n o te d in R u le 4 0 4 (b ), i .e ., “ o p p o rt u n ity , in te n t, p re p a ra tio n , p la n , k n o w le d g e . .

### Williams’s brief pro vid es th at “if th is Co urt fin ds th e recorddo es no t affirmatively 10 

### show inef

fe ctiveas si st anc e of

couns el , [ Wil li am s] re spe ct ful ly reque st s the i ss ue be dis mi ss ed wi thout

pre judi ceto a ll ow Wil li am s t o suppl em ent there cord with add ition al evi denc e on post -c onvic ti on.”As in McQuarter , th is C ourt recog nizes W illiams’s “right to raise the in effective assistan ce claim via app rop riate po st-convictio ns p roceed ing s.” McQuarter , 574 So. 2d at 687 (c iting Rea d v. Sta te , 4 30 S o. 2 d 8 32 (Miss. 1 98 3)). See a lso Walt on v. Sta te , 2007 Mi ss . App. LEXIS 757 at *12- 13 (Mi ss . Ct . App. Novem ber 13, 2007). 13 . . ” M i s s . R
. E vi d. 404( b)
. M or eover , the pr obat i ve value of thatevi dence , connec t i ng W i l l i ams and the murde rw eapon, i s not“s ubs t ant i al l y outw ei ghed” by a ny pr ej udi ci al ef f ect ( s ee M is s is s ip p i R u le o f E v id e n c e 4 0 3 ), g iv e n th e to tality o f th e e v id e n c e . A s s u c h , this C our tconcl udes thatt r i al counse l ’ s f ai l ur e t o obj ectdi d notcons t i tut e def i ci entper f

or m ance gi ven the s tr ong pr es um pt i on of “r easona bl e pr of

es s i onal as s i s t ance ” and the t ot al i ty of
c ir c u m s ta n c e s s u rr o u n d in g th is c a s e . McQ uarter , 5 7 4 S o . 2 d a t 6 8 7 . F u rth e rm o re , ev e n if tr i al couns el ’s fai l ure t o o bjectdid const i tute def i ci ent per form ance, this C ou rtcon cl udes that
s uch mi s t akes w ere no t“ser i ous enough t o er ode conf i dence i n the out come of the tr i al bel ow . ” Colem an , 7 49 S o. 2d at1012. T he s t or e s ur vei l l ance vi deo, w hi ch corr obor at ed M in to n ’s tes tim o n y , an d W ill iam s’s a d m iss io n o f g u iltb o th in d iv id u a lly a n d c o llec tiv e ly p ro v id e d a m p le e v id e n c e ju stify in g W ill iam s’s c o n v ictio n . T h e re fo re , at th e le a st, W ill iam s’s d e fe n se w a s n o t p re ju d ice d b y trial c o u n se l’s fa ilu re to o b jec t. A c c o rd in g ly , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. 10 CO NC L US I ON ¶1 7. B as ed upon t he af or ement i on e d a na l ys i s , thi s C our taf f i r m s t he j udgm ent and
s ent enci ng or derof

the C i r cui tC our tof

Pi ke C ounty.

### 14

¶18. CO UN T I : CONVI CT I ON OF CAP I TA L M URDE R AND S E NT E NC E OF L I F E I M P RI S ON M E NT W I THOU T T HE P OS S I B I L I T Y O F P AR OL E I N T HE C U STO D Y O F T H E M I SSI SSI PPI DE PA R TM EN T O F C O R R EC TIO N S, AF F I RM ED. COUNT I I I : CONVI CT I ON OF AGGRAVAT ED AS S AUL T A ND SENTE NC E O F TEN ( 1 0 ) Y EA R S I N T H E C USTO DY O F TH E M I SS I SS I PPI DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RR E CT I ON S , AF F I RMED . CO UN T I V: CO NV I CT I ON OF CONS P I RACY T O COM M I T T HE CR I M E OF AGGRAVA TE D AS S AUL T A ND SEN TEN CE O F FI VE ( 5 ) YE AR S I N T H E C USTO DY O F TH E M I SS I SS I PPI DEPARTM ENT OF CO RRECTI ON S , AFF I RM ED. ALL S ENTENCES I N ALL CO UNTS TO RU N CONS EC UT I VE LY . AP P EL LA NT I S OR DERED TO PAY FULL R EST I TU TIO N A N D A LL C O STS. W A LL ER , C . J. , C A R LSO N , P. J. , D I C K I N SO N , LA M A R , K I TC H EN S, CH AND LER AND PI ERCE, J J . , CO NCU R. G RAV ES , P. J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY .