I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - KA - 0 1 3 3 6 - CO A

RO NALD D ERRI CK W HI TE A/ K/ A RO NALD W HI TE A/ K/ A RO NALD D . W HI TE AP P EL LA NT

v. STATE O F M I SS I SS I PPI APP ELLEE D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 22/ 2013 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N
. W IL L IA M E
. C H A P M A N III CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: RANKI N COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F S TATE PUB LI C D EFENDER BY : HUNT E R N OL AN AI KE NS 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 : S T E P HANI E BR E L AND W OOD D I STR I CT A TTO RN EY : M I CH A EL G U EST NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY TRI AL C OU RT D I SP OSI TI ON : CO NV I CTED OF CO UN T I , AG GR AV ATED A SSA U LT, A N D SEN TEN CE D , A S A HA BI TUA L OFFEND ER, TO TW ENTY YEA RS; CO UN T I I , SI M PLE ASS AU LT AGAI NS T A P E RS ON OVE R S I XT Y- F I VE Y EA RS O F A G E, A N D SEN TEN CE D , A S A H A BI TU A L O FFEN D ER , TO FI V E Y EA RS, W I T H T HE S E NT E NC E I N C OUNT I I T O R UN C O N S E C U T IV E L Y T O T H E S E N T E N C E IN CO UNT I , BO T H T O B E S E RV E D I N T HE CU STO D Y O F TH E M I SSI SSI PPI DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RR E CT I ONS W I T HOUT E L I GI BI L I T Y F OR P AR OL E OR EA RL Y RE LEA SE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D – 10/ 07/ 2014 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 I R V I N G , P . J. , M A X W E L L A N D JA M E S, JJ. I RVI NG , P. J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. A R anki n C ount y j ury convi ct ed R on al d D err i ck W hi t e of aggr avat ed as s aul t , and

### 2

s i m pl e as s aul tagai ns ta per s on overs i xty- f i ve yea r s of

age. T he ci r cui tcourts ent ence d W h ite, a s a h a b itu a l o ffe n d e r, to tw e n ty y e a rs f o r th e a g g ra v a ted -a ss a u lt co n v ictio n , an d to fiv e y e a rs f

o r th e sim p le- a ss a u lt co n v ictio n , w ith the fiv e -y e a r se n ten c e to r u n c o n se c u tiv e ly t o the tw enty- years ent ence , i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons
w i thoutel i gi bi l i ty forp arol e orear l y r el eas e. W hi t e f i l ed a mot i on f

ora j udgm ent notw i ths t andi ng t he ver di ctor , i n the al t ernat i ve, a ne w tr i al , w hi ch the ci r cui tcourtdeni ed. F ee li n g ag g ri ev ed , W h it e a p p ea ls an d arg u es th a t th e c ircu itco u rterred b y g iving jury i ns truct i on S- 1A , s ubm i t t ed by the St at e. ¶ 2
. F i n d i n g n o e r r o ri n th e c i r c u i tc o u r t ’ s j u d g me n t , we a f f i r m. FACTS ¶3. In t he earl y m orni ng h ou rs o f January 1 , 2 01 3, W hit e, h i s gir l fr i end , R eg i na Jam es,
an d M eli n d a T em p le arri v ed at W h it e ’s pa ren ts’ h o m e a ft er a n igh t ou t. W h it e’s m o ther, M ary, t es t i f

i ed thatupon hear i ng comm ot i on w hen the gr oup a rr i ved, s he and he rhus band came outof

the hous e and ont o the por ch. M ary then s aw W hi t e on the por ch, pul l i ng J ames by herhai rand punchi ng and ki cki ng herunt i l s he f el l uncons ci ous . M ary al s o s t at ed that sh e sa w W h ite p u n c h T e m p le in the fac e , a n d th a t n e ith e r Ja m e s n o r T e m p le p ro v o k e d o r h it W hi t e bef

or e W hi t e att acke d t hem. W hen M ary as ked W hi t e w hy he w as att acki ng J ames and Tem pl e, W hi t e pi cked M ary up of f of the por ch an d t hrew h eri nt o the f r ontyar d, causi ng M ary t o sust ai n inj uri es. ¶4. J ames t es t i f

i ed thats he and W hi t e w er e notar gui ng orf i ght i ng pr i ort o arr i vi ng at the hous e. H ow ever , s he s t at ed thatonc e they arr i ved atthe hous e, s he exi t ed the vehi cl e, w ent

### 3

inside the h o u se, an d lock ed the d o o r. W h it e b rok e thro u g h th e g lass d o o r an d p u n ch ed h er, knocki ng heruncons ci ous . She s t at ed thatal l s he r emem ber ed af t erbei ng punched i s w aki ng
u p in th e h o sp ital. O ffic e r W ill N e lso n , w ith th e R a n k in C o u n ty S h e riff’s D e p a rtm e n t, t es t i f i ed thatthe gl as s doort o t he house w as shatt er ed, and t hatt he doorf r ame w as damaged. W hen he e nt er ed the hous e, he not i ced thatever yo ne w as bl oodi ed and appear ed t o be i nj ur ed, exce ptf

orW hi t e. ¶5. A t tr i al , af

t er the part i es r es t ed thei r cas es , the court cons i der ed the j ury i ns truct i ons thatthe part i es had s ubm i t t ed. T he St at e had i ni t i al l y submi t t ed j ury i ns truct i on S1, w hi ch
o n ly instruc ted th e jury o n the e lem en ts of ag g rav ated assa u lt
. T h e S tat e later su b m itted ju ry i ns truct i on S- 1A , a r evi s ed ver s i on of i ns truct i on S1, w hi ch pr ovi ded: T h e C o u rt in stru c ts th e Ju ry tha t i f y o u u n a n im o u sly fin d fro m th e e v id e n c e in thi s cas e, beyond a r eas onabl e doubt , thatthe def endant , R onal d D err i ck W hi t e, on oraboutJ anuary 1, 2013, i n R anki n C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi , di d: 1. unl aw f

ul l y, f el oni ous l y, purpos el y and know i ngl y; 2. caus e bodi l y i nj ury t o R egi na J ames, a human bei ng; 3. w i th a means l i kel y t o pr oduce de ath ors er i ous bodi l y i nj ury; 4. by stri king t he b od y o f R egina Jam es w i th h and s and closed fi st s, caus i ng m ul t i pl e f

r actur es then and i n t hatevent , the def endant , R onal d D err i ck W hi t e, i s gui l ty of aggr avat ed as s aul tand i ti s yours w orn duty t o s o f i nd. T he C our ti nst ruct s the J ury thati f you unani m ous l y f

i nd thatthe St at e has f ai l ed t o pr ove al l el ement s of the cr i m e of aggr avat ed as s aul t , you m ay then p ro c e e d in y o u r d e lib e ra tio n s to c o n sid e r th e les se r c h a rg e o f sim p le a ss a u lt. H ow ever , i ti s yourduty t o a cce ptthe l aw gi ven t o you by the C our t , and i f the f act s and the l aw w arr anta convi ct i on of t he cr i m e of

aggr avat ed as s aul t , then

### 4

it i s y o u r d u ty to m a k e su c h a fin d in g , a n d n o t b e in flu e n c e d b y y o u r p o w e r to f i nd a l es s erof

f ens e. T hi s pr ovi s i on i s notdes i gn ed t o r el i eve you f r om per f or m ance of

an unpl eas antdut y. I ti s i ncl uded t o pr eventa f ai l ur e of j us t i ce i f the evi dence fa i l s t o prove t he or i gi nal char ge butdoes j us t i f y a ver di ctf

or the l es s ercr i m e. T her ef or e, i f you unani m ous l y f

i nd f r om the evi dence i n thi s cas e, beyond a r eas onabl e doubt , thatthe def endant , R onal d D err i ck W hi t e, on o rabout J anuary 1, 2013, i n R anki n C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi , di d: 1. purpos el y, know i ngl y orr eckl es s l y; 2. caus e bodi l y i nj ury t o R egi na J ames, a human bei ng; 3. by stri king t he b od y o f R egina Jam es w i th h and s and closed fi st s, causi ng m ult i ple f

ractures. then and i n thatev ent, the def endant , R onal d D err i ck W hi t e, i s gui l ty of the les se r c rim e o f sim p le a ss a u lt. T he C our tf

ur theri ns truct s t he J ury thati f the St at e f

ai l s t o pr ove any of

the a b o v e e lem e n ts o f a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt o r sim p le a ss a u lt, b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt , then i n thate ventyou m us tf i nd the def

endant , R onal d D err i ck W hi t e, notgui l ty. W hi t e obj ect ed t o i ns truct i on S
- 1A on the gr ound t hati tcont ai ned exce s s i ve and i rr el evant l anguage , as i ti ncl uded el ement s f orthe l es s erof

f ens e of s i m pl e as s aul t . W hi t e ar gued that the courts houl d r ef

us e i ns truct i on S- 1A , and gi ve the j ury i ns truct i on t hathe had s ubm i t t ed, i ns truct i on D
- 8, a r gui ng thati tw oul d be l es s c onf us i ng than i ns truct i on S- 1A
. Instruct i on D
- 8 pr ovi ded: I f you f i nd thatthe St at e has f

ai l ed t o pr ove any one orm or e of the es s ent i al el ement s of

the cr i m e cha r ged in C ountI of the I ndi ctm ent [ , aggr avat ed as s aul t ] , you mustf

i nd the def

endantnotgui l ty of

the cha r ge. Y ou w i l l then pr ocee d w i th yourde l i ber at i ons t o deci de w hetherthe St at e has pr oved beyond a re a so n a b le d o u b t all o f th e e lem e n ts o f th e les se r c rim e o f S im p le A ss a u lt. If y o u fin d fro m a ll o f th e e v id e n c e in th is c a se b e y o n d a rea so n a b le d o u b t th a t:

### 5 1. R onal d W hi t e, on oraboutJanu ary 1, 2013[ , ] i n R anki n C ounty, M iss iss ip p i; 2 . D id p u rp o se ly a n d /o r k n o w in g ly a n d u n law fu lly c a u se d b o d ily i njury to R egina Jam es; 3. B y st ri king her w i th h and s and closed fi st s; th e n y o u sh a ll find th e D e fe n d a n t g u ilty o f S im p le A ss a u lt. If th e [S ]t a te h a s fa iled to p ro v e a n y o n e o r m o re o f th e a b o v e listed e lem e n ts beyond a r eas onabl e doubt , then you s hal l f i nd R onal d W hi t e notgui l ty. ¶6. T he court gave i ns truct i on S- 1A , and r ef us ed i ns truct i on D
- 8 on the gr ounds thatt he l es s er - i ncl uded of

f ens e of s i m pl e as s aul ts houl d b e i n the s ame i ns truct i on as aggr avat ed
a ss a u lt, a n d th a t if the les se r- in c lu d e d o ffe n se o f sim p le a ss a u lt w a s g iv e n in a se p a ra te in s tru c tio n , it m a y c o n fu s e th e ju ry .

ANAL YS I S AND DI S CU S S I ON OF T HE I S S UE ¶7. A pp el l at e cou rt s revi ew the givi ng or ref usal of cert ai n j ury i nst ruct i on s for an ab use
o f d is c re tio n . W

ill ia m s v . S ta te , 111 So. 3d 6 20 , 6 23 (¶9) ( M i s s . 2013)
. “The i ns truct i ons
ar e t o b e r e a d t og e the ra s a whol e , wi th no o ne i ns truc t i on t o be r e a d a l on e o rt a ke n outof cont ext . ” Id
. ( quot i ng B a iley v . S ta te , 78 So. 3d 308, 315 ( ¶20) ( M i s s . 2012) )
. “W hen r ead t ogether , i f

the j ury i ns truct i ons fa i r l y st at e t he l aw of the cas e and cr eat e no i nj us t i ce, then
no r ever s i bl e err orw i l l be f ound. ” Id
. ¶8. W hi t e ar gues that the ci r cui t court err ed by gi vi ng j ury i ns truct i on S- 1A beca us e the in stru c tio n in v e rte d th e S tate ’s b u rd e n o f p ro o f a n d p e rm itt e d th e ju ry to fin d W h ite g u ilty
o f aggravat ed assaul ti f he had com m i t t ed on l y on e el em ent of the off ense . M o re

### 6

s p e c if ic a lly , W h ite a lle g e s th a t th e fo llo w in g la n g u a g e in th e in s tr u c ti o n is tr o u b lin g : “ [I ]f [ th e j u ry ] u n a n i mo u s l y f i n d [ s ] th a tth e S t a t e h a s f a i l e d t o p r o v e a l l th e e l e me n t s o f th e c r i me of aggr avat ed as s aul t , [ i t ] m ay t hen pr ocee d i n [ i t s ] del i ber at i ons t o cons i derthe l es s erchar ge
o f sim p le a ss a u lt. ” H e c la im s th a t th is p o rtio n o f th e in stru c tio n d e p riv e d h im o f h is
cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o have t he j ury f i nd hi m gui l ty of

eac h and eve ry el ementof aggr avat ed
a s s a u lt. ¶9. W hit e did not objectattr i al to t he cou rt ’s g i ving the instruct i on o n this g round and i s, th e re fo re , p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d fro m m a k in g th is a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l. S e e B o y d v . S ta te , 47 So. 3d 12 1, 12 3- 24 ( ¶1 0) ( M i s s . 20 10 )
. H oweve r , W hi t e a r gu e s tha tthe c ou r tc omm i t t ed pl ai n err orby gi vi ng i ns truct i on S- 1A
. “U nderthe pl ai n- err ordoctr i ne, [ appel l at e court s ] can
re c o g n ize o b v io u s e rro r w h ich w a s n o t p ro p e rly ra ise d b y th e d e fe n d a n t an d w h ich a ffe c ts
a d e fe n d a n t’ s fu n d a m e n ta l, s u b s ta n tiv e ri g h t.” C o n n e rs v . S ta te , 92 So. 3d 676, 682 ( ¶15) ( M i s s . 2012) (quot i ng Sm ith v . S ta te , 986 So. 2d 290, 294 ( ¶10) ( M i s s . 2008) ) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. “Forthe pl ai n-er rord oct r i ne t o appl y, ther e musthave be en an
e rr o r t h a t r e s u lte d in a m a n if e s t m is c a rr ia g e o f j u s tic e [.]” I d. ¶10. T her e i s no evi dence thatthe i ns truct i on i m peded W hi t e’ s f undament al or s ubs t ant i ve
r i ght s , nor thatt he i ns truct i on re s ul t ed i n a m ani f es tm i s carr i age of

j us t i ce. I ns truct i on S- 1A cl ear l y r el at ed al l of

the el ement s of a ggr avat ed as s aul tand s i m pl e as s aul t , and expl ai ned that if th e S tate h a d fa iled to p ro v e a ll o f th e e lem e n ts o f ag g ra v a ted a ss a u lt, th e n th e ju ry c o u ld
cons i derthe l es s erc har ge of s i m pl e as s aul t . The M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C our thas cons i der ed the sa m e l anguage thatW hi t e compl ai ns of , and has det erm i ned thatthi s s ame i ns truct i on,

### 7

a n “ a c q u it- fi rs t” in s tru c tio n , is n o t p ro h ib ite d b y th e la w . Fu lg h a m v . S ta te , 46 So. 3d 315, 3 3 0 (¶ 4 0 ) ( M is s . 2 0 1 0 ). ¶11. I n J

o n e s v . S ta te , 142 So. 3d 420, 424 ( ¶¶16- 17) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2013) , the appe l l ant chal l enged the l anguage i n an ac qui t - f i r s ti ns truct i on, w hi ch s t at ed, “The cour ti ns truct s the j ury thati f you unani m ous l y f i nd thatthe St at e has f

ai l ed t o pr ove al l the el ement s of t he
cr i m e of capi t al m ur der , you m ay then pr ocee d i n yourdel i ber at i ons t o consi der t he l es s er
c h a rg e o f m u rd e r.” T h is c o u rt h e ld th a t t h e in stru c tio n d id n o t sh ift the b u rd e n o f p ro o f to the def endant , contr ary t o t he def endant ’ s cl ai m . R ather , t he i ns truct i on re i t er at ed t hati f t he “St at e f ai l ed t o pr ove any el ementof c api t al murde r , then the j ury coul d cons i derthe l es s er
cr i m e of s i m pl e murde r . ” I

d. a t ( ¶ 1 7 ). ¶12. H er e, t he sa m e l anguage t hatw as exam i ned i n Jones i s us ed i n i ns truct i on S- 1A , and ther e i s no m i s s t at ementof the St at e’ s bur den i n p rovi ng the def endant ’ s gui l t . T he in stru c tio n d id n o t co n v e y th a t th e S tate o n ly h a d to p ro v e o n e e lem e n t o f a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt i n or derf orthe j ury t o f

i nd W hi t e gui l ty of

a ggr avat ed as s aul t . I ti s cl earf r om the l anguage thatt he St at e had t he bur den of provi ng every el ementof aggr avat ed as s aul ti n orde rf ort he j ury t o convi ctW hit e o f a ggr avat ed as s aul t . T her ef or e, the court ’ s deci s i on t o gi ve i ns truct i on S- 1A does not const i tut e pl ai n err or , and W hi t e i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed f r om
m a k in g th is a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l. ¶ 1 3
. T HE J UD GME N T OF T HE R A N KI N C OU N T Y C I R C U I T CO UR T OF C O N V I C TIO N O F C O U N T I, A G G R A V A TE D A SSA U LT , A N D SE N TE N C E, A S A HA BI TUAL O FF ENDER O F TW ENTY YEAR S ; CO UNT I I , S I M PLE ASS AU LT AGAI NS T A P ER S ON OVER S I XT Y- F I VE YE ARS OF AGE , AND S EN TE NCE , AS A HABI TU AL OFF EN DE R, OF F I VE YEARS , W I TH T HE S EN TE NCE I N COUNT

### 8

I I TO RU N C ON S ECUTI VELY TO TH E SE NTENCE I N C OU NT I , BOTH TO BE S E RV E D 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 CO RRECTI ON S W I THO UT ELI GI BI LI TY FOR PARO LE OR EAR LY RELEAS E, IS A F F IR M E D . A L L C O S T S O F T H IS A P P E A L A R E A S S E S S E D T O R A N K IN COUNT Y. LE E, C. J . , GRI F F I S , P . J . , BA RNE S , I S HEE , ROBE RT S , CARL TON, M AXW EL L, F AI R AND J AM ES , J J . , CONCUR.