I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 3 - KA- 0 1 7 4 2 - S CT M ARVI N KI RK
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 09/ 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 T RI AL CO UR T AT T OR NE YS : M AR Y B . CO T T ON GR EGO RY V. M I LES COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ADI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : P HI L L I P W . BR OADHE AD OFFI CE O F S TATE PUB LI C D EFENDER BY : G EO RG E T. H O LM ES AT T OR NE YS 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: LAURA HOG AN TEDDER J O H N R . H E N R Y , J R . 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 D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 02/ 05/ 2015 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 W A L L E R , C . J. , K I T C H E N S A N D C O L E M A N , JJ. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. M a rv in K irk w a s tried a n d c o n v icte d o f ag g ra v a ted d o m e stic v io len c e in th e C irc u it C o u rt o f M a d iso n C o u n ty . H e w a s s e n ten c e d a s a S e c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -8 1 h a b itu a l o ffe n d e r to tw enty year s 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 . T he St at e al l eged thatK i r k tw i ce ha d str angl ed hi s w i f e, C as ey. A tt r i al , w i tnes s es t es t i f i ed t hatC as ey had r ed
m arks on herneck s hor t l y af t erthe al l eged as s aul t s had occ urr ed, and C as ey t es t i f i ed that

### 2

K i r k had s tr angl ed her
. K i r k deni ed s o doi ng. Fi ndi ng K i r k’ s as s i gnm ent s of err or t o be
w i thoutm er i t , w e af

f i r m hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence . S TATEM ENT OF THE FACTS ¶2. O n Fr i day, J anuary 25, 2013, M arvi n K i rk, ho m e fr om w orki ng off s hor e, w oke ar ound ten o ’cloc k in the m o rnin g a t his res iden ce a t 20 8 W aldro p R o ad in M ad ison C o u n ty. K irk t es t i f i ed thathe w entt o a har dw ar e s t ore t o pu rchase t ool s t o r epai ra l eaki ng f auce ti n t he bath tub i n the m as t erba thr oom . H e t es t i f i ed thatnothi ng oc curr ed thatday exce pt “ the
us us al bei ng m arr i ed. ” C as ey K i r k, M arvi n’ s w i f e, w ho di d notw or k out s i de t he home, t es t i f i ed thats he and the coupl e’ s t w o- year - ol d son G abr i el had s pentthe maj or i ty of the day athom e w at chi ng cart oons , “unt i l about6: 00 ors o. ” She t es t i f i ed t hatherhusband t ook her keys , phone, and w al l etaw ay f r om her , beca us e “[ h] e s ai d I w as doi ng drugs a nd thatI w as
w anti ng t o g o get drug s and thatI w as cheati ng on him ” and that, gen eral l y, “[ h] e w as j ust i n an i l l m ood, j us tw ant i ng m e t o do w hat everhe w ant ed me t o do and contr ol m e. ” C as ey t e s t i f i e d tha ts he di d n otus e drug s on Thur s da y, J a nu a ry 2 4, 20 13 , oron the f ol l owi ng
w eeke nd. ¶3. C as ey t es t i fi ed that , atsom e po i nt that Fri day even i ng , M arvi n b egan com pl ai ni ng that the hous e w as di r ty. W hen M arvi n s t art ed com pl ai ni ng, t he f ami l y w as “si t t i ng on t he couc h i n the l i vi ng r oom , ” s o C as ey gotup t o w as h di s hes
. She s ai d, “A nd I ’ m w as hi ng di s hes , and h e k e p t y e llin g a t m e , a n d I g o t irr ita te d b e c a u s e I’ v e d o n e e v e ry th in g h e w a n ts m e to d o .” C a se y tes tified th a t, as th e a rg u m e n t es c a la ted , “[h ]e s tar ted c o m in g to w a rd s m e .” M a rv in
a lleg e d ly k ick e d C a se y , w h ich re su lti n g in h e r fa lli n g o n to th e re frig e ra to r. A t th a t p o in t, C as ey t es t i f

i ed, M arvi n gr abbed he rby t he neck and pr ocee ded t o choke he ri n the pr es ence

### 3

of thei rs on. She s t at ed thats he w as notabl e t o br eathe. W hen M arvi n r el eas ed her , C as ey “gas ped f

orbr eath, ” gr abbed he rs on, and pr ocee ded agai n t o w as h di s hes “w i th G abr i el r i ght besi de m e” i n an eff

ortt o p reventM arvi n fr om gett i ng ang ri er. A ft er com plet i ng the d i shes, C a se y a n d G a b rie l re tu rn e d to th e so fa . C a se y tes tified th a t M a rv in “ to ld m e th a t m y m o u th
w as goi ng t o getm e puti n a s hal l ow gr ave out s i de i f I di dn’ ts hutup. ” Thatni ght , C as ey and G abr i el s har ed herbed. ¶4. T he next m orni ng, Satur day, J anuary 26, 2013, C as ey and G abr i el w at ched c art oons unt i l M a r vi n g otup , a ga i n a r ou nd t e n o ’ c l oc k. M a r vi n h a d s l e pti n h i s c ha i ri n the l i vi ng
roo m . C ase y test if

ied th at, w h en M arv in g o t up to g o to th e b athro o m , sh e ru sh ed to M arv in’s chai r , w her e he ha d been s i t t i ng f ortw o days , i n an ef

f or tt o fi nd herphone and he rkeys
. She l ocat ed both herphone a nd he rke ys a nd, w hen M arvi n r eturned f r om the bathr oom , he bega n
as ki ng C as ey ques t i ons r egar di ng w hy s he nee ded them. H e thr ew herphone outthe bac k doori nt o the kudzu and pr ocee ded t o w r es t l e w i th Case y t o ge the rkeys back. C as ey t es t i f i ed th a t, as th e y w e re w re stlin g , sh e in fo rm e d M a rv in th a t sh e n e e d e d to g o to th e h o sp ital. Fi nal l y, M arvi n “ gotthe keys a w ay f r om me and br oke the l anyar d. W heneve ri tbr oke the la n y a rd , it c u t m y h a n d .” ¶5. T he m el ee cont i nued, and “[ h] e grabbe d m e, and he put m e on the gr ound, and he choked me unt i l w her e I coul dn’ ts ee orbr eathe oranythi ng. ” Thi s occurr ed betw een the k it ch en an d the living roo m , b e c a u se “ th e li v ing roo m h as c arp et, the k it ch en h as h ard fl o o rs ,” a n d C a se y ’s “ b a c k w a s o n th e c a rp e t, bu t [h e r] h e a d w a s o n th e h a rd w o o d flo o r.” M a rv in a lle g e d ly “ c h o k e d [C a s e y ] c o m p le te ly o u t,” m e a n in g C a s e y “ lo s t c o n s c io u s n e s s .” W hen s he ca m e t o, C as ey t es t i f i ed, s he s ear ched f

r ant i cal l y fora ci gar ett e. W hen s he l ocat ed

### 4

one, s he “l i ti ti n the hous e, notthi nki ng. A nd he gotmad atme, and he tr i ed t o w r es t l e the ci gar ett e aw ay f

r om he, and w as t r yi ng t o burn m e w i th t he ci gar ett e. ” A ccor di ng t o C as ey, M arvi n s ucce eded i n burni ng herw i th the ci gar ett e. ¶6. C as ey t es t i f

i ed that , at that poi nt , s he w as abl e t o gr ab G abr i el and w al k out the bac k door
. I n hopes the “ac r os s - the- s tr eetne i ghbor s , ” the H obs ons , w er e home, C as ey f l ed ther e, butthey w ere no th om e. C as ey then r eturned t o herdr i vew ay, “bec aus e I kepthear i ng car door s s l amm i ng” and s he obs erved M arvi n pa cki ng up the f ami l y car . H e thr eat ened t o l ock her out of t he ho use, w hich he then a greed no tto do
. A s he w as w al king to u nlock t he h ou se d o o r, C a se y “ p u t G a b rie l d o w n in th e m id d le o f th e d riv e w a y ” a n d “ ra n o v e r th e re to try to getthe ca rs eat . ” M arvi n pus hed heraw ay. C as ey then “gotr eal l y s car ed agai n, ” pi cked up G abr i el and r an bac k t hr ough the w oods t o herl andl or d’ s hous e. ¶7 . C ol i t a O gl e tr e e , w ho m C a s e y h a d n e ve rmet , w a s the w i f e of the K i r ks ’ l andl or d, D avi d O gl etr ee, a nei ghbor i ng hom eow ner . C as ey di d notw anth er l andl or d “t o s ee how
c ra z y a n d m e s s e d u p m y fa m ily w a s b e c a u s e w e w e re re n tin g th e h o u s e fr o m th e m .” N everthel es s , beca us e othernei ghbor s , the H obs ons , w er e nothom e, C as ey f l ed t o t he O gl etr ees ’ hous e. C ol i t a ans w er ed the doorand C as ey i nf or m ed herthath er husband ha d
s tr angl ed herand thats he nee ded t o pl ace a t el ephone c al l t o 911. A ttr i al , thi s r ecor ded 911 cal l w as pl ayed f

orthe j ury. ¶ 8
. M a r v i n ’ s t e s t i mo n y a tt r i a l c o n s i s t e d o f a s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f

f e r e n tv e r s i o n o f

e v e n t s . He d en ied y ell ing at C ase y du ri n g th e w ee k en d i n qu esti o n . H e d en ied k ee p ing C a se y ’s tele p h o n e o r k e y s fr o m h e r, tes tify in g th a t s h e h a d th re e p h o n e s a n d h e r k e y s w e re k e p t in
m a g n e tic b o x e s u n d e r th e c a rs’ h o o d s. H e d e n ied b u rn in g o r a ttem p tin g to b u rn C a se y w ith

### 5

a l i tc i gar ett e. H e t es t i f

i ed that , on the w eeke nd i n que s t i on, Case y “w as l ooki ng f ora bag of
crys t al m eth thats he i nadv ert entl y fol ded up i n a t ow el and dr opped on the f l oor . ” W hen M arvi n i nf

or m ed C as ey thathe had f l us hed her m et ham phet ami ne, s he bega n “di ggi ng thr ough the hous e, j us tthr ough everythi ng, thr ough s tuf f thatyou w oul dn’ tl ook thr ough g e n e ra lly if

y o u w e re lo o k in g fo r s o m e th in g .” ¶9. M arvi n t es t i f

i ed that , w hen C as ey r eal i zed that her m ethamphet ami ne w as gone, s he
w ento n a t i r ade: “I ’ m t al ki ng aboutl i ke, ‘ Y ou don’ tdo nothi ng f orthi s f ami l y, al l you do i s bi t ch.
. . . A l l yo u d o is gri pe ab ou tw hat I do n’tdo
. ’” H e t hen coll ect ed h i s packe d b ags, hi s boot s , hi s har d hat , and hi s l i f e j acke tand hea ded of

f s hor e. M arvi n t es t i f

i ed that , as he
w as packi ng the truck, C as ey begge d hi m t o s t ay— i n f act , he t es t i f

i ed thatC as ey cuther thum b i n an ef

f or tt o w r es thi s keys f

r om hi m as he w as tryi ng to l eave. H e deni ed thathe
everhad as s aul t ed orchoked hi s w i f e. H e t es t i f

i ed t hat t he m arks on C as ey ca m e f r om
ru n n in g th o u g h th e w o o d s to g e t to th e O g le tr e e s’ h o u se . O n c ro ss e x a m in a tio n , M a rv in t es t i f i ed thatno m arks had bee n on C as ey’ s neck w hen he l ef tthe h ou se, an d t hathe w as
unaw ar e of

how s he had gott en the brui s e on herarm or the ci gar ett e bur n. M arvi n t es t i f i ed thathe w as pul l ed overby t he pol i ce, w ho t ook hi m t o the O gl etr ees ’ hous e. ¶1 0
. C o li ta O g letree test if ied that w h en C ase y arrived a t h e r h o u se , “ [s] h e w as just ve ry al arm ed w hen s he cam e i n, and she sho w ed m e her f orear m . Itl oo ked l i ke she h ad a g oo se egg. ”A l s o, C ol i t a not i ced thatC as ey’ s neck w as re d. S he t es t i f i ed t hat“she j us thad ki nd of a goos e egg on he rbi cep a nd s om e brui s i ng, and herneck w as r ed. ” ¶1 1. D eput y Sher i f

f T omm y Str a i t , the o f f i c e rwho re s ponded t o t he ca l l f r om t he O gl etr ees ’ hous e, t es t i f

i ed thathe and D eputy S her i f f B r ad Sul l i van had r ece i ved a ca l l about

### Miranda v. Ari zona , 384 U. S. 436, 86 S. Ct . 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966)
. 1 

### 6 a p o tential d o m esti c-v iolen ce ca se o n W aldro p R o ad i n v o lving a w h it e T o y o ta F o reru n n er. A c c o rd in g to S tra it, o n th e w a y to W a ld ro p R o a d , “w e c a m e in to c o n tac t w ith h im , M a rv in K i r k, and det ai ned hi m atthe t i m e and w entt o w her e C as ey K i r k w as . ” W hen as ked about C a se y ’s d e m e a n o r, S tra it t e stifie d th a t; She w as s car ed and f

r ant i c and j us tr eal l y di dn’ tknow w hatt o do beca us e s he w as w orr i ed aboutM r . K i r k comi ng back t o w her e s he w as and gett i ng her , as s he s ai d. I al s o not i ced ar ound herneck s he had s tr angul at i on m arks
. She had s ever al brui s es upon heral s o. S tra it th e n p h o to g ra p h e d C a se y ’s in ju rie s a n d c a lled a n a m b u lan c e to ta k e h e r to th e h o sp ital. ¶12. D eputy Sul l i van t es t i f i ed that , w hen he obs erved the T oyot a For erunner , he det ai ned M a rv in , p lac e d h im , in h a n d c u ffs , into th e b a c k se a t o f a p a tro l ca r, an d re tu rn e d h im to W aldro p R o ad
. W h en th e d ep u ti es arrive d at the O g letree s’ r esid en ce , S tr aitan d S u ll ivan left M arvi n i n the patr ol carout s i de and w enti n t o s peak w i th C as ey. Sul l i van t es t i f i ed thatw hen h e n o tice d th a t C a se y “ h a d re d m a rk s o n h e r n e c k th a t sh e w a s p o in tin g o u t to D e p u ty S tra it,
a n d she ha d som e red m ark s on he r arm s, ” h e return ed ou tsi d e an d read t o M arv in h is Mir anda w a rn in g s, b e c a u se “ M iss iss ip p i sta te s tatu te s a y s d o m e stic v io len c e w ith

1
s tr a n g u la tio n is a fe lo n y d o m e s tic c h a rg e .” ¶13. O n A pr i l 3, 2013, M arvi n K i r k w as i ndi ct ed by a M adi s on C ounty gr and j ury under M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97- 3- 7( 4) f oraggr avat ed dom es t i c vi ol ence . O n J ul y 26, 2013, t he St at e moved t o amend K i r k’ s i ndi ctm entt o char ge hi m as an habi tual of f enderunder M i s s i s s i pp i Code Se c t i on 9 9- 19
- 81
. Ki r k pr e vi ou s l y ha d r e c e i ve d a 1 99 8 c on vi c t i on f or g ra n d lar c e n y in Y a z o o C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i, fo r w h ich re c e iv e d a fiv e -y e a r se n ten c e w ith

### The s ent enc e c omput ation rec ord r ef le ct s that, on Kir

k’s 1998 sent enc e, these nte nce 2 

### comme nce d on Apri l 10, 1998. Kirk wa s di sc harged on Septe mbe r 20, 1999. As f or the2 00 7 burgl ary c harge , Ki r k’ s s e nt e nc e c omm e nc e d onAugus t 8 , 2007, 3 

### and hewas re le as ed on probation on July 10, 2008. Prior to being se nte nce d, the s ent enc e com putati on re cord re fl ec ts that Kirk ha d spe nt a tot alof 110 days incarc erat ed. 7 thr ee ye ar s and s i x m onths s us pended, l eavi ng one yea rand s i x mont hs t o s erve and one year of s upervi s ed pr obat i on f ol l ow i ng r el eas e f

r om cu st od y. I n 2007, K i r k had r ece i ved a 2 b u rg lar y c o n v ictio n in Y a z o o C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i, a n d w a s se n ten c e d to se rv e six y e a rs, w ith tw o year s t o s erve and four year s of pos t - r el eas e s upervi s i on. O n A ugus t12, 2013, the 3 M adi s on C ounty C i r cui tC our tor der ed the amendm entof K i rk’ s i ndi ctm entt o i ncl ude the Sect i on 99- 19-81 habi tual
- of f enderchar ge. K i r k w as tr i ed on A ugus t28, 2013, and w as f ound gui l ty of

aggr avat ed domest i c vi ol ence by a M adi s on C ounty j ury. ¶ 1 4
. O n O c to b e r 7, 20 1 3 , th e trial co u rt se n ten c e d K irk as an h a b itu a l of fe n d e r t o tw e n ty y e a rs ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t, th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m fo r a g g ra v a te d d o m e s tic v io le n c e . See M i ss. C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 7( 4) ( a) ( R ev. 2014)
. The tr i al c our tde ni ed K i r k’ s mot i on for j ud gm ent
n o tw ith stan d ing the v erd ict , or i n th e alt ern ati v e, for a n ew tri al, on O ctob er 11 , 20 1 3
. K irk f i l ed a not i ce of

appea l t o t hi s C our ton O ct ober16, 2013. ¶ 1 5 . K irk ra ise s fo u r iss u e s fo r re v iew b y th is C o u rt: I . W hetheri tw as p l ai n err orf orthe tr i al courtt o perm i ta l aw en forc em en t o ffi ce r t o test if y to m ed ical cau sati o n , that the v ict im ’s i nj ur i e s a pp e a r e d t o b e a r e s ul tof s tr a ng ul a t i on , i n a c a s e i n whi ch stra n g u latio n w a s a n e lem e n t o f th e c rim e c h a rg e d in th e in d ictm e n t. I I . W hetherthe tr i al courterr ed by denyi ng the A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on f or j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ct or , i n t he al t ernat i ve, fora new tr ia l. I I I . W hetherthe tr i al courterr ed by exc l udi ng l ett er s and a t extm es s age.

### 8

IV . W hetherthe tr i al courterred by p rohi bit i ng defense cou nsel fr om cross exami ni ng the vi ct i m r egar di ng a drug hai rf ol l i cl e t es ton gr ounds of re le v a n c y . V . W h ethe r th e tri al j u d g e c o m m itted re v ersible e rror w ith reg ard to jury d e lib e ra tio n s fo llo w in g th e tr ia l. E a c h a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r i s c o n s id e re d in tu rn . A N A L Y S IS I . W het her i t w as pl ai n error f or t he t ri al cou rt t o perm i t a l aw en for ce m en t officer to te sti fy to m ed i cal cau sa ti o n , th a t the v icti m ’s i nj uri es appeared t o be a res ul t of s t rangul at i on, i n a case i n w hi ch s t r ang ul at i on was a n e l e m e nt o f t he c r i m e c har ge d i n t he ind ictm en t. ¶16. K irk re c o g n ize s th a t n o c o n tem p o ra n e o u s o bje c tio n w a s fo rth c o m in g w h e n D e p u ty St r ai tt es t i f

i ed attr i al r egar di ng the mar ks he had obs erved on C as ey K i r k’ s neck. O n di r ect exami nat i on, w hen as ked aboutC as ey’ s demeanor , St r ai tt es t i f i ed thathe “not i ced a r ound herneck s he had s tr angul at i on mar ks
. ” H e f ur thert es t i f

i ed thathe r eques t ed an a m bul ance “due t o hercompl ai ni ng aboutherthr oatbei ng s or e and obvi ous l y beca us e of the brui s i ng and t hi ng s tha tc a n h a pp e n i n a s tr a ng ul a t i on t o the ne c k. ” A nd w he n a s ke d a bo utt he incid en t r ep o rth e p rep are d o n the d ay in q u esti o n , S tr aitresp o n d ed : “S h e ind icated that there
w as s hovi ng, hi t t i ng w i th a cl os ed f i s t , and a s l ap w i th an open ha nd, beat i ng up, and str an g u lat ion
. ” B u t, in sp it e o f th e fa il u re o f tri al co u n sel t o interpo se a n o b jecti o n , K irk
c la im s th a t th e d o c tr in e o f p la in e rr o r a p p lie s . ¶17. G ener al l y, pr es ervat i on of an i s s ue f or appea l r equi r es a cont empora neous obj ect i on
a t tr ia l. Ch ris tm a s v . S ta te , 10 So. 3d 413, 421 ( M i s s . 2009) ( quot i ng W a lk e r v . S ta te , 913

### 9

S o . 2 d 1 9 8 , 2 3 8 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 )). T h e d o c trin e o f p lain e rro r p e rm its th is C o u rt to c o n sid e r, in sp ite o f a lac k o f a c o n tem p o ra n e o u s o b jec tio n a t trial: obvi ous err orw hi ch w as notpr oper l y ra i s ed by the def endantand w hi ch af f ect s a def

endant ’ s f

undament al , s ubs t ant i ve r i ght
. Forthe pl ai n- err or do ct ri ne to app l y, there m usthav e been an err or that r esul t ed in a m anif est m isc a rria g e o f ju stic e o r se rio u sly a ffe c ts th e f a ir n e ss , inte g rity , o r p u b lic reput at i on of j ud i ci al proceed i ng s. J o h n so n v. S ta te , 2014 W L 971542, *4 ( M i s s . M ar ch 13, 2014) ( quot i ng B u rde tte v . S ta te , 110 So. 3d 2 96 , 3 03 (M i s s . 2013) ( quot i ng Co n n e rs v. S ta te , 92 S o. 3d 67 6, 68 2 (M i ss. 2 0 1 2 )) ). K irk c laim s th a t, “[w ]i th n o e x p e rt w itn e ss , n o e y e -w itn e ss e s, a n d w itn e ss e s w ith
m ere reit era ti o n s o f C ase y K irk ’s t esti m o n y , th e S tat e im p rop erly intr o d u ce d m ed ical ex p ert tes tim o n y th ro u g h a lay law en fo rc e m e n t w itn e ss to sa lv a g e it s c a se .” A c c o rd in g to K irk , this
v io late d h is “ rig h t to a fa ir trial b y m isle a d in g a n d b lata n tly p o iso n in g th e ju ry w ith
u n re liab le ‘ e x p e rt tes tim o n y .’” T h e S tate re sp o n d s th a t S tra it “d id n o t o ffe r a n o p in io n a s to
w h o se h a n d m a d e th e m a rk , b u t o n ly o ffe re d a n o p in io n tha t th e m a rk s w e re c o n sis ten t w ith
s tr angul at i on. ” ¶18. M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 701 per m i t s l ay t es t i m ony “i n the f or m of opi ni ons or i nf er ence s , ” s o l ong as thos e opi ni ons ori nf er ence s ar e: ( a) r at i onal l y bas ed on the per cept i on of the w i tnes s , ( b) helpf

ul t o the cl ear under s t andi ng of

the t es t i m ony orthe det erm i nat i on of a f acti n i s s ue, and ( c) notbas ed on s ci ent i f

i c, t echni cal , orot her speci al i zed know l edge w i thi n the s c o p e o f R u le 7 0 2
. M i ss. R . E vid. 70 1. M i ssi ssi pp i R ule of E vidence 7 02 , ho w ever, provides: I f s ci enti fi c, t echni cal , orothers peci al i zed know l edge w i l l as s i s tthe tr i erof factto u n d erst and the ev i den ce or t o d et erm i ne a facti n is sue, a w i tness qual i f i ed as a n e xpertby know l edge, s ki l l , e xper i ence , tr ai ni ng, oreduca t i on, m a y te s tif

y th e re to in th e fo rm o f a n o p in io n o r o th e rw is e . . . .

### 10

M i s s . R . E vi d. 702. In the pr es entcas e, K i r k w as i ndi ct ed f oraggr avat ed domest i c vi ol ence
u n d e r M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 9 7 -3 -7 (4 ); th e S ta te a lleg e d in th e in d ictm e n t th a t h e “ d id
u n law fu lly , k n o w in g ly , felo n io u sly , an d in ten tio n a lly h it a n d s tra n g le o r a ttem p t to stra n g le C asey K i rk, a h um an b ei ng , ata t i m e w hen C asey K i rk w as [ D efendan tM arvi n K i rk’ s]
s pous e. ” The j ury w hi ch f ound K i r k gui l ty w as i ns truct ed that“‘ [ s ] tr angl e’ m eans t o r es tr i ct the f l ow of oxygen orbl ood by i nt ent i onal l y appl yi ng pr es s ur e on t he neck orthr oatof anotherper s on by any m eans ort o i nt ent i onal l y bl ock the nos e orm outh of anotherper s on by any means
. ” See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-7 (9)(a) (R ev . 2 0 1 4 ), the so u rce o f th is st atuto ry def i ni t i on. ¶19. T hi s C our t has hel d that , “[ b] eca us e the publ i c hol d pol i ce of f i cer s i n gr eat trus t , t he p o tential h arm to the o b jecti n g p arty req u ir es re v ersa l w h ere a p o li ce o ffic e r g ive s ex p ert t es t i m ony w i thoutf

i r s tbei ng qual i f

i ed as s uch. ” R ober t

s v. G r af e A uto C o. , I

nc. , 701 So. 2d 1093, 1099 ( M i s s . 1997)
. I n thatcas e, thi s C our tr ever s ed w her e the tr i al courtall ow ed a pol i ce of f i cer , admi t t edl y notan exper ti n acc i dentr econs truct i on, t o t es t i f y that“dr i vererr or di d notc ontr i but e t o the acc i dent , the very i s s ue t o be de t erm i ned attr i al
. ” I d. H er e, an i s s ue t o be det erm i ned attr i al w as w hetherthe i nj ur i es s us t ai ned by C ase y w er e ca us ed by str an g u lat ion
. T h e jury h a d se en p h o tog rap h s, ex h ibit s introd u ce d b y the S tat e, of C ase y ’s neck. W hi l e D eputy Str ai tmay have be en abl e t o t es t i f y r egar di ng hi s obs ervat i ons , e. g. , t hat C a s e y’ s n e c k ha d r e d marks o n i t , h i s t e s t i mony tha ti ta pp e a r e d Cas e y ha d be en s t r angl ed
c o n stitu ted th e so rt o f te stim o n y p ro p e rly re se rv e d to a n e x p e rt. ¶20. N everthel es s , the def ens e w ai ved any pot ent i al obj ect i on t o thi s t es t i m ony by, i ns t ead of obj ect i ng t o orm ovi ng t o str i ke St r ai t ’ s t es t i m ony re gar di ng s tr angul at i on orm ovi ng f or

### 11

a m is tr ia l, e m p h a s iz in g it o n c ro s s e x a m in a tio n . See Cope land v. Cope land , 904 So. 2d 1066, 1073 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng D e L a B ec k w it h v . S ta te , 707 S o. 2d 547, 574 ( M i s s . 1997) ( “Fai l ur e t o m ake a cont empora neous obj ect i on const i tut es w ai verof the obj ect i on and
c a n n o t b e ra ise d fo r th e first t im e o n ap p e a l be c a u se the trial c o u rt is d e n ied th e o p p o rtu n ity to c o n sid e r th e iss u e a n d p o ss ib ly re m e d y th e situ a tio n .”); G o ld sb y v. S ta te , 240 M i s s . 647, 123 So. 2d 429, 441 ( 1960) ( “[ A ] ppel l ant ’ s f ai l ur e t o m ove f

ora m i s tr i al w ai ved any f ur ther obj ect i on . . . . ”)
. The e xchange betw een def ens e couns el

and D eputy S tr ai tpr ocee ded dur i ng
cross exam i nati on as f

oll ow s: Q : So w hen you gott o the hous e and you s aw C asey, w hatm ade you as s um e thatthe mar ks on herneck w er e s tr angul at i on m arks , s i nce you’ ve t es t i f

i ed? A : Y ou coul d obvi ous l y s ee the f i ngerpr i nt s and t hings of thatnatur e on h e r n e c k . N o t fin g e rp rin ts, b u t th e in d e n tatio n o f f in g e rs. Y o u c o u ld tell i tw as n’ ta r ope oranythi ng. Y ou coul d t el l thats om ebody ac tual l y put their ha n d aro u n d h er n ec k an d str an g led h er.

. . . . Q : D o you have a ny ki nd of m edi cal backgr ound? A: No , ma ’ a m. Q : So can you s ay w i th any ce r t ai nty thatthe m arks on herne ck w er e f r om s tr angul at i on? A : W el l , they di dn’ tj us tappea rther e. Q : B utthatw as n’ tm y ques t i on. A : A ctual l y you can s ee w her e i tl ooks l i ke f i nger s have be en on herneck and di s cl os ed. Q : I ’ m goi ng t o hand you St at e’ s E xhi bi t s 11, 12, and 13. T hes e have been publ i s hed t o t he j ury pr i oral s o.

### Go ldsb y had bee n indi ct ed in theCircui t Cour t of theSec ond Judi ci alDis tric t of 4 

### Carro ll Co unty, b ut mo vedfor a ch ang e of v enu e, wh ich w as su stained
. Goldsby , 123 So. 2dat 43 1. 12 A : D o w h a t? Q : T he j ury has s een thes e al r eady. C an you s ee the ac tual m arks , the fi ng er m arks that you’re descr i bing, on these pictures? A : Y es , m a’ am. Y ou can see the r ound i ndent at i on. See her e: R ound i ndent at i on, r ound i ndent at i on, r ound i ndent at i on, r ound i ndent at i on. Q : N ow , l e tme a s k y ou thi s . The s e r ou nd i nd e nt a t i on s orthe s e r ound m ark s tha t y o u ’re t alkin g ab o u t, w ere they ev er c o m p are d to M arv in’s hand t o s ee i f

they w er e the s ame si ze? M i gh thave be en s om ebody el s e’ s hand. M i ghthave be en C as ey’ s hand? A : I h a v e n o id e a , m a ’a m . I d o n ’t k n o w . Q : Is it p o ss ib le it c o u ld n ’t h a v e b e e n a h a n d a t all? A : In m y o p in io n it is a h a n d
. ¶21. T hi s C our t cons i der ed a cas e i n w hi ch R obert L ee G ol ds by w as convi ct ed of capi t al
m u rd e r in the C irc u it C o u rt o f th e F irst Ju d icia l D istric t o f H in d s C o u n ty a n d se n ten c e d to 4 d e a th
. G olds by , 123 So. 2d at431. A ttr i al , the S t at e ex am i ned Sher i f f B yr d, w ho had in v e s tig a te d th e c ri m e , a b o u t a n o th e r p a rt y ’s a c c u s a tio n o f t h e d e fe n d a n t. I d. at441. B ut“the
w i tness app arent l y b ecam e con fused, an d st at ed thatG oldsby ad m i t t ed k i l l i ng M rs . N el m s,
w hi l e he w as atthe H ol m es C ounty j ai l
. ” I d. at44 1. T h is C ou rtheld that, becau se “[ a] ppel l antdi d notm a[ k] e a mot i on f ora mi s tr i al
. . . hi s f

ai l ur e t o do s o w ai ved w hat ever
e rr o r o c c u rr e d in S h e ri ff B y rd ’s n o n re s p o n s iv e a n s w e r t o th e q u e s tio n o f S ta te ’s c o u n s e l.” I d. A s i n G olds by , D ep u ty S tr ait ’s an sw ers to the S tat e’s q u esti o n s reg ard ing C ase y ’s dem eano r and S trait ’s r equ estforan am bu l ance w ere non res po nsi ve w hen the w i tness

### 13

i nject ed the subjectof strangulat i on . C on sequen t l y, thi s i ssue i s w ai ved o n ap peal. D efense
couns el f ai l ed t o m ove f

ora mi s tr i al
. N ordi d def ens e couns el obj ectorm ove t o s tr i ke the
n o n resp o n sive test im o n y . Instea d , d efe n se c o u n sel i n terrog a ted S tra itn o t on ly in a n effo rt t o cal l i nt o quest i on S tr ai t ’ s exper t i s e r egar di ng s tr angul at i on, butal s o t o adduce one of the d e fe n s e ’s th e o ri e s o f t h e c a s e , th a t th e m a rk s o n C a s e y ’s n e c k h a d b e e n s e lf -i n fl ic te d
. ¶ 2 2
. D e fe n se c o u n se l c a n n o t n o w a ttem p t to a ss ig n th is e rro r to th e trial c o u rt. It c e rta in ly cannotcl ai m thati tw as an “obvi ous err orw hi ch w as notpr oper l y r ai s ed by the def endant and w hi ch a f

f e c t s a de f

e nd a nt ’ s f

un da ment a l , s ub s t a nt i ve r i gh t , ” no rw a s i t“ a n e rr ort hat
r es ul t ed i n a mani f

es tm i s carr i age of

j ust i ce o r s er i ous l y af

f ect s the f

ai rnes s , i nt egr i ty, or publ i c r eput at i on of

j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Johnson , 2014 W L 971542, *4. ¶23
. T he err or now com plai ned of m ay b e rai sed in a p o st- co n v ict ion p roceedings as a cl ai m of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el
. Forthe purpos es of K i r k’ s di r ectappea l , w e f i nd h is a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r t o b e o f n o m e ri t. I I . W het her t he t ri al court err ed by denyi ng t he A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on f or j udgm ent not w i t hst andi ng t he verdi ct or, i n t he al t ernat i ve, f or a n e w tr ia l. ¶24. T he s t andar ds for revi ew o f a de nial o f a j ud gm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ct ( JN O V ) and f

ordeni al of

a new tr i al r equi re di f f er i ng anal ys es . A deni al of a j udgm ent notw i ths t andi ng the ver di cti s s ubj ectt o de novo re v ie w o n a p p e a l. D a n iels v. S ta te , 107 So. 3d 961, 963 ( M i s s . 2013) ( ci t i ng Johnson v. St . D om ini cs - Jacks on Mem ’l Hos p. , 967 So. 2d 20, 22 ( M i s s . 2007) )
. “A m ot i on f orJN O V i s a cha l l enge t o the l egal s uf f i ci ency of

t he
e v id e n c e .” I

d. C onver s el y, “[ a] m ot i on f ora new tr i al f

al l s w i thi n a l ow erst andar d of r evi ew th a n d o e s th a t o f a ju d g m e n t n o tw ith sta n d in g th e v e rd ict . . .
. A m o tio n fo r a n e w trial s im p ly

### 14

chal l enges the w ei ghtof the evi dence
. ” D a n iels , 107 S o. 3 d at963 ( quot i ng Shef f ield v. S ta te , 749 So. 2d 123, 127 ( M i s s . 1999)
. W e addr es s t he s uf f i ci ency a nd the w ei ghtof evi dence pr es ent ed i n t he ca s e aga i ns tK i r k eac h i n turn.

A
. Suf

f i ci ency of

the Evi dence ¶25. I n c ons i der i ng the l egal s uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence , “ thi s Courtw i l l af f i r m the deni al of a mot i on f

orJN O V i f

t her e i s subs t ant i al evi dence t o supportthe ver di ct . ” D a n iels , 107 So. 3d at963 ( ci t i ng Johnson , 967 So. 2d at22). “‘ Subst ant i al evi dence ’ i s i nf or m at i on of
s uch qual i ty and w ei ghtthatr easonab l e and f ai r - m i nded j ur or s i n the exe r ci s e of i m par t i al j udgm entm i ghthave r eache d dif f er entconcl us i ons . ” D a n iels , 107 So. 3d at963 ( quot i ng N atchezE lec. & Suppl

y Co. v. Johnson , 96 8 S o. 2d 35 8, 36 2 (M i ss. 20 07 ))
. T his C ou rt
cons i der s “w hetherthe evi dence s how s ‘ beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatacc us ed comm i t t ed the actcharged, and t hat he did s o un der s uch ci rcum st ances that every el em ent of the o ff ense
e x iste d ; an d w h e re th e e v id e n c e fa ils to m e e t th is te st it is in su ffic ien t to su p p o rt a convi ct i on. ’ ” B u sh v. S ta te , 895 So. 2d 836, 843 ( M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng Ca rr v . S ta te , 208 So. 2d 886, 889 ( M i s s . 1968) )
. T hi s C our thas hel d: Shoul d the f

act s and i nf

er ence s cons i der ed i n a cha l l enge t o the s uf f i ci ency of the evidence “po i nt i n favor of the defend ant on any el em en t of t h e o ff ense w i th s uf f i ci entf or ce thatr eas onabl e men coul d nothave f ound beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe def endantw as gui l ty, ” the pr operr emedy i s f orthe ap p ell ate c o u rtto rev erse an d ren d er. B u sh , 895 So. 2d at843 ( quot i ng E dw a rds v . S ta te , 469 So. 2d 68, 70 ( M i s s . 1985) ( ci t i ng Ma y v. S ta te , 4 6 0 S o . 2 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 1 (M is s . 1 9 8 4 )) ). H o w e v e r, if a re v iew o f th e e v id e n c e re v e a ls th a t itis o f su c h q u a lity a n d w e ig h t th a t, “havi ng i n m i nd the beyond a r eas onabl e doubtbur den of pr oof s t andar d, r eas onabl e f

ai r - m i nded m en i n t he exer ci s e of i m part i al j udgm entm i ghtr eac h

### 15

di f f er entcon cl usi ons on every el ementof the of f ens e, ” the evi dence w i l l be d e e m e d to h a v e b e e n su ffic ien t. B u sh , 895 So. 2d at843 ( quot i ng E dw ar ds , 4 6 9 S o . 2 d a t 7 0 ). “T h e e v id e n c e is v iew e d in the l i ghtm os tfa vor abl e t o t he ver di ct . ” D a n iels , 107 So. 3d at963 ( ci t i ng Johnson , 967 So. 2 d a t 2 2 ). ¶2 6. M i s s i s s i pp i C od e Sec t i on 97- 3- 7( 4) ( a ) ( i i i ) s e t s f orth the r e qu i r e ment s f

orpr ov i ng a char ge of

aggr avat ed domest i c vi ol ence : “W hen the of f ens e i s c om m i t t ed agai ns ta curr ent
orf or m ers pous e . . . a per s on i s gui l ty of aggr avat ed domest i c vi ol ence w ho .
. . [ s ] tr angl es
oratt empt s t o s tr angl e another
. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 7( 4) ( a) ( i i i ) ( R ev. 2014)
. “Str angl e”
m eans “t o r es tr i ctthe f

l ow of oxyge n orbl ood by i nt ent i onal l y appl yi ng pr es s ur e on the nec k, th ro a t o r c h e st o f a n o th e r p e rso n b y a n y m e a n s o r to in ten tio n a lly b lo c k th e n o se o r m o u th
o f a n o th e r p e rso n b y a n y m e a n s.” M iss
. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3 -7 (9 )(a ) (R e v . 2 0 1 4 ). In o rd e r to p ro v e a lleg a tio n s o f a g g ra v a te d d o m e stic v io len c e fo r w h ich K irk w a s in d icte d , the S tate bor e the bur den attr i al of pr ovi ng ( 1) thatM arvi n and C as ey K i r k w er e curr entorf or m er
s pous es and ( 2) thatM arvi n K i r k had str angl ed C as ey K i r k by re s tr i ct i ng “the f l ow of oxygen
o r b lo o d b y in te n tio n a lly a p p ly in g p re s s u re o n ” C a s e y ’s n e c k
. ¶27. T he St at e adduc ed t es t i m ony a ttr i al thatM arvi n and C as ey K i r k w er e mar r i ed. C as ey K ir k te s tif

ie d th a t M a rv in “ g ra b b e d m e b y m y n e c k , a n d h e s ta rt e d c h o k in g [] m e . . . . I coul dn’ teven c r y ors cr eam oranythi ng because he had hi s hands on m y neck a nd he w as choki ng m e. ” She t es t i f i ed t hat she “w as n’ tabl e t o br eathe. ” C as ey t es t i f i ed that , the next day, M arvi n choked he ragai n; s he coul d notbre athe and l os tcons ci ous nes s . C as ey i dent i f i ed th e p ictu res, State’s E x h ibit s 1 1 , 1 2 , an d 1 3 , as th e re su lto f “h im ch o k ing m e.” C o lit a

### 16

O gl etr ee, w ho pr ovi ded r ef uge t o C as ey i n herhome af t erC as ey f

l ed herow n hom e, r eca l l ed th a t C a se y ’s n e c k w a s re d . T h e re c o rd in g o f th e 9 1 1 c a ll w h ic h C a s e y h a d p lac e d sh o rtly af t erarr i vi ng atO gl etr ee’ s hous e w as pl ayed f orthe j ury. ¶ 2 8
. D e p u ty S tr a it te s tif ie d to m a rk s o n C a s e y ’s n e c k . T h e o th e r d e p u ty c a lled to i nves t i gat e, D eputy B r ad Sul l i van, t es t i f i ed thathe “not i ced that[ C as ey] had r ed mar ks on h e r n e c k th a t sh e w a s p o in tin g o u t to D e p u ty S tra it . . . .” S a ra h H o rv a th , a fr ien d o f b o th M arvi n and C as ey K i r k, t es t i f i ed f orthe S t at e t hats he and M arvi n had a t el ephone
c o n v e rsa tio n re g a rd in g th e e v e n ts. S h e tes tified th a t, du rin g th is c o n v e rsa tio n , M a rv in te s tif ie d th a t “ h e f* * * e d u p a n d th a t h e ru in e d h is fa m ily .” ¶29. K i rk argues o n app eal thatthe onl y evi dence of s tr angul at i on, “thi s f

undament al
e lem e n t o f th e c rim e w a s th e u n c o rro b o ra ted tes tim o n y o f th e A c c u se r, a s e lf-a d m itt e d m e th
a d d ict.” K irk sta tes th a t “th e S tate m o v e d fo rw a rd w ith o u t a m e d ica l e x p e rt to su b sta n tiate the A ccus er ’ s cl ai m s thats he w as s tr angl ed” a nd that“[ t ] he onl y evi dence the St at e pr es ent ed in a n a ttem p t t o co rro b o ra te th e m e th -a d d ict’s tes tim o n y w a s th e tes tim o n y o f D e p u ty S tra it,
w hi ch w as a m er e r ei t er at i on of the acc us er ’ s ver s i on of eve nt s . ” B ut , even i n t he abs ence of t es t i m ony f

r om an expe r t , D eput i es St r ai tan d S ul l i van and Col i t a O gl etr ee, w ho al l s aw C as ey on the day i n quest i on, t es t i f i ed t o m arks t hey obse r ved on herneck. T he j ury obs erved p h o tog rap h s o f C a se y ’s n ec k take n b y D ep u ty S tr aito n the d ay in q u esti o n . T h e jury
r eas onabl y coul d i nf

erf r om thi s t es t i m ony and f r om the phot ogr aphs thatthe r ed mar ks on C a s e y K ir k ’s n e c k w e re s u s ta in e d a s a re s u lt o f s tr a n g u la tio n b y M a rv in K ir k
. ¶30. V i ew i ng the evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfa vor abl e t o t he gui l ty ver di ct , w e f i nd that any
r a t i o n a l j u r o rc o u l d h a v e f o u n d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b tt h a tt h e d e f e n d a n twa s g u i l t y . As

### 17

su c h , the v erd ictw as su p p o rt ed by sub stan ti al ev iden ce an d th e tr ial co u rtdid n o t er r in d e n y in g K ir k ’s m o tio n fo r J N O V .

B
. W ei ghtof the Evi dence ¶3 1. I n r e vi e w i ng the d e ni a l o f a mot i on f

ora n e w tr i a l “ ba s ed on an obj ect i on t o t he
w ei ghtof

the evi dence , ” thi s C our t“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 evi dence thatt o al l ow i tt o s t and w oul d s anct i on an
uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ” B u sh , 895 So. 2d at844 ( ci t i ng He rr in gv. S ta te , 691 So. 2d 948, 957 ( M i s s . 1997) )
. A nd w hi l e “the courts i t s as a thi r t eenth j ur or , ” the mot i on f ornew t r i al “i s addr es s ed t o t he di s cr et i on of the court , w hi ch s houl d be exe r ci s ed w i th caut i on, and the pow ert o gr anta ne w tr i al s houl d be i nvoked onl y i n exce pt i onal cas es i n w hi ch the evi dence p re p o n d e ra te s h e a v ily a g a in s t th e v e rd ic t.” B u sh , 895 So. 2 d at8 44 ( quot i ng A m ikerv. D r ugs For Less, I

nc. , 79 6 S o. 2d 94 2 , 9 4 7 (M i ss. 20 00 ))
. A s w i th a suff i ci ency analysi s,
w hen cons i der i ng t he w ei ghtof the evi dence , “t he evi dence shoul d be w ei ghed i n the l i ght
m os tf avor abl e t o the ver di ct . ” B u sh , 895 So. 2d at844 ( ci t i ng He r r ing , 69 1 S o . 2 d at 95 7 ). ¶32. I n ar gui ng that al l ow i ng t he ver di ct i n the pr es ent cas e t o s t and w oul d s anct i on an
u n c o n sc io n a b le in

ju stic e , K irk re itera tes h is s u ffic ien c y a rg u m e n t th a t “[a ]bs e n t an y re liab le
m edi cal evi dence on s tr angul at i on agai ns tthe A ppel l ant , the St at e’ s cas e m us tre l y upon t he i ncons i s t entand i m pl aus i bl e al l egat i ons of C as ey K i r k. ” B ut , agai n, ampl e t es t i m ony att r i al
s uppor t ed the gui l ty ver di ct . D eput i es S tr ai tand S ul l i van and C ol i t a O gl etr ee t es t i f i ed they had obs erved r ed m arks on C as ey’ s ne ck on the day i n ques t i on. Phot ogr aphs of C as ey t aken
o n th e d a y o f th e a lleg e d stra n g u latio n w e re v iew e d b y the jur y . T h is e v id e n c e , co u p led w ith C ase y ’s t esti m o n y tha t M arv in h ad str an g led h er, sup p o rt ed the ju ry’s v erd ict
. T h e jury

### 18

re a so n a b ly c o u ld in fe r fro m the tes tim o n y an d the p h o to g ra p h s a d d u c e d at tria l th a t M a rv in K i r k s tr angl ed hi s w i f

e. ¶33. W e f

i nd that , w hen vi ew ed i n the l i ghtmostf avor abl e t o the ver di ct , the evi dence does
n o t p re p o n d e ra te h e a v ily s o h e a v ily a g a in st th e v e rd ict th a t to a llo w it t o sta n d w o u ld
s anct i on an uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. T hus , w e hol d thatthe tr i al j udge corr ect l y deni ed K irk ’s m o tio n , in th e a ltern a tiv e , fo r a n e w trial. I I I . W het her t h e tri al cou rt abused i t s di s cre t i on i n excl udi ng l et t ers and a te xt m es s age. ¶3 4. K i r k cl ai m s t hatt he tr i a l c ou r ta bu s e d i t s d i s c r e t i on b y e xc l ud i ng l e t t er s and t ext
m e s s a g e s s e n t to h im b y C a s e y K ir k
. ¶3 5. B ef

or e t r i al , t he St a t e f

i l e d M ot i on i n Li mi ne 2, i n w hi ch i ts oughtan “or der pr ecl udi ng t he def

endantordef

ens e couns el orw i tnes s f r om m ent i on i ng or pr es ent i ng evi dence i n any w ay i n the pr es ence of the j ury atany t i m e dur i ng thi s tr i al a handw r i t t en l ett erw hi ch i s thr ee ( 3) pages l ong w hi ch i s copi ed on 2 page s . ” A ppar ent l y “w r i t t en by the vi ct i m i n t hi s cas e” and “de l i ver ed orsentt o the def endanti n thi s cas e, ” the l ett er , acc or di ng t o the St at e “i n no w ay i ndi cat es gui l tori nnocenc e of the def endants i nce i tappar ent l y w as
w ri tte n m o n th s b e fo re th e c ri m e a n d th u s [is ] irr e le v a n t in th is c a s e .” ¶36. L i kew i s e, St at e’ s M ot i on i n L i m i ne 3 s ought t o pr ecl ude m ent i on of a l ett er f r om t he vi ct i m t o the def

endantf i ve mont hs af

t erthe cr i m e w hi ch “i ndi cat e[ s ] thatthe vi ct i m w as at the t i m e under goi ng drug r ehabi l i t at i on. ” Fi nal l y, the St at e s oughtt o excl ude, thr ough M ot i on i n Li m i ne 5, “ pi ctur es of w hati s purpor t ed t o be t ext s f r om the vict i m t o t he d e fe n d a n t.” D e fe n se co u n se l, a t th e m o tio n h e a rin g , inf o rm e d th e trial c o u rt th a t th e v ictim

### 19

w r ot e t he l ett er s her s el f

“t al ki ng abouthow w onder f ul a husband, how w onder f ul a f atherhe [ K i r k] i s . ” The t extm es s age, acc or di ng t o K i r k’ s counse l , cont ai ned the f ol l ow i ng m es s age fr om C asey K i rk t o M arvi n K i rk: “I’ m sorry forw hat I d i d[. ] I’ l l h ave t o pay forthat the rest of m y li fe[
. ] I n ev er m eant t o h urtyo u. ”T he S t at e argued i n it s m oti on s i n l i m i ne thatt he lette rs a n d tex t m e ss a g e w e re n o t re lev a n t. ¶37. A t the m ot i on hear i ng, the St at e pr es ent ed i t s r el evanc y obj ect i on, and K i r k t ook t he pos i t i on t hat t he l ett er s w er e admi s s i bl e as a pr es ent - s ens e i m pr es s i on and thatthe t ext
m e ss a g e w a s a d m iss ib le a s a n a d m iss io n a g a in st in ter e st. D e sp ite th e S tate ’s o b jec tio n to
r el evanc y, the tr i al courtrul ed that“the l ett eri n r el at i on t o St at e’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne 2 and S t at e’s m ot i on i n l i m i ne 3 and the t exti n r el at i on t o St at e’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne 5 ar e not
a d m iss ib le b e c a u se th e y ’re h e a rsa y .” O n a p p e a l, K irk a rg u e s th a t h is fu n d a m e n tal rig h t to a fa irtr ial w as v iolated b y th e tria l co u rt ’s ruli n g that the lett ers a n d text m essa g e w ere i nadmi s s i bl e hea r s ay. T hi s C our tr evi ew s “the admi s s i on ore xcl us i on of e vi dence a ttr i al f

or
a n a bu s e of

di s c r e t i on . . . . ” Fe r

g u s o n v . S ta te , 137 So. 3d 240, 245 ( M i s s . 2014) ( ci t i ng W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 991 So. 2d 593, 597 ( M i s s . 2008) )
. T he t r i al cour t“enj oys a gr eatdeal of d isc re tio n a s to th e re lev a n c y a n d a d m iss ib ili ty o f e v id e n c e . U n les s th e ju d g e a b u se s th is d is c r e tio n s o a s to b e p re ju d ic ia l to th e a c c u s e d , [th is ] C o u rt w ill n o t r e v e rs e [th e ] ru lin g .” Fer guson , 137 So. 3d at245 ( quot i ng S h a w v. S ta te , 9 1 5 S o . 2 d 4 4 2 , 4 4 5 (M is s . 2 0 0 5 ))
. ¶ 3 8
. F irst, K irk c laim s th e lette rs a n d te x t w e re a d m iss ib le b e c a u se th e y w e re re lev a n t, argui ng that the y “h ad m ore than a t end ency t o m ake the exis t ence o f a f actm ore or l ess pr obabl e, ” s i nce they “w oul d as s i s tthe j ury i n i t s f act - f i ndi ng t as k t o det erm i ne w hethert he al l egat i ons agai ns tt he A ppel l antw er e true. ” I ti s true thatevi dence i s r el evantw hi ch has

### 20

“any t endenc y t o m ake the exi s t ence of any f actthati s of

cons equenc e t o the det erm i nat i on of the acti on m ore probab l e or l ess pr ob able than i tw ou l d be w i tho ut the evidence.” M i ss. R . E v id . 4 0 1 . B u t M iss iss ip p i R u le o f E v id e n c e 4 0 2 p ro v id e s th a t re lev a n t ev id e n c e is adm i ssi ble, “ex ce p t as otherw i se provi ded by
. . . these rul es. ” M i ss. R . E vid. 40 2. T hu s,
re lev a n c y h a s n o b e a rin g o n w h e th e r th e lette rs a n d tex t m e ss a g e c o n stitu te d in a d m iss ib le hear s ay, w hi ch the tr i al courtf ound hel d they di d. ¶39. R ul e 801( c) of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence pr ovi des the def i ni t i on of hear s ay:

“‘ H ear s ay’ i s a s t at ement , othert han one m ade by t he decl ar antw hi l e t es t i f yi ng atthe tr i al
orhear i ng, of

f er ed i n evi dence t o pr ove the truth of the mat t eras s ert ed. ” M i s s . R . E vi d. 801. K irk co n ce d es th at th e lett ers a n d text m essa g e a re h ea rsay b u t con ten d s th a t th ey are admi s s i bl e by vi r tue of

t w o except i ons t o the hear s ay rul e: ( 1) s t at ementagai ns ti nt er es t , and ( 2) pr es ent - s ens e i m pr es s i on. ¶40. A s t at ementagai ns ti nt er es t , underM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 804( b) ( 3) , i s def i ned as f oll ow s: A s t at ementw hi ch w as atthe t i m e of i t s m aking so f

arcontr ary t o the d e c lar a n t’s p e c u n iar y o r p ro p rie tar y in ter e st, o r so far ten d e d to s u b jec t h im to civil or crim inal li ab il ity , o r t o ren d er inv ali d a claim by him ag ains t ano ther, that a r easona ble m an i n his p osi t i on w ou l d no th ave m ade the st at em ent unl ess he bel i eved i tt o be true. M i s s . R . E vi d. 8 04 (b) (3)
. K i r k cl ai m s thatthe l ett er s and t extm es s ages demonstr at e that C as ey K i r k per

j ur ed her s el f

w hen she t es t i f

i ed thatherhus band s tr angl ed her
. B utnei ther C a se y ’s s tat em en ts r eg ard ing M arv in’s co n d u ct as a h u sb an d an d fathe r, o r he r st atem e n ts
r e g a r d i n g d ru g tr e a t me n tt o wh i c h s h e t e s t i f i e d , o rh e rs t a t e me n t s a p o l o g i z i n g f o rs o me
u n k n o w n m isd e e d “ ten d e d to su b jec t [h e r] t o c iv il o r c rim in a l liab ili ty , o r to re n d e r in v a lid

### 21

a cl ai m by [ her ] a gai ns ta nother
. ” M i s s . R. Evi d. 804( b) ( 3)
. M or e i m por t ant l y, R ul e 804( b)
r equi r es the unava i l abi l i ty of the dec l ar antas a w i tnes s and l i s t s thos e s t at em ent s “not
e x c lu d e d b y th e h e a rsa y ru le i f the d ecl aran tis una vailab l e as a w i tness . ” M i s s . R . E vi d. 80 4(b) ( em ph asi s added ). H ere, the declar ant, C asey K i rk, t est i fi ed as a w i tness attri al ; t hu s, sh e c an n o t be s aid to h av e b ee n u n av ail ab le as a w itn ess u n d er a n y o f th e a p p lica b le

“ u n a v a ila b ility ” d e fi n itio n s . See M is s . R . E v id . 8 0 4 (a ). ¶41
. N ext, K irk c lai m s tha t t h e let ters an d tex t m essa ge co nst i tuted a present -s ense i m press i on . R ule 803, w hich d o es n o t requir e t he u nav ai l abil i ty o f a w i tness, defi nes a pr es ent - s ens e i m pr es s i on as “[ a] st at em entdes cr i bi ng orexpl ai ni ng an eve ntorcondi t i on
m a d e w h ile th e d e c la ra n t w a s p e rc e iv in g th e e v e n t o r c o n d itio n o r i m m e d ia te ly th e re a ft e r.” M iss . R . E v id . 8 0 3 (1 ). T h e c o m m e n t sta tes th a t th e p re se n t-se n se -im p re ss io n e x c e p tio n “ is bas ed on the theory thatthe cont empora neou s occur r ence of the eve ntand the s t at ement render i tun l i kely that the d ecl arantm ade a d el i berat e o r conscious m i sr epresent at i on . ” M i ss. R . E vi d. 803( 1) cm t . 1. W hi l e “[ p] r eci s e cont empora nei ty of the eve ntand the s t at ementm ay notbe pos s i bl e; a s l i ghtl aps e may be perm i s s i bl e. S po ntanei t y i s the es s ent i al f act or . ” I d. L ett er s and t extm es s ages proc eed f r om cons ci ous del i ber at i on of the author
. T he l ett er s and t extm es s age he r e r ef

ert o pas tevent s and condi t i ons and do notdes cr i be orexpl ai n an eve nt
o r c o n d iti o n m a d e w h ile C a se y “ w a s p e rc e iv in g th e e v e n t o r c o n d iti o n o r im m e d iate ly th e re a ft e r,” a s c o n te m p la te d b y R u le 8 0 3 (1 ). ¶42. T he tr i al court ’ s excl us i on of thes e l ett er s and the t extm es s age c annotbe s ai d t o have b ee n an ab u se o f discre ti o n . T h is C o u rtfi n d s n o m eritin K irk ’s arg u m en t th at th e tri al co u rt

### 22

abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n di s al l ow i ng the admi s s i on of tw o l ett er s a nd a t extmess age f r om t he
v ictim to th e d e fe n d a n t. I V . W het her t he t ri al c ourt e rre d by prohi bi t i ng def ens e couns el f

rom c r os s e xa m i ni ng t he v i c t i m r e ga r di ng a dr ug hai r f ol l i c l e t es t on g r o u n d s o f r e le v a n c y . ¶ 4 3
. W h e n K irk ’s c o u n se l a ttem p ted to c ro ss e x a m in e C a se y K irk re g a rd in g a h a ir-fo lli c le drug t es tthats he had t aken i n A pr i l 2013, the St at e obj ect ed t o r el evanc y. C as ey had t es t i f i ed th a t sh e w a s n o t u sin g c ry sta l m e th a m p h e tam in e th e w e e k e n d h e r h u sb a n d a lleg e d ly
s tr angl ed her
. K i r k hoped t o i m peach C asey’ s cr edi bi l i ty r egar di ng w hethers he had us ed drugs on the w eeke nd i n quest i on. D ur i ng a bench conf er ence , the tr i al courtrul ed thatt he evi dence w as notr el evant . K i r k cl ai m s on appea l thatthi s rul i ng cons t i tut ed an a bus e of d is c re tio n . ¶4 4. R el evantevi dence i s def i ned as ev i de nc e w hi c h h a s “ a ny t e nd e nc y t o mak e the
e x iste n c e o f a n y fa c t th a t is o f c o n se q u e n c e to th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th e a c tio n m o re p ro b a b le
orl es s proba bl e t han i tw oul d be w i thoutt he evi dence
. ” M i s s . R . E vi d. 401. K i r k t akes the p o sitio n th a t th e q u e stio n in g re g a rd in g th e h a ir-fo lli c le d ru g tes t w a s re lev a n t b e c a u se it
w oul d m ake w hetherM arvi n s tr angl ed C as ey, a f actof cons equenc e t o t he det erm i nat i on of the a cti o n , less p rob a b le be ca u se C ase y w as u sing d rug s at th at t im e. T h e the o ry o f K irk ’s
cas e w as thatC as ey “f

abr i cat ed heri nj ur i es i n or dert o getpai nki l l er s becaus e M r . K i r k had fl u s h e d th e la s t o f h e r c ry s ta l m e th d o w n th e to ile t.” ¶ 4 5 . W h ile K irk ’s trial c o u n se l c o n ten d e d a t th e b e n c h c o n fe re n c e th a t “ [t] h e h a ir fo lli c le t es tgoes back f

orni nety days , ” the t es tdi d nots how a ny pa r t i cul arda t es upon w hi ch C as ey had us ed crys t al m ethamphet ami ne. C r os s exami nat i on of C as ey r egar di ng t he drug t es thad

### 23

n o tend en cy to m ak e the co n seq u en ti al f ac t, w h ethe r M arv in h ad str an g led C ase y , an y m o re or l ess pr ob able, no r di d cross exam i nati on regar ding t he d rug t estm ake an y m ore or l ess pr obab l e M a r vi n’ s the ory tha tthe c a s e a ga i ns th i m w a s a s c he me d e vi s e d by Cas e y i n an ef f or tt o obt ai n m edi cat i on. A l l t he t es tshow ed w as t hat , atsome poi ntdur i ng the ni nety days p ri o r to its ad m inistrati o n in A p ri l 20 1 3 (th e p rec ise d ate is no t t o b e fo u n d in the rec o rd), C as ey had us ed drugs . I tdoes nots ugges tany l i kel i hood t hatC as ey had been us i ng on the
w eeke nd of

t he al l eged s tr angul at i on . A ddi t i onal l y, C as ey t es t i f i ed thats he had a pr obl em
w ith c ry sta l m e th a m p h e tam in e a n d th a t sh e w a s, a t th e tim e o f tria l, res id in g a t Ja c o b ’s W e ll R ecove ry C ent er . K i r k’ s br i ef i nqui r ed “[ i ] f

the ac cus erw er e notusi ng drugs atal l dur i ng the w eeke nd, w hy w oul d t he crys t al m eth be found on the bathr oom f l oor ?” Thi s ar gum ent
s tr a in s c re d u lity
. ¶46. C ons i der i ng that evi dence al r eady had been adduce d that C as ey K i r k had a pr obl em
w i th crys t al m ethamphet ami ne us e, w e f i nd no m er i ti n M arvi n K i r k’ s ar gum entthatthe tr i al
courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n rul i ng evi dence of a hai r - f ol l i cl e drug t es ti nadmi s s i bl e on
re le v a n c y g ro u n d s . V . W h eth er th e tr ial ju d g e co m m it ted re v er sible e rr o r w it h re g a rd to ju r y d e lib e r a tio n s fo llo w in g th e tr ia l. ¶4 7 . A ft er m o re than tw o h o u rs o f d eli b era ti o n , the b ail if f info rm ed the co u rt that the ju ry fore p erso n n ee d ed to sp ea k to the co u rt . T h e fo rep ers o n in fo rm e d the c o u rtthat the ju rors coul d notcome t o a unani m ous ver di ctand thatf ur therdel i ber at i on w as unl i kel y t o hel p the ju ry to re a c h u n a n im ity . T h e trial ju d g e th e n in stru c ted th e fo re p e rso n to sta n d o u t in th e h a ll “w i thoutgoi ng back i nt o the j ury r oom . ” W i th t he f or eper s on i n t he hal l , the j udge di s cus s ed

### See Sh arp lin v. S tate , 330 So. 2d 591 (Mi ss . 1976) (Cour t a pproved a

jur y 5 

### ins tr uction t o be “ give n in e it

her crim ina l or

ci vil[c as es ] when thetria l j udge i s c onfronte d by a hung j ury. ”) 24 w i th the l aw yer s the gi vi ng of a S h a rp lin i ns truct i on. N ei therthe St at e norK i r k’ s couns el 5
o b je c te d to th e g iv in g o f t h e in s tru c tio n . ¶48. T he court t hen asked t he bai l i f f t o s um m on the f

or eper s on, w her eupon he r ead the fo llo w in g a n d in q u ire d w h e th e r it w o u ld a id th e ju ry in re a c h in g a v e rd ict: I know thati ti s pos s i bl e f orhones tm en and w om en t o ha ve hones tdi f f er i ng opi ni ons a boutthe f

act s of a c as e, buti f

i ti s pos s i bl e t o r econci l e your di f f er ence s of

opi ni on and dec i de thi s cas e, then you s houl d do s o. A c c or di ng l y, I r e mi nd y ou tha tthe Courto r i gi na l l y i ns truc t e d yo u thatt he v e rd ict o f th e ju ry m u st r e p re se n t th e c o n sid e re d ju d g m e n t o f e a c h ju ro r. It is yourduty as j ur or s t o cons ul tw i t h one anotherand t o del i ber at e i n vi ew of r eac hi ng an agr eem enti f you can do s o w i thoutvi ol ence t o youri ndi vi dual ju d g m e n t. E ach of you m us tdeci de t he cas e f oryour s el f

, butonl y af

t eran i m part i al con s i de r a t i on o f

the e vi de nc e wi th yo urf e l l ow j ur or s . I n the c ou r s e o f your del i ber at i ons , do nothesi t at e t o re - exami ne yourow n vi ew s and change your op i nion i f yo u are con vinced i ti s err on eou s, bu tdo no tsurr end er your ho nest convi ct i ons as t o the w ei ghtorthe opi ni on of yourf el l ow j ur or s or forthe m ere purpose of returni ng a verdi ct . P l ease con t i nu e yo ur del i berat i on s. T h e fo re p e rso n re sp o n d e d , “I c a n o n ly sa y it m ig h t.” A fte r in stru c tin g th e fo re p e rso n a g a in to sta n d in th e h a ll, th e trial c o u rt re c a lled h e r a n d sa id , “ I h a v e d e c id e d th a t it’s a p p ro p ria te f orm e t o gi ve thati ns truct i on t o t he ent i r e j ury. ” H e then i ns truct ed the bai l i f f t o r etr i eve the
r emai nderof

the j ury; w hen the j ury had b een asse m bl ed, the tr i al courtr ead the S h a rp lin i ns truct i on. A f

t erthe j ury r es um ed del i ber at i ons , the bai l i f f i nf or m ed the courtthatone j ur or
w ant ed t o t el ephone home “j us tt o l ets om ebody know w her e they ar e. ” W i th no obj ect i on

### 25

from co u n sel, the tri al j u d g e p erm itted th is “i n the p rese n ce o f th e b ail if f so h e m ak e[s] su re
s h e d o e s n ’t g iv e o r r e c e iv e a n y in fo rm a tio n .” ¶49. K i r k aver s thatt he t r i al cour tcom m i t t ed r ever s i bl e err orby s epar at i ng the f or eper s on f r om the r es tof

the j ury and by al l ow i ng a j ur ort o m ake a t el eph one ca l l dur i ng deli berat i on s. ¶50
. K i rk ci t es W

ilso n v. S ta te fo r th e fo llo w in g p ro p o sitio n : A s to th e d ispe rsal o f th e jury , th e d efe n d an t in a pro sec u ti o n for f elon y is e n title d to h a v e th e ju ry k e p t to g e th e r w ith o u t ex c e p tio n fro m th e tim e it i s s el ect ed unt i l f

i nal l y di s char ged. T he s epar at i on o f even one j ur ori n s uch cas es i s an i r r egul ar i ty w hi ch w i l l vi t i at e t he ver di ct . E ven att he r eques tof the def endant , they ca nnotbe di s per s ed i n a capi t al cas e. W il so n v . S ta te , 2 48 So. 2d 802, 804 ( M i s s . 1971) ( quot i ng Cla rk v. S ta te , 209 M i s s . 586, 4 8 S o . 2 d 1 2 7 (1 9 5 0 )) (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d ). “T h e p u rp o se o f th e re q u ire m e n t is to pr eventacc es s t o out s i de i nf l uence s . ” I

d . O f cour s e, the C our ti n W il s on cont i nued: W e ar e of

the opi ni on thatthe courtha s no pow ert o author i ze the s epar at i on of the j ury dur i ng the tr i al of a cap i tal case , ei therw i th orw i thoutthe cons ent of the pr i s oner , exce ptin cases of gr eatnece s s i ty; and i f

i tbe done, and the pr i s onerbe f

ound gui l ty, a new tr i al w i l l be gr ant ed. W il s on , 248 So. 2d at804 ( quot i ng W o o d s v . S ta te , 2 M orr . S t . C as . 1624, 43 M i s s . 364, 372- 7 3 (1 8 7 0 )) (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶51. T he l ang uag e ci t ed t o thi s C our tby K i r k, how ever , i s f ound onl y i n capi t al cases , w h e re ju ry s e q u e s tr a tio n is re q u ir e d
. See U R C C C 10. 02 ( “I n any ca s e w her e the s t at e s eeks to im p o se th e d e a th p e n a lty , the ju ry sh a ll b e se q u e ste re d d u rin g the e n tire tria l.”) T h e ru le i n capi talcas es i s that , “w her e the cri m e ch ar ged i s puni s habl e by dea th ora maxi m um of im p ri so n m en t f

o r l if e in th e state pe n it en ti ary , the ju ry sh all b e se q u estered d u ri n g the e n ti re

### 26

tr i al and thi s r i ghtc annotbe w ai ved ei therby the att orney f orthe acc us ed oratthe di s cr et i on of the tr i al court . ” Cox v. S ta te , 3 6 5 S o . 2 d 6 2 7 , 6 2 9 (M is s . 1 9 7 8 ). ¶52. A s i n W

e a v e r v . S ta te , 272 So. 2d 636, 638 ( M i s s . 1973) , “[ t ] he cas e bef or e us i s not
a ca p ital ca se .” A g g ra v a ted d o m e stic v io len c e , fo r w h ich K irk w a s in d icte d a n d u lti m a tely convi ct ed, carr i es a m axi m um penal ty of tw enty year s ’ i m pr i s onm ent . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 7( 4) ( R ev. 2014). In f act , “i n the abs ence of

any evi dence t o the contr ary w e coul d nots ay th a t a d e fe n d a n t in a c a s e le s s th a n c a p ita l w a s p re ju d ic e d b y se p a ra tio n o f th e ju ry .” I

d. H er e, the j ury w as unabl e t o re ach a ver di ctand the j ury f or eper s on s oughtthe i nt ervent i on of the t ri al j udge. I ti s uncl earf r om the f

ace of the r ecor d w hether , as K i r k cont ends , t he

“ f o r e p e r s o n s t o o d i n th e h a l l wa y o u t s i d e o f th e c o u r tr o o m al one o n tw o s e p a ra te o c c a s io n s .” ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal )
. Even i f s he w as a l one i n the hal l , w hi ch the r ecor d doe s notm ake a s cl earas K i r k cl ai m s , the r ecor d does notr ef l ectthatthe f

or eper s on w as i n the hal l f oran ext ended pe r i od of

t i m e. ¶ 5 3
. N e v e rth e les s, w e o b se rv e th a t it w a s irre g u lar fo r th e c o u rt in th e se c irc u m sta n c e s to
se p a ra te th e fo re p e rso n fro m th e re st o f h e r p e e rs o n th e ju ry . T ria l co u rts s h o u ld n o t se p a ra te the ju ry d u ri n g d eli b era ti o n s in th is m an n er— ca p it al ca se o r oth erw ise. F u rth er, th e jud g e’s
s ol i ci t i ng the advi ce of

the f or eper s on w i th r egar d t o the ut i l i ty of the S h a rp lin i ns truct i on ( though, i n the end, he ende d up gi vi ng the Shar pl in in stru c tio n a n y w a y ) w a s in a p p ro p ria te and unnece s s ary. N everthel es s , consi der i ng t he acqui es cenc e of K i r k’ s counse l , and w i thout any i dent i f

i abl e pr ej udi ci al ef

f ecton the j ury, w e f

i nd no r ever s i bl e err or . W e ca ut i on bench and barthatthi s s or tof

pr act i ce coul d i n s om e ci r cumst ance s cons t i tut e r ever s i bl e err orand
s c ru p u lo u s ly s h o u ld b e a v o id e d
.

### 27

¶54. A t the comm ence m ent of the tr i al , the court admoni s hed the j ury w i th the f ol l ow i ng in stru c tio n s: O ne, yo u are no tperm i t t ed to m i x an d m i ng l e w i th the at t orneys, part i es, w i tnesses and spec t at ors, and yo u are t o av oid al l con t act s w i th such persons. T w o , o th e r th a n d u rin g th e co u rse o f d e lib e ra tio n , y o u a re n o t to c o n v e rse w ith anyone aboutt he cas e orany subj ectconnect ed w i th t he t r i al
. O f cour s e, you m a y in fo rm y o u r f

a m ily m e m b e rs o r o th e r p e rs o n s a b o u t y o u r s c h e d u le
. T h re e , p rio r to th e c a se b e in g su b m itt e d fo r ju ry d e lib e ra tio n , y o u a re n o t to fo rm o r e x p re ss a n o p in io n o n th e c a se o r a n y s u b jec t c o n n e c ted w ith th e trial. Four , you ar e nott o vi ew any pl ace connec t ed w i t h t he cas e orany s ubj ect c o n n e c te d w ith th e tr ia l. Fi ve, you ar e nott o r ead, l i s t en t o orw at ch any new s accountor otherm att er re la tin g to th e c a s e o r a n y s u b je c t c o n n e c te d w ith th e tr ia l. S ix , y o u a re re q u ire d to re p o rt to th e c o u rt a n y c o m m u n ica tio n o r a ttem p t to c o m m u n ic a te w ith y o u o n th e c a s e o r a n y s u b je c t c o n n e c te d w ith th e tr ia l. S e v e n , y o u m a y n o t ta k e n o te s d u ri n g th e c o u rs e o f t h e tr ia l . . . . T h u s, this C o u rtp resu m es th at th e jury foll o w ed the in stru cti o n o f the tri al co u rtw ith reg ard to c o n d u c t d u ri n g th e c o u rs e o f t h e tr ia l. W eave r , 272 So. 2d at638 ( ci t i ng N i chol s on v. S ta te , 2 5 4 S o . 2 d 8 8 1 (M iss. 1 9 7 1 )). W e find n o ev iden ce in the rec o rd to su p p o rtK irk ’s
c laim th a t th e fo re p e rso n , o r a n y o n e e lse o n th e ju ry , faile d to c o n d u c t t h e m se lv e s in
a c c o rd a n c e w ith in stru c tio n fro m th e trial c o u rt . T h is C o u rt h o ld s, th e re fo re , tha t K irk ’s c laim thatthe tr i al courtcomm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err orby s epar at i ng the f or eper s on f

r om the r es tof th e ju ry is w ith o u t m e ri t. ¶ 5 5 . A lso , an d in lig h t o f th e p re su m p tio n th a t th e ju ry c o n d u c ted itse lf in a c c o rd a n c e w ith the i ns truct i ons f

r om the tr i al court , w e f i nd K i r k’ s cl ai m thatal l ow i ng a j ur ort o m ake a

### 28

t el ephone c al l dur i ng del i ber at i ons di d notconst i tut e r ever s i bl e err or . A f t ert he j ury r es um ed del i ber at i ons f

ol l ow i ng the tr i al c our t ’ s r eadi ng of t he S h a rp lin i ns truct i on t o them, the bai l i ff i nf or m ed the courtthatone j ur orw ant ed t o t el ephone home “j us tt o l ets om ebody know w her e they ar e. ” W i th no obj ect i on f r om c ouns el , the tr i al j udge perm i t t ed thi s “i n t he pr es ence of

the bai l i f

f s o he make[ s ] s ur e s he does n’ tgi ve orr ece i ve any i nf or m at i on. ” A ny
c laim o f p re

ju d ice to K irk in a llo w in g a ju ro r to m a k e a te lep h o n e c a ll h o m e to in fo rm fa m ily
w h y that juro r ha d n o t yet retu rne d h o m e is be li ed b y the re co rd. T h e c o u rtinstructed the ju ry th a t th e y c o u ld in fo rm fa m ily re g a rd in g th e ir sc h e d u les , an d th e b a ili ff w a s in stru c ted to l i s t en i n on the t el ephone c onver s at i on t o ens ur e thatther e w as no excha nge of i nf or m at i on
re g a rd in g th e trial. T h u s, th is a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 5 6
. F in d in g th a t K ir k ’s a s s ig n m e n ts o f e rro r a re w ith o u t m e rit, th is C o u rt a ffirm s h is
c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . ¶ 5 7 . CONVI CT I ON OF AGGRAVA T E D DO M E S TI C VI OLE NCE AND S EN TE NCE OF TW EN TY ( 2 0 ) YE ARS , AS A NONVI OLENT HABI TU AL OF F E ND E R, 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 RR E CT I ON S , AF F I RMED . S AI D S E NT E NC E S HA L L NO T B E RE DU CE D O R S USPENDED; NO R SHALL THE APPE LLANT BE ELI GI BLE F OR PAROLE, PROBATI ON OR ANY OTH ER FORM OF EARLY RELEAS E. UPON R ELEAS E, W I TH I N N I N ET Y ( 90 ) D A Y S, TH E A PPE LL A N T SH A LL P A Y C O U R T C O STS, F E E S A N D A S S E S S M E N T S IN T H E A M O U N T O F $ 89 8. 50 . A L L T IM E S E R V E D IN PRE- TRI AL DETAI NM ENT RELATI NG TO TH I S CH ARG E S HA LL BE CREDI TED AG AI NST THI S S ENTENCE. W AL LE R, C. J . , DI CK I NSON AND RANDOL P H, P . J J . , LA M AR, CHANDL ER , P I E R C E , K I N G A N D C O L E M A N , J J ., C O N C U R .