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 5 - KA- 0 1 8 0 9 - S CT DANI EL OUTERBRI

DGE a / k / a DANI EL NI AN OUT ER BR I DGE v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 20/ 2005 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. BO BBY BU RT D ELAU GH TER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: GEO RG E T. HO LM ES ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : W . D A N I EL H I N CH CL I FF E L E ANOR J OHNS ON P E T E RS ON NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 12/ 07/ 2006 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E C O B B , P . J. , C A R L SO N A N D D I C K I N SO N , JJ. CO BB, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . T h is a p p e a l co m e s fr o m D a n iel O u terb rid g e ’s c o n v ictio n in th e H in d s C o u n ty C irc u it C our t , Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ct , f orarm ed r obbery pur s uantt o M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 97- 3- 79 . Out e rbr i dg e a s s e r t s tha tthe tr i a l c ou r te rr e d by f a i l i ng t o s up pr e s s e vi dence of an i m pr oper l y sugges t i ve i dent i f i cat i on, al l ow i ng hear s ay t es t i m ony t o i m pr oper l y bol s t ert he vi c t i m’ s s t a t e ment s , a nd a l l owi ng the p r os e c ut ort o make a n i na pp r op r i a t e “ gol den rul e”

### 2

comm entdur i ng the St at e’ s cl os i ng ar gum ent . C oncl udi ng thatthes e i s s ues ar e w i thout
m er i t , w e af

f i r m O ut erbr i dge’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence . FACTS ¶2. A r ound 7: 00 P. M . on February 2, 2003, A ar on Cl ark w as cl eani ng hi s w or k van i n t he parki ng l otof

hi s apart m entcompl ex. A s he l eane d acr os s the dr i ver ’ s s eathe f el ta gun barr el pus hed i nt o hi s back and hear d a mal e voi ce s ay “gi ve m e w hatyou got . ” C l ark tur ned to fa c e th e g u n m a n a n d to ld h im th a t h e d id n o t h a v e a n y th in g o n h im a n d th a t in fa c t h e d id nothave a ny pocket s i n the j oggi ng pant s he w as w ear i ng. C l ark t es t i f i ed thathe w as f

ace - t ofa c e w ith th e g u n m a n a n d th a t a la rg e b lac k a u to m a tic p isto l w a s b e in g h e ld a g a in st h is c h e st. ¶ 3 . A fte r se e in g tha t C lar k d id n o t ha v e an y th in g , th e g u n m a n ste p p e d b a c k w h ile s till h o lding the g u n o n h im an d said “the re m u st b e so m ethin g i n th e v an th at I can t ak e.” C lark i nf or m ed hi m thati tw as a company van and that ther e w as nothi ng of val ue i ns i de, but s ugges t ed thathe s ee f

orhi m s el f

. A f t eras cert ai ni ng ther e w as nothi ng of val ue i n the van, the gunman r an aw ay. ¶4 . C lark im m ed iat ely c all ed the J ac k so n P o li ce D ep artm en t and rep o rt ed the in cid e n t, des cr i bi ng the gunm an as a l i ght - s ki nned young bl ack mal e w i th a l i ghtm us t ache and br ai ds i n hi s hai r . C l ark t ol d the pol i ce thatthe gunman w as betw een 5' 9" a nd 6' t al l , w ei ghed appr oxi m at el y 145 pounds , and w as w ear i ng a gra y shi r tor s w eat erw i th a pul l overhood and d a rk p a n ts w ith sh in y b lac k sh o e s. O ffic e r C e sa r H a m ilt o n a rriv e d o n th e sc e n e w ith in h a lf a n h o u r o f th e in c id e n t an d C lar k g a v e h im a n id e n tic a l d e sc rip tio n , w h ich w a s ra d io e d to otherof f i cer s s o they w oul d be on the l ookoutf oran i ndi vi dual m at chi ng the des cr i pt i on.

### 3

¶5. H ami l t on r ece i ved a cal l a bouta notherarm ed r obbery i n pr ogr es s and l ef tt o r es pond t o thatcal l . A ppr oxi m at el y one hourl at erhe r eturned t o getC l ark an d t ake hi m t o a l ocal g as stati o n to ide n ti fy a su sp ec t w h o m atch ed th e d esc ri p ti o n C lark h ad give n . E n rou te C lark hear d r adi o tr ans m i s s i ons aboutthe det ai ned s us pect . W hen they arr i ved atthe gas s t at i on C l ark r emai ned i n the p at rol carw hi l e otherof f i cer s atthe s cene pr oduced the handc uf f ed s us pect , l at eri dent i f

i ed as O ut erbr i dge, f

r om anotherpatr ol car . A ta di s t ance of aboutf i f t een f eetC l ark w as abl e t o i dent i f y O ut erbr i dge pos i t i vel y as the man w ho had ear l i erhel d a gun o n h i m. ¶6. T he nextd ay C l ark w entt o the pol i ce s t at i on t o s peak w i th a J acks on Pol i ce D epart m entdet ect i ve. D ur i ng t he cour s e of C l ark’ s i nt ervi ew a phot o l i neup w as conduct ed, and C l ark pos i t i vel y i dent i f i ed O ut erbr i dge f

r om the s i x- per s on phot o l i neup. A N A L Y S IS I . I DE NT I F I CAT I ON EV I DE NCE ¶ 7 . O u terb rid g e a ss e rts tw o re a so n s w h y th e tr ia l c o u rt e rre d in a llo w in g th e S tate to pr es entC l ark’ s pre - tr i al i dent i f i cat i on. T he f

i r s ti s thatthe s how - up, w hi ch occ urr ed atthe gas s t at i on, w as unj us t i f i abl y s ugges t i ve and al s o l ed t o C l ark’ s i dent i f i cat i on of O ut erbr i dge i n the phot o l i neup the f ol l ow i ng da y. T he s econd i s thatthe i ndi vi dual s i n the phot o l i neup w er e “t oo i ndi s t i ngui s habl e f r om O ut erbr i dge”, as they al l l ooked al m os texac t l y al i ke, t hus i ncr eas i ng s ubs t ant i al l y the l i kel i hood of m i s t aken i dent i ty. ¶8. T hi s C our t ’ s s t andar d of r evi ew re gar di ng the admi s s i bi l i ty of evi dence i s abus e of d is c re tio n . J

o h n sto n v. S ta te , 567 So. 2d 237, 238 ( M i s s . 1990) . U nl es s a tr i al courtabus es

### 4

it’ s d is c re tio n in a d m ittin g th e s p e c if ic e v id e n c e th is C o u rt w ill n o t f in d e rr o r. Sheare rv. S ta te , 423 So. 2d 824, 826 ( M i s s . 1983) . T he s t andard o f r eview f ortr i al courtdeci s i ons r egar di ng pr etr i al i dent i f i cat i on i s “w hetheror nots ubs t ant i al cr edi bl e evi dence s uppor t s t he tr i al court ’ s f

i ndi ngs that , cons i der i ng the t ot al i ty of the c i r c ums t a nc e s , i n- c ou rti dent i f i cat i on t es t i m ony w as noti m perm i s s i bl y t ai nt ed. ” R o c h e v. S ta te , 91 3 S o . 2d 30 6 , 3 1 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). W e w i l l on l y d i s turb the or de rof the tr i a l c ou r tw he r e the r e i s a n a bs e nc e of s ub s t ant i al c re d ib le e v id e n c e s u p p o rt in g it. I d. ¶9 . T h e h o lding o f N eil v. B i gg ers , 409 U . S. 188, 199, 93 S. C t . 375, 34 L . E d. 2 d 401 (1972) , w hi ch has l ong gui ded thi s C our t ’ s deci s i ons on eyew i tnes s i dent i f i cat i ons, est abli shed t he centr al quest i on as being “w hetherund er the ‘t otal i ty of the cir cum st ances’ the i dent i f

i cat i on w as r el i abl e eve n t hr ough t he conf r ont at i on w as sugges t i ve. ” Ithel d, i nt er al i a, thatf

i ve “f act or s t o be cons i der ed i n evaluat i ng the l i kel i hood of m i s i dent i f

i cat i on i ncl ude the opportuni ty of the w i tnes s t o vi ew the cr i m i nal atthe t i m e of the cr i m e, t he
w itn e ss ’ d e g re e o f a tten tio n , the a c c u ra c y o f th e w itn e ss ’ p rio r d e sc rip tio n o f th e c rim in a l, th e l e v e l o f

c e r t a i n ty d e mo n s tr a t e d b y th e wi tn e s s a tth e c o n f r o n t a t i o n , a n d th e l e n g th o f t i me betw een the cr i m e and the conf r ont at i on. ” Id . a t199. I n Y o rk v. S ta te , 413 So. 2d 1372, 1381 ( M i s s . 1982) , thi s C our tpr ovi ded a de t ai l ed hi s t ory and ana l ys i s of the l aw r egar di ng bo th p retri al and i n-courti den t i fi cat ion, r ecog nizi ng the im po rt ance o f eyew i tness i dent i f i cat i ons w hi l e atthe s ame t i m e w arni ng of the tr oubl es w hi ch ca n ar i s e f r om m i s t aken i dent i f i cat i ons . I n eval uat i ng the l i kel i hood of m i s i dent i f

i cat i on of

Y or k f ol l ow i ng an

### 5

al l egedl y s ugges t i ve poli ce p roce dur e, thi s C our tappl i ed the f i ve f act or s es t abl i s hed by B i gg ers and af

f i r m ed Y or k’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence . ¶10. O ut erbr i dge as s ert s thatthe s how - up w as unne ces s ary, i m perm i s s i bl y s ugges t i ve and t ai nt ed C l ark’ s s ubs equentphot o i dent i f i cat i on. A ppl yi ng the B i ggers fac t or s i n i t s rul i ng on a pr etr i al m ot i on t o s uppr es s the i dent i f i cat i ons , the tr i al courtf ound otherw i s e: T he C our tf

i nds beyond a r eas onabl e doubtf r om the t ot al i ty of

the ci r cumst ance s thatM r . C l ark had an exc el l entopportuni ty t o vi ew the as s ai l ant dur i ng the t i m e of

t he com m i s s i on of the cr i m e. T he C our tfi nds thatther e w as a hi gh degr ee of

att ent i on gi ven by M r . Cl ark t o hi s a s s ai l antdur i ng thatper i od o f t im e. D u rati o n w as su ch that itp rov ided ex ce ll en t op p o rtu n ity for M r. C l ark t o obs erve, notonl y a cl othi ng des cr i pt i on, buta phys i cal des cr i pt i on and f aci al des cr i pt i on of

the as s ai l antas w el l . T he C ou r tf i nds beyond a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t th e d e sc rip tio n w a s h ig h ly a c c u ra te w h e n c o m p a re d w ith the ac tual phys i cal des cr i pt i on of the def endantf ol l ow i ng hi s appr ehens i on. T he tr i al courtw enton t o f i nd the dur at i on betw een the cr i m e an d t he ph oto l i neup w as rel at i vely short , and that af t er t aking ap proxim at el y ten m i nu t es r eview i ng the p ho t og raphs, C l ark “expr es s ed 100 per centdegr ee orl evel of cert ai nty” i n hi s i dent i f i cat i on of O ut erbr i dge. Fur therthe tr i al courtcal l ed the ph oto l i neup “one of the bes tI have e ver s een. ” D es pi t e “w hat evert ai ntm ay have been i nvol ved by the i m perm i s s i bl y s ugges t i ve h o w -u p ” , the trial c o u rt fo u n d “ fro m th e to tality o f th e c irc u m sta n c e s b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt ” thatC l ark’ s i dent i f i cat i on w as admi s s i bl e. ¶11. T hi s C our thas s t at ed thathi s t or i cal l y, s how - ups have been condemned as i m perm i s s i bl y s ugges t i ve and have been di s appr oved beca us e they i ncr eas e the l i keli hood o f m is id e n tif

ic a tio n . Y

ork , 413 So. 2d at1381. T he eyew i tnes s i s a ptt o r et ai n the i m age of th e in d iv id u a l d is p la y e d d u ri n g th e s h o w -u p ra th e r t h a n th e a c tu a l a s s a ila n t. Id . at1378.

### 6

T h is c o u ld b e tru e in th e p re se n t situ a tio n , w h e re C lar k o v e rh e a rd H a m ilt o n sp e a k in g w ith otherof f i cer s and s ay t o them “w el l , that ’ s ourguy. ” See id . ¶12. In rar e si tuat i ons , as i n Y ork, s h o w -u p s a re a p p ro p ri a te . I d . at1377. H ow ever , t he f act s i n the pr es entcas e w er e m arkedl y di f f er entf r om thos e i n Y

ork , w here the ey ew i tness w as gr i evous l y i nj ur ed by he ra s s ai l ant , i tw as notcl ears he w oul d s ur vi ve l ong enough f or pr ope ri de nt i f

i c a t i on p r oc e du r e s t o t a ke p l a c e , a nd a s a r e s ul to f the s e e xi ge nc i e s s uch a p ro c e d u re w a s a p p ro p ria te . Id . at1378. N o exi genci es exi s t ed i n the pr es ents i tuat i on. O u terbridg e w as a lr ea d y in cu stod y , an d C lark w as n eith er g ri ev o u sly i n jured no r w as th ere any thr eatthathe w oul d be unava i l abl e t o part i ci pat e i n a l at erli neu p. A l t hough i tw as inap p rop ri ate fo r th e p o li ce to co n d u ct th e sh o w -up in the m an n er the y did, an d the p roc ed u re thr eat ened the adm i s s i bi l i ty of C l ark’ s l at eri dent i f

i cat i on, ouri nqui ry does notend ther e. W e pr ocee d t o r evi ew t he r el i abi l i ty of the eye w i tnes s i dent i f i cat i on underthe B i

gg ers fa c to rs a n d w e ig h it a g a in s t th e c o rr u p tin g e ff e c t o f th e s u g g e s tiv e id e n tif ic a tio n . R oche, 913 So. 2d at311. ¶ 1 3 . D e sp ite th e su g g e stiv e n e ss o f th e sh o w -u p , C lar k ’s id e n tifica tio n is s til l ad m iss ib le beca us e t here i s f

actual evi dence w hi ch over comes the l i kel i hood of m i s i dent i f

i cat i on. A ppl yi ng the B i

gg ers fi v e-p ron g t est, i t is clea r th at C lark h ad an ex ce ll en t o p p o rtu n ity to v iew O u terbridg e d u ri n g th e rob b ery . O u terbridg e w as at arm s’ l en g th t o C lark w h ile s t andi ng f

ace - t o- f ace w i th hi m f

ora per i od of

thr ee t o f

i ve mi nut es . A dm i t t edl y i tw as eveni ng, butthe parki ng l otw as w el l l i ght ed w i th s tr eetl i ght s . I ti s al s o cl earthatC l ark had every oppor tuni ty t o pay cl os e and u nd i vi ded att ent i on t o O ut erbr i dge dur i ng the r obbery,

### 7

as evi dence d by the l evel of a ccur acy w i th w hi ch he w as a bl e t o des cr i be O ut erbr i dge t o the pol i ce. C l ark’ s de s cr i pt i on of O ut erbr i dge’ s c l othes a nd phys i cal c har act er i s t i cs pr ovi ded a degr ee of

acc ur acy thatperm i t t ed the pol i ce t o f i nd a sus pectw i th t he s ame char act er i s t i cs w ith in an h o u r. ¶14. W hen C l ark i dent i f i ed O ut erbr i dge atthe gas s t at i on, i n the phot o l i neup, and attr i al h e e x p r e s s e d 1 0 0 p e rc e n tc e r t a i n ty th a tOu t e rb r i d g e wa s th e g u n ma n . Ou t e rb r i d g e c l a i ms th a t C lar k to o k a p p ro x im a tely fifte e n m in u tes to p ick h im o u t o f a p h o to lin e u p a n d th a t is pr i m a f aci e evi dence of

hi s l ack of

cer t ai nty. W e agr ee w i th t he opi ni on of the tr i al courtt hat f i f t een mi nut es i s nota l ong per i od o f t i m e f ora w i tnes s t o i nves t i gat e a phot o l i neup. W i tnes s es s houl d be encour aged t o paus e and de epl y cons i derthei ri dent i f i cat i ons , vi ew i ng al l pos s i bl e phot os pr i ort o m aki ng a dec i s i on. A ddi t i onal l y, l es s than 24 hour s tr ans pi r ed betw een the robbery an d p ho t o li neu p. T here i s no d ou bt that the assai l ant’ s i m age w as f res h on C l ark’ s m i nd w hen he i dent i fi ed O uterbr i dge. T he B i gg ers fa c to rs w e ig h stro n g ly in f avorof admi s s i bi l i ty of

the pr e- tr i al i dent i f

i cat i on. L ooki ng atthe t ot al i ty of t he c irc u m sta n c e s, w e c o n c lu d e th e trial c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in a d m itt in g th is evi dence . ¶ 1 5 . O u terb rid g e a lso a ss e rts th a t th e six in d iv id u a ls in th e p h o to lin e u p w e re s o sim ilar in a p p e a ra n c e th e re w a s a n e x tre m e li k e lih o o d o f m isid e n tifica tio n , citin g n o a u th o rity fo r th is p o sitio n e x c e p t a U .S . D e p a rt m e n t o f Ju stic e tra in in g m a n u a l. A lth o u g h th is a rg u m e n t is nove l , i tl a c ks s ub s t a nc e . The p urpo s e o f a p ho t o l i ne up i s t o pr ov i de wi tne s s e s a s etof in d iv id u a ls w h o a re s im ilar in p h y sic a l c h a ra c ter istics s o th a t o n ly s o m e o n e w h o w a s a c tu a lly

### 8

fa m ilia r w ith th e a c c u s e d w o u ld b e a b le to id e n tif y th e m . See B ro o ks v . S ta te , 748 So. 2d 736, 742 ( M i s s . 1999) . T hi s Court ’ s de ci s i ons a r e r epl et e w i th e xampl es of i dent i f i cat i ons bei ng chal l enged bec aus e t he phot os w er e di s s i m i l arbutw e f ound none chal l engi ng i ton t he bas i s of t oo m uch s i m i l ar i ty. I f thi s C our tadopt ed s uch an appr oach there w ou l d be an unnece s s ary l i m i ton t he us e of i dent i f i cat i on evi dence , i n bot h di r ect i ons . I ti s l ogi cal that the p oli ce shou l d n ot use i m ages of i nd i vidual s w ho are di ssi m i l ar; ho w ever, the co nv ers e is illo g ica l. It is in th e b e st in ter e st o f th e a c c u se d th a t th e o th e r in d iv id u a ls in th e p h o to l i neup have s i m i l archar act er i s t i cs as i tens ur es thatan i dent i f i cat i on i s m ade by s om eone f ami l i arw i th the ac cus ed. C ons i der i ng the t ot al i ty of the ci r cumst ance s , w e conc l ude the tri al cou rtdid not abuse i t s di scr et i on w i th regard t o the i den t i fi cat i on i ssues. I I . I M P ROP ER BOL S TE RI NG ¶16. O ut erbr i dge as s ert s t hatt he t r i al cour ter r ed i n al l ow i ng O f f i cerH ami l t on t o t es t i f

y, overob j e c t i on , a s t o d e t a i l s of the c r i me a nd O ut e rbr i dg e ’ s ph ys i c a l de s c r i pt i on . D ur i ng direct ex am i nati on the S t at e asked H am i l t on t o d escr i be the ser i es of events fr om fi rs t r ece i vi ng the ca l l f

r om di s pat ch unt i l the s how - up. D ur i ng thatdi al ogue H ami l t on t es t i f i ed t o s t at ement s m ade t o by the di s pat ch of fi cer , anotherf

el l ow of f i cer , and C l ark bef

or e and d u ri n g the s h o w -up . O u terbridg e n o w asse rt s th at th e tr ial co u rt ’s error v iolates th is C o u rt ’s deci s i on i n R a tcliff v . S ta te , 308 So. 2d 225 ( M i s s . 1975) , and A n de rs o n v. S ta te , 17 1 M i ss. 41, 156 So. 645 ( 1934) . W e di s agr ee. ¶17. T hi s C our thas r ece nt l y addr es s ed ar gum ent s bas ed on both R a tclif f and A nders on . W e f ound Anders on irre lev a n t an d fa c tu a lly d ist in g u is h a b le in a n a n a lo g o u s s itu a tio n in

### 9

Ho bg o o d

v. S ta te , 926 So. 2d 847, 853 ( M i s s . 2006). T hatsi tuat i on i nvol ved a pol i ce of f i cer w ho m etw i th a chi l d s ex abus e vi ct i m and a s oci al w or ker , a nd l at ert es t i f i ed attr i al as t o the s ubs t ance of

the di s cuss i ons he had w i th thes e i ndi vi dual s . T hi s C our tf ound thatthe tr i al c o u rt d id n o t er r in a d m itt in g th e p o lice o ffic e r’s tes tim o n y b e c a u se it d id n o t g o to th e tru th of the mat t erasser t ed butr atherdes cr i bed w hy the of f i ceract ed as he di d i n arr es t i ng t he d e fe n d a n t. I

d. ¶18. O ute rbr i dge’ s r el i ance on R a tclif f is l ikew ise m isplace d . T h is C o u rtrec en tl y d e a lt
w i th a bol s t er i ng a r gum entbas ed on ourhol di ng i n R a tclif f w hi ch s ai d thats t at ement s of an i nf or m antt o i nves t i gat or s w er e i nadmi s s i bl e hea r s ay. See Mix o n v. S ta te , 921 So. 2d 275, 2 7 8 -7 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ). T h e C o u rt d istin g u ish e d the se tw o ca se s, h o w e v e r, sta tin g th e lin c h p in of the R a tclif

f de ci s i on w as that“ an acc used per s on i s e nt i t l ed t o be c onf r ont ed w i t h and have opportuni ty t o cr os s - exami ne w i tnes s es agai ns thim ” and R at cl i f f w as notgi ven that o p p o rt u n ity . I

d. a t 2 7 9 . In th e p re se n t ca se , h o w e v e r, C lar k w a s p re se n t at tria l an d d id t es t i f y s ubj ectt o cr os s - exami nat i on. O ut erbr i dge had e very oppor tuni ty t o cr os s - exami ne C lar k a s to th e su b stan ce o f his iden ti fi ca ti o n an d in fac t did so . O ffi ce r H am il ton ’s t es t i m ony di d notgo t o the truth of the m att era s s ert ed butr athere xpl ai ned w hy H am i l t on act ed t he w ay he di d. T he r eportf r om the di s pat cherl ed t o H ami l t on’ s canva s s i ng the ar ea l ooki ng f

oran i ndi vi dual w ho m at ched O ut erbr i dge’ s des cr i pt i on. St at ement s t aken by H ami l t on fr om C l ark expl ai ned w hy H ami l t on al ert ed otherof f i cer s t o l ook f

oran i ndi vi dual
m at chi ng O ut erbri dg e’s des cr i pt i on. T hos e s t at ement s w er e noti nt ended t o pr ove that O ut erbr i dge comm i t t ed the cr i m e. T he t r i al j udge even i ns truct ed t he j ury s ua s pont e of t he

### 10

l i m i t ed purpos e f

or usi ng such st at em ents , thereby dis pell i ng any i nappr opr i at e ori nadvert ent us e of thatt es t i m ony. T her e w as no err ori n admi t t i ng H ami l t on’ s t es t i m ony. I I I . GOLDE N RUL E A RGUM EN T ¶19. O ut erbr i dge f

i nal l y as s ert s t hatduri ng cl os i ng ar gum entthe St at e i m pr oper l y as ked the j ury t o putthemsel ves i n the vi ct i m ’ s pl ace , thus vi ol at i ng the gol den rul e ar gum ent w hi ch thi s C our thas l ong pr ohi bi t ed. See Ch iso lm v. S ta te , 52 9 S o. 2d 63 5, 64 0 (M i ss. 1988) . D ur i ng cl os i ng ar gum entthe pr os ecut ors ai d the f ol l ow i ng: N ow [ O ut erbr i dge] s ays t hat[ the vi ct i m ’ s ] notr el i abl e. B utI w antyou to c o n sid e r. A a ro n C lar k d id n ’t sa y b ig g u y , b ig g u n . H e s a id , fiv e -n in e to six f oot , 145 pounds , l i ght - s ki nned, l i ghtm us t ache – l i ghtm us t ache , gr ay hooded s hi r t , bl ack pa nt s , s hi ny bl ack s hoes . I don’ tknow w hatki nd of gun i tw as but i tw as n’ ta r evol ver . H e di dn’ ts ay, hey, bi g guy, big gu n. H e ca m e i n and sta rte d tak in g stu ff fro m h im . H e d id n ’t try to p u m p it u p . H e d id n ’t try to m ake hi s s t ory bett erthan i tw as . I f he w oul d have done t hatw e w oul d get fr o m h im , o h , h e to o k a lo t o f m o n e y . H e d id n ’t te ll y o u th a t. H e to ld y o u , I di dn’ thave a nythi ng on m e. A nd how di d he ge t a go od l oo k a t w ho w a s r ob bi ng hi m? W e l l , the guy i s goi ng thr ough hi s c ar . Y ou neverf or getthe man t hatput s a gun t o your ches tand hol ds yourl i f e i n hi s hands . Forthose t hr ee mi nut es he w as atthe m er cy of

D ani el O ut erbr i dge. T hi s nota f ace you f

or get , l adi es and g e n tlem e n . I h o p e th a t n o n e o f y o u e v e r h a v e to b e in th is s itu a tio n . T h a t is n o t – T h e o b je c tio n th a t f

o llo w e d w a s o v e rr u le d b y th e tr ia l c o u rt . ¶20. O n appea l thi s C our tr evi ew s the pr opr i ety of cl os i ng ar gum ent s w i th di s cr et i on t o t he tr ia l c o u rt . S tev e n s v . S ta te , 806 So. 2d 1031, 1057 (M i s s . 2001) . T he tr i al courti s i n t he bes tpos i t i on t o de t erm i ne i f a n a l l eged i m pr operc om m entha d a pr ej udi ci al e f f ect ; and th e re fo re , a b s e n t a n a b u s e o f t h a t d is c re tio n , th e tr ia l c o u r t’ s r u lin g w ill s ta n d . Id . ( ci t i ng R o u n dtre e v. S ta te , 5 6 8 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 7 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 )).

### 11

¶21. W e have succ i nct l y expl ai ned t he j us t i f i cat i on forpr ohi bi t i ng a gol den rul e ar gum ent as f oll ow s: It is th e e ss e n c e o f o u r s y ste m o f c o u rts a n d law s th a t ev e ry p a rty is e n tit led to a f ai rand i m part i al j ury. Iti s a funda m ent al t enetof ours ys t em t hata man m ay notj udge hi s ow n cas e, for experi ence t eac hes thatm en ar e us ual l y not im p a rtial a n d fa ir w h e n se lf in ter e st is in v o lv e d . T h e re fo re , it is im p ro p e r to perm i tan att orney t o t el l the j ury t o putt hemsel ves i n the s hoes of one of the p a rties o r to a p p ly th e g o ld e n ru le. A tto rn e y s s h o u ld n o t tell a ju ry , in e ffe c t, th a t th e law a u th o riz e s it to d e p a rt fro m n e u tra lity a n d to m a k e its d e te rm in a tio n fr o m th e p o in t o f v ie w o f b ia s o r p e rs o n a l in te re s t. See Ch iso lm , 5 2 9 S o . 2 d a t 6 3 9 . T h e re w e c o n c lu d e d th a t “th e a rg u m e n t w a s s u ffic ien tly i nsi gn i fi cant i n the ove ral l con t ext of the case b efor e us” t hat w e foun d the err or harm l ess. I d. at640. ¶ 2 2 . T h is C o u rt h a s a lso sta ted th a t “a tto rn e y s a re a llo w e d w id e latitu d e in th e ir a rg u m e n ts

‘ l i mi t i n g th e m n o to n l y t o f a c t s , b u ta l s o t o d e d u c t i o n s a n d c o n c l u s i o n s wh i c h ma y b e d r a wn ther ef r om , and t o t he appl i cat i on of the l aw t o thos e f

act s . ’ ” Ste v e ns , 806 So. 2d at1057 ( quot i ng Ho lly v . S ta te , 7 1 6 S o . 2 d 9 7 9 , 9 8 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 )). ¶23 . E ven w hen a prosecutorhas m ade an i m perm i ssi ble com m ent, this C ou rtr equ i res a s h o w in g o f

p r e ju d ic e to w a rr a n t r e v e rs a l. O rm o n d v. S ta te , 59 9 S o. 2d 95 1, 96 1 (M i ss. 1 9 9 2 ). W h e re a p ro se c u to r h a s m a d e a n im p ro p e r a rg u m e n t, th e q u e stio n o n a p p e a l is
w hetherthe natur al and pr obabl e ef f ectof the i m pr operar gum entcr eat es an unj us tpr ej udi ce a g a in s t th e a c c u s e d re s u ltin g in a d e c is io n in fl u e n c e d b y th e p re ju d ic e s o c re a te d . W

el l s v. S ta te , 698 So. 2d 497, 507 ( M i s s . 1997) ( ci t i ng D a v is v . S ta te , 530 So. 2d 694, 70 1 (M i ss. 1 9 8 8 )).

### 12

¶24. T he pr os ecut or ’ s comm ent , w hen t aken i n cont ext , di d notas k the j ur or s t o put themsel ves i n the vi ct i m ’ s pl ace t o det erm i ne O ut erbr i dge’ s gui l t . R atherthe comm entur ged t hem t o b el i eve the vi ct i m ’ s i dent i f i cat i on. T he C our tof

A ppeal s r ece nt l y de al tw i th a s i m i l arf actual s i tuat i on i n B ro w n v. S ta te , 839 So. 2d 597 (M i s s . C t . A pp. 2003), w her e that courtdr ew a di s t i nct i on betw een pr os ecut or i al comm ent s thatur ge the j ury t o putthemsel ves in th e v ictim ’s p la c e fo r th e p u rp o se o f d e ter m in in g g u ilt , an d th e sa m e c o m m e n t u se d to w ei gh the credi bil i ty of t he vict i m ’s ident i fi cat i on . T he C ou rtof A pp eal s f ou nd the latt er use a d m is s ib le . Id . a t601. T he l att erappr oach i s i n keepi ng w i th thi s C our t ’ s goal i n Ch iso lm beca us e i tpr es erves the j ury’ s neutr al i ty on t he ul t i m at e i s s ue w hi l e al l ow i ng i tt o w ei gh t he cre d ibil ity o f th e w itn ess. T o d ay w e a d o p t th at st an d ard . W e find n o m eritto O u terbridg e’s thi r d i s s ue. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 2 5 . F o r t h e re a s o n s s e t f o rt h a b o v e , O u te rb ri d g e ’s a rg u m e n ts a re w ith o u t m e ri t. W e a ffirm th e c irc u it co u rt’s ju d g m e n t. ¶26. C O N V I C T I O N O F A R M E D R O B B E R Y A N D SE N T E N C E O F T H I R T Y ( 30) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF C O R R E C T I O N S, W I T H F I F T E E N ( 15) Y E A R S T O SE R V E A N D F I F T E E N ( 15) YE ARS S US P EN DE D AND F I VE ( 5 ) YE ARS OF S UP ER VI S ED P ROBA TI ON, AF F I RM ED . S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P. J . , AND EAS LE Y, CARLS ON, DI CKI NS ON AND RAN DO LPH, J J . , C O NC UR . DI AZ AND GR AVES, J J . , CO NCU R I N RESULT ONLY .

### 13