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 7 - KA- 0 1 1 7 7 - S CT M ONTREL L J

ORDAN
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 16/ 2007 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . JA N N IE M . L E W IS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HOLM ES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: BI LL W ALL ER, S R. 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: DEI RDRE M c CRORY D IS T R IC T A T T O R N E Y : JA M E S H . P O W E L L , III 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 - 10/ 02/ 2008 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 D I A Z, P . J. , C A R L SO N A N D G R A V E S, JJ. GR AVES, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. M ontr el l J or dan ( “J or dan”) w as tr i ed and c onv i ct ed o f depraved h eartm urder, and w as se n ten c e d to life im p riso n m e n t. F o llo w in g h is c o n v ictio n , Jo rd a n u n su c c e ss fu lly so u g h t a
n e w t r i a l . Ag g r i e v e d b y th e j u d g me n tr e n d e r e d a g a i n s thi m, J o r d a n r a i s e s f o u r t e e n c l a i ms on appea l . Fi ndi ng al l cl ai m s t o be w i thoutm er i t , thi s C our taf f i r m s J or dan’ s convi ct i on. FACTS ¶2. O n A pr i l 27, 2005, a danc e w as hel d atthe H ol m es C om m un i t y C ol l ege ( “H C C ”)
s tudentuni on, comm onl y r ef err ed t o as the C ant een. T he r ecor d r ef l ect s thaton the ni ghtof

### 2

t he da nc e , a f

i gh tbr ok e ou tbe tw e e n s ome membe r s of the H CC f

oo tba l l t e a m and e i ght i ndi vi dual s w ho di d notatt end H C C . T he f i ghtbegan i ns i de t he C ant een a nd l at erm oved out s i de. T her e w as t es t i m ony thataf t erthe f i ghtm oved out s i de, tw o guns hot s w er e f i r ed. A s a r es ul t , D w aentr e D avi s , al s o know n as D eeD ee, w as ki l l ed. ¶3. Shaghana Si m ps on, an H C C s tudent , a nd J oey N ether l and, the s ecur i ty guar d att he d an ce , test if

ied th at th e sh o o ter l eft th e sc en e in a tan C h ev rolet S u b u rba n (th e “ S u b u rba n ”). S i m pson t est i fi ed thatthe sho oterw as w eari ng a w hit e t -s hirtand blue jea n s. S he als o re p o rte d to p o lice o ffic e rs th a t th e S u b u rb a n b e lo n g e d to M o n tre ll, w h o se la st n a m e sh e c o u ld notr emem beratthe t i m e. N ether l and t es t i f i ed t hathe had unsuc ces s f ul l y att empt ed t o s t op the s hoot erf

r om dr i vi ng a w ay by s t eppi ng i n f r ontof the Suburban. H e s up pli ed pol i ce o ffic e rs w ith a p a rtial lic e n se p late n u m b e r fo r th e S u b u rb a n . A rle n a S h a w , an H C C stu d e n t, t es t i f i ed thats he s aw the s hoot erl eave the s cene i n a s i l verK i a Sephi a, and thatthr ee orf our o ther p eo p le w ere in the ca r w ith the s h o o ter. ¶4. Fol l ow i ng the s hoot i ng, O f f i cer s K enneth W i l son and John N ew t on of the H ol m es C o u n ty S h e riff’s D e p a rtm e n t a rriv e d a n d s p o k e to in d iv id u a ls a t th e s c e n e . T h e p o lice d id
n o t fi nd any bu l l etshel l casi ng s on the groun d. A ft er theiri nit i al i nv est i gati on , O ff icers W il so n an d N ew ton p roc ee d ed to Jo rda n ’s ho m e in P icke n s, M issi ssipp i, w h ere they w ere m e t b y O ffic e r F re d C o a ts. A t Jo rd a n ’s h o m e , O ffic e r W ilso n , w h o w a s p re v io u sly acqua i nt ed w i th J or dan, saw Jordan and hi s f ather , W al t erJ or dan, ent erthe home t hr ough the bac k entr ance . T he of f i cer s s aw a t an Suburban parked behi nd a she d behi nd the home. T he of f i cer s knocked on the bac k door , and W al t erJ or dan l etthem i nt o the hous e.

### 3

¶5. T he of

f i cer s t ol d W al t erJ or dan thatthey neede d t o speak w i t h his son . O f f i cer W i l s on then t ol d M ontr el l J or dan thathe w as underarr es t“f ori nves t i gat i on of

a s hoot i ng at H olm es C om m un i ty C oll ege,” and adv i sed him of hi s Mir anda ri g h ts . Mir anda v. Ari z ona , 384 U . S. 436, 86 S. C t . 1602, 16 L . E d. 2d 694 ( 1966) . O f f i cer s W i l s on and N ew t on t es t i f i ed thatthey as ked t o s ear ch J or dan’ s vehi cl e and thatJ or dan cons ent ed. A br ow n l eatherhol s t er and f our. 357 bul l et s w er e r ecove r ed f r om i ns i de the vehi cl e. O f f i cerN ew t on t es t i f

i ed that he r eturned t o J or dan’ s home ata l at ert i m e t o r etr i eve the cl othi ng thatJ or dan w as w ear i ng atthe d a nc e . W he n he a s ke d W a l t e rJ or da n f orthe c l othi ng , M r . J or da n gave O f f i cer N e w to n a p a ir o f b lu e jea n s a n d a w h ite t-s h irt. ¶6. O f

f i cerA . C . H anki ns of the M i ssi ssi pp i B ureau o f I nv est i gati on (“M B I”) t es t i f i ed that he per f or m ed a guns hotr es i due t es ton J or dan’ s hands at1: 25 a. m . on A pr i l 28, 2005, app roxi m at el y four ho urs af t er the sho oti ng . T he tes t fr o m Jo rda n’s hand s and a test per f or m ed on the i ns i de of

the Suburban w er e both ne gat i ve. I n the ea r l y m orni ng hour s of A p ri l 28 , 2 0 0 5 , O ffi ce r H an k ins a n d C ap tai n S am C h am b ers o f th e H o lm es C o u n ty S h eriff’s D epart m ent i nterview ed Jordan aft er he w as r ead h i s Mir anda ri gh t s. O f f i cerH anki ns r eport ed thatJ or dan s t at ed thathe had a t t ended the party att he H C C cant een on A pr i l 27, 2005, thata f

i ghtbr oke out , and thats om eone s t art ed s hoot i ng a gun. J or dan r eport ed that af t erthe sho oti ng, he w entt o hi s Suburban and dr ove home. H e s t at ed thathe had be en w ear i ng “a w hi t e t ee s hi r tand som e [G i rbaud j eans ] ” atthe danc e. J or dan deni ed ow ni ng a h a n d g u n . L a ter in th e m o rn in g o f A p ril 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , Jo rd a n g a v e a sim ilar s tate m e n t to D etec ti v e L ac aru s O li v er.

### 4

¶7. O n A pr i l 28, 2005, Si m ps on r eport ed t o the pol i ce that s he had pr evi ous l y obs erved a gun undera s eati n J or dan’ s ve hi cl e, a nd thatJ or dan t ol d herthati tw as a . 357. L at eron i n the i nves t i gat i on, N ether l and and Car l t on Brow n, a n H C C s tudent , i dent i f i ed J or dan as t he
s hoot erf r om a phot ogr aphi c l i neup. J or dan w as char ged w i th m ur der , and w as t r i ed i n t he H ol m es C ounty C i r cui tC our tf r om February 14, 2007 t o February 16, 2007. T he j ury f ound h im g u ilty o f d e p ra v e d h e a rt m u rd e r. H e n o w ra ise s fo u rte e n iss u e s o n a p p e a l. A N A L Y S IS 1 . W h eth er th e D efe n d a n t’s C o n sti tu ti o n a l R igh ts W er e V io la ted b y a F a il u re to V oir D i re the J u ry R ega rd i n g B i as ¶8. Jordan argues t hat hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s t o a f ai r tr i al w er e vi ol at ed beca us e the
c o u rt, th e p ro se c u tio n , an d d e fe n se c o u n se l at tria l fa iled to v o ir d ire th e ju ry re g a rd in g th e ir pr i orknow l edge of

the ca s e f

r om comm uni ty di s cus s i on and the medi a. J or dan as s ert s that the ent i r e j ury po ol w as bi as ed bec aus e of the pr etr i al publ i ci ty s urr oundi ng the ki l l i ng of D avi s , w ho w as a fr eshm an f ootbal l pl ayeratH C C , a s chool s uppor t ed by t ax dol l ar s and l ocat ed i n a very s m al l comm uni ty. ¶9 . J or dan conc edes t hatj ur or s w er e as ked g e ne r a l q ue s t i on s r e ga r di ng t hei r pr i or k n o w led g e o f th e c a se , b u t ar g u e s th a t th e trial c o u rt a n d c o u n se l “ fa iled to fo llo w u p w ith proper qu est i on i ng . ” H e assert s t hat there w as no q uest i on i ng of the jury p oo l regar ding bias , i l l
- wi l l , o rp r e

j u d i c i a l f e e l i n g s a g a i n s tJ o r d a n , a s a n o n - s tu d e n ta c c u s e d o f s h o o t i n g a n HCC
s tudentata s oci al event . Fur therm or e, J or dan ar gues thati tw as er r orfort he t r i al cour tand d e f e n s e c o u n s e l n o tt o a s k p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s a b o u tth e i ra f f i l i a t i o n wi th HCC.

### 5

¶10 . In h is ap p ell ate b ri ef, Jordan cit es U nited States v. P arker , 8 7 7 F . 2 d 3 2 7 (5th C ir . 1989) and M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 13- 5- 79 ( R ev. 2007) , w hi ch des cr i bes w hen a po t enti al j uror m ay serve despit e hav i ng an im press i on as t o gu i l tor i nn ocen ce. Jordan als o ci t es M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 99- 15- 35 ( R ev. 2007) , w hi ch s et s outthe gr ounds forchan ge o f venue . T o the ext ent that J ordan is rai si ng a cl aim reg ard ing ven ue, defense
couns el neverm oved f ora cha nge of

venue, n ordi d the tr i al courtrul e on thi s i s s ue. T h e re fo re , th is c la im is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . D edea u x U til . C o. v. Cit

y of G u l fport , 938 So. 2 d 8 3 8 , 8 4 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). ¶11. W hen r evi ew i ng the conduct of voi r di r e, thi s C our t appl i es an abuse of di scr et i on s ta n d a rd . J

a c kso n v. S ta te , 7 91 So . 2 d 83 0, 8 35 ( M i s s . 2 00 1) . M or e ov e r , “ abus e of di s cr et i on w i l l onl y be f ound w her e a def

endants how s c l earpr ej udi ce r es ul t i ng f r om undue l ack of cons tr ai nton the pr os ecut i on or und ue cons tr ai nton the def ens e. ” I d. at835- 36 (c itatio n o m itted). A jury selec ti o n p roc ed u re is pro p er if i t “giv es th e d efe n d an t a fair
o p p o rtu n ity to a sk q u e stio n s o f in d iv id u a l ju ro rs w h ich m a y e n a b le th e d e fe n d a n t to det erm i ne hi s r i ghtt o chal l enge thatj ur or . ” S tev e n s v . S ta te , 80 6 S o. 2d 10 31 , 10 62 (M i ss. 2001) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . Fur therm or e, “[ i ] ti s w el l founded thatthe tr i al j udge has the di s cr et i on t o excus e pot ent i al j ur or s f orcaus e i f

the courtbel i eves t he j ur orcoul d nottr y the
cas e i m part i al l y. ” W

o o d w a r dv . S ta te , 533 So. 2d 418, 424 ( M i s s . 1988) ( ci t i ng B urt v. S ta te , 4 9 3 S o . 2 d 1 3 2 5 , 1 3 2 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 )). ¶12. T he r ecor d re f

l ect s t hatdef

ens e couns el w as notre s tr i ct ed i n exam i ni ng t he v enir e. D ef ens e couns el di d notm ove t o qu ash the veni r e, and di d notobj ectt o the j ury thatw as im p an eled . D u ri n g the tri al co u rt ’s vo ird ir e o f th e jury , Ju d g e L ew is in fo rm e d the v en ir e

### 6

th a tth e y mu s ti g n o r e i n f o r ma t i o n r e l a t i n g t o t h e c a s e t h a tt h e y g a i n e d o u t s i d e th e c o u r tr o o m. D e fe n se c o u n se l fo llo w e d u p b y q u e stio n in g p o ten tial ju ro rs in d iv id u a lly a t th e b e n c h to det erm i ne w hatknow l edge they had r egar di ng the cas e i n or dert o det erm i ne w hethert hey
c o u ld b e fa ir a n d im p a rtial. ¶ 1 3 . T h e trial c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n re g a rd in g ju ry s e le c tio n . Ju d g e L e w is ques t i oned j ur or s aboutthei ra bi l i ty t o be f ai rand i m part i al bef

or e i m panel i ng the j ury, and ther e i s no i ndi cat i on thatdef ens e co unsel w as r es tr i ct ed dur i ng j ury s el ect i on. T her ef or e, w e fin d th is iss u e to b e w ith o u t m e rit. 2. W het her t he D ef endant’ s C onst i t ut i ona l R i gh t s W ere V i ol at ed by t he V erdi ct R eached by a B i as ed Jury ¶ 1 4 . Th i s i s s u e i s e s s e n t i a l l y a r e s t a t e me n t o f th e f i r s t a n d h a s b e e n a d d r e s s e d a b o v e . To the ext enti ti s notaddr es s ed above , the i s s ue i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed. Itis a l ongs t andi ng pr i nci pl e of

l aw that“[ i ] f

an appe l l antf

ai l s t o supportheral l egat i on of err orw i th ar gum ent orauthor i ty, thi s C our tneed notcons i derthe i s s ue. ” P ier re v. S ta te , 607 So. 2d 43, 48 ( M i s s . 1992) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . I n r ai s i ng thi s i s s ue on appe al , J or dan’ s appel l at e couns el ci t es no author i ty, nordoes he di r ectt he C our tt o any obj ect i on by def ens e couns el attr i al
o r ru lin g o f th e trial c o u rt th a t w o u ld c o n stitu te r e v e rsib le e rro r. T h e is su e is c o m p lete ly devoi d of

any s peci f

i c al l egat i on of

err orby J or dan. T hi s C our tpr es um es thatthe j udgm ent o f th e trial c o u rt is c o rre c t an d th e a p p e llan t m u st “ d e m o n stra te s o m e re v e rsib le e rro r to th is C our t . ” E dlin v. S ta te , 5 3 3 S o . 2 d 4 0 3 , 4 1 0 (M is s . 1 9 8 8 ), cer t . deni ed , 489 U . S. 1086, 109 S . C t. 15 4 7 , 1 0 3 L . E d . 2 d 8 5 1 (1 9 8 9 ). T h u s, w e fin d th is iss u e to b e w ith o u t m e rit. 3. W het her t he D ef endant W as D eni ed a F ai r T ri al B ecaus e Fou r Jurors W ere O penl y B i as ed

### 7

¶15. J or dan as s ert s thathe w as de ni ed hi s r i ghtt o a f ai rtr i al be caus e f

ourof the j ur or s that
w er e i m panel ed w er e unabl e t o f ai r l y and i m part i al l y con s i derthe evi dence . T he f our c o m p lain e d o f a re M a rc u s T u rn e r, L o re tta M c G e e , C u rtis M o o re , a n d a “ fe m a le d re ss e d in
re d .” ¶16. A f

t erthe j ury w as im pan el ed and b ef or e the tr i al began, T urneri nf or m ed the tr i al
courtthathe di d notfe el as i f he coul d foc us on the tr i al . T he tr i al courti nf or m ed hi m that al l the otherpot ent i al j ur or s ha d be en di s m i s s ed, s o Tur ners houl d do hi s be s tt o f ocus as l ong a s h e c o u ld . T h e trial ju d g e sa id th a t sh e w o u ld c h e c k o n h im d u rin g th e tria l. Jo rd a n a ss e rts thatdur i ng t he cour s e of the tr i al , T urnerhad a de m eanorthatr ef l ect ed hi s i nabi l i ty t o f

ocus o n th e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d . Ho we v e r , th e r e c o r d d o e s n o tr e f l e c tth a tTu rn e rh a d p r o b l e ms f ocus i ng on the tr i al once i tbegan. ¶17 . A s for M cG ee , the tr i al courtasked her several f oll ow -up quest i on s in ch am b ers r egar di ng M cG ee’ s f

ami l y’ s connec t i ons t o J or dan’ s f ami l y. M cG ee c onf

i r m ed thatone of h e r fa m ily m e m b e rs w a s a c q u a in ted w ith o n e o f Jo rd a n ’s f a m ily m e m b e rs, b u t th a t th is
w oul d notaf

f ectherabi l i ty t o be f

ai rand i m part i al . J or dan cl ai m s thatthe exa m i nat i on of M c G e e p u t “p re ss u re o n this jur o r w h ich in re a lity fo rc e d h e r to v o te f o r a c o n v ictio n . T h is conf r ont at i on i n chamber s pl ace d heri n a pos i t i on of over act i ng [ s i c] i n a n egat i ve w ay to w a rd th e D e fe n d a n t.” J o rd a n ’s a p p e llate c o u n se l o ffe rs n o su p p o rt fro m th e re c o rd to dem on strat e t hat M cG ee w as pres sured by the co nv ers at i on i n ch am bers. ¶18. J or dan f

ur ther as s ert s that the j ury panel w as t ai nt ed by the f or eper s on of t he j ur y, M o o re , w h o is a re tired la w e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic e r w h o h a d p re v io u sly h a d a c iv il co n flict w ith Jo rd a n ’s f

a th e r. T h is in fo rm a tio n w a s n o t k n o w n a t th e ti m e o f trial, as W a lter J o rd a n o n ly

### 8

d isc o v e re d th a t M o o re w a s o n th e ju ry a fte r th e trial h a d c o m m e n c e d a n d “ w a s u n a b le to
comm uni cat e t hi s backgr ound t o counse l i n a t i m el y fa s hi on. ” Ther ef or e, thi s i nf

or m at i on w a s o n ly d isc lo se d in Jo rd a n ’s p o st-tria l m o tio n fo r a n e w trial. ¶19. I f a j ur or t akes an oath that he or s he can be f ai r and i m part i al i n f

ul f i l l i ng the dut i es o f a ju ro r a n d the tri al co u rtis sati sfi ed b y that o ath, th en h e o r she m ay serv e o n the ju ry d e s p ite a p re c o n c e iv e d o p in io n a s to g u ilt o r in n o c e n c e o f t h e a c c u s e d . M is s . C o d e A n n . § 13- 5- 79 (R ev. 2002) . I n thi s cas e, voi rdi r e w as conduct ed i n w hi ch the veni r e w as as ked
w he the rorno tthe y c ou l d b e f a i ra nd i mpart i a l , a nd w he the rorno tthe y c ou l d g i ve J or dan the pr es um pt i on of

i nnocenc e. T he veni r e w as as ked w hetherornotthey orthei rr el at i ves w er e f r i ends of J or dan orhi s r el at i ves . T he veni r e w as nots peci f i cal l y as ked w hetherornot they had pr i ornegat i ve i nt er act i ons w i th J or dan orhi s r el at i ves , butthey w er e gi ven an oppor tuni ty t o vol unt eerr el evanti nf or m at i on thatha d notbe en el i ci t ed by the tr i al courtand the att orneys . T he r ecor d r ef l ect s thatM oor e di d notpr ovi de any i nf or m at i on abouta pr i or r el at i ons hi p ori nt er act i on w i th J or dan’s fat her duri ng the voi rdi r e. Si nce the j ury w as i m panel ed af

t erthe v oird i re , dur i ng w hi ch M oor e t ook an oath t o be a f ai rand i m par t i al j ur or , thi s C our tdoes notbe l i eve thatr ever s al i s r equi r ed bec aus e M oor e s atas a j ur orand
as the f or eper s on i n t hi s cas e. ¶20. W i th r egar d t o the “f emal e dr es s ed i n r ed, ” J or dan as s ert s thats he “c ont i nuous l y cr i ed and made emot i onal ges tur es dur i ng t he t r i al . ” T he r ecor d re f l ect s t hatshe m ay have been
cryi ng atone poi ntduri ng t he tr i al . A l though def ens e couns el br oughtthi s t o the att ent i on of the tr i al j udge, de f

ens e couns el di d notr eques tthatthi s j ur orbe r epl ace d w i th an al t ernat e,

### 9

nordi d d e f

e ns e c ou ns e l move f

ora mi s tr i a l . J or da n a r gu e s tha tthe c ou r ts ho ul d ha ve s ua s pont e g ra n ted a m istria l b e c a u se th e “ fe m a le d re ss e d in re d ” w a s e m o tio n a lly u p se t. ¶21. T hi s C our t has hel d that i t i s w i thi n the tr i al court ’ s di s cr et i on w hether or not t o gr ant
a m is tr ia l a n d th is C o u rt w ill n o t f in d e rr o r a b s e n t a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 971 So. 2d 581, 590- 91 ( M i s s . 2007) ( f i ndi ng thatthe tr i al c our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n f ai l i ng t o su a sp o n te decl ar e a mi s tr i al w hen the pr os ecut i on purpor t edl y m ade an in a p p ro p ria te s tate m e n t) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ); B re n t v. S ta te , 63 2 S o. 2d 93 6, 94 1-42 (M i ss. 1994) ( f i ndi ng thatthe tr i al courtp roper l y deni ed a mot i on f orm i s tr i al w her e a j ur or dis cussed the case w i th otherj urors du ri ng reces ses) (ci t at i on s om i t t ed). In this case, defense
co u n sel m ad e n o m o ti o n for m istri al be ca u se o f th is j u ror’s co n d u ct. F u rth erm o re, th e re co rd does nots how thatthe emot i onal s t at e of t he “f emal e dr es s ed i n re d” w as so di s rupt i ve and p re ju d icia l to th e tria l th a t th e trial c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n b y n o t su a sp o n te decl ar i ng a m istria l. ¶22. M or eover , J or dan’ s appel l at e couns el ci t es no author i ty i n s uppor t of hi s cont ent i on thatthes e f

ouri ndi vi dual s s houl d nothave be en perm i t t ed t o s i tas j ur or s . A s r ef l ect ed i n the di s cus s i on of

the pr evi ous i s s ue, i ti s a l ongs t andi ng pr i nci pl e of l aw that“[ i ] f

an appe l l ant f ai l s t o s uppor t[ hi s ] all egat i on of err orw i th ar gum entorauthor i ty, thi s C our tneed not
cons i derthe i s s ue. ” P ier re v. S ta te , 6 0 7 S o . 2 d 4 3 , 4 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). 4. W het her t he T ri al C ourt C om m i t t ed E rror by D enyi ng t he D ef endant’ s M ot i on f or D i r e c t e d V e r di c t and by A l l owi ng a n I n- C our t I de nt i f i c at i on o f

t he D e f e ndant ¶2 3 . Jo rda n asse rt s that h e w as n ev er iden ti fi ed as the sh o o ter o f the v ict im , an d there fore
c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n c o n v icte d “ o f m u rd e r b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t or to a m o ra l ce rta in ty

### 10

as r eq ui r e d by l a w . ” Si nc e M i s s i s s i pp i l a w d oe s n otr e qu i r e a f i nd i ng o f g ui l tt o a m or al
cert ai nty, thi s C our tw i l l det erm i ne w hetherornotJor dan w as w r ongl y convi ct ed of m ur der b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. See, e. g. , Mille r v . S ta te , 980 So. 2d 927, 929 ( M i s s . 2008) (no ti n g that the b u rde n o f pro o f for crim inal ca ses is p roo f be y o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t) . A . I dent i f

i cat i on of

t he Shoote r and t he M ot i on f or D i rec t ed V erdi ct ¶24. J or dan as s ert s thathe w as neverpos i t i vely i den t i fi ed as t he shoo t er, and f ur ther cont ends t hatno evi dence l i nked hi m t o the cr i m e. I n s uppor tof hi s ar gum ent , J or dan ci t es E dw a rds v . S ta te , 736 So. 2d 475 (M i s s . C t . A pp. 1999), w her e t he C our tof A ppeal s f ound thatthe i dent i f

i cat i on of

the s hoot erw as a gai ns tthe w ei ghtof the evi dence and w arr ant ed
a new tr i al . I n t hi s case, def ens e couns el m oved f

ora di r ect ed ver di ct , ar gui ng thatthe pr os ecut i on f

ai l ed t o pr ove thatJ or dan w as the s hoot er . T he tr i al c ourtde ni ed the mot i on. J or dan as s ert s thatthi s cons t i tut ed err orand thatthe tr i al courts houl d have a tl eas tr educe d th e c h a rg e to m a n sla u g h ter , d ire c ted a v e rd ict o n th e m u rd e r c h a rg e , an d a llo w e d th e ju ry to det erm i ne gui l tori nnocenc e on the mansl aught erchar ge. ¶25 . T his C ou rt ’s st and ard of r eview forsuff i ci ency of the ev i den ce i s as f oll 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 the ev i den ce “po i nt i n favor of the d efendan to n a n y e lem ent of the o ff ense w i th s uf f i ci entf or ce thatr easonabl e men coul d nothave f ound beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe def endantw as gui l ty, ” the pr operr emedy i s f orthe a p p e lla te c o u rt to re v e rs e a n d re n d e r. H ow ever , if a revi ew of

the evi dence r evea l s thati ti s of

s uch qual i ty a nd w ei ghtthat , “havi ng i n m i nd the beyond a re a so n a b le d o u b t b u rd e n o f p ro o f sta n d a rd , re a so n a b le f a ir-m in d e d m e n in the e x erc ise o f i m p arti al j u d g m en t m igh t rea ch diff ere n t co n clus ion s on ev ery e lem e n t of

the o ffe n se ,” th e ev id e n c e w ill b e d e e m e d to h a v e b e e n su ffic ien t. B o y d v. S ta te , 977 So. 2d 329, 336 ( M i s s . 2008) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . I n det erm i ni ng wh e th e re v i d e n c e i s s u f f i c i e n tt o s u p p o r ta j u ry v e r d i c ti n a c r i mi n a l c a s e , th i s Co u r tr e v i e ws

### 11

th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e S ta te . I

d. ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T hi s m eans t hat “[ a] l l cr edi bl e evi dence consi s t entw i th t he def endant ’ s gui l tm us tbe ac cept ed as true, and the st at e i s gi ven t he benef i tof al l fa vor abl e i nf

er ence s t hatm ay be r eas onabl y dr aw n f r om the evi dence . ” I

d. (c i t at i on om i t t ed) . M or eover , s i nce w i tnes s cr edi bi l i ty and r el at i ve w ei ght of t es t i m ony ar e l eftto t he f act f i nder , “the C our ts houl d r ever s e onl y w her e, ‘ w i th r es pect t o one ormore e l ement s of the of f ens e char ged, the evi dence s o c ons i der ed i s such t hat
r eas onabl e and f

ai r - m i nded j ur or s c oul d onl y f i nd the acc us ed notgui l ty. ’ ” I d. at337 (c i t i ng Fox v. S ta te , 7 2 4 S o . 2 d 9 6 8 , 9 7 0 (M iss. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 8 )). ¶26. Si m ps on and N ether l and t es t i f i ed that they hear d tw o guns hot s and s aw a f l as h f r om the s econd guns hot . Si m ps on t es t i f i ed thatthe s hoot erw or e a w hi t e t - s hi r tand j eans , w hi ch
m at ched the cl othi ng J or dan’ s f athergave the pol i ce. Si m ps on a l s o t es t i f i ed thatthe s hoot er goti nt o a ca rthats he r ecogni zed a s bel ongi ng t o J or dan. S he t est i f i ed thats he had pr evi ous l y obs erved a gun i n J or dan’ s Suburban and kne w thathe kepta s econd gun i n t he S u b u rb a n . N e th e r la n d te s tif ie d th e s h o o te r’ s v e h ic le w a s a “ lig h t b ro w n S u b u rb a n .” N ether l and t es t i f

i ed thathe had s t epped i n fr ontof the Suburba n, i n an at t empt t o pr eventt he
s hoot erf r om fl eei ng t he sc ene. H ow ever , he sai d thatthe Suburban dr ove ar ound hi m , and thatthe s hoot ergr i nned athi m as he f l ed t he sc ene. L at er , N ether l and and Brow n i dent i f i ed J or dan i n a phot ogr aphi c l i neup. ¶ 2 7 . T h e re c o rd re v e a ls th a t th e re w a s s u ffic ien t ev id e n c e to su p p o rt th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict. B . I n- C ourt I dent i f i cat i on ¶28 . Jo rdan asser t s that the t ri al courterred i n al l ow i ng s i x w i tnesses to m ak e in-co u rt i dent i f i cat i ons of

J or dan. J or dan ar gues t hatt hes e i n- courti dent i f i cat i ons fa i l t he t ot al i ty of

### 12

the ci r cumst ance s t es tas s etf or th i n N eil v. B i gg ers , 409 U . S. 188, 93 S. C t . 375, 34 L . E d. 2d 401 ( 1972) . T he t es tr equi r es thatthe f ol l ow i ng f

act or s be cons i der ed: ( 1) the opportuni ty of

the w i tnes s t o vi ew t he cr i m i nal atthe t i m e of the cr i m e; ( 2) the w i tnes s ’ degr ee of att ent i on; ( 3) the ac cur acy of the w i tnes s ’ pr i or des cr i pt i on of

the cr i m i nal ; ( 4) the l evel of cert ai nty demonst ra t ed by the w i tnes s atthe conf

r ont at i on; and (5) t he l ength of t i m e betw een the cr i m e and the conf r ont at i on. B og a n v. S ta te , 7 54 S o. 2 d 1289, 1292 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2000) ( ci t i ng N eil v. B i gg ers , 409 U . S. at199- 200) . T he r ecor d r evea l s t hatJor dan di d notobj ectt o the i n- courti dent i f i cat i on b y a n y w itn e s s . T h u s , th is is s u e is n o t p re s e rv e d fo r a p p e a l. See, e. g. , Flem in gv. S ta te , 604 S o . 2 d 2 8 0 , 3 0 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ); Sm ith v. S ta te , 5 3 0 S o . 2 d 1 5 5 , 1 6 1 -62 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). 5. W h ether the D efend an t’ s Mir anda R i ght s W e r e V i ol at e d, R e nde r i ng t he D e fe n d a n t’s U n sig n e d S ta te m e n ts I n a d m iss ib le ¶2 9. J or dan ar gues t hathi s cons t i tut i on a l r i gh tt o c ou ns e l was v i ol a t e d w he n he w as i n t e rr o g a t e d d e s p i t e h a v i n g r e q u e s t e d c o u n s e l a n d r e f u s e d t o s i g n a wa i v e r - o f
- r i g h t s f o r m. J or dan t e s t i f

i e d a tthe s up pr e s s i on h e a r i ng a nd r e i t e r a t e s o n a pp e a l tha th e r e qu e s t e d a n a tto rn e y w h e n h e w a s b e in g q u e stio n e d b y C a p tain C h a m b e rs, b u t w a s to ld b y th e c a p tain th a th i s s t a t e me n two u l d n o tb e u s e d a g a i n s th i m. ¶30. I n Mir anda , the U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t t h e F if th a n d F o u rte e n th A m endment s ’ pr ohi bi t i on a gai ns tc om pel l ed s el f
- i ncr i m i nat i on r equi r es thatthe ac cus ed be advi s ed of

hi s r i ghtt o r emai n s i l entand h i s ri gh tt o couns el bef or e any c us t odi al in te rr o g a tio n . Mir anda v. Ari z ona , 3 8 4 U . S . 4 3 6 , 8 6 S . C t. 1 6 0 2 , 1 6 L . E d . 2 d 6 9 4 (19 6 6 ). O nce ad vis ed o f hi s Mir anda rig h ts, a n a c c u se d m a y w a iv e th e se rig h ts a n d re s p o n d to

### 13

in te rr o g a tio n . N

or th Car olina v. B utler , 441 U . S. 369, 374- 75, 99 S. C t . 1755, 60 L . E d. 2d 2 8 6 (19 7 9 ). ¶ 3 1 . W a iv e r m u st b e v o lu n tar y , k n o w in g , an d in tellig e n t. Mir anda , 384 U . S. at444. T he p ro se c u tio n m u st p ro v e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t a s tate m e n t w a s g iv e n a fte r a v a lid
w a iv e r. See, e. g. , Co v e rs o n v. S ta te , 61 7 S o . 2 d 6 4 2 , 6 4 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 3 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). W ai veri s consi der ed vol unt ary i f i ti s the r es ul tof

a “f r ee a nd del i ber at e choi ce r atherthan i nt i m i dat i on, coer ci on ordece pt i on. ” I d. K now i ng and i nt el l i gentw ai verm us tbe “m ade
w i th a ful l aw ar enes s bot h of the natur e of t he r i ghtbei ng abandoned a nd the cons equenc es of the dec i s i on t o abandon i t . ” I d. ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . H ow ever , thi s Courtha s he l d that“a def endant ’ s r ef

us al t o si gn a w ai verdoes notcons t i tut e a per se in v o c a tio n o f h is F ifth A mend mentr i ght s . ” A da m s v . S ta te , N o. 95 -K A -0101 2-SC T , 19 97 M i ss. L E X IS 51 4, at*10 ( M i s s . O ct . 16, 1997) ( ci t i ng Mo h r v . S ta te , 5 8 4 S o . 2 d 4 2 6 , 4 2 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 )). ¶32. T he tr i al courtdet erm i nes w hethera s t at ementw as coer ced orgi ven af t era vol unt ary, k n o w in g , a n d in te llig e n t w a iv e r o f r ig h ts . B a ldw in v. S ta te , 75 7 S o. 2d 22 7, 23 4 (M i ss. 2000) . T he j udge m ay admi ta s t at ementi f the t ot al i ty of

the ci r cumst ance s i ndi cat es beyond
a rea so n a b le d o u b t th a t th e sta tem e n t w a s fre e ly g iv e n . Id. ( ci t i ng Sm ith v. S ta te , 737 So. 2d 377, 382 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 1999) ) . T he det erm i nat i on of the vol unt ar i nes s of

a w ai verof ri g h ts is a m ix e d is s u e o f l a w a n d fa c t. Ho lla n d v. S ta te , 587 So. 2d 848, 860 ( M i s s . 1991) (cit ati o n s o m itted). T h ere fore , this C o u rtw il l no t rev erse a tri al co u rt ’s fi n d ing s if they w ere b a s e d o n a p p ro p ri a te p ri n c ip le s o f l a w a n d s u p p o rt e d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . I d. ¶33. I n thi s cas e, J udge Lew i s conduct ed a s uppr es s i on hear i ng out s i de t he pr es ence of the jury an d co n clud ed that the p rose cu ti o n h ad pro v ed be y o n d a reaso n ab le do u b t that Jo rda n ’s

### 14

w a iv e r w a s v a lid . Fro st v . S ta te , 4 8 3 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 5 , 1 3 5 0 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ); Ma n ix v. S ta te , 895 S o . 2 d 1 6 7 , 1 8 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). ¶34. I n the ear l y morni ng hour s of A pr i l 28, 20 05 , C aptai n C ham bers and D et ect i ve H anki ns t ook a s t at ementf r om J or dan. C apt ai n C hamber s t es t i f i ed thatbef

or e the qu est i on i ng beg an, he ad vis ed Jordan of hi s Mir anda r i ght s . H e f ur thert es t i f

i ed thatJ or dan di d notr eques tan att orney, and thathe w as notthr eat ened orcoer ced i n any w ay. T he t es t i m ony of

D et ect i ve H anki ns cor r obor at ed t hi s . L at eri n the morni ng on A pr i l 28, 2005, D et ect i ve O l i ver t est i fi ed thathe ad vis ed Jordan of hi s Mir anda r i ght s bef or e ques t i oni ng hi m . Fur therm or e, he t es t i f i ed thatJ or dan w as notthr eat ened orc oer ced i n any w ay, and that Jo rd a n sta ted h e d id n o t w a n t to sig n a w a iv e r-o f-rig h ts fo rm , b u t th a t h e w a s w ill in g to talk t o of f i cer s . D et ect i ve O l i vert es t i f i ed thatJ or dan neverr eques t ed an att orney, and never expr es s ed a des i r e t o st op t he i nt ervi ew . M B I O f f i cerM i l t on W i l l i ams, w ho w as al s o pr es ent du r i ng Det e c t i ve Ol i ve r ’ s i nt e r r og a t i on o f J or da n, t e s t i f

i e d tha tJ or da n ne ve rr e qu e s t ed an att orney. ¶35. T he tr i al courtf ound both s t at ement s w er e given aft er a v olunt ary, know i ng, and i nt el l i gen tw ai ver. T he tr i al courtappl i ed the pr operl egal s t andar ds and f ound that , af

t er being adv i sed of hi s Mir anda r i ght s , J or dan made vol unt ary s t at ement s t o the of f i cer s t hat
w er e i n no w ay a pr oductof thr eat s , coer ci on, orpr om i s es . A ccor di ngl y, w e f i nd thi s i s s ue to b e w ith o u t m e rit. 6. W h ether the T ri al C ou rt E rred i n D en ying the D efend an t’ s M oti on to Su p p ress t he F rui t s of

t he Search of

t he D ef endant’ s C ar

### 15

¶36. Pr i or t o tr i al , J or dan f i l ed a M ot i on t o Suppr es s evi dence f ound i ns i de hi s car on t he ni ghtof the s hoot i ng. T he tr i al courti ni t i al l y f ound thatJ or dan had notcons ent ed t o t he
s ear ch of hi s carand thatther e w er e no exi gentci r cumst ance s j us t i f yi ng a w arr ant l es s s ear ch, and thus s uppres sed the evi dence . H ow ever , af t erthe tr i al court ’ s rul i ng, the pr os ecut i on filed a M o tio n to R e c o n s id e r. T h e trial c o u rt th e n fo u n d th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s a d m iss ib le beca us e the pr os ecut i on had demonstr at ed thatther e w as probabl e ca us e s uppor t i ng a w arran tl ess s ea rch o f Jord an ’s ca r. ¶37. T he Four th A m endmentof the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on pr ot ect s i ndi vi dual s f r om u n re a so n a b le s e a rc h e s a n d se izu re s. U .S . C o n st. a m e n d . X IV ; see al so M iss. C o n st. art. III , § 23. A s a gene r al rul e, w ar r ant l es s s ear ches of pr i vat e pr operty ar e pers e unr eas onabl e. See, e. g. , Cady v. D om br ow s ki , 4 1 3 U . S . 4 3 3 , 9 3 S . C t. 2 5 2 3 , 3 7 L . E d . 2 d 7 0 6 (19 7 3 ). H o w e v e r, t h e re a re e x c e p tio n s , s u c h a s th e a u to m o b il e e x c e p tio n . See, e. g. , R obbins v. Ca lifo rn ia , 4 5 3 U .S . 4 2 0 , 1 0 1 S . C t. 28 4 1 , 6 9 L . E d . 2 d 7 4 4 (1 9 8 1 ); N ew Y ork v. B el

ton , 453 U . S . 4 5 4 , 1 0 1 S . C t. 2 8 6 0 , 6 9 L . E d . 2 d 7 6 8 (19 8 1 ). ¶38 . In this case, the tri al j ud ge found th at there w as probab l e cause for the w arr antl ess s ear ch of J or dan’ s car , m aki ng the s ear ch val i d. W hen det erm i ni ng w hetherornota s ear ch i s s uppor t ed by pr obabl e caus e, a j udge mustcons i derthe t ot al i ty of the ci r cumst ance s and
u s e h is o r h e r b e s t ju d g m e n t. McN e a l v. S ta te , 617 So. 2d 9 99 , 1006- 1007 ( M i s s . 1993) ( c i t a t i on s omi t t e d) . Thi s Cour tr e vi e w s the r e c or d t o d e t e r mi ne w he the rorno tthe t r i al
c o u rt ’s fi n d in g is s u p p o rt e d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . I d. at1007. ¶39. I n the i ns t antcas e, ther e w as t es t i m ony f r om s ever al w i tnes s es thatthe s hoot erl ef t the
s cene i n J or dan’ s car , w hi ch pol i ce of f i cer s f ound pa r ked atJ or dan’ s hom e s hor t l y af t erthe

### 16

i ncident . T his con st i tutes su b stant i al eviden ce i n sup po rtof a f i nd i ng that pr ob able cause
e x iste d fo r a v a lid , w a rra n tles s s e a rc h o f Jo rd a n ’s a u to m o b ile. A c c o rd in g ly , w e fin d th is iss u e to b e w ith o u t m e rit. 7. W het her t he T ri al C ourt E rre d i n D enyi ng t he D ef endant’ s M ot i on f

or a N ew T ri al ¶4 0 . Jo rd a n a ss e rts th a t th e trial c o u rterred i n de n y ing his M o ti o n for a N e w T ria l, cl ai m i ng thatthe j ury ver di ctw as contr ary t o the overw hel m i ng w ei gh to f the evi dence . J or dan ar gues agai n thatther e w as no cr edi bl e p roof of gui l tpr es ent ed by the pr os ecut i on, and no po si t i ve ident i fi cat i on of Jor dan as the sho oter . H e app eal s t o thi s C ou rtt o reverse hi s convi ct i on or , i n the al t ernat i ve, or dera new tr i al f orJ or dan t o be tr i ed f

orm ans l aught er an d n o t m u rde r. ¶41. I n r evi ew i ng w hethera j ury v erdi ctis ag ai nstthe ov erw helm i ng w ei ghtof the
e v id e n c e , “[t]his C o u rt m u st a c c e p t a s tru e th e e v id e n c e w h ich su p p o rts th e v e rd ict a n d w ill
r ever s e onl y w hen convi nced thatthe ci r cui tc our thas abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n f ai l i ng t o gr ant a new tr i al . ” Sm ith v. S ta te , 868 So. 2d 1048, 1050 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2004) ( ci t i ng D udley v. S ta te , 7 1 9 S o . 2 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 )). In d o in g s o , “th e S tate is g iv e n ‘th e b e n e fit o f a ll f avor abl e i nf

er ence s thatm ay r eas onabl y be dr aw n f r om the evi dence . ’ ” I

d. ( ci t i ng G riffin
v. S ta te , 6 07 So . 2 d 11 97 , 1 20 1 ( M i s s . 1 99 2) ) . Thi s Courtwi l l d i s turb a j ury’ s ver di ct “[ o] nl y i n thos e cases w here t he ver di cti s s o contr ary t o the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof t he evi dence thatt o al l ow i tt o s t and w oul d s anct i on an uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ” I d. ( ci t i ng D udley , 7 1 9 S o . 2 d at 18 2 ).M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 97- 3- 19, ent i t l ed, “H om i ci de; m ur der 1 d e fin e d ; ca p ital m u rd e r; les se r in c lu d e d o ffe n se ,” p ro v id e s in re lev a n t p a rt: ( 1) T he ki l l i ng of

a human bei ng w i thoutthe author i ty of l aw by any means 

### 17 ¶42. Si m ps on t est i fi ed t hat she w as pres entatthe s cene of the cr i m e and obs erved the sh o o ter w e a rin g a w h ite t-s h irt an d b lu e jea n s. S h e te stifie d th a t th e sh o o ter lef t th e sc e n e in a t an Suburban thats he r ecogni zed a s bel ongi ng t o J or dan. N ether l and t es t i f i ed thataf

t ert he sh o o tin g , h e a ttem p ted to p re v e n t th e S u b u rb a n fro m lea v in g . H e g a v e a p a rtial lic e n se p late
num bert o the pol i ce thatm at ched thatof J or dan’ s t an S uburban. A l s o, N ether l and and B r ow n pos i t i vel y i dent i f i ed J or dan as the s hoot eri n a phot ogr aphi c l i neup. S i x w i tnes s es id e n tified Jo rd a n a s th e sh o o ter in c o u rt. ¶ 4 3 . Jo rd a n ’s a ss e rtio n th a t th e re w a s n o p o sitiv e id e n tifica tio n o f Jo rd a n a s th e sh o o ter is pa t e nt l y w i tho utmer i t . W e f i nd tha tthe v e r di c ti n thi s c a s e i s n otc on t r ar y t o t he
overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence . ¶4 4. J or dan’ s ar gum entt hatt hi s C our ts houl d or de ra new t r i al on t he cha r ge of
m ans l aught eri s al s o w i thoutm er i t . A j ury normal l y det erm i nes w hethera def endantchar ged
w ith m u rd e r i s g u ilty o f m u rd e r o r m a n s la u g h te r a ft e r h e a ri n g a ll o f t h e e v id e n c e . Hodge v. S ta te , 823 So. 2d 1162, 1166 ( M i s s . 2002) ( “W hetherhom i ci de i s cl as s i f i ed as a m ur deror m a n sla u g h ter is o rd in a rily a n in q u iry to b e m a d e b y th e ju ry .” ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). In th is
cas e, the j ury had the opportuni ty t o hearthe t es t i m ony and obs erve the demeanorof al l the
w i tnes s es . T he j ury w as i ns truct ed t o cons i derthe cr i m e of m ans l aught eri f

i tf ound thatt he p rose cu ti o n fail ed to p rov e b ey o n d a rea so n ab le d o u b t th at Jo rda n co m m itted d ep rav ed h ea rt
m ur deras def

i ned i n M i s s i s s i ppi C ode S ect i on 97-3- 19( 1) ( b) . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 1or i n an y m ann er s hall be m urder i n the f oll ow i ng cases:

. . . (b) W h en d o n e in th e c o m m issi o n o f an ac t em inen tl y d an g ero u s to o thers and evi nci ng a depr aved he art , r egar dl es s of hum an l i f

e, al though w i thout a n y p re m e d itate d d e sig n to e ffe c t th e d e a th o f a n y p a rticu lar in d iv id u a l;

. . . ( 3) A n i ndi ctm entf

orm ur derorcapi t al m ur ders hal l s erve as not i ce t o the def endantthatthe i ndi ctm entm ay i ncl ude any a nd al l l es s eri ncl uded o ffen ses th ere o f, inclu d ing , b u t no t l im it ed to, m an slau g h ter. 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 97-3- 19 (Re v. 2006) . 18 19( 1) ( b) ( Rev. 20 06 ) . The j ury f ou nd J or da n g ui l ty o f

de pr a ve d h e a r tmur de ra nd not
m a n sla u g h ter . T h is C o u rt w ill n o t d istu rb th e ju ry v e rd ict. 8. W het her t he I ndi ct m ent W as F at al l y D ef ect i ve ¶45 . Jo rda n asse rt s that the i nd i ct m ent err on eou sl y charged h im w ith d ep rav ed h ea rt
m ur deri ns t ead of

m ans l aught er . T hi s C our thas he l d that“ [ i ] ti s a f undament al pr i nci pl e of
ourcr i m i nal j us t i ce s ys t em t hata pr os ecut ori s a f f or ded pr os ecut or i al di s cr et i on overw hat char ge t o bri ng i n any cr i m i nal tr i al . ” W a tts v. Sta te , 7 1 7 S o . 2 d 3 1 4 , 3 2 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). T h e re fo re , w e fi n d th is a s s e rt io n to b e c o m p le te ly d e v o id o f m e ri t. ¶46. J or dan f

ur theras s ert s t hatt he i ndi ctm entw as fa t al l y f l aw ed bec aus e i tdi d not i ncl ude al l the s t atut ory l anguage i n t he depr aved mur ders t atut e. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 19( 1) ( b) ( R ev. 2006) . T he i ndi ctm entdi d noti ncl ude the f ol l ow i ng l anguage f

r om the s t atut e: “al though w i thoutany pr emedi t at ed des i gn t o e f f ectde ath of

a ny pa r t i cul ari ndi vi dual . ” A d e fe n d a n t m a y c h a lle n g e th e s u ff ic ie n c y o f a n in d ic tm e n t f o r th e fi rs t tim e o n a p p e a l. Spi cer v. S ta te , 921 So. 2d 292, 319 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng S ta te v . B e rr y h ill , 703 So. 2d 250, 253 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 )).

### 19

¶47. A n i ndi ctm enti s m eantt o “f urni s h the def

endant s not i ce and a r eas onabl e des cr i pt i on of the cha r ges aga i nstt hem so thatthey may pr epar e thei rdef ens e. ” Spi cer , 921 So. 2d at 319 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . Itf ol l ow s t hat“an i ndi ctm enti s onl y r equi r ed t o have a cl earand conci s e s t at ementof

the el ement s of

the cr i m e the def

endanti s char ged w i th. ” I d. T h is C our thas hel d t hat , “as a gener al rul e, an i ndi ctm entw hi ch tr acks the l anguage of a cr i m i nal
s t atut e i s suf

f i ci entt o i nf

or m the def

endantof the cha r ge aga i ns thi m . ” S tev e n s v . S ta te , 808 S o . 2 d 9 0 8 , 9 1 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). ¶48. A re vi ew of the i ndi ctm enti n t hi s cas e show s t hati tgener al l y t r acke d t he l anguage of the s t atut e and r ef

er ence d Sec t i on 97- 3- 19( 1) ( b) of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode s uch thatJ or dan
w as on n oti ce o f the cha r ge aga i ns thi m . T her ef or e, w e f i nd thi s ar gum entt o be w i thout
m e rit. 9. W he t he r t he Pro s e c ut or ’ s C om m e nt s D ur i ng O pe ni ng St at e m e nt and Cl os i ng A rgum ent C onst i t ut ed M i s conduct W arrant i ng R ever s al ¶49. J or dan as s ert s that comm ent s m ade by the pr os ecut i on dur i ng openi ng s t at ementand cl os i ng ar gum ent s r equi r e a r ever s al of hi s convi ct i on . A l t hough J or dan ment i ons s ever al ques t i onabl e s t at ement s m ade by the pr os ecut i on dur i ng openi ng s t at eme ntand cl os i ng ar gum ent , def

ens e couns el onl y obj ect ed once. T hi s obj ect i on w as m ade i n r egar d t o a comm entnotchal l enged by Jor dan on appeal . T her ef or e, thi s i s s ue i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed. R u b e n ste in v. S ta te , 9 4 1 S o . 2 d 7 3 5 , 7 7 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). 10. W het her t he T ri al C ourt C om m i t t ed R ever s i bl e E rror i n i t s Evi dent i ary R ul i ngs ¶50. J or dan r ai s es a m ult i tud e o f evi den t i ary err ors w i t h res pectt o the t es t i m ony of
w i tnes s es and the tr i al court ’ s admi s s i on of evi dence .

### 20

A . P ri or St at em ent s of W i t nes s es ¶51. J or dan as s ert s thatthe pr os ecut i on “u sed p ri or st at em ents o f w i tnes s es on di r ect e x a m in a tio n th ro u g h o u t ea c h w itn e ss ’ te stim o n y in o rd e r to b o lste r th e ir tes tim o n y .” H o w e v e r, ap p e llate c o u n se l fo r Jo rd a n fa ils to c ite to th e re c o rd to su p p o rt th is a rg u m e n t, fa ils to id e n tif

y s p e c if ic e x a m p le s fr o m th e re c o rd , a n d fa ils to c ite a n y a u th o ri ty . T her ef or e, “[ t ] hi s i s s ue i s notpr oper l y before the C our tpur s uantt o M . R . A . P[ . ] 28( a) ( 6) w hi ch s t at es th a t an a rg u m e n t in th e a p p e llate ’s b rie f ‘s h a ll c o n tain th e c o n ten tio n s o f a p p e llan t w ith
r es pectt o the i s s ue pr es ent ed, and the r eas ons f orthos e cont ent i ons , w i th ci t at i ons t o the author i t i es , s t atut es , and part s of the r ecor d re l i ed upon. ’ ” Co n ley v. S ta te , 790 So. 2d 773, 7 8 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ); see al so Ho o p s v . S ta te , 6 8 1 S o . 2 d 5 2 1 , 5 3 5 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ); P a te v . S ta te , 4 1 9 S o . 2 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 5 -26 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ). B . P h o to g r a p h s o f th e V ict im ¶52. T he pr os ecut i on i ni t i al l y s oughtt o i ntr oduce thr ee phot ogr aphs of the dece as ed: ( 1)
a phot ogr aph of

the vi ct i m ’ s f

ace f ori dent i f i cat i on purpos es , ( 2) a phot ogr aph depi ct i ng the
ex ac t si ze o f th e b u ll et, an d (3) a p h o tog rap h d ep ict ing the re lat ion sh ip o f th e b u ll et en try w o u n d to th e v ictim ’s c h in a n d fa c e . T h e tri a l co u rt ad m itt e d p h o to g ra p h s (1 ) a n d (3 ) in to evi dence , butexcl uded phot ogr aph ( 2) . Pr i ort o tr i al , J or dan s oughtt o have a l l phot ogr aphs d e p ictin g th e v ictim e x c lu d e d b e c a u se th e ir p ro b a tiv e v a lu e w a s o u tw e ig h e d b y th e ir p re ju d icia l ef

fe c t. O n a p p e a l, Jo rd a n a s s e rts th a t itw a s e rro r fo r th e trial ju d g e to a d m it p h o to g ra p h s (1 ) a n d (3 ) a t trial. ¶5 3 . T h is C o u rtha s he ld th at “ad m issi b il ity of ph o tog rap h s rests w ith in th e tri al co u rt ’s
s ound di s cr et i on and thei radmi s s i bi l i ty w i l l be uphel d abs enta show i ng of abus e of

### 21

di s cr et i on. ” S h a rp v. S ta te , 446 So. 2d 1008, 1009 ( M i s s . 1984) ( ci t i ng A sh ley v. S ta te , 423 S o . 2 d 1 3 1 1 , 1 3 1 6 (M iss . 1 9 8 2 )). T h is C o u rt h a s a lso sta ted tha t “p h o to g ra p h s o f th e v ictim
s hou l d no tordi nar i l y be admi t t ed i nt o evi dence w her e the ki l l i ng i s notcontr adi ct ed or deni ed and the c o rp u s d e licti and the i dent i ty of the dec eas ed have been e s t abl i s hed. ” I d. ( ci t i ng S h e a re r v . S ta te , 4 2 3 S o . 2 d 8 2 4 , 8 2 7 (M iss . 1 9 8 2 ); see al so W ill ia m s v. S ta te , 354 So. 2d 266 ( M i s s . 1978) ) . B utas l ong as a phot ogr aph has a n e vi dent i ary purpos e, i tm ay be
a d m itte d d e s p ite its p o te n tia l to a ff e c t th e e m o tio n s o f j u ro rs . S p a n n v. S ta te , 771 So. 2d 8 8 3 , 8 9 5 (M is s . 2 0 0 0 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). ¶54. T hi s C our t has s t at ed that phot ogr aphs have an evi dent i ary purpos e “w hen they: ( 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 t he l ocat i on of the body and
caus e of death; ( 3) s uppl ementorcl ar i f y w i tnes s t es t i m ony. ’ ” I d. ( qu ot i ng W

est brook v. S ta te , 6 5 8 S o . 2 d 8 4 7 , 8 4 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 5 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d )). H e re , the tw o p h o to g ra p h s in ques t i on w er e admi t t ed dur i ng t he t es t i m ony of D r . St even H ayne, the pathol ogy expert , and had both evi dent i ary and pr obat i ve val ue bec aus e they w er e us ed to i dent i f y the vi ct i m , as w el l as t o s uppor tD r . H ayne’ s t es t i m ony r egar di ng the ca us e of death. Forthe f

or egoi ng re a so n s, w e fin d th is iss u e to b e w ith o u t m e rit. C . T es t i m ony of

Shagh ana Si m pson and P hot ographs of t he Sub urban ¶55. J or dan al s o asser t s t hat i tw as er r orf orSi m ps on t o “di s cus s i nadmi s s i bl e hear s ay e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g a we a p o n a l l e g e d t o h a v e b e e n i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f th e De f e n d a n ta ts o me uns peci f i ed dat e i n the past . ” J or dan al s o ar gues thatthe pr os ecut i on us ed thes e pr i or uns w orn s t at ement s t o bol s t erSi m pson ’s t es t i m ony. B eca us e J or dan’ s tr i al couns el f ai l ed

### 22

to tim e ly o b

je c t to th is te s tim o n y , th e iss u e is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . Sm ith v. S ta te , 729 So. 2 d 1 1 9 1 , 1 2 0 5 -06 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). ¶56. J or dan al s o ar gues that i t w as err or f or the tr i al court t o admi t phot ogr aphs depi ct i ng a t an Suburban i nt o evi dence dur i ng Si m ps on’ s t es t i m ony. H e as s ert s thatther e w as “no authent i c a t i on ors el f

- authent i cat i on of

the phot ogr aphs , ”and that“ther e w as no qual i f i cat i on by the w i tnes s thats he had spe ci f i c know l edge f

r om t he phot ogr aph t hati tw as the s ame t an su b u rb a n [sic ] as th a t o w n e d a n d /o r d riv e n b y th e d e fe n d a n t.” A g a in , tri a l co u n se l fa iled to tim e ly o b je c t to th e a d m is s io n o f t h e p h o to g ra p h s a n d th is is s u e is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . See Sm ith , 729 So. 2d at1205- 06. D . T es t i m ony of

K enny W i l s on ¶57. J or dan’ s f

i r s t as s i gnm ent of err or r egar di ng O f f i cer W i l s on’ s t es t i m ony i s that i tw as err orthathe w as pe r m i t t ed t o t es t i f y t o s t at ement s made by Si m ps on thatcons t i tut ed hea r s ay. B e c a u se trial c o u n se l d id n o t o b jec t to th e te stim o n y in q u e stio n , th is a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . B a llen g e r v . S ta te , 6 6 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 2 , 1 2 5 1 (M is s . 1 9 9 5 ). ¶ 5 8 . N e x t, Jo rd a n a rg u e s th a t O ffic e r W ilso n sh o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n a llo w e d to tes tify to
w hatw as f

ound i n J or dan’ s vehi cl e on t he ni ghtof the cr i m e. A gai n, t hi s ass i gnm entof e r r or i s pr ocedur al l y ba r r ed beca us e J or dan’ s tr i al c ouns el di d notmake a con t empora neous o b je c tio n . I

d. ¶ 5 9 . F in a lly , Jo rd a n arg u e s th a t itw a s e rro r fo r th e trial c o u rt to a llo w O ffic e r W ilso n to t es t i f y r egar di ng t he bul l et s thatw er e r ecove r ed f r om J ordan’ s vehi cl e. H e as s ert s t hat O f f i cerW i l s on w as notqual i f i ed as an expe r ti n bal l i s t i cs , and shou l d ther ef or e nothave b e e n “ a llo w e d to te s tif

y th a t a .3 8 c a lib e r c a rt ri d g e c o u ld b e s h o t i n a .3 5 7 c a lib e r w e a p o n .”

### 23

T he r ecor d s how s thatO f f i cerW i l s on di d nott es t i f y t o the f actthata . 38 cal i berbul l etcan b e sh o t ou t of a .35 7 g u n . Jo rda n ’s tria l co u n sel o b jected to the li n e o f qu esti o n ing b efo re O f f i cerW i l s on m ade a ny s t at ementr egar di ng s hoot i ng a . 38 c al i berbul l etoutof a . 357 gun. T hi s obj ect i on w as s us t ai ned by the tr i al court , and J or dan has no bas i s f orcompl ai nton a p p e a l. W

a lls v. S ta te , 9 2 8 S o . 2 d 9 2 2 , 9 2 7 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). E . T es t i m ony of

John N ew t on ¶60. J or dan as s ert s thatthe t es t i m ony of J ohn N ew t on w as “r i f

e w i th i nadmi s s i bl e hear s ay stat em en ts an d d iscu ssio n s a b o u t evid en ce w h ich h e h ad n o d ir ec t kn o w ledg e.” Jo rda n ’s
a p p e llate c o u n se l fa ils to c ite a n y a u th o rity in su p p o rt o f th is a rg u m e n t. T h e re fo re , this
a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r i s n o t p ro p e rl y b e fo re th is C o u rt . See Co n ley v. S ta te , 790 So. 2d 773, 7 8 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ). F u rth e rm o re , tri a l co u n se l fa iled to tim e ly o b jec t to th e te s tim o n y in q u e stio n , a n d this issu e is pr o c e d u ra lly b a rre d . S m ith v . S ta te , 729 So. 2d 1191, 1205- 06 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). F . T estim o n y o f W il li a m M er ed it h ¶61. J or dan as s ert s thatthe t es t i m ony of W i l l i am M er edi th, a paw ns hop ow ner , conce r ni ng Jo rda n ’s pu rch ase of a gu n w as “in ad m issi b le, i rreleva n t an d he arsa y . ” A t tr ial , M e re d ith
w as ques t i oned aboutdocument s r el at ed t o J or dan’ s purc has e of a gun. J or dan’ s tr i al couns el obj ect ed t o M eredi t h’s t es t i m ony, ar gui ng thatM er edi th coul d notauthent i cat e the document s . T he obj ect i on w as overrul ed. ¶62. A s t o J or dan’ s a r gum entthatthe document s w er e hea r s ay, tr i al couns el di d not obj ect o n th o s e g ro u n d s , so th e c la im is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . Sm ith , 7 2 9 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 0 5 -0 6 . A s to J or dan’ s c hal l enge of

the authent i ci ty of

the document s , M er edi th of f er ed t es t i m ony thatw as

### 24

“ s u ff ic ie n t to s u p p o rt a fi n d in g th a t th e m a tte r i n q u e s ti o n is w h a t its p ro p o n e n t c la im s ,”
w h ich is req u ir ed b y M issi ssipp i R u le of E v iden ce 9 0 1 . M iss. R . E v id . 9 0 1 . T h e re co rd
r ef l ect s thatM er edi th w as fa m i l i arw i th t he docum ent , and as the f eder al f i r earm s hol der , he
w a s re sp o n sib le f

o r m a in tain in g th a t p a rticu lar d o c u m e n t, as w e ll as o th e rs l ik e it. A c c o rd in g ly , w e fin d th is iss u e to b e w ith o u t m e rit. G . T es t i m ony of

D avi d W hi t ehead ¶6 3 . Jo rd a n a ss e rts th at i t w as erro r f o r th e tr ial co u rtt o all o w th e testi m o n y o f D a v id W hi t ehea d, an exper ti n for ens i c sc i ence , re gar di ng gunshotre s i due and t he w ays i n w hi ch guns hotr es i due ca n be r emoved. J or dan as s ert s thatthe t es t i m ony w as i nadmi s s i bl e under M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of

Evi dence 702 i n thati tdi d nota i d the tr i erof f acti n under s t andi ng t he evi dence . M i s s . R . E vi d. 702. J or dan as s ert s , “[ t ] hi s ‘ no evi dence of r es i due’ w i tnes s w as sta g e d to im p ly tha t th e D e fe n d a n t w a s g u ilty b e c a u se h e d id n o t ha v e g u n sh o t res id u e o n h is per s on, cl othi ng orvehi cl e. ” J or dan’ s appel l at e att orney goes on t o ar gue that“‘ [ t ] he
e v id e n c e ’ in th is c a se is ‘n o e v id e n c e .’” W e fin d th is a ss e rtio n o f e rro r to b e p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d b e c a u s e th e te s tim o n y o f M r . W h ite h e a d w a s ta k e n a b s e n t o b je c tio n a t tr ia l. W

a lls
v. S ta te , 9 2 8 S o . 2 d 9 2 2 , 9 2 7 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). H . Tes t i m ony of

A . C . H ank i ns ¶64. J or dan’ s f

i r s t as s i gnm ent of err or r egar di ng A . C . H anki ns i s that he s houl d nothave been a l l ow ed t o t es t i f

y t o t he s t at ementgi ven by Jor dan on A pr i l 28, 2005. J or dan al l eges that“no properqual i f

i cat i on of

the s t at ementw as everm ade. ” J or dan as s ert s thati tw as im p rop er he arsa y t esti m o n y for H an k ins t o read fr o m th e interview tran scrip t o f Jo rda n ’s sta tem e n t. T h is a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit. A sta tem e n t m a d e b y a d e fe n d a n t is

### 25

a p arty-o p p o n en t adm issi o n , w h ich q u ali fi es a s n o n h ea rsay . M iss. R . E v id. 80 1 (d)(2 )(A ). M i s s i s s i pp i Rul e of

Evi dence 801( d) ( 2) ( A ) s t at es i n r el evantpart : “A s t at ementi s nothear s ay i f . . . [ t ] he s t at ementi s of f er ed ag ai ns ta party and i s hi s ow n s t at ement . ” M i s s . R . E vi d. 8 0 1 (d)(2 )(A ). ¶65. J or dan al s o as s ert s that i t w as err or f or H anki ns t o be al l ow ed t o t es t i f y r egar di ng t he g u n sh o t re sid u e tes ts th a t h e p e rfo rm e d . Jo rd a n ’s a p p e llate a tto rn e y a s s e rts th a t th is t es t i m ony w as hear s ay. N o cont empora neous obj ect i on w as m ade w hen t hi s t es t i m ony w as g iv e n , s o th is c la im is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . Sm ith v. S ta te , 72 9 S o. 2d 11 91 , 12 05 -06 (M i ss. 1 9 9 8 ). ¶ 6 6 . F in a lly , Jo rd a n a rg u e s th a t “it w a s e rro r fo r th e tri a l co u rt t o allo w H a n k in s to g iv e h is opi ni on as t o w hy M s . S i m ps on gave t he t ype of st at ementt hatshe di d. ” H e al s o as s ert s t hat “i tw as err orf

orthe tr i al courtto al l ow H anki ns t o t es t i f y as t o the truthf

ul nes s of t he D efendan tand of hi s st at em ent. ” T he tes t i m on y to w hich Jor dan ref ers w as el i ci t ed o n crossexami nat i on. I ti s a w el l
- s ett l ed rul e “thata def endant can no tcom pl ai n of the evi dence
w hi ch he hi m s el f

bri ngs out . ” S im

p so n v. S ta te , 366 So. 2d 1085, 1086 ( M i s s . 1979) ( ci t i ng S to n e v. S ta te , 2 1 0 M iss . 2 1 8 , 4 9 S o . 2 d 2 6 3 (1 9 5 0 )). T h e re fo re , this a ss e rtio n o f e rro r is lac k in g in m e rit. I. P h o tog ra p h ic L ine u p , T estim o n y of L a ca ru s O li v er , a n d A T F D o cu m en ts ¶6 7. J or dan a s s e r t s tha tthe p ho t og r a ph i c l i ne up w as hi ghl y pr ej udi ci al and r equi r es r ever s al . I n m aki ng hi s ar gum ent , J or dan as s ert s that“the D ef endantw as the onl y per s on w ear i ng ci vil i an cl othi ng, i ncl udi ng a w hi t e t - s hi r t , and notw ear i ng an or ange j um ps ui tor a b lac k a n d w h ite ju m p su it, a n d w a s th e o n ly o n e w h e re y o u c o u ld se e th a t h e h a d o n a p lain

### 26

w h ite t-s h irt. ” O f th e six in d iv id u a ls p ictu re d in th e p h o to g ra p h ic lin e u p , o n e is c lea rly
w ear i ng a bl ack and w hi t e j um ps ui ta nd one i s w ear i ng a n or ange j um ps ui t . T he otherf our i ndi vi dual s pi ctur ed appea rt o be w ear i ng ci vi l i an cl othi ng. T her ef or e, w e f i nd thi s ar gum ent
w ith o u t m e rit. ¶68. J or dan f

urt her asser t s t hat “i tw as rank hearsay tes t i m ony by O l i veras t o w ho i den t i fi ed M on trel l J ordan, nam el y, J oey N et herl and and C arl t on B row n, w hen bo th o f these
w i tnes s es w er e ava i l abl e t o t es t i f y. ” A st at ementconce rni ng an i dent i f i cat i on of

s om eone a ft e r p e rc e iv in g th e m is n o t h e a rs a y if th e d e c la r a n t is s u b

je c t to c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n . C u lp
v. S ta te , 9 3 3 S o . 2 d 2 6 4 , 2 7 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ); see al so M is s . R . E v id . 8 0 1 (d )(1 )(C ). In th is
cas e, J or dan’ s tr i al couns el obj ect ed thati tw as hear s ay f orO l i vert o t es t i f

y thathe s how ed the phot ogr aphi c l i neup t o both N ether l and and B r ow n, a nd thatboth i dent i f i ed J or dan as t he
s h o o t e r . T h e tr i a l c o u r tp r o p e r l y o v e rru l e d t h i s o b j e c t i o n . Bo th Ne th e r l a n d a n d Br o wn t e s t i f i e d a ttr i a l a ndw e r e s ub

j e c tt o c r os s - e xa mi na t i on r e ga r di ng thi s i dent i f i cat i on pr ocedur e. A c c o rd in g ly , w e fin d th is iss u e w ith o u t m e rit. ¶69. N ext , J or dan ar gues thati tw as i nadmi s s i bl e t es t i m ony f orO l i vert o gi ve “hi s opi ni on thatthe D ef

endantw as ‘ gui l ty’ ba s ed on hi s i nves t i gat i on. ” J or dan’ s a ppel l at e couns el ci t es to th re e d iffe re n t p a g e s in th e re c o rd to su p p o rt th is c o n ten tio n . H o w e v e r, th e re c o rd re v e a ls thatno such t es t i m ony w as evergi ven by O l i ver . T her ef or e, w e f i nd thi s i s s ue t o be w i thout
m e rit.

### The Burea u of Al cohol , Toba cc o, Fire ar ms and Expl osi ves is commonly re fe rr ed 2 

### to a s the ATF. 27 ¶70. L as t l y, J or dan ar gues thatthe tr i al courterr ed i n admi t t i ng the A T F G un Tr ace and 2 T ra c e R e tu rn d o c u m e n ts in to e v id e n c e . J o rd a n a ss e rts th a t th e d o c u m e n ts w e re n o t p ro p e rly authent i cat ed underM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 901. M i s s . R . E vi d. 901. D ef ens e couns el di d notobj ectt o t he authent i cat i on proc edur e w i th re gar d t o t he A T F G un T r ace , w hi ch w as admi tt e d i nt o e vi de nc e a bs e ntob j e c t i on; ther ef

or e, J or dan i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed f r om r ai s i ng th is is s u e o n a p p e a l. R u b en stein v. S tate , 9 4 1 S o . 2 d 73 5, 75 5 (M i ss. 20 06 ). D efense
couns el di d, how ever , make a c ont empora neous obj ect i on t o the admi s s i on of t he T r ace R eturn, obj ect i ng on authent i cat i on groun ds. ¶71. I t i s w el l
- es t abl i s hed that “thi s C our t r evi ew s admi s s i on of evi dence f or an abus e of di s cr et i on. ” S e w e ll v. S ta te , 72 1 S o . 2d 12 9 , 13 8 (M iss. 19 9 8 ) ( cit atio n s o m it ted). Fur therm or e, “[ e] vi dent i ary rul i ngs ar e af f i r m ed unl es s they af

f ecta s ubs t ant i al ri ghtof the compl ai ni ng party. ” S e w e ll , 721 So. 2d at138 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E v id e n c e 9 0 1 re q u ire s th a t a d o c u m e n t b e a u th e n tica ted b e fo re it i s a d m itt e d , w h ich is
s at i s f i ed w hen t her e i s evi dence suf f i ci entt o s uppor ta f

i ndi ng thatthe documenti s w hatt he pr oponentcl ai m s i ti s . M i s s . R . E vi d. 901. ¶72. I n the i nst ant case, O l i ver’ s t est i m on y reveal ed t hat he w as fam i l i arw i th the d o c u me n t , a n d th a ti twas th e d o c u me n th e r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e ATF i n r e s p o n s e t o h i s “ ATF gun tr ace ” r eques tf

orM ontr el l J or dan. T hi s t es t i m ony, pai r ed w i th the i nf or m at i on on the f ace of the document , w as evi dence suff i ci entt o s uppor ta f

i ndi ng thatthe documentw as

### 28

w hatthe pr os ecut i on cl ai m ed. A ccor di ngl y, w e f i nd thatthe tr i al j udge di d notabuse he r di s cr et i on by admi t t i ng the Tra ce Return i nt o evi dence . J. Tes t i m ony of

Ter r y W ade ¶ 7 3 . Jo rd a n as se rts th a t th e p ro se c u tio n “ u s e d a w ri tte n s ta te m e n t b y th is w itn e ss to i m peach him w i tho ut l aying t he p roper f ou nd at i on t o d o so, or w i tho ut get t i n g the w i tness to c o n tra d ict h is s tate m e n t.” D e fe n se c o u n se l d id n o t m a k e a c o n tem p o ra n e o u s o b jec tio n to the pr os ecut i on’ s use of W ade’ s pr i ors t at ement s ; ther ef or e, thi s i s s ue i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed. J o n e s v . S ta te , 6 0 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). K . Tes t i m ony of

Jo e y Net he r l and ¶74. J or dan’ s appel l at e att orne y a ga i n f ai l s t o poi ntthe C our tt o a r ever s i bl e err or r egar di ng the t es t i m ony of

J oey N ether l and, ci t es no cas e l aw t o supportany cl earass ert i on, and at t acks the c red ibil ity o f th is w itn ess w ith o u t ev er d ir ec ti n g the C o u rtto an ev iden ti ary erro r. W hat everi s s ue J or dan’ s appel l at e at t orney i s at t empt i ng t o r ai s e “i s notpr oper l y bef or e the C our tpur s uantt o M . R . A . P[ . ] 28( a) ( 6) w hi ch s t at es thatan ar gum enti n the appe l l at e’ s br i ef

‘ s hal l cont ai n t he cont ent i ons of appe l l antw i th re s pectt o t he i s s ue pr es ent ed, and the r eas ons f orthos e cont ent i ons , w i th ci t at i ons t o t he author i t i es , st atut es , and part s of the r ecor d r el i ed upon. ’ ” Co n ley v. S ta te , 7 9 0 S o . 2 d 7 7 3 , 7 8 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ); see al so Ho o p s v . S ta te , 681 So. 2 d 5 2 1 , 5 3 5 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ); P a te v . S ta te , 4 1 9 S o . 2 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 5 -26 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ). 11 . W he t he r t he Tri alC our t Err e d i n G i vi ng J ur y I ns t r uc t i ons 3, 4, and 5 ¶7 5. J or dan as s er t s t hatt he tr i a l c ou r te rr e d i n gr a nt i ng j ury i ns truc t i ons 3, 4, and 5. D e fe n se c o u n se l n e v e r ra ise d a n y o b jec tio n to th e ju ry in stru c tio n s. T h e re fo re , th is iss u e is

### 29

p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . R u b e n ste in v. S ta te , 941 So. 2 d 735, 779 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t at i ons o m itted). 12. W het her Jordan’ s T ri al C ounselW as C onst i t ut i onal l y I nef f ect i ve ¶76. J or dan as s ert s that he w as deni ed hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght t o as s i s t ance of cou nsel at tr i al . T o pr evai l o n an i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el cl ai m , a def

endantm us ts how t hat hi s t r i al counse l w as def i ci ent , and t hatbecaus e of hi s t r i al couns el ’ s def

i ci ency, he s uf

f er ed
a c tu a l p re

ju d ic e to h is d e fe n s e . Str i ckland v. W as hington , 466 U . S. 668, 102 S. C t . 2052, 80 L . E d. 2d 67 4 (198 4). T he d efendan tcarr i es the b urden o f p rovi ng bo th p rongs. Mc Q u a rte r v . S ta te , 5 7 4 S o . 2 d 6 8 5 , 6 8 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ). ¶77. I n as s ert i ng thi s i ssue, Jordan ’s ap pell at e counse l s t at es thatJ or dan w as deni ed ef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el beca us e tr i al c ouns el made ni net een err or s , i ncl udi ng f ai l i ng to p rese rve an y issue s for a p p ea l th at th is C o u rt fin d s u n p rese rve d o n ap p ea l. Jo rda n ’s appel l at e att orney dedi cat es m er el y fi ve page s of hi s s eventy- f

ourpage br i ef

t o addr es s i ng thi s i s s ue. H e ci t es no author i ty e xceptt o s etoutthe s t andar d as art i cul at ed i n Str i c kl and . Str i c kl and , 466 U . S. 668. Fi nal l y, he s um m ar i l y of f er s , “ [ t ] her ef

or e, the D ef

endanthas m et hi s burde n of pr oof

on both pr ongs of

the Str i c kl

and test . ” Jo rda n ’s ap p ell ate c o u n sel o ffers
n o c itatio n s to th e re c o rd , n o c itatio n s to a u th o rity to s u p p o rt h is c o n ten tio n s, a n d n o a n a ly sis to th is C o u rt. A c c o rd in g ly , Jo rd a n h a s fa iled to m e e t th e tw o -p ro n g te s t s e t f o rth in Str i c kl and . W e fin d th is iss u e to b e w ith o u t m e rit. 13 . W he t he r t he Pro s e c ut i on W i t hhe l d W i t ne s s St at e m e nt s U nf av or abl e t o t he P ros ecut i on

### 30

¶78. J or dan as s ert s that the pr os ecut i on f ai l ed t o pr ovi de J or dan w i th al l s t at ement s m ade by Si m ps on and R andy Scotti n vi ol at i on of U ni f or m C i r cui tand C ounty C our tR ul e 9. 04,
w hi ch r equi r es t hatw i tnes s st at ement s be di s cl os ed t o the def endant . M i s s . U ni f

. C i r . & C ty. R . 9 .0 4 . H e fu rth e r a ss e rts, “ [t] h is im p lies o r a lleg e s th a t th e re a re c o n tra d ictio n s o r c o n flicts in th e s ta te m e n ts th a t co u ld b e h e lp fu l to th e D e fe n d a n t.” In m a k in g su c h a n a rg u m e n t, J or dan’ s appel l at e couns el f ai l s t o i dent i f

y a ny pl ace i n the r ecor d i l l us tr at i ng a n att empt by d e fe n se c o u n se l to ra ise th is iss u e w ith th e trial c o u rt a n d d o e s n o t c ite a n y a u th o rity in
s u p p o rt o f th is a rg u m e n t. T h e re fo re , th is c la im is n o t p ro p e rl y b e fo re th is C o u rt b e c a u s e “ [i]f
an ap p ell an t fail s t o sup p o rthe r al lega ti o n of error w ith argu m en t o r auth o ri ty, this C o u rt need n ot cons i derthe i s s ue. ” P ier re v. S ta te , 607 So. 2d 43, 48 ( M i s s . 1992) ( ci t at i ons o m itted). 14. W het her t he C um ul at i ve E rror s of t he T ri al C ourt M andate R ever s al ¶79. J or dan’ s f

i nal as s ert i on i s thatthe cumul at i ve err or s of the tr i al courtm andat e r ever s al
o f th e j u d g me n tr e n d e r e d a g a i n s th i m. F i n d i n g a l l c l a i ms o f e rr o rt o b e wi th o u tme r i t , we fi n d n o c u m u la tiv e e rr o r w h ic h w o u ld re q u ir e re v e rs a l o f J o rd a n ’s c o n v ic tio n . CO NC L US I ON ¶8 0 . F ind ing all assig n m en ts o f e rro r a ss e rted b y Jo rda n to b e w ith o u t m erit , this C o u rt af f i r m s J or dan’ s convi ct i on. ¶8 1 . CO NV I CT I O N O F M UR DE R A ND SENTE NC E O F LI FE I M P RI S ONM EN T I N T HE CU S TODY OF THE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M EN T OF CORRE CT I ONS , AF F I RM ED . S M I T H, C. J . , DI AZ , P . J . , E AS L E Y, CA RL S ON , DI CK I NS ON , RA ND OL P H, AN D L AMAR , J J . , CO NC UR . W AL L E R, P . J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .