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 9 - KA- 0 1 0 5 2 - S CT CURTI SLER NARD S

EA v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 20/ 2009 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. AN DR EW C. BA KER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: YALOBUSHA COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F I ND I GEN T APPEALS BY : G EO RG E T. H O LM ES ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: OFFI CE O F THE ATTO RN EY G ENER AL BY : DE I RD RE M c CR OR Y DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: J OHN W . CH AM P I 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 : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 12/ 09/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E G R A V E S, P . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ. DI CK I NSON, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. A Y al obus ha C ounty j ury f ound C ur t i s S ea notgui l ty on thr ee c ount s of s t atut ory r ape and one c ountof

s exual batt ery, butgui l ty on f i ve count s of

sexua l bat t ery. W i thoutf i l i ng a p re trial m o tio n o r o b tain in g a ru lin g o n th e iss u e , S e a ’s c o u n se l in tro d u c e d e v id e n c e o f h is o w n clie n t’s tw o p rio r cr im in a l co n v ictio n s – b o th o f w h ich h a d o c c u rre d a p p ro x im a tely tw enty- f i ve yea r s pri ort o tr i al . E vi dence of a party’ s pri orcr i m i nal conduct , t he conf i nement forw hich end ed m ore than t en y ears earl i er, i s not adm i ssi ble t o i m peach cr edibi l i ty, un l ess the tri al co u rtm ak es c ertain find ing s (w h ich w ere n o t eve n req u es ted in th is case ). A ddi t i onal l y, Sea’ s couns el s ats i l enta s the St at e i ntr oduced i nt o evi dence f ourvi deot apesSea’s counsel did object l ater when th e State re quested to pl ay the videot apes for the jury. 1 By then, however, they al ready had been admitted i nto evidence, without objecti on. The c hi ldre n were ages four, five, seven, and ni ne, respect ively. We use initial s for the 2 ch ild ren ’s n am es to p rot ect

the ir i de nti tie s. 

### 2 of damagi ng f

or ens i c i nt ervi ew s of

the f ourvi ct i m s . Sea now c l ai m s hi s tr i al couns el w as

1 i nef f ect i ve. W e agr ee. BA CKGROUND F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. D ur i ng 2006 and 2007, L as haw n J oynera nd he rf ourda ught er s , D . D . , B . J . , T . J . , and A . W , l i ved w i th D . D . ’s father, D avid D el aney , und er l ess than w ho l esom e ci rcum st ances.

2 D el aney a dm i t t ed att r i al t hathe produc ed pornogr aphi c movi es f ora l i vi ng, s om e of

w hi ch w er e vi ew ed by atl eas ttw o of the chi l dr en. W hen Lasha w n w as atw or k ors chool , s he w oul d of t en l eave the gi r l s w i th heraunt , O l l i e M ay J oyner , w ho l i ved w i th C ur t i s Sea. ¶3. O ne day, upon f

i ndi ng the ki ds “ki nd of on t op of

eac h other , ” Lasha w n as ked w hat w as goi ng on. W hen B . J . r epl i ed, “[ w ] e ar e doi ng nas ty s tuf f , ” w hi ch s he sai d S ea had show n them h ow to do , L ashaw n con t act ed the authori t i es. T he g i rl s w ere t aken t o B apti st M emori al H os pi t al i n O xf or d w her e a phys i ci an exa m i ned the gi r l s , butf ound “no t ear i ng o r an y sign s o f ab u se.” T h e g ir ls w ere th en t ak en t o O x ford F am il y C ri sis Se rvice s, w h ere for ensi c i nterview s of each chil d w ere vi deo t aped . D uri ng the int ervi ew s – com pri sed al m ost ent i r el y of

l eadi ng and s ugges t i ve ques t i ons – the chi l dr en made num er ous i ncr i m i nat i ng s t at ement s aboutSea. ¶4. T he Y al ob usha C ou nty grand jury h and ed d ow n a n i ne-cou nt i nd i ct m ent chargi ng S ea w ith sta tu to ry ra p e a n d se x u a l b a ttery . A t tria l, b e fo re th e p ro se c u to r c a lled th e c h ild re n to t es t i f y, the tr i al j udge i ndi vi dual l y ques t i oned ea ch chi l d i n chamber s t o det erm i ne w hetherQ: An d did t hegirls, when you talke d tothe m there in 3 theho spita l, indicate t o y ou that th eyha d b een molested? D E F EN S E : Y o ur H o n o r, Iam g o ingt o o b

je c t toth at’ s [sic ] hearsay. THE COURT: What was your quest ion again? STATE: I said did they indicat e to you that the y ha d been

molested? THE COURT: To that extent , I’ll pe rmit it to come in. 

### 3 they under s t ood the t aki ng of an oath and the obl i gat i on to be truthf ul . T hen the chi l dr en w er e ca l l ed t o t es t i f

y, pr ovi di ng a “ye s , s i r ” or“no, s i r ” ans w ert o vi r tual l y every ques t i on. T hey admi t t ed know i ng thatthei rm other ’ s boyfr i end, D arryl , m ade movi es of naked pe opl e. A . W . t es t i f

i ed thats he had s een the movi es , and thatthey w ere abo ut peop l e havi ng s ex. A l s o, the gi r l s acknow l edged ge t t i ng i nt o tr oubl e f ort aki ng thei rcl othes of f w hi l e pl ayi ng w i th a f r i end. ¶5. Pol i ce O f

f i cerA . J . H ernandez , havi ng i nt ervi ew ed the gi r l s atthe hos pi t al , t es t i f i ed ov er a defense object i on that the g i rl s had indi cat ed they h ad b een m oles t ed. H ernand ez al so 3 t e s t i f i e d tha the ha d b e e n p r e s e ntw he n Fa mi l y Cr i s i s Se r vi c e s i n Oxf or d h a d c on du ct ed vi deot aped i nt ervi ew s of the gi r l s ; he i dent i f

i ed the f ourvi deot apes , the pr os ecut orof f er ed them i nt o evi dence , and the courtadmi t t ed them w i thoutobj ect i on. ¶6. A f

t ert he prose cut oras ked s ever al m or e ques t i ons , he r eques t ed perm i s s i on t o pl ay the vi deot apes f

orthe j ury. Sea’ s c ouns el s t at ed on the r ecor d, “ Y ourH onor , f orthe r ecor d, I r eal i ze t his has bee n d i scussed i n ch am bers t o so m e ex tent , forthe record, the d efenseIf counsel’s stat ement – “been discussed in cham bers to som e extent” – means a hear ing 4 on the admissibility of the videotapes t ook place, the r ecord incl udes no transc ript of it, so itis of no va lueon

appe al. 

### 4 obj ect s t o the admi s s i bi l i ty t o the t apes as i nadmi s s i bl e hear s ay. ” T he cour toverrul ed the 4 obj ect i on, and the t apes w er e pl ayed f orthe j ury. ¶7. A f

t erthe St at e r es t ed, the def ens e beg an i t s cas e- i n- chi ef by cal l i ng Sea and a s ki ng hi m ques t i ons abouthi s pr i orcr i m i nal conduct . S ea admi t t ed t hat , i n 1984, he had pl eade d gu i l ty to m oles t i ng a chil d u nd er thirt een y ears o f ag e. W hen con fr on t ed o n crossexami nat i on w i th document s i ndi cat i ng he had pl eade d gui l ty i n 1988 t o an i ndi ctm entf or m o lest ing an o ther c h il d u n d er the ag e o f thirt ee n , h e at fir st de n ied it , b u t th en test if ied, “If I d id , I fo rg o t ab o u t it . I’m n o t d e n y in g n o th in g . I ju st s a id I fo rg o t a b o u t it .” T o th is e xc ha ng e c on c e r ni ng a s e c on d tw e nty- f i ve - ye a r - ol d c on vi c t i on , Se a ’ s c ou ns e l o f f e r e d no obj ect i on. ¶8. T he j ury acqui t t ed Sea on thr ee s t atut ory- r ape c har ges and one c ounty of s exual b a ttery , b u t fo u n d h im g u ilty o f f iv e c o u n ts o f s e x u a l b a ttery . T h e trial c o u rt se n ten c e d h im t o s erve tw enty- f

i ve year s f

oreac h count , t o run concurr ent l y. Sea obt ai ned new couns el and n o w a p p e a ls, ra isin g th e fo llo w in g th re e iss u e s: (1 ) W h e th e r th e ten d e r-y e a rs e x c e p tio n to the hea r s ay rul e w as pr oper l y appl i ed; (2) w hetherthe ver di ctw as contr ary t o t he overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence ; a nd ( 3) w hetherSea ’ s tr i al couns el w as i nef f ect i ve. A N A L Y S IS I . T he vi deot apes ¶ 9 . S e a c laim s th e trial c o u rt c o m m itte d re v e rsib le e rro r b y a llo w in g th e p ro se c u to r to pl ay the vi deot apes f

ort he j ury. B utbecaus e hi s counse l fa i l ed t o m ake a cont empora neousSm ith v. St ate , 7 97 So . 2 d 8 54 , 8 56 (Mi ss. 20 01 ) (“ It i s ax iomati c th at a li tig ant is req uired 5 to make a timely objecti on. . . . [ I] f n o c ontem po ran eo us ob

jec tio n is m ad e, theerror, if any, is waive d. ”). B u sh v. S ta te , 8 9 5 S o . 2 d 8 3 6 , 8 4 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). 6 Id. (f oo tno te and

int ern al c itatio ns an d q

uo tation s o mitt ed). 7 Jo hn so n v

. S tat e , 29 So. 3d 738, 745 (Mi ss. 2009) (referri ng to Strickland v. Was hington , 8 46 6 U .S . 6 68 , 1 04 S. Ct. 205 2, 80 L . E d. 2d 67 4 (1 98 4); citing Pa

yto n v . S tat e , 708 So. 2d 559, 560 (Mi ss. 19 98 )). 

### 5 o b jec tio n w h e n th e tap e s w e re in tro d u c e d , h e w a iv e d a n y o b jec tio n to th e ir c o n ten t, a n d th is 5 iss u e — a lth o u g h in stru c tiv e o n th e iss u e o f h is c o u n se l’s e ffe c tiv e n e ss — h a s n o m e rit. I I . O verwh el m i ng w ei ght of t he evi dence ¶10. Sea nextar gues thathi s convi ct i on s w ere agains tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the e v id e n c e , an d th a t th e trial ju d g e sh o u ld h a v e g ra n ted a n e w trial. B u t w e h a v e sta ted c lea rly thatw e “w i l l onl y di s turb a ver di ctw hen i ti s so contr ary t o t he overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evidence that t o all ow i tt o st and w ou l d sancti on an u nco nsci on able i njust i ce. ” W e al so 6 have s ai d that th e p o w e r to g ra n t a n e w tri a l sh o u ld b e inv o k e d o n ly in e x c e p tio n a l ca se s in w hi ch the evi dence pr eponder at es heavi l y agai ns tthe ver di ct . H ow ever , the e v id e n c e sh o u ld b e w e ig h e d in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e v e rd ict. 7 ¶11. I n t hi s cas e, t he convi ct i ons ar e am pl y support ed by t he t es t i m on y of all fourof the c h ild re n a n d th e in c rim in a tin g c o n ten t o f th e v id e o tap e s. T h u s, th is iss u e h a s n o m e rit. I I I . I nef

f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

counse l ¶12. Sea nextcl ai m s hi s couns el w as i nef f ect i ve, a cl ai m w e mustanal yze unde rt he gui del i nes i n Str i ckland v. W as hington . A n ap p ell an t m u st de m o n str ate tha t th e law y er’s

8Id. ( citing Leath erwoo d v . S tat e , 473 So. 2d 964, 968 (Miss. 1985)) . 9 Id. ( citing Leatherwood, 473 So. 2d at 968-69). 10 

### 6 “p erfo rm an ce w as d eficien t, an d that . . . the d eficien cy p rejud iced ” the ap p ell an t. F u rth er, 9 w e c a r e f ul l y r e vi e w the c on t e xto f c ou ns e l ’ s a c t i on s a nd , wher e r e a s on a bl e u nd e rt he c ir c u m s ta n c e s , w e p re s u m e th a t th e “ d e c is io n s w e re s o u n d tr ia l s tr a te g y .” 10 P r i orC onvi ct i ons ¶1 3 . In disco v ery , S ea ’s co u n sel ask ed th e S tat e to p ro d u c e S e a ’s c rim in a l re c o rd “ if pr opos ed t o be used t o i m peac h . . . . ” The St at e’ s r es pons e di s cl os ed a pr ol i f i c cr i m i nal b a c k g ro u n d , inc lu d in g a c o n v ictio n fo r se x u a l b a ttery in 1 9 8 4 , fo r w h ich S e a w a s o rd e re d to s erve ei ght een mont hs , and anotherconvi ct i on f orsexua l bat t ery i n 1989, f orw hi ch he w as or der ed t o s erve ei ghtm onths . T he l att erof f ens e, acc or di ng t o t he i ndi ctm ent , i nvol ved a m i norchi l d underthe age of thi r t een. A f

t err ece i vi ng thi s i nf

or m at i on, Sea’ s couns el di d not f i l e a mot i on t o excl ude the pr i orconvi ct i ons , and the tr i al j udge di d notconducta hea r i ng on thei radmi s s i bi l i ty. ¶14. A f

t er the S t at e re s t ed i t s cas e- i n- chi ef , Sea’ s couns el cal l ed hi m t o t es t i f y, and then a n n o u n c e d : “ I ’ m g o i n g t o a s k y o u a b o u ta c o u p l e o f p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n s t h a ty o u h a v e . ” He then pr ocee ded t o as k Sea abouthi s 1984 and 1988 convi ct i on s, incl udi ng det ai l s of t he cr i m es . T he pr os ecut or ’ s cr os s - exami nat i on of Sea on thes e pr i orcr i m es – one of w hi ch had occurr ed tw enty- f

i ve yea r s ear l i er , and the other , tw enty- one yea r s ear l i er– cons um ed six tee n p a g e s o f tra n sc rip t.

### 7

¶15. W hen a cr i m i nal def endant choos es t o t es t i f y, hi s pr i or cr i m i nal convi ct i ons m ay — underl i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s — be i ntr oduced f ori m peac hm entpurpos es . H ow ever , under ourrul es of

evi dence , [ e] vi dence of

a convi ct i on . . . i s notadmi s s i bl e i f a per i od of

m or e than t en year s has elapsed si nce the dat e of the convi ct i on orof

the r el eas e of

the w i tnes s f r om the conf

i nement i m pos ed f

orthe convi ct i on, w hi cheve ri s the l at erdat e unl es s the courtdet erm i nes i n the i nt er es t s of j ust i ce thatthe pr obat i ve val ue of

the convi ct i on s uppor t ed by the s peci fi c fa ct s and c irc u m sta n c e s s u b sta n tially o u tw e ig h s its p re ju d icia l ef

fe c t. ¶16. T he bal anci ng t es tunde rthi s rul e i s much m or e di f f i cul tthan the tr adi t i onal bal anci ng t es tunderR ul e 403. U nderR ul e 609( b) , i ti s notenough f orthe pr os ecut ort o s how thatt he probati ve v al ue o f the p ri or conv i ct i on outw ei gh s i t s prej ud i ci al eff ect ; the tr i al j ud ge m ust det erm i ne the pr obat i ve val ue su b sta n tia lly outw ei ghs the pr ej udi ci al ef f ectof the pr i or convi ct i on. ¶1 7 . T h e se p rio r c o n v ictio n s – a n d th eir att en d an t p eriod s of i n ca rce ra tio n – g re a tly exce eded the rul e’ s t en- yearthr es hol d, r equi r i ng the tr i al j udge t o conductthe R ul e 609 bal anci ng t es t . T he convi ct i ons w er e notadmi s s i bl e unl es s the courtf ound thatthe pr ej udi ce cre ated b y the c o n v ict ion s w as su b stan ti all y o u tw eigh ed b y their p rob ati v e v alue . B u t Se a’s couns el f i l ed no mot i on f

orexcl us i on of

the convi ct i ons , s o the tr i al co urtm ade no suc h f i ndi ng. ¶18. T he St at e d oes n ot deny thatS ea’s co un sel w as i nef f ect i ve f ori ntr oduci ng the c o n v ic tio n s , b u t r a th e r r e s p o n d s th a t S e a h a s fa ile d to d e m o n s tr a te h e w a s p re ju d ic e d . W e di s agr ee.Dissenting opi nion at n.18. 11 Ga llion v. St

ate , 4 69 So . 2 d 1 24 7, 12 49 -50 (Mi ss. 19 85 ); see also Jo ne s v. St ate , 702 So. 12 2d 419, 422 (Miss. 1997) (“the admission of the f ourteen-ye ar-old heroin distr ibution convi ctions was manifestly prejudicia l”). 

### 8 ¶19. T hi s i s nota ca s e of overw hel m i ng phys i cal evi dence ; ther e w as no phys i cal evi dence of s exual abus e. T o the contr ary, the phys i ci an’s exami nat i on of the chi l dr en r evea l ed no e v id e n c e o f se x u a l ab u se . T h e c a se w a s e ss e n tially S e a ’s w o rd v e rsu s th e tes tim o n y o f h is acc us er s . A nd w hi l e ther e w er e f ouracc us er s , thei rtr i al t es t i m ony came al m os tent i r el y f r om the m o u th o f th e p rose cu tor, w ith th e c h il d ren resp o n d ing “y es, si r” o r “n o , sir . ” A cu rsory readi ng of the ex cerpt s of the ch i l dren’s testi m o n y i n the di ssent i ng op i nion m ay sug gest otherw i s e, buta cl os erl ook conf i rm s t hat t his is true. Par agr aphs 26 and 27 of the di s s ent cont ai n t r i al t es t i m ony, and t he onl y ans w er s ar e “ye s ” and “ no. ” Par agr aph 28 i s f r om the v ideo tape s. P ara g rap h 2 9 is tri al t esti m o n y , a n d the re th e ch il d o b ed iently an sw ers “ y es, si r” and “no, s i r ” exc l us i vel y. Par agr aph 30 i s f r om the vi deot apes . Paragr aphs 31 and 32 rep rod u ce tr ial test im o n y , an d o n ce ag ain — w ith on e ex ce p ti o n (“M o v e u p an d d o w n . ”) — every ans w eri s ei ther“yes ” or“no. ” P ar agr aph 33 i s fr om t he vi deos . So t hes e “e xt ens i ve e x c e rp ts fro m th e ir t e stim o n y ” co n firm th a t, ha d th e ju ry n o t se e n th e v id e o tap e s, th e o n ly 11 ev iden ce ag ains t Se a w o u ld h av e b ee n , esse n ti all y , from the m o u th o f th e p rose cu tor. ¶20. U nderthes e ci r cumst ance s , evi dence of Sea’ s pri orconvi ct i ons f ors exual batt ery – one i nvol vi ng a chi l d underthi r t een ye ar s of age – w as i ncendi ary. T hi s C our thas s t at ed “[ e] vi dence w hi ch i s i ncompet entand i nf l amm at ory i n ch a r a c t e rc a rr i e s w i th i ta pr e s um pt i on o f p re ju d ic e .” 12 The V i deotapesMis s. R. Ev id. 80 3(2 5). 13 Nea l v. St

ate , 15 So. 3d 388, 406 (Miss. 2009) ( quoting Sm ile y v. St ate , 815 So. 2d 1140, 14 1148 (Miss. 2002) ). See also Lo ng v. St ate , 9 34 So . 2d

313 , 31 8 (Mi ss. Ct. App . 2 00 6) ( “[ T] his wa s a proper tr ial str ategy, either all ornothing — guilty or acquitt al.”). 

### 9 ¶2 1. A ddi t i onal l y, w e no t e tha tSe a ’ s c ou ns e l f a i l e d t o o bj e c tt o the i ntr od uc t i on of the vi deot aped i nt ervi ew s of the f ourvi ct i m s . T he t apes w er e r i f e w i th hear s ay s t at ement s f r om both the vi ct i m s and the i nt ervi ew er s . N otonl y di d Sea’ s couns el f ai l t o obj ect cont empora neous l y t o the admi s s i on of the vi deot apes , buthe f ai l ed t o r eques ta hear i ng as r equi r ed by ourrul es of evi dence . 13 ¶22. Sea al s o comp l ai ns thath i s tr i al couns el err ed by f ai l i ng t o s eek a n i ns truct i on f or gr at i f i cat i on of

l us tas a l es s er - i ncl uded of f ens e of s exual batt ery. H ow ever , Sea’ s theory of the ca s e w as t hathe neverha d a ny s exual l y i nappr opr i at e cont actw i th the chi l dr en. W e have s ai d that“tr i al couns el ' s de ci s i on t o notr eques ta j ury i ns truct i on f al l s unde rthe ca t egory of trial ta c tics , w h ich a re n o t su b jec t to re v iew .” T h is a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r h a s n o m e rit. 14 CO NC L US I ON ¶2 3 . B ec au se S ea ’s co u n sel w as ineffec ti v e, w e rev erse the jud g m en t o f the C ir cu itC o u rt o f Y a lo b u s h a C o u n ty a n d re m a n d th e c a s e fo r a n e w tr ia l. ¶ 2 4 . RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. C A R L S O N A N D G R A V E S , P .J J ., K I T C H E N S A N D C H A N D L E R , J J ., CO NC UR . RA ND OLP H, J . , DI S S E NT S W I T H S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON JO I N E D B Y W A L L E R , C . J. , L A M A R A N D P I E R C E , JJ. RA ND OL P H, J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶25. A furtherel abor at i on of the f act s pre s ent ed i s nece s s ary bef or e ana l ys i s of

the l egal i s s ues can be f

ul l y expl or ed. For ty- thr ee- year - ol d C ur t i s L ernar d Sea w as i ndi ct ed on ni neMis sis sippi C od e S ection 97 -3- 95 (1) (d) p rov ide s that “ [a ] p ers on is guilty o f s exua l batte ry 15 if heor s heen ga ge s in

sexu al pe ne tratio n wi th: . . . (d) A c hil d und er t heag e o f f

ourte en(14 ) ye ars of age, if the person is twenty-four (24) or more months older than the child.” Mi ss. Code Ann. § 97 -3- 95 (1) (d) (Rev . 2 00 6). Se e Mis s. Co deAnn. § 9 7-3 -65 (1) (b) (Rev . 2 00 6). 16 Prior to the testi mony of each chil d, the c ircuitjudge took her i nto his chambers and 17 “ask[ed] . . . a f

ew questions to kind of make a general rul ing in regar d to whether the y understand what they are doi ng and so forth . . . .” Th e Ma jority contends th at the“y es”/”n o”an sw ers at trial (and durin g th e v ide ota

pe d 18 int erv iew s) indicate “ lea ding and sugg estivequ estion s . . . .” (Ma j. Op. at ¶ 3-4 , 1 9). Ho we ve r, t

his co ntenti on

is disp ell ed

bya v iew ingof th e v ide ota pe , and a re adingof

its trans cript and

thetri al testimony, in theirentirety, and taking into account each w itness is a chi ld of tender year s. As such, extensive e xcerpts from their testimony are provided. The test is not whether the questi on can be answered “yes” or“no,” but whether the inquiry sugge sts a desi red response . For example, “are you familiarwith the works of William Faulkner? ” This ques tion can be answered “yes” or “no” without sugg estingthede sired

respo ns e. 

### 10 co u n ts of sex u al b att ery a n d statutory rap e a g ains t fou r sist ers (D . D . , B . J. , T . J. , an d A . W . ), 15 16 three t o eightyears ol d at the ti m e of the cri m es. ¶26. A . W . , ei ghtyear s ol d att he t i m e of t he i nci dentand t en year s ol d att r i al , t es t i f i ed 17 on dir ectexam i nati on , as f oll ow s: Q . W hen you w er e overatyourA untO l l i e’ s hous e, di d C ur t i s do anythi ng bad t o you? A . Y e s .[ ]

18 Q . A nd w hatdi d he do? A . T ouch. Q . A nd w her e di d he t ouch you? A . M y m i dd l e part s. Q . Y ou cal l yo ur m i dd l e part s, do yo u call that your pri vates ? A . Y es. Q . D o you know w her e a boy’ s pr i vat es ar e? A . Y es. Q . D i d h e t ry t o d o an ythi ng w i th h i s pri vates t o y ou r pr i vates ? A . Y es. Q . A nd w hatdi d he do? A . M ove up and dow n. Q . D i d he puthi s pr i vat es i ns i de you?

### 11

A . Y es. Q . D o y ou kn ow w hat a f i ng er i s? A . Y es. Q . D i d h e t ry t o d o an ythi ng w i th h i s f i ng er t o y ou r pr i vates ? A . Y es. Q . A nd w hatdi d he do? A . H e move i tar ound. Q . D i d h e pu this fi ng er i n y ou r pr i vates ? A . Y es. Q . D i d y ou w ant hi m t o d o thi s? A . N o. Q . D i d your m om m a t el l you . . . t o m ake up a s t ory aboutC ur t i s and s ay that h e d id it? A . N o. Q . D o yo u rem em b er th e d ay th at yo u r m o m m a saw y’all in th e roo m in O xf or d and gotm ad atyou? A . Y es. Q . D i d you . . . t el l herthaty’ al l w er e doi ng the nas ty? A . Y es. Q . W ho t aughtyou t o do t he nas ty? A. Hi m. Q . Y ou m ean C urt i s? A . Y es. Q . A n d d o y o u re m e m b e r g o in g to th e h o sp ital? A . Y es. Q . A n d d o y o u a lso re m e m b e r a fte r y o u le ft th e h o sp ital g o in g a n d talk in g to a l ady i n a room that had som e do l l s? A . Y es. Q . A nd di d you t el l herthe truth? A . Y es. ¶27 . A . W . t est i fi ed o n cross- exam i nati on , as f oll ow s: Q . A nd I thi nk, . . . di d you s ay thatC ur t i s t ri ed t o puthi s f i ngeri n your pr i vat es , i s thatw hatyou s ai d? A . Y es. Q . A n d th a t u p se t y o u ; is th a t rig h t? A . Y es. Q . O kay . H ad M arcus ever tri ed to put hi s f i ng er i n y ou r pr i vates ? A . N o. ¶28 . A . W . ’s videot aped i nterview provided, as f oll ow s:

### 12

Q . . . . W hatdo you know aboutcomi ng her e t oday and t al ki ng t o m e? A . T h a t y o u ’re g o in g to c h e c k m e o u t. Q . W h a t d o y o u m e a n b y c h e c k in g o u t? A . B ecause a m an d i d som et hing t o u s. Q . . . . W h o d id so m e th in g to y ’a ll? A . M y aunt i e’ s boyf

r i end. Q . W h o ’s th a t? A . C urt i s.

. . . Q . . . . W hatdi d C ur t i s do? A . H e s t i cked hi s f

i ngerup i n m y s tuf

f w hi l e I w as as l eep. Q . . . . If y o u w e re a sle e p , h o w d id y o u k n o w h e d id th a t? A . B eca us e I had w oke up and t ol d hi m t o getof f of m e.

. . . Q . . . . P o int t o m e w h at yo u ca ll stuff. A . R i ghtther e.

. . . Q . . . . I s C ur t i s a gr ow n- up ora ki d? A . A gr ow n- up. Q . . . . W hati s hi s l as tname? A . C ur t i s Sea.

. . . Q . . . . [ D ] i d C ur t i s puthi s f i ngeri n yours tuf

f one t i m e orm or e than one t i m e? A . M or e than one t i m e.

. . . Q . . . . W hatr oom w er e you i n? A. Th e l i v i n g r o o m.

. . . Q . . . . [ W ] hen you s ay he c ame up t her e, w her e w as he? A . H e w as by m e. Q . . . . W as he s i t t i ng by you, l ayi ng by you, s t andi ng by you? A . O n hi s knee.

. . . Q . . . . [ Y ] ou w oke up and w hatw as he doi ng w hen you w oke up? A . H e w as t ouchi ng m e and f eel i ng m e i n m y pr i vat e. Q . A nd w hen y ou say up in yo ur pri vate, . . . w as i tun derneath you r cl othes, on t op of yourcl othes , ors om e otherw ay? A . U nderneath.

. . . Q . D i d he t ouch you on t op of yourpant i es orunderneath. A . U nderneath.

. . . Q . . . . [ W ] hatdi d yours tuf f f eel l i ke?

### 13

A . I tw as hur t i ng. Q . . . . W h at w as h is ha n d d o ing to y o u – o r his fi n g er d o ing to y o u r stu ff? A . I tw as j us tm ovi ng. Q . W as he movi ng i t , w as he s t ayi ng s t i l l ors om ethi ng el s e? A . M o v in g it.

. . . Q . D i d h i s m ou th touch y ou on yo ur ski n o r on yo ur cl othes? A . Ski n. Q . . . . A nd w hatdi d hi s m outh do? A . H e j us ts t i ck hi s t ongue.

. . . Q . H av e y o u ev er se en h is stu ff? A . (A ff ir m a tiv e re s p o n s e .) Q . H o w d id y o u se e it? A . B eca us e my si s t er s al w ays di d. Q . W hatw oul d yours i s t er s al w ays do? A . T h ey w o u ld g et on top o f his stuff.

. . . Q . D i d C ur t i s puthi s m outh on yours tuf f one t i m e orm or e than one t i m e? A . O ne t i m e. Q . . . . A nd di d he puthi s f i ngeri n yours tuf

f one t i m e orm or e than one t i m e? A . O ne t i m e.

. . . Q . W h e re w e re y o u w h e n h e p u t h is s tu ff in y o u r stu ff o r to u c h e d y o u w ith h is stuff? A . O n t he couc h.

. . . Q . . . . Y ou w er e on the couc h and then w hathappene d? A . H e h a d stu c k h is th in g o u t.

. . . Q . . . . So you w er e l ayi ng on the couc h and you s ay he s tuck hi s thi ng outand then w hathappene d? A . H e goton t op of

m e. Q . . . . A nd ho w w ere you r cl othes? A . M y cl othes w er e up.

. . . Q . D i d h i s thing t ou ch y ou r s kin or you r cl othes? A . M y s ki n. Q . . . . A nd how di d t hathappen? A . H e t ook m y pant s dow n.

. . . Q. Ho w d i d [ Au n t i e Ol l i e M a e ] n o tk n o w? A . B ec au se h e w o u ld alw ay s clo se th e d o o r.

### 14

. . . Q . . . . W here w ere hi s cl othes? A . H is cl o thes [w ere ] o ff.

. . . Q . . . . W hatw as hi s body doi ng? A . H e j us tgoton t op of m e.

. . . Q . . . . W hatdi d yours tuf f f eel l i ke? A . I tw as hur t i ng.

. . . Q . W hatw as he doi ng r i ghtbef or e he s ai d he w as goi ng t o getof f of you? A . H e w as m ovi ng on m e.

. . . Q . . . . [D ]i d y o u e v e r se e C u rtis d o in g a n y th in g to h im se lf, to u c h in g h im se lf anyw her e? A . (A ff ir m a tiv e re s p o n s e .) Q . W hatdi d you s ee hi m do? A . H e w as . . . m es s i ng w i th hi s thi ng. Q . W hatw as he doi ng? A . H e w as s haki ng i tup and dow n. Q . S hak i ng i tup and do w n. W as that on his ski n o r w i th h i s cl othes? A . W i th hi s hand.

. . . Q. . . . W h a th a p p e n e d wh e n h e p u ty o u o n t o p o f h i m? A . H e to o k h is th in g o u t an d p u t itin m y b u tt.

. . . A . H e pul l ed my pant s dow n.

. . . A . H e had l ayed me dow n.

. . . A . H e ju st p u lled h is th in g o u t an d p u t itin m y b u tt. ¶29. T . J . , si x year s o l d at t he t i m e of t he i nci dentand ei ghtyear s ol d att r i al , t es t i f i ed on dir ectexam i nati on , as f oll ow s: Q . . . . D o you know w her e yourpr i vat es ar e? A . Y es, si r. Q . D o you know w her e a boy’ s pr i vat es ar e? A . Y es, si r. Q . O kay . D i d h e . . . try t o touch h i s pri vates t o y ou r pr i vates ? A . Y es, si r. Q . A nd do yo u k no w . . . w hat a f i ng er i s?

### 15

A . N o , sir . Q . A m I h o ld in g u p a fin g e r? O k a y . D id h e try to d o so m e th in g w ith h is f i nger t o yourpr i vat es ? Y ou have t o s ay yes orno. I t ’ s okay. D on’ tbe scar ed. D i d h e t ry t o d o som et hing w i th h i s f i ng er t o y ou r pr i vates ? A . Y es, si r. Q . O k a y . D id y o u w a n t h im to d o th a t? A . N o , sir . O n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , T .J. d e n ied tha t he r eig h t-y e a r-o ld c o u sin , M a rc u s, h a d e v e r trie d to t ou ch h er pr i vates . ¶30 . T . J. ’s videot aped i nterview provided, as f oll ow s: Q . . . . W ho ’s C urt i s? A . T he man w ho l i ves i n m y A unt i e O l l i e M ae’ s hous e. Q . I w antt o know i f

C ur t i s l i ves i n yourhous e w i t h yo u ordoes he l i ve s om ew her e el s e? A . H e l i ves s om ew her e el s e.

. . . Q . . . . A nd w ho ’s C urt i s? A . U m , A unt i e O l l i e M ae’ s hus band.

. . . Q . . . . W el l , w hat abo utyourA untO l l i e M ae a nd . . . C ur t i s . W hatabout th e m? A. Cu r t i s wa s i n th e l i v i n g r o o m a n d my a u n t i e wa s i n th e b e d r o o m. Q . U h- huh. A . A nd then w e s t ayed i n aunt i e’ s r oom and he w oke us up. Q . U h- huh. A . A nd then he s ai d come w i th m e and s o w e di d a nd then w e s t ayed on the c o u c h w h e re w e sle p t. Q . . . . W h o is th is a p ictu re o f? Is it a p ictu re o f a b o y o r a g irl? A . A g irl.

. . . Q . . . . [ W ] hatdo you cal l thi s on a gi r l ? W hati s thi s cal l ed? A . T he hea d. Q . . . . A nd r i ghtther e? A . [T .J ., in h e r o w n w o rd s , id e n tif ie s “ lip s ,” “ a rm s ,” “ b re a s ts ,” “ n a v a l,” “ f i ng ers , ” “

p riv a te , ” “l eg, ” “t oes , ” “ba ck, ” “ b o o ty , ” and “ l egs ”] Q . . . . N ow l et ’s nam e t he p i cture of the b oy . W hat do yo u call this ? A . H ead. Q . . . . A nd r i ghther e?

### 16

A . . . . [ T . J . , i n herow n w or ds , i dent i f i es “eyes , ” “m outh, ” “ t i t t i es ,” “ n a v a l,” “hand, ” “a r m , ” “ di ck , ” “l eg, ” “f eet , ” “ba ck, ” and “ b o o ty ”] Q . . . . Is i tok ay to t ou ch y ou r br east s? A . (N e g a tiv e re s p o n s e .)

. . . Q . Is i tok ay for s om eon e t o touch y ou r pr i vates ? A . N o.

. . . Q . W hataboutyourbooty? A . N o.

. . . Q . . . . W hat abou ta bo y’s t i t t i es? A . (N e g a tiv e re s p o n s e .)

. . . Q . R emem berI need yourans w er s outl oud. W hataboutthei rdi ck? A . N o. Q . W hat abou ttheirl egs? A . Y es. Q . . . . W hataboutthei rback? A . Y eah.

. . . Q . . . . W hataboutthei rbooty? A . N o.

. . . Q . . . . H as anyone t ouched yourpr i vat e orhur tyourpr i vat e? A . N o.

. . . Q . . . . W h a t w o u ld y o u d o ? C o u ld y o u te ll so m e b o d y ? W h o c o u ld y o u tell? A . M y m om m a. Q . . . . H ave you e vert ol d yourm om m a thats om eone had t ouched you? Y ou t ol d yourm om m a thats om eone ha s t ouched you? W ho di d you te l l your m om m a thatt ouched you? A . C urt i s.

. . . Q . . . . S o , y o u told y o u r m o m m a tha t C u rtis d id so m e th in g ? W h a t d id y o u tell herC ur t i s di d. A . H e had t ou ched m y p ri vates . Q . . . . W hatdi d he t ouch yourpr i vat e w i th? O kay. Y ou ar e hol di ng up your fi n g er.

. . . Q . . . . I s he a gr ow n- up ora ki d? A . H e’ s bi g. Q . . . . [ H ] as C ur t i s t ouched yourpr i vat e one t i m e orm or e than one t i m e?

### 17

A . O ne t i m e.

. . . Q . . . . So w ho al l w as ther e? A . M y si st ers . Q . . . . W h e re w a s y o u r a u n t? A . She w as i n t he bed. Q . . . . D i d yours i s t er s s ee Curt i s t ouch you? A . U h- huh. Q . H ow di d t hey s ee? A . T hey op ened theireyes.

. . . Q . So t el l m e w hatC ur t i s di d t o yourpr i vat es bec ause I w as n’ tther e and I don’ tknow w hathappene d. T el l m e. A . H e stu c k h is fin g e r in it.

. . . Q . . . . So w er e yourj eans on orpul l ed dow n orof f ors om ethi ng el s e? A . Pul l ed up. Q . . . . S o h o w d id C u rtis s tick h is f in g e r in y o u r p riv a tes ? T e ll m e h o w h e d id th a t.

. . . A . H e w e n t lik e th is . (I n d ic a te d .)

. . . A . Itw as on top o f m y clothes.

. . . Q . D i d C ur t i s m ake you t ouch hi m anyw her e on hi s body? A . (N e g a tiv e re s p o n s e .)

. . . Q . . . . D i d you s ee Curt i s t ouch anybody e l s e? A . H e tou ch ed m y sist er. Q . W hats i s t er s di d he t ouch? A . [A .W .] a n d [D .D .].

. . . Q . . . . A n d w h at ha p p en ed w h en they p u ll ed their clothe s o ff? A. Th e y g o to n t o p o f

h i m. Q. Ho w we r e h i s c l o th e s wh e n th e y g o to n t o p o f h i m? A . T hey w as dow n. Q . . . . A nd di d you s ee a ny partof hi s body w hen hi s cl othes w er e dow n? A . I s aw hi s di ck. Q . . . . W hatdi d hi s di ck l ook l i ke? A . B l ack.

. . . Q . A nd w er e they movi ng ors t ayi ng s t i l l ors om ethi ng el s e? A . T hey w er e movi ng.

### 18

. . . Q . W hatdi d you t el l you[ r ] m om C ur t i s di d? A . H e . . . s t i ck hi s f

i ngerup i n m y pr i vat e.

. . . Q. . . . S o wh e n d i d y o u t e l l y o u rmo m? A . T he otherday.

. . . Q . . . . A n d w h at ha p p en ed after yo u told h er? A . She . . . cal l ed the pol i ce.

. . . Q . . . . D i d y ou r aunt i e see [ A . W . ] or [ D . D . ] nak ed o n top of C urt i s? A . (A ff ir m a tiv e re s p o n s e .) Q. W h a td i d s h e s a y wh e n s h e s a w t h e m? A. S h e s a i d g e to f

f o f h i m.

. . . Q . H ow di d t hei rcl othes getback on? A . B eca us e my aunts ai d getyourcl othes back on.

. . . Q . . . . D id h e e v e r d o a n y th in g to [B .J .]? A . (N e g a tiv e re s p o n s e .) (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) ¶31. B . J . , f

our years old at the t i m e of the i nci dent and s i x year s ol d at tr i al , t es t i f i ed on dir ectexam i nati on , as f oll ow s: Q . W h at did C u rt is d o t o yo u ? O r l et m e ask y o u this. D o y o u k n o w w h ere yourpr i vat es ar e? A . Y es, si r. Q . A nd do you know w her e a boy’ s pr i vat es ar e? A . Y es, si r. Q . D i d C urt i s do an ythi ng w i th h i s pri vates t o y ou r pr i vates ? A . Y es, si r. Q . A nd w hatdi d he do? A . M ove up and dow n. Q . O kay . D i d h e t ry t o p ut hi s pri vates i n y ou r pr i vates ? A . Y es, si r. Q. An d d i d h e d o a n y th i n g wi th y o u rb o o ty , y o u rb o t t o m? A . Y es, si r. Q . A n d d id y o u w a n t C u rtis to d o th a t? A . N o , sir .

. . .

### 19

Q . D i d yourm om m a as k you t o t el l thes e peopl e thatC ur t i s di d thi s t o you or

. . . d id h e d o it? A . H e d id it. ¶32 . B . J. t est i fi ed o n cross- exam i nati on , as f oll ow s: Q . C ur t i s di dn’ tt ouch you, di d he? A . Y es, si r.

. . . Q . Y ou don’tknow how he t ouched you? C ur t i s ’ s pr i vat e part s nevert ouched yourpr i vat e part s , di d t hey? A . Y es, si r. Q . B utyou don’ tknow how they di d, do you? A . N o , sir . ¶33 . B . J. ’s videot aped i nterview provided, as f oll ow s: Q . . . . W h a t d o y o u c a ll th o se o n a g irl? A . T i t t i es.

. . . Q . . . . A n d th a t? A . Pr i vat e.

. . . Q . . . . W hatdo you cal l thi s on a boy? A . N asty stuff.

. . . Q . . . . A nd r i ghtther e? A . B ooty.

. . . Q . . . . Is i tok ay for s om ebo dy t o touch y ou r pr i vates ?

. . . A . N o.

. . . Q . W hataboutyourbooty? A . N o.

. . . Q . Is i t ok ay to tou ch a b o y ’s na sty stuff? A . N o.

. . . Q . I s i tokay t o t ouch a boy’ s booty? A . N o.

. . . Q . . . . H as anyb od y ev er t ou ched yo u in tho se pl aces?

### 20

A . (A ff ir m a tiv e re s p o n s e .) Q . W ho di d? A . C urt i s. Q . W ho i s C urt i s? A . M y [ a] unt i e’ s boyf

r i end.

. . . Q . . . . W hatdi d C ur t i s do? A . H e s t i ck hi s pr i vat e up i n m y pr i vat e.

. . . A . H e w as doi ng nas ty s tuf f w i th m y s i s t er s and me.

. . . Q . A nd he di d nas ty s tuf f w i th al l of

you? A . U h- huh.

. . . Q . . . . W hathappene d i n the l i vi ng r oom ? T el l m e eve rythi ng thathappene d. A . H e p u t h is p a n ts d o w n a n d sa id c o m e h e re a n d th e n h e d id it. Q . . . . D i d you s ee Curt i s ’ s pr i vat e? A . Y eah. Q . W hatdi d i tl ook l i ke? A . B r ow n.

. . . Q . . . . [T ]ell m e w h o d id C u rtis d o n a sty stu ff to first? A . M y si st ers . Q . W hich one s? A . [T .J .] a n d [A .W .].

. . . A . H e . . . told m e to su c k it. Q . T rie d to g e t y o u to su c k w h a t? A . H i s pr i vat e.

. . . Q . . . . H ow di d yourpr i vat e f eel [ ?] A . H u rt.

. . . Q . So i f you w er e on the couc h and then w hathappene d? W hatdi d C ur t i s do? A . H e s tuf

f ed hi s hand i n m y pr i vat e.

. . . Q . W hatdi d hi s hand do t o yourpr i vat e? A . I t. . . di dn’ tf

eel good.

. . . Q . . . . [ W ] hat di d h e do t o y ou r s i st ers ? A . H e puthi s hand i n m y s i s t er s ’ pr i vat e.

. . . Q . . . . D i d C ur t i s puthi s pr i vat es i nt o yourbooty?Th e p eri od of time b etw een

thech arg ed

co nd uc t an d th e ex amination

of thech ild ren 19 neutrali zes the si gnificance of “no t earing or any signs of abuse” as empirical evidence of no criminal conduct. (M aj. Op. at ¶ 3). Moreover, such evi dence i s not a prerequi site for convic tion. Ac co rdingto H ern an de z, A. W . w as a sle ep at thetime. 20 Of fi cer Her nand ez and

tw o o ther so cial w orkers watch ed theint erv iew s f

rom “a s ep arate 21 room divided by a two-way mirror . . . with audio int ercom . . . .” 

### 21 A . (A ff ir m a tiv e re s p o n s e .) Q . H e d id ? H o w d id y o u r b o o ty fe e l? A . N otgood.

. . . Q . . . . D i d anybody t el l you nott o t el l m e s om ethi ng? A . U m , ev e ry b o d y sa id d o n ’t tell. Q . W h o sa id d o n ’t tell? A . C urt i s. Q . C ur t i s s ai d don’ tt el l ? W hatel s e di d C ur t i s s ay? A . H e to ld m e to sh u t m y m o u th a n d I d id n ’t d o it. ¶3 4 . W h il e the ch arg ed a b u se o cc u rred p ri o r to D ec em b er 2 0 0 6 , itw as n o t un ti l Jan u ary 21, 2007, t hatan i nves t i gat i on began. T hatday, L as haw n Joyner , t he chi l dr en’ s m other , s aw “the k ids w ere k ind o f on top o f ea ch o ther” do ing “n asty stu ff. ” W h en Joy n er ask ed w h ere 19 they had l earned t hat , t he chi l dr en r es ponded “C ur t i s . ” Joynert hen t ook t he chi l dr en t o t he hos pi t al . W at erV al l ey Pol i ce O f f i cerA . J . H ernandez w as c al l ed t o the hos pi t al , w her e thr ee of the chi l dr en i ndi cat ed t o hi m thatthey had been m ol es t ed. A s pa r tof the i nves t i gat i on, 20 O ffi ce r H ern an d ez then co n tacted F am il y C ri sis S erv ices in O x ford , M issi ssipp i, w h ere i nt ervi ew s , c onduct ed by a D epart m entof H um an Servi ces s oci al w or ker , w er e vi deot aped. 21 ¶ 3 5 . A t trial, the ju ry w a s in stru c ted o n th e se x u a l b a ttery c o u n ts th a t S e a h a d “ p lac [ed ] h is fin g e r in to th e v a g in a ” o f th re e o f th e m in o r g irls (B .J., T .J., A .W .), “ p lac [ed ] h is p e n is in to the ana l openi ng” of

t w o of the m i norgi r l s (D . D . , A . W . ) , and “pl ac[ ed] hi s t ongue i nt o t he vagi na” of

A . W . T he j ury f

ound Sea notgui l ty on the s t atut ory r ape c ount s and the s exualSuch err or s m i ghti ncl ude the ci r cui tj udge l i kel y notvi ew i ng the vi deot apes out s i de 22 the pr es ence of

the j ury bef

or e admi s s i on. 

### 22 b a ttery c o u n t in v o lv in g D .D . S e a w a s fo u n d g u ilty o n th e re m a in in g s e x u a l b a ttery c o u n ts a g a in s t B .J ., T .J ., a n d A .W . A N A L Y S IS ¶3 6. N ot al l err or s ar e w orthy of r e ve r s a l . Forw e l l ove rt hr e e de c a de s of obs e r vi ng and tryi ng cas es orr evi ew i ng tr i al re cor ds , I have yett o di s covera per f ecttr i al . T he j ur i s t s w ho h a v e p re c e d e d u s, re c o g n izin g th is tru th , h a v e se t th e b a r fo r a p p e llate re v iew a t a r e a listic h eigh t, i. e., w e loo k to d eterm ine if a d efe n d an t r ec eive d a fa irtr ial (n o t a p e rfe ct tri al), takin g into a cc o u n t th e u n iversa l truth that to err i s hu m an . T h is l ea v es th e a p p ell ate c o u rt to d eterm ine w h ethe r th e d efe n d an t r ec eive d a fa irtr ial in sp it e o f error. 22 ¶37. H er e, the M aj ori t y passes no fi nal j ud gm ent on t he ci rcui tcourt ’ s admi s s i on of v id e o tap e s, b u t ra th e r se ize s u p o n th e tim in g o f a n o n -th e -re c o rd a n a ly sis . T h e M a jo rity cr i t i ci zes the i ntr oduct i on of Sea’ s pr i orgui l ty pl eas t o s ex of f ens es agai ns tm i nor s bas ed upon the t i m e r es tr i ct i ons of M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of

Evi dence 609, as oppos ed t o the exc ept i ons to M iss iss ip p i R u le o f E v id e n c e 4 0 4 (b ). T h e M a jo rity th e n k n its th e a fo re m e n tio n e d to form ulat e it s ult i m at e co nclusi on o f i neff ect i ve assi st ance of cou nsel , w hich I s hall add res s first. I. P r e m a tu r ity o f In e ffe c tiv e -A ss ista n c e -o f-C o u n se l C la im ¶38. Sea’ s i ne f

f e c t i ve - a s s i s t a nc e - of

- c ou ns e l c l a i m i s pr e matur e, as w e ar e gi ven cl ear pr oof f r om the r ecor d thatthe i s s ues i n di s put e w er e s ubj ectto pret ri al di s cus s i ons , out s i de the re c o rd . See ¶¶4 7, 4 9, 59 i nfr a . T hus , a det erm i nat i on atthi s t i m e i s pr emi s ed uponThe parties in this ca se made no such stipulati on. 23 

### 23 u n d o c u m e n te d a s s u m p tio n s , w h ic h s h o u ld b e c la ri fi e d th ro u g h a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . See R e a d v. S ta te , 4 3 0 S o . 2 d 8 3 2 , 8 4 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ). ¶ 3 9 . T h is C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t: ( 1) A ny def

endantconvi ct ed of

a cr i m e may r ai s e the i s s ue of i nef f ect i ve assi st ance o f counsel on d ir ec t appeal, even tho ug h the m at t er has not f i rs t been pr es ent ed t o the tr i al court . The Courts houl d r evi ew the ent i r e r ecor d on appea l . I f

, . . . f r om a r evi ew of

the record, . . . thi s C our tcan s ay thatthe d e fe n d a n t h a s b e e n d e n ied th e e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l, th e C o u rt sh o u ld a lso a d ju d g e a n d re v e rse a n d re m a n d fo r a n e w trial. ( 2) A s s um i ng thatthe C our ti s una bl e t o concl ude f r om the r ecor d on appea l th a t d e fe n d a n t’s trial c o u n se l w a s c o n stitu tio n a lly d e fe c tiv e , the C o u rt sh o u ld then pr ocee d t o deci de the otheri s s ues i n the ca s e. Shoul d t he cas e be re v e rse d o n o th e r g ro u n d s, th e in e ffe c tiv e n e ss iss u e . . . w o u ld b e c o m e m o o t. O n the ot her han d, i f the C ou rtshou l d o therw i se af fi rm , itsh o u ld d o so w i thoutpr ej udi ce t o the def endant ’ s r i ghtt o r ai s e the i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of co u n sel i ssu e v ia ap p rop ri ate p o st- co n v ict ion p roc ee d ing s. If th e C o u rt otherw i se aff

i rm s, itm ay nev ertheles s reach the m eri t s of the inef fect i ven ess i s s u e wh e r e ( a ) a s i n p a r a g r a p h ( 1 ) a b o v e , th e r e c o r d a f f i r ma t i v e l y s h o ws i nef f ect i venes s of

cons t i tut i onal di m ens i ons , or( b) the part i es s t i pul at e thatthe r ecor d i s adequa t e[ ] and the C our tdet erm i nes t hatfi ndi ngs of f actby a tr i al 23 j udge abl e t o cons i derthe demeanorof w i tnes s es , et c. ar e notneede d. ( 3) I f , af t eraf f i r m ance as i n par agr aph ( 2) a bove, the def endantw i s hes t o do s o, h e may the n f

i l e a n a pp r op r i a t e p os t - c on vi c t i on p r oc e e di ng r a i s i ng t he i neff ect i ve assi st ance o f counsel i ssue. A ssum i ng that his appli cat i on s t at es a cl ai m , pr i m a f

aci e, h e w i l l then be e nt i t l ed t o an evi dent i ary hear i ng on the m er i t s o f thati s s ue i n the [ c] i r cui t[ c] our tof the county w her ei n he w as or i gi nal l y convi ct ed. O nce the i s s ue has b een f or m al l y adj udi cat ed by the [ c] i r cui t[ c] our t , . . . t he def endantw i l l have the r i ghtt o appea l t o thi s C our tas i n o ther cases. Id . a t 8 4 1 -4 2 (i n te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ). See al s o C o le n b u r

g v . S ta te , 735 So. 2d 1099, 1 1 0 1 -02 (M iss. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ).“[ T] heappe llant h as t herespo ns ibi lity topre sent a trial re co rd s uf fi cie nt to und erg ird

his 24 ass ignm ents o f erro r.” Ed wa rd s v. St ate , 8 00 So . 2 d 4 54 , 4 68 (Mi ss. 20 01 ). 

### 24 ¶ 4 0 . T h e M a

j o r i ty f a i l s t o f o l l o w Read ’s instruct i on an d fi nds i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el bas ed upon the abs ence of on- the- r ecor d rul i ngs by the ci r cui tcourtr egar di ng t he v ideo tape s an d S ea ’s prior se x co n v ict ion s inv o lvin g m in o r g ir ls. A rev iew o f th e e n ti re r ecor d r ef

l ect s that the ti m el i ness or l ack o f s uch on -the-r ecord rul i ng s i s not cas e-di sposi t i ve. See R ead , 4 30 So . 2 d a t8 41 . “ The q ue s t i on p r e s e nt e d on thi s a pp e a l i s n otwhet hert r i al c o u n se l w a s o r w a s n o t in e ffe c tiv e b u t w h e th e r th e tri a l j u d g e , a s a m a tter o f la w , h a d a d u ty to d e c la re a m is tr ia l o rto o rd e r a n e w tr ia l, su a sp o n te o n the b asis o f tri al co u n sel’s per f or m ance . ” Colenbu rg , 735 So. 2d at1102. C ontr ary t o the M aj ori t y’s i nf er ence o therw ise, th e rec o rd is clea r th at th ere w ere d iscu ssion s reg ard ing the v ideo tape an d p ri o rconvi ct i ons i s s ues , notcont ai ned i n the r ecor d pr es ent ed. See ¶¶ 47, 49, 59 i nfr a . A s s uch, 24 the i nef f ect i ve- as s i s t ance - of

- couns el i s s ue “s ubs t ant i al l y r ai s es i s s ues of f act , ” w hi ch an a p p e lla te c o u rt is ill- s u ite d to re s o lv e . R ead , 430 So. 2d at842. T her ef or e, the pr oper c o u rse , if w e w e re to a ffirm th e c o n v ictio n a n d s e n te n c e im p o se d u p o n S e a , w o u ld b e to a ffirm “ w ith o u t p re

ju d ice to [h is] rig h t t o rais e th e in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l issu e v ia appr opr i at e pos t - convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs . ” Id . at841. If S ea exer ci s es thatr i ght , and as s um i ng he s t at es a pr i m a f aci e cl ai m , “he w i l l then be ent i t l ed t o an evi dent i ary hear i ng on the m er i t s of

thati s s ue . . . . ” Id . O nl y t hen w oul d bot h t he ci r cui tcourtand thi s C our tbe a d e q u a tely e q u ip p e d to p ro c e e d o n fa c ts , ins tea d o f m e re p o ss ib ili ties o r a ss u m p tio n s, in c o n sid e rin g w h e th e r S e a ca n reb u t th e “s tro n g . . . p re su m p tio n th a t co u n se l’s c o n d u c t fa llsSea argues ine ffective assist ance of counsel “due t o improper introducti on of his prior 25 convicti on s byhis tri al counsel and failure to se ek a lesserincluded offense instruction for gratif icatio n o f lus t f

or e ach of thesexua l batte ry c ounts .”As the Ma jorityfo un d th e le sse rincluded -of

fens e-ins tru cti on

iss ueto b e w ith out m eri t, Iaddre ss o nly thepri or- co nv iction s is su e. (Ma j. Op. at ¶

22 ). 

### 25 w i thi n a br oad r ange of

r eas onabl e pr of

es s i onal as s i s t ance . ” W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 3 So. 3d 105, 111 ( M i s s . 2009) ( quot i ng 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 )). I I . I nef

f ect i ve A s s i s t ance of

C ounsel ¶ 4 1 . As th i s Co u r ts p u r n s o u rp r e c e d e n tr e g a r d i n g i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - o f

- c o u n s e l c l a i ms on dir ectapp eal , I al t ernat i vely add res s the sub st anti ve m eri t s of Sea’ s i nef

f ect i ve- as s i s t ance o f-c o u n se l cla im . A s S e a ’s s u b sta n tiv e cla im s a re w ith o u t m e rit, I co n c lu d e tha t w e sh o u ld 25 a f f i r m. ¶4 2. V i ew i ng def

ens e couns el ’ s “over - al l per f or m ance ” und e r“t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ance s , ” I cannotconcl ude t hat“t he str ong . . . pre s um pt i on thatcouns el ’ s conduct fa lls w ith in [th e ] b ro a d ra n g e o f r e a s o n a b le p ro fe s s io n a l a s s is ta n c e ” h a s b e e n re b u tte d . Id . Perhaps def

ens e couns el ’ s i ntr oduct i on of Sea’ s pr i orconvi ct i ons w as i nt ended t o “t ake the s t i ng out ” by pr event i ng the j ury f r om bel i evi ng thatS ea “w as tryi ng t o hi de anythi ng[ , ] ” a r egul ar l y empl oyed tr i al s tr at egy. ¶4 3. M or eover , I am unper s ua de d tha ta “ r e a s on a bl e p r ob a bi l i ty” e xi s t s t hat“but f or couns el ’ s [ al l eged] unpr of es s i onal err or s , the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d hav e bee n di f f er ent . ” R a n so m v. S ta te , 919 So. 2d 887, 890 ( M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng Fo ste r v . S ta te , 687 So. 2d 1124, 1129- 30 ( M i s s . 1996) ) . T he ci r cui tj udge s t at ed t hati f t he St at e had i ntr oduced the pr i orconvi ct i ons , they w oul d hav e b een adm i t t ed f orthe purpos es al l ow ed under M is s is s ip p i R u le o f E v id e n c e 4 0 4 (b ). See M i ss. R . E vid. 4 04 (b) (“[ e] vidence o f other cr i m es,In f act , s ho uld

a d ef en dant bea cq

uitted , can

it le gitim ate ly beargu ed

th at hew as a cq

uitted 26 be cau se o f ine ff

ectiveass ist an ce o f c ouns el? 

### 26 w r ongs , oract s i s notadm i s s i bl e t o prove t he char act erof a per s on i n or dert o s how thathe act ed i n conf

or m i ty ther ew i th. I tm ay, how ever , be admi s s i bl e f orotherpurposes s uch as pr oof of m ot i ve, oppor tuni ty, i nt ent , pr epar at i on, pl an, kn ow l edg e, i dent i ty, orabs ence of m i s t ake oracc i dent . ”) . A ddi t i onal l y, the j ury w as pr ovi ded l i m i t i ng i ns truct i on r egar di ng the p ri o r c o n v ic tio n s . See G o re v. S ta te , 37 S o. 3d 1178, 1187 ( M i s s . 2010) ( evi dence admi t t ed u n d er R u le 40 4 (b) is t o b e a cc o m p an ied b y a li m it ing instruction ). ¶ 4 4 . F in a lly , o v e rw h e lm in g , c re d ib le e v id e n c e w a s p re se n ted to th e ju ry th a t S e a se x u a lly abus ed thr ee of

t he chi l dr en. W ei ghi ng thatevi dence , the j ury r eac hed a una ni m ous deci s i on to c o n v ict, w h ile a t th e sa m e tim e a c q u itt in g S e a o n a ll statu to ry -ra p e c o u n ts a n d th e se x u a lbatt ery counti nvol vi ng the younges tchi l d, D . D . , re f ut i ng t he cont ent i on thatthe admi s s i on of pri or conv i ct i on s so i nfect ed thi s proceeding as t o d eny S ea a fair tr ial . F or these 26 r eas ons , I cannotconcl ude thatSea has s at i s f i ed hi s bur den on the pr ej udi ce pr ong. ¶45. “Ther e i s no cons t i tut i onal r i ght. . . t o err or l es s couns el . ” R ansom , 919 So. 2d at 890 ( quot i ng Fos ter , 6 8 7 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 2 9 -3 0 ). T h is C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t: [t] h e tes t to b e a p p lied in c a se s in v o lv in g a lleg e d in e ffe c tiv e n e ss o f c o u n se l is w hethercou nsel ’s over - al lper f or m ance w as (

1) def i ci ent and i f s o, ( 2) w hether the d ef

i ci ent perf

orm an ce prej ud i ced the defense . Str i ckland v. W as hington , 466 U . S. 668, 104 S. C t . 2052, 80 L . E d. 2d 674 (198 4). T he bur den is on the def

endant to de m ons tr at e both pr ongs . L e a th e rw o o d v. S ta te , 4 7 3 S o . 2 d 9 6 4 , 9 6 8 -69 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ).

. . . T hi s s t at e r ecogni zes a stron gb u t re b u tta b le pr esu m p ti o n tha t cou n sel’s conduct f al l s w i thi n a br oad r ange of r eas onabl e pr of

es s i onalas s is tance . G ill ia rdv. S ta te , 4 6 2 S o . 2 d 7 1 0 , 7 1 4 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 ). A lso , this C o u rt b a se s itsCorrespondence between the distr ict att orney’s office and the Cri minal Courtof Shelby 27 Co unty, Te nn ess ee, ref

lec ts that ev idenc e o f S ea’ s p rio r f elo nyco nv iction s w as o rig inallyob taine d as “[o]ur office is preparing t o prosecute [Sea] as an habi tual offender.” 

### 27 deci s i ons as t o w hethercouns el ’ s ef f or t s w er e ef

f ect i ve on the t otal i t

y of the ci r cum s tances s urr oundi ng eac h cas e. Wil lia ms , 3 So. 3d at111 ( quot i ng McQ uarter , 5 7 4 S o . 2 d at 68 7 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶4 6 . P ri o r t o tr ial , S ea fil e d a “ M o tio n fo r D isco v ery U n d er R u le 9.04 o f th e U n if o rm C ir c u it a n d C o u n ty C o u rt R u le s ” w h ic h re q u e s te d , in te ra lia , “[ c] opi es of pr i orcr i m i nal recor ds of the D efendan t. . . .” T h e S t at e’s res po nse i ncluded a ho stof pri or conv i ct i on s, i ncl udi ng aggr avat ed bur gl ary, for gery, l ar ceny, sal e of a cont r ol l ed subs t ance (c ocai ne) , and u n law ful p o sses sion o f a c o n tr o ll ed su b stan ce (co ca ine) w ith the in tent to se ll a n d d eli v er, al ong w i th Sea’ s i ndi ctm entand convi ct i on r ecor ds f ors exual batt ery i nvol vi ng an under age f emal e and a ggr avat ed s exual batt ery base d upon “f el oni ous l y and for ci bl y hav[ i ng] s exual cont actw i th . . . a f

emal e l es s t han t hi r t een ( 13) yearof age . ” Sea had pl eade d gui l ty t o the 27 s exual - batt ery and aggr avat ed- s exual - batt ery char ges , and had s erved t i m e f oreac h. ¶47. D ur i ng vo i r di re exam i nati on , co un sel for Se a condi t i oned the j ury pool f or the ant i ci pat ed admi s s i on of pr i orconvi ct i ons underR ul e 404( b) , s t at i ng: Q . . . . W

e do exp ect

ther e w i l lbe t es t i m ony of s om e pr i orbad act

s or convi ct i ons i nvolvi ng [

Sea] f r om year s ago . N ow , si m ply becau se of tho se pri or act s, i f the re is anyo ne h ere w ho beli eves t hat s i m ply becau se of tho se pri or act s he m ustb e g uil ty of w hat he’s charged w i th here t od ay, . . . pleas e ra is e y o u r h a n d . . . .

. . . Q . A nd de s pi t e then thatther e ar e s om e pr i orba d a ct s a nd c onvi ct i on s t hat c o u ld co m e in as ev i den ce, i f you st i l l hav e a reasonable dou bt i n thi s case t oday, w oul d you al l s t i l l be abl e t o vot e notgui l ty?Sea stated that “I’m not denying nothi ng, I just . . . forgot about it.” 28 

### 28 (E m p h a sis a d d e d .) A t th e o u ts e t o f S e a ’s d ire c t ex a m in a tio n , d e fe n se c o u n se l, se e k in g to “t ake the st i ng ou t ” of the S t at e’s cross -exam i nati on , beg an, as f oll ow s: Q . M r. S e a , I’m g o in g to a sk y o u so m e q u e stio n s . . . . I d o n ’t h a v e it righ t in fro n t o f m e b u t beca use . . . i tis go i ngto com e out w hen the D A crossexam i nes , I ’ m goi ng t o as k you abouta coupl e pr i orconvi ct i ons thatyou have. (E m p h a sis a d d e d .) D e fe n se c o u n se l th e n q u e stio n e d S e a a b o u t th e a fo re m e n tio n e d g u ilty pl eas t o s ex cr i m es i nvol vi ng chi l dr en. Sea ac know l edged the f i r s tgui l ty pl ea t o s exual batt ery, buts t at ed thathe w as notinvol ved i n the l at ercr i m e of aggr avat ed s exual batt ery, al though i tt ook pl ace i n hi s apart m ent . D ur i ng the St at e’s cr os s - exami nat i on, Sea acknow l edged hi s gui l ty pl eas and convi ct i ons as t o both. 28 ¶48. T he j ury al s o w as gi ven a l i m i t i ng i ns truct i on that , “[ y] ou have hear d t es t i m ony t hat [ Sea] has tw o pr i orconvi ct i ons i n M emphi s . Y ou ar e i ns truct ed thatthes e convi ct i ons m ay no tbe u sed t o d et erm i ne the inn o ce n ce o r guil tof the d efendan ti n thi s case. Y ou m ust deci de thi s cas e on the evi dence and l aw . ” I n r eadi ng thi s i ns truct i on, the ci rcui tj udge added: [ d] o you s ee w hat I am sayi ng? H e w as convi ct ed of thes e ac cor di ng t o the r ecor ds orchar ged w i th thes e s om et i m e pr i orand y ou can cons i derthatbut y o u c a n ’tc o n s id e r th a t a s s u b sta n tive e v ide n c e th a t th a t co n d u c t m a ke s h im g u i l t y o f th is c o n d u c t . T

h e s e c h a r

g e s mu s tb e p r o v e n o n th e i ro wn . (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) ¶49. I n cl os i ng ar gum ent , the St at e of f er ed that “[ y] ou’ ve been i ns truct ed that you cannot u se th e tw o p ri o r co n v ict ion s to find inn o ce n ce o r gu il t i n this case . B u t w h at yo u are a llo w e d to d o i s t o u s e t h e m t o a s s e s s h is c re d ib ility to w h e th e r o r n o t h e w a s , in fa c t, a

### 29

bel i ev a bl e w i tne s s . ” D e f e ns e c ou ns e l ob

j e c t e d t o the St a t e ’ s r e f e r e nc e t o the pr i or c o n v i c t i o n s f

o ri mp e a c h me n tp u rp o s e s . De f e n s e c o u n s e l a d d e d th a t“ [ i ] twa s my un derst and i ng they w ou l d b e adm i t t ed” o n ly “ to sh o w that there w as no lack of i nt ent or s om ethi ng al ong thos e l i nes orm ot i ve . ” ( E m phas i s added. ) T he ci rcui tj udge r es ponded,

“ [t] h a t w ould have been tr ue i f the Stat e had i ntr oduced them b u t I th in k th e y a re su b jec t to c o m m e n t n o w in c lo s in g a rg u m e n ts s in c e th e d e fe n s e p u t th e m in a s to c re d ib ility .” (E m p h asis ad d ed . ) T h u s, the str ateg y to “tak e the sti n g o u t” w as n o t w ith o u t r isk. I n S ea ’s cl os i ng ar gum ent , def

ens e couns el s t at ed: I putthos e conv i ct i ons i n be caus e I di dn’ twanty ou to he ari tf r om the Stat e.

. . . I d idn ’t w a n t th o se c o n v ictio n s to c o m e o u t o f [th e p r o s e c u to r ’s

] m o u th and you to thi nk that

[ Sea] w as tr

yi ng t o hi de anythi ng f r om you . . . . He ent er ed pl eas of

gui l ty. H e ac cept ed r es pons i bi l i ty and w enton. ( E m phas i s added. ) A cce pt i ng re s pons i bi l i ty w hen gui l ty, denyi ng w hen i nnocent , i s al s o a strat egy em ployed b y som e eff ect i ve d efense at t orneys. ( A) D ef i cient P er f or m ance ¶5 0 . A s th e effecti v en ess o f cou n sel’s effort s are d eterm ined ba se d u p o n h is “ o v e r-a ll per f or m ance ” under“the t ot al i ty of the ci r cumst ances [ , ] ” the r ecor d r ef l ect s notonl y t hat def ens e couns el s ucce s s f

ul l y r epr es ent ed Sea i n re cei vi ng an ac qui t t al on al l s t atut ory- r ape c ou nt s a ndthe s exual - batt ery counti nvol vi ng D . D . , butal s o thatthe ci r cui tj udge comm ent ed p o s itiv e ly o n th e p e rf

o rm a n c e o f d e fe n s e c o u n s e l. Wil lia ms , 3 So. 3d a t111. Fol l ow i ng t he chi l dr en’ s t es t i m ony, out s i de the pr es ence of the j ury, Sea cont ended thatdef ens e couns el h a d “ so ld [h im ] o u t” b y fa ili n g to a sk th e “ rig h t q u e stio n s . . . to th e rig h t k id .” T h e c irc u it j udge r es ponded that , “I ’ m notgoi ng t o l et[ def ens e couns el ] of

f yourcas e. H e’ s a goodThis point is lost upon the M ajority. 29 

### 30 l aw yer and yo u n eed a g oo d law yer. ” A tthe po st -tri al m oti on h eari ng , add res si ng defense couns el ’ s “M ot i on t o W i thdr aw as C ouns el , ” the ci r cui tj udge not ed that“[ h] e’ s done you a g o o d jo b , M r. S ea . I kn o w y o u ’ve b ee n d issati sfi ed from the s tart . Y o u k n o w , h e d idn ’t p u t y o u w h e re y o u w e re .[ ] [D e fe n s e c o u n s e l] h a s d o n e e v e ry th in gin h is p o w e r a d e q u a tely 29 and pr oper l

y t o r epr es ent

you . . . .” (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) ¶51. M or eover , thi s C our t has s t at ed that “[ w ] i th r es pect t o the over al l per f or m ance of

t he a tto rn e y , ‘c o u n se l’s fa ilu re to file c e rta in m o tio n s, c a ll ce rta in w itn e ss e s, a sk c e rta in ques t i ons , orm ake c ert ai n obj ect i ons f al l w i thi n the ambi tof

tr i al s trat egy ’ a nd do[ es ] not give r i s e t o an i nef

f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el cl ai m . ” P ru itt v. S ta te , 80 7 So . 2d 1236, 1240 ( M i s s . 2002) ( quot i ng Co le v . S ta te , 666 So . 2d 76 7, 777 ( M i ss. 199 5)) . H ere, defense couns el ’ s tr i al s tr at egy ca n be s een c l ear l y. H e addr es s ed the pr i orconvi ct i on s on di r ect exami nat i on beca us e “i ti s goi ng t o come outw hen the D A cr os s - exami nes ” and he di d not w a n t th e ju ry “ to th in k th a t [S e a ] w a s try in g to h id e a n y th in g fr o m [th e m ]. ” T w o stra teg ic re a so n s a re a p p a re n t: (1 ) to “ tak e th e stin g o u t” a n d (2 ) to sh o w th a t w h e n h is c lien t d id c o m m it a c ri m e , h e is m a n e n o u g h to “ fe ss u p ” to h is w ro n g d o in g , a ta c tic re g u lar ly e m p lo y e d b y d e fe n s e c o u n s e l r e p re s e n tin g c a re e r c ri m in a ls s u c h a s S e a . See W r i ght v. R oyal Carpet Servs. , 29 So. 3d 109, 118 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2010) ( M axw el l , J . , concurr i ng i n partand i n r es ul t ) ( “tr i al couns el adj us t ed hi s tr i al s tr at egy t o t ake the s t i ng outof w hathe per cei ved t o be damni ng evi dence . T hi s i s f ul l y per m i s s i bl e i n l i ghtof the adve r s e rul i ng on the mot i on i n l i m i ne. ”) . T hi s s tr at egy, part i cul ar l y i n l i ghtof the ci r cui tj udge’ s l at ers t at ementthats uchTh e ad miss ion of pri or c onvic tio ns fo r th e p urp os es o utl ine d in Rule 40 4(b ), u nlikeRule 30 609, is not res trict edby time limitations. Se e Miss. R. Evid. 609(b) ( ten-yeartime limit for impeachm ent by evidence of prior convict ions). Thus, the Major ity’s as sertion that “[e]vidence of a party’s prior cr iminal conduct, the confinement for which ended m ore than te n years ear lier, i s not admissible to impeach credibi lity, unl es s the trial court makes certain findings[,]” is misplaced. (Ma j. Op. at ¶

1). 

### 31 convi ct i ons w oul d have been a dm i s s i bl e t o pr ove i nt entand/ orm ot i ve i f i ntr oduced by the St at e, does notr i s e t o t he l evel of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance . ¶5 2. Fur t her m or e, w he n thi s l on e p urport e d e rr ori s c on s i der ed w i t hi n t he cont ext of def ens e couns el ’ s “over - al l per f or m ance , ” r ecogni zed by the ci rcui tj udge as “good, ” our “h igh ly d efe ren ti al” rev iew d o es n o t sup p o rta find ing o f i n effec ti v e ass ist an ce on the re co rd b e fo re u s . Wil

lia ms , 3 S o . 3 d a t 1 1 1 ; P ru itt , 807 So. 2d at1239. ( B ) P r ej udi ce ¶53. B ut even assum i ng ar guendo that the M aj ority ’s crit iqu e o f de fen se co u n sel’s per f or m ance i s acc ur at e, r ever s al r equi r es m or e. T he pr ej udi ce s t andar d r equi r es “a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty that , butf orcouns el ’ s unpr of

es s i onal err or s , the r es ul tof t he pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di f f er ent . ” R ansom , 919 So. 2d at890 ( quot i ng Fos ter , 687 So. 2 d a t 1 1 2 9 -3 0 ). A s su c h , th e p re ju d ice inq u iry p lac e s a n ad d iti o n a l b u rd e n u p o n a n a p p e llate court , notunl i ke a j ur or ’ s r ol e of f act - f i ndi ng, f ora n a ppel l at e courtm us tr evi ew al l of t he evi dence t o det erm i ne w hetherthe purpor t ed err or ( s ) of couns el m ade any di f f er ence i n t he r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng. ¶54. H er e, the ci r cui tj udge s t at ed that , i f they had be en i ntr oduced by the St at e, thes e pr i or convi ct i ons w oul d have bee n admi s s i bl e t o pr ove i nt entand/ orm ot i ve. See M i s s . R . E vi d. 30 404( b) . Fur therm or e, the ci r cui tcourti ns truct ed the j ury thats uch pr i orconvi ct i ons “may

### 32

notbe us ed t o det erm i ne the i nnocenc e orgui l tof the def endanti n thi s cas e. ” See G ore , 37 So. 3d at1187 ( r eaf

f i r m i ng thatthe us e of

s uch evi dence i s l i m i t ed t o the exc ept i ons s t at ed in R u le 40 4 (b)). ¶ 5 5 . It is th e tes tim o n y o f th e c h ild v ictim s, a m o n g “ th e m o st in n o c e n t a n d d e fe n se les s in ours oci ety[ , ] ” w hi ch convi nces m e thatSea w oul d have been c onvi ct ed, even i n the abs ence o f th e p ri o r c o n v ic tio n s . Id . at1185 ( quot i ng D e ro u e n v. S ta te , 994 S o. 2d 74 8, 75 6 (M i ss. 2 0 0 8 )). A .W ., w ith o u t eq u iv o c a tio n , tes tified th a t S e a to u c h e d h e r “ m id d le p a rts[;] ” p u t h is f i nger“up i n [ her ] s tuf

f ” and “ m ove[ d] i tar ound[ ; ] ” puthi s m outh on her“s tuf f ” on one o c c a s io n ; a n d “ g o t o n to p o f [h e r]” a n d p u t h is p ri v a te s in h e r p ri v a te s a n d “ in [h e r] b u tt[,]” w h ile “ [m ]ov [in g ] u p a n d d o w n .” T .J., w ith o u t eq u iv o c a tio n , tes tified th a t S e a “ stu c k h is f i nger ” i n herpr i vat es and tr i ed t o t ouch hi s pr i vat es t o herpri vat es . She added t hatSea had A . W . t ake he rcl othes of f a nd “g[ e] ton t op of

hi m . ” B . J . , w i thoutequi vocat i on, t es t i f i ed that S e a p u t “h is p riv a te u p in m y p ri v a te ” a n d “ b o o ty [;] ” in stru c ted h e r to “ su c k . . . h is p ri v a te [;]” “ [s ]tu ff

e d h is h a n d in [h e r] p ri v a te [;]” a n d d id “ n a s ty s tu ff ” to T .J . a n d A .W . T h e r e a f t e r , a c c o r d i n g t o B. J . , S e a wa rn e d h e rt o “ s h u t[ h e r ] mo u th ” a b o u tth e i n c i d e n t s . An obj ect i ve r evi ew of

t hi s t es t i m ony f

r om the “mout hs of

b abes” of

f er ed overw hel m i ng evi dence of

gui l tt o the j ury thateven a n el i t e cr i m i nal def ens e att orney coul d not su cc essfu ll y fen d o ff. T h e M ajority ac k n o w ledg es a s m u ch , stat ing “the co n v ict ion s are ampl y s uppor t ed by the t es t i m ony of al l f ourof the chi l dr en and the i ncr i m i nat i ng cont ent of t he videot apes. ” (M aj . O p. at¶ 11 ). In such cir cum st ances, “I choo se . . . no t. . . t o close m y eyes t o the r eal i ty of overw hel m i ng evi dence of gui l tf ai r l y es t abl i s hed. ” G o

ff v . S ta te , 1 4 S o . 3 d 6 2 5 , 6 7 7 ( M is s . 2 0 0 9 ) (R a n d o lp h , J ., s p e c ia lly c o n c u rr in g , jo in e d b y C a rl s o n , P .J .,

### 33

D i cki ns on, L amar , and Pi er ce, J J . ) ( ci t i ng Milton v. W ainwri ght , 40 7 U. S. 37 1, 37 7, 92 S. C t . 2174, 2178, 33 L . E d. 2d 1 (1972) ) . W e oughtnotf or getthat“j us t i ce, though due t o t he a c c u se d , is d u e to th e a c c u se r a lso . T h e c o n c e p t o f fa irn e ss m u st n o t b e str a in e d till it i s narr ow ed t o a f

i l ament . W e ar e t o keep the bal ance true. ” P ayne v. T en n es s ee , 50 1 U. S. 808, 827, 111 S. C t . 2597, 115 L . E d. 2d 720 ( 1991) ( quot i ng S ny de r v . Ma ss a c h u se tts , 291 U . S . 97 , 12 2 , 54 S . C t. 33 0 , 33 8 , 78 L . E d . 6 7 4 (19 3 4 ) ( over r ul ed on anotheris s ue by Mal loy v. Hogan , 378 U . S. 1, 17, 84 S . C t . 1489, 1498, 12 L . E d. 2d 653 ( 1964) ) ) . T o di s r egar d t he overw hel m i ng evi dence i n thi s cas e w oul d needl es s l y s w ay thatbal ance t ow ar d Sea,

“ p la c [in g ] a s ig n if

ic a n t b u rd e n o n s o c ie ty ’ s in te re s t in p ro s e c u tin g c ri m in a l a c tiv ity .” Ber ghui s v. Thom

pk ins , 130 S. C t . 2250, 2260, 176 L. E d. 2d 1098 ( 2010) ( ci t i ng D avis v. U nited States , 5 1 2 U .S . 4 5 2 , 4 5 9 -6 1 , 1 1 4 S . C t. 23 5 0 , 1 2 9 L . E d . 2 d 3 6 2 (1 9 9 4 ); Mor an v. Burb ine , 4 7 5 U . S . 4 1 2 , 4 2 7 , 1 0 6 S . C t. 1 1 3 5 , 8 9 L . E d . 2 d 4 1 0 (19 8 6 )). ¶ 5 6 . T h e ju ry ’s e x o n e ra tio n o f S e a o n so m e c o u n ts re fle c ts c o n sid e re d d e lib e ra tio n , n o t a j ury cons um ed by t he purpor t edl y “i ncendi ary” pr oof of the pr i orconvi ct i ons s ugges t ed by the M aj ori ty. ( M aj . O p. at¶ 20) . T he j ury f ound thatSea w as notgui l ty on the s t atut or yra p e c o u n ts a n d th e se x u a l-b a ttery c o u n t in v o lv in g D .D . (M a j. O p . at ¶ 8 ). T h e sp litv e rd icts b e lie th e M a

jo rity ’s in sis ten c e u p o n th e “ in c e n d iar y ” eff e c t of th e se p rio r c o n v ictio n s. (M a j. O p . at ¶ 2 0 ). ¶57 . A cc o rdin g ly, S ea h as n o t sat i sf i ed h i s burden of provi ng that “butfor co u n sel’s unpr of es s i onal err or s ” ther e i s a “r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty” that“the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di f

f er ent . ” R ansom , 919 So. 2d at890 ( quot i ng Fos ter , 687 So. 2d at1129- 3 0 ).Th e ef fe ct of the intro du cti on

of th e video tap es to the jury w ould h av e b een pre judici al o nly 31 h a d th e c irc u it

j u dg e d e termin e d

th at th e yl a c k e d

tru s tw o rt h in e s s , s u c hth at th e j ury h a d v iew ed ina dmiss ibl e ev idenc e. Th is w as n ot t

hefirst ref ere nc e to th e video tap es in the re co rd. Durin g v oir

dire, thedis tri ct 32 att orn eystated

“y ou wi ll h ear from allfo ur o f t

hech ild ren an d th eywi ll t estif

y a s b est the y c an about whathappened. Yo u’re a lso go ing to h ea r o r se e so mevid

eo tap es. ” (Em

ph asi s adde d. ) A lso durin g v oir

dire, def en se co un selasked

thejur y p oo l whe ther ea chm em

be r co uld “p romisethat ev en af ter yo u h av e h eard a ll thetes timony including vide o e vid en ce. . . th at i f y ou

havea re aso na

ble 

### 34 I I I . V i deot apes ¶5 8. T he r ecor d r evea l s tha td e f e ns e c ouns el m ade a hear s ay obj ect i on bef or e t he vi deot apes w er e pl ayed t o the j ury, r enew ed hi s obj ect i on af t erthe St at e had r es t ed, and p re se n ted th e iss u e a g a in p o st-tria l. I find n o a b u se o f d isc re tio n b y th e c irc u it co u rt in overrul i ng thos e obj ect i ons bas ed upon the “t ender - year s exce pt i on” of M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E v id e n c e 8 0 3 (2 5 ). See M iss. R . E v id. 80 3 (25 ). W e a ll ca n ag ree that the c ir cu itjud g e’s ruli n g sh o u ld h a v e b ee n m ad e p ri o r t o d isplay ing the v ideo tape s b efo re the jury , h o w ev er, I w oul d concl ude thatany put at i ve pr ej udi ci al ef f ectw as cur ed by gr ant i ng Sea addi t i onal cr os s exami nat i on of

the chi l dr en. 31 ¶ 5 9 . T h e M a

jo ri ty ’s fi n d in g th a t S e a “ w a iv e d a n y o b je c tio n to [th e v id e o ta p e s ’] c o n te n t,” i s m i s pl ace d. ( M aj . O p. at¶ 9). Pr i ort o tr i al , Sea had f i l ed a “ M ot i on f

orD i s covery U nder R u le 9 .0 4 o f t h e U n if

o rm C ir c u it a n d C o u n ty C o u rt R u le s ” w h ic h s o u g h t, in tera lia , “a c opy of al l w r i t t en and r ecor ded s t at ement s r el at i ve t o thi s cas e of any and a l l per s ons w hom the St at e pl ans t o cal l as w i tnes s es . . . . ” I n r es pons e, the St at e i dent i f i ed the vi deot apes , w hi ch w er e made “avai l abl e f

ori ns pect i on ata mut ual l y agr eea bl e dat e, t i m e and pl ace . ” W hen the St at e att empt ed t o pl ay the vi deot apes f orthe j ury, de f

ens e couns el cl ear l y s t at ed, “I r eal i ze this has been dis cus s ed i n cham bers t o s om e ex t ent ,[ ] fo r th e rec o rd , th e d e fe n se o b jec ts to 32doubt as to [Sea’s] guiltthat you will vote notguilty? ” (Emphasis adde d. ) T he S tate ’s opening

statement provided that “you will get t o see” the vi deotapes “of each chi ld” from “start to finish.” 

### 35 th e ad m iss ib ili ty [of

] th e tap e s a s in a d m iss ib le h e a rsa y .” (E m p h a sis ad d e d .) T h e c irc u it c o u rt o v e rru led S e a ’s o b jec tio n , an d th e v id e o tap e s w e re p lay e d to th e ju ry . A fte r th e S tate h a d re s te d , d e fe n s e c o u n s e l “ re n e w [e d ] th e o b je c tio n to th e ta p e s o n th e b a s is o f h e a rs a y [,]” w h il e a lso m o v ing for a d ir ec ted v erd icto f no t gu il ty o n all co u n ts. T h e c ir cu itco u rt o v erru led S ea ’s objec tio n a n d d en ied S ea ’s m o ti o n for d ir ec ted v erd ict . F inally, i n S ea ’s

“ M o tio n f

o rJ u d g m e n t N o tw it h s ta n d in g th e V e r d ic t o r , A lt e rn a ti v e ly , M o ti o n fo r N e w T ri a l,” def ens e couns el ur ged the ci r cui tcourtthat“[ t ] he [ c] our tcomm i t t ed err ori n al l ow i ng the [ j ] ury t o cons i derhear s ay t es t i m ony i n t he f or m of vi deot ape r ecor di ngs of the vi ct i m s w hi ch w er e made out - of- cou rtan d of f er ed f orthe truth of

the mat t eras s ert ed. ” A tthatpos t - tr i al m oti on heari ng , the cir cuitj ud ge st ated that this i ssue w as “ b ro u g h t to my a tten tio n tim e ly by couns el

f or[ Sea] i n the cour

s e of tr i al. . . .” (E m p h a s is a d d e d .) ¶60. “W hen r evi ew i ng evi dent i ary rul i ngs m ade by the tr i al court , thi s C our t empl oys an abus e of dis cr et i on s t andar d. ” B ro w n v. S ta te , 965 So. 2d 1023, 1026 ( M i s s . 2007) (em ph asi s added ). R ule 803(25 ), the “tender- years excepti on , ” provides: [ a] s t at ementm ade by a chi l d of t enderyear s des cr i bi ng any ac tof s exual con t actp erf

orm ed w i th or on the ch i l d by ano ther i s a dm iss ib le i n evi dence if : ( a) the courtf

i nds , i n a hea ri ngco nd ucted o uts i de the presence of the jury , that the t i m e, cont ent

, and ci r cum s tances of the s tat em ent

pr ovi de s ubs tant i al in d icia o f re lia b ili ty ; and

(b) the ch il d eith er (1 ) t es t i f i es atthe pr ocee di ngs ; o r ( 2 ) i s u n a v a ila b le a s a w itn e s s . . . . M i ss . R . E vi d. 803( 25) ( emphasi s added) . T he r eas oni ng behi nd thi s hear s ay exc ept i on r ecogni zes the natur al f ear , hes i t ancy, r el uct ance , and nervous nes s thatm any chi l dr en of t enderyear s exper i ence i n comm uni cat i ng f act s , due t o the unf

ami l i ars urr oundi ngs and

### 36

i ndi vi dual s . A s r el at ed by the St at e dur i ng voi rdi r e exa m i nat i on , “t her e i s the pos s i bi l i ty, and I don’ tr eal l y know unt i l they s i tdow n, thatthes e chi l dr en ar e goi ng t o be s car ed about h a v in g to ta lk . A n d th e y m a y b e a littl e b it q u ie t.” ¶61. T her e i s no di s put e t hat eac h of the chi l dr en t es t i f i ed at tr i al t o pr ovi de s ubs t ant i ve evi dence , t o l ay a f

oundat i on f

ori ntr oduct i on of

the vi deot apes , ora combi nat i on of bot h. A l l can a gr ee the r ecor d does notr ef l ectthatthe ci r cui tcourtconduct ed a Rul e 803( 25) h e a r i n g o u t s i d e th e p r e s e n c e o f th e j u ry b e f

o r e th e v i d e o t a p e s we r e p l a y e d . Bu ta tth e s a me t i m e, w e ca nnoti gnor e that , w hen the ci r cui tj udge overrul ed Sea’ s renew ed obj ect i on, he d i d p e r f o r m a n o n - th e - r e c o r d Ru l e 8 0 3 ( 2 5 ) a n a l y s i s , o u t s i d e th e p r e s e n c e o f th e j u ry . Of e v e n g re a ter im p o rt, t o e n su re th a t S e a w a s p ro v id e d a fa ir trial, th e c irc u it j u d g e o ffe re d h im the opportuni ty t o cal l eac h of the f ourchi l dr en f

oraddi t i onal cr os s- exami nat i on. Speci f i cal l y, the ci r cui tj udge s t at ed thathe: could t el l by the cont entand the mannerthatthe ques t i ons w er e as ked that they w er e nottr yi ng t o s ubj ectans w er s orpr om pta nythi ng. I tw as a n openend ed st at em ent and t he an sw ers w ere notsugg est ed b y the i nterview ers .

. . . T he t i m e and content

and the ci r cum s tances al l t i e t ogetherw i th w hatthey t es t i f i ed t o i n courtand w i th w hatthey t el l the i nt ervi ew er . T he chi l dr en s eemed r el i abl e w hen I i nt ervi ew ed them i n chamber s yes t er day and they s eemed r el i abl e w hen they t es t i f i ed bef or e the j ury, and t he bes tI coul d hear fr o m th e ta p e s , they appe ar ed to be r el i abl e atthe t i m e of the i nt er vi ew . A nd that ’s one of

the thi ngs thatthe tr i alj udge is di r ected to do is l ook at the t otal i t y of the f act s and ci r cum s tances s ur r oundi ng this t ype of tr i ali n 803(

25)

. . . t o tr y to det er m i ne i

f ther e are subs tant i ali ndi cators of r el i abi l i t y . . . , and I think i tis rel i ab l e eno ug h to l etthis case go t o a j ury .

. . .

### 37

[ I] tw as n o ta la r

g e s p a n o f t i me th a t w a s s p e n t betw een the al l eged e vent s and the i nt er vi ew . T h e . . . c h ildre n d id se e m to h a v e re c a lla b ili ty a n d se e m e d to be abl e t o r elat e adequat el y t o the int er vi ew er. . . and di d a f ai rj ob under s t andi ng the ques t i ons and pr ovi di ng t he ans w er s thatyou w oul d expec t

. . . .

. . . [T ] h is w a s p ro

p e r u n d e rth e 8 0 3 (2 5

) ten d e r y e a rs ex c e

p tio n to h e a rs a

y ru le a n d . . . the chi ldr en t es t i f i ed underoath, they’ ve bee n avai labl e f ort r i al , and I w i l lperm i trecross i

f the d ef ense w an t

s recr oss . (E m p h a sis a d d e d .) T h e c irc u it co u rt g ra n ted S e a th e sa m e o p p o rtu n ity to c o n fro n t th e c h ild wi tn e s s e s a s i f

th e h e a r i n g h a d b e e n c o n d u c t e d p r i o rt o th e v i d e o t a p e s b e i n g p l a y e d . I n s u m, I canno tcon cl ud e t hat the cir cuitcou rt ’s adm i ssi on of the v i deo tape s const i tuted an ab use of dis cret i on . B ut even if o ne con cl ud es t hat i tw as err or, itw as cured and , thu s, harm l ess. A c c o rd in g ly , itis n o t a b a sis fo r re v e rsa l. CO NC L US I ON ¶62. B as ed up on the aforem enti on ed analysi s, I w ou l d aff i r m Sea’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence . W AL LE R, C. J . , LA M AR AND P I ER CE , J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.