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 2 - KA- 0 0 4 9 5 - S CT FREDERICK L. W

I LSON a / k / a FREDR ICK L. W IL S O N a /k /a F R ED R IC

K W IL S O N a /k /a FR ED ER ICK

W I L S ON
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 12/ 2009 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. M AR CU S D. GOR DON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: S COTT COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: EDM UND J
. P HI LL I P S , J R. AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : ELL I O TT FL A G G S DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: M AR K S HE L DON DU NC AN 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 - 09/ 19/ 2013 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 R A N D O L P H , P . J. , L A M A R A N D K I T C H E N S, JJ. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. Fr eder i ck W i l s on w ou nd e d Sh a mi ka Pa r ke ra nd ki l l e d J os h I ng r a m w he n h e f i r ed guns hot s atJ os h I ngr am’s car . H e w as convi ct ed of one countof

aggr avat ed as s aul tand one countof m ur der
. W i l s on appea l s f r om h i s con vi ct i ons , al l egi ng the tr i al courterr ed 1) by
s us t ai ni ng the St at e’ s r el evanc e obj ect i ons dur i ng hi s cr os s - exami nat i on of Sham i ka Parker and 2) by ad m i t t i ng i nto evi den ce his fi rs ttw o st at em ents t o law -enf orcem ent autho ri t i es. F i nd i ng no rever si ble error , w e aff i rm W i l son’s conv i ct i on s and sen t ences.

### 2 F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. O n M ar ch 24, 2008, Fr eder i ck W i l s on dr ove t o the Par ker r es i dence and conf r ont ed Sham i ka Parker ’ s boyf

r i end, J os h I ngr am, abouti m pr egnat i ng hi s ni ece . W i l s on and I ngr am goti nt o a f

i s tf i ght
. P arkeran d herm othert es t i f i ed thatI ngr am di d nothave a gun dur i ng the f i gh ta nd tha tW i l s on h i tI ng r a m w i th a p i pe . W i l s on d e ni e d us i ng a p i pe and c l ai m ed thatI ngr am poi nt ed a gu n and thr eat ened t o ki l l hi m . Shor t l y af t erPar ker ’ s par ent s br oke
u p th e fig h t, W ilso n ra n in to h is frie n d Ju stin W a sh a t a n e a rb y g a s s tatio n . W ilso n to ld W a sh ab o u t th e fig h t an d as k e d W a sh to d riv e h im b a c k to th e P a rk e r re sid e n c e so h e c o u ld
s car e I ngr am. W as h agr eed. A f t erW as h dr opped hi m of f , W i l s on w al ked w i th hi s s hot gun to a b ri ck p il e b eh ind the P ark er re side n ce a n d fi red m u lt iple sh o ts atthe b ac k o f Ing ram ’s
c a r, in w h ich In g ra m , P a rk e r a n d th e ir frie n d , D e A n g e lo B u c k ley , w e re sittin g . T w o sh o ts h it In g ra m a n d o n e sh o t h it P a rk e r. W h e n I n g ra m ste p p e d o u t o f th e c a r, W ilso n sh o t h im a thi r d t i m e. E f

f or t s w er e made t o r es us ci t at e I ngr am, buthe di ed atthe scene. A ft erthe sh o o ti n g , W il so n ran b ac k t o W ash ’s car an d W ash dro v e h im ba ck to h is car. A t W il so n ’s
r eques t , W as h keptthe s hot gun and l at erhi d i ti n the w oods nearhi s hous e. ¶3
. I n hi s f

i r s ts t at ement t o l aw - e nf or c e mento f

f i c i a l s f ol l ow i ng hi s arr es t , W i l s on admi t t ed t o f

i r i ng the s hot s thathad i nj ur ed Parkerand ki l l ed I ngr am. T he nextday, W i l s on’ s gun w as r ecove r ed. W i l s on acknow l edg ed ow ners hi p of the gun i n a s econd
s t at ementgi ven a f

ew days l at er . A l m os tei ghtm onths l at er , i n a s t at em ent i nit i at ed by W ilso n , h e ag a in ad m itt e d to firin g the sh o ts th a t ha d inju re d P a rk e r an d k ill e d In g ra m . A ll th re e sta tem e n ts m a d e to law -e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic ials w e re a d m itt e d in to e v id e n c e a t trial.

### Duringhis testimo nyandin h is brief, W ilsonstated h is niece was thirteenat the time 1 

### of the s hooting. 3 ¶4. W i l s on w as convi ct ed of one c ountof

a ggr avat ed as s aul tf

ors hoot i ng Par kerand one countof m ur derf orki l l i ng I ngr am. H e w as sent ence d t o serve cons ecut i ve pr i s on t erm s of t en year s and l i f

e f orhi s re s pect i ve convi ct i ons . W i l s on appea l s f r om hi s convi ct i ons , r ai s i ng onl y tw o i s s ues. H e al l eges the tr i al courterr ed by 1) s us t ai ni ng the St at e’ s r el evanc e
o b jec tio n s d u rin g h is a tto rn e y ’s c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n o f S h a m ik a P a rk e r an d 2 ) a d m itt in g in to evidence h i s f

i rs ttw o st at em ents t o law -enf orcem ent of

fi ci al s. L A W A N D A N A L Y S IS I . D i d t he t r i alc our t e r r by s us t ai ni ng t he St at e’ s rel evance obj ect i ons duri ng W i l s on’ s cros s - exam i nat i on of Sham i ka Parker? ¶ 5
. A tr ia l c o u rt ’s e x c lu s io n o f e v id e n c e is re v ie w e d fo r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . B eal v. S ta te , 86 So. 3d 887, 893-94 ( M i s s . 2012). A convi ct i on w i l l notbe r ever s ed bas ed on the im p ro p e r ex c lu sio n o f ev id e n c e u n les s th e ex c lu sio n res u lts “in p re ju d ice an d h a rm .” J a c kso n v. S ta te , 594 So. 2d 20, 25 ( M i s s . 1992)
. I f i m pr oper l y excl uded evi dence comes in b y a n o th e r m e a n s , th e e x c lu s io n e rr o r i s r e n d e re d h a rm le s s . See Ho lla n d v. S ta te , 705 So. 2 d 3 0 7 , 3 4 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ); s ee al s o J a c kso n v. S ta te , 5 9 4 S o . 2 d 2 0 , 2 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). ¶6. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, W i l s on’ s att orney as ked Par ker i f s he knew that at the t i m e of the s h o o ti n g W il so n ’s niec e w a s 1 ) fi ft ee n y ea rs old an d 2 ) pre g n an t w ith Jo sh Ing ram ’s 1 ch il d
. T h e S tat e o b

jected to b o th q u esti o n s o n the g rou n d o f r e lev a n ce , an d the tri al co u rt
s us t ai ned both obj ect i ons . T he St at e does notdi s put e thatthe tr i al c our terr ed i n s us t ai ni ng

### 4

the obj ect i ons , butthe part i es di s put e the ef f ectof the al l eged err or . W i l s on a r gues the err or
re q u ir e s re v e rs a l, w h ile th e S ta te c la im s th e e rr o r w a s h a rm le s s . ¶7. T he t es t i m ony W i l s on w as att empt i ng t o i ntr oduce thr ough the cr os s - exami nat i on of Par kerr el at ed t o W i l s on’ s m ot i ves f orconf r ont i ng I ngr am. T he pr obat i ve val ue of s uch tes tim o n y w as m inim al at be st, an d this C o u rtrep ea tedly h as h eld th at “the tr ial co u rt pos s es s es a vas tamount of di s cr et i on” w hen cons i der i ng quest i ons conce rni ng the admi s s i on
a n d re le v a n c e o f e v id e n c e . B eal , 86 So. 3d at893- 94. W i th thi s s t andar d i n m i nd, w e ca nnot f i nd thatthe tr i al courtabus ed i t s di s cret i on i n s us t ai ni ng the St at e’ s obj ect i ons . B uteven i f i tw er e f ound t o be er r or– as t he St at e conc edes – i tdi d not“pr ej udi ce a nd harm ” W i l s on b e c a u se th e tes tim o n y e x c lu d e d d u rin g P a rk e r’s c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n su b se q u e n tly c a m e in thr ough the t es t i m ony of J us t i n W as h and W i l s on. ¶8. W as h’ s a nd W i l s on’ s t es t i m ony es t abl i s hed that W i l s on i ni t i al l y c onf r ont ed I ngr am beca us e I ngr am had i m pr egnant ed W i l s on’ s ni ece . W as h s t at ed thatW i l s on t ol d hi m that “[ he and I ngr am] had gott o f i ght i ng, that[ I ngr am] had gott en hi s ni ece pr egnantor
w hat ever , and [ W i l s on] w entdow n ther e t o a s k [ I ngr am] aboutt aki ng car e of the baby, and they goti nt o i t. . . . ” Si m i l ar l y W i l s on w as al l ow ed t o t es t i f y that“[ hi s ] l i t t l e ni ece ha d got pr egnantby [ I ngr am ]
. . . [ w hen] [ s ] he ai n’ tbutthi r t een” and thaton M ar ch 24, 2008, he

“ se e n Jo sh in H ill sb o ro , an d b y m e b e in g a m a n , an d a s k in g h im to h o ld u p , ex c u se m e , to be a man , a nd h e a l r e a dy d on e mes s e d up . H e h a d go tmy l i t t l e n i e c e p r egnantand I w as tryi ng t o t al k t o hi m as a man, and he w entt o cal l i ng heral l ki nd of names, s o I gotki nda
m ad, and I s truck hi m . . . . ” W i th thi s t est i m on y, the j ury w as f ul l y i nf or m ed thatW i l s on had conf r ont ed I ngr am becaus e I ngr am had i m pr egnat ed hi s young ni ece . E ven i f the tr i al

### 5

court ’ s excl us i on of

the s ame t es t i m ony f

r om Par kerw as de emed t o be e rr or , i tc l ear l y w as harm l es s , as i tdi d notr es ul ti n “pr ej udi ce and harm ” t o W i l s on becaus e the sa m e t es t i m ony
cam e before the jury thr ou gh otherw i tnesses. I I . Di d t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r b y a d mi t t i n g W i l s o n ’ s f i r s t t wo s t a t e m e n t s t o l a wenf orce m ent of

f i ci al s i nt o evi dence? ¶9. W i l s on m ade thr ee s t at ement s t o l aw - enf or cement of

f i cer s r egar di ng the s hoot i ng of I n g r a m a n d P a r k e r . Al l th r e e we r e a d mi t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e . W i l s o n a r g u e s th a tth e f i r s ttwo
w er e admi t t ed err oneous l y becaus e the St at e f ai l ed t o pr ove beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthat they w er e gi ven vol unt ar i l y. ¶10. I f a def endantchal l enges the vol unt ar i nes s of a s t at ement , the tr i al c our tm us t conduct
a su p p ression he aring ou tsi d e the pres en ce of th e jury t o de term ine the sta tem en t’ s
a d m is s ib ility
. A g e e v. S ta te , 1 8 5 S o . 2 d 6 7 1 , 6 7 3 (M iss. 1 9 6 6 ); see al so H a rde n v. S ta te , 59 So. 3d 594, 605 ( M i s s . 2011)
. T he St at e has the bur den t o pr ove beyond a r eas onabl e doubt th a t a s ta te m e n t w a s v o lu n ta ry . A gee 185 So. 2d at673. In or dert o be vol unt ary, a s t at ement “m usthav e been fr eel y g i ven and m ustno tbe the produ ctof coerci on by threat s, prom i ses,
ori nducement s . ” H

ar den , 59 So. 3d at605. A pr i m a f aci e cas e of

“ [ v] ol unt ar i nes s may be
es t abl i s hed thr ough t es t i m ony f r om of f i cer s orthos e w ho m ay have s peci f i c know l edge of th e fa c ts th a t th e c o n fe s s io n w a s m a d e w ith o u t a n y th re a ts , o ff e rs o f r e w a rd , o r c o e rc io n .” I d. If a def e nd a ntr e bu t s the pr i ma f a c i e c a s e of

vo l un t a r i ne s s w i th c on tr a ry e vi de nc e , t he St at e i s r equi r ed t o “of

f erthe t es t i m ony of

al l of f i cer s w ho w i tnes s ed the conf es s i on, or gi ve an adequ at e reas on f

orthei rabs ence . T h is C o u rt w ill re v e rse th e d e n ial o f a m o tio n to

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

### Wil son’ s girlf

ri end, Shawanda

Patric k, te stif

ie d that Off ic er Ander son als o se cured 3 

### a s tate me nt f

rom her by threate ning to put he r c hil dre n with theDepartme nt of Human Ser vic es , but sheadm itte d that s he di d not have an opport unit y to t el l Wi ls on about

thethreat bec aus e they were held and ques ti oned s eparate ly. Nei the r party at te mpt ed to ent er Shawanda Patric k’s st at em ent into evi denc e.

6 s uppr es s onl y i f

the tr i al c our t ' s rul i ng c ons t i tut ed m ani f es te rr ororw as a gai nstt he
overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence
. ” I

d. ¶1 1. A s r equi r ed by A gee , th e trial co u rth eld a su p p ression h ea ri n g o u tsi d e the jury ’s pr es ence t o det erm i ne the admi s s i bi l i ty of W i l s on’ s f

i r s ttw o s t at ement s . A tthe hea r i ng, O f f i cerW i l l i e A nder s on and O f f i cerB i l l y Patr i ck, the onl y t w o off i cer s w ho w i tnes s ed W i l s on’ s s t at ement s , t es t i f i ed f ort he St at e. T hey s w or e thatno pr om i s es orthr eat s had bee n
m ade t o W i l s on t o sec ur e ei therst at ementand t hatW i l s on had s i gned both s t at ement s af t er bei ng gi ven an opportuni ty t o r evi ew them forerr or s . T hey al s o t es t i f i ed that , bef

or e gi vi ng each st at em ent, W i l son w as r ead h i s Mir anda ri ght s and w ai ved thos e r i ght s bot h or al l y and 2 by s i gni ng a w ai verform . W i l s on cl ai m ed he ga ve hi s f i r s ts t at ementonl y beca us e O f f i cer A nder s on had thr eat ened t o l ock up hi s gi r l f r i end and t o puthi s chi l dr en w i th t he D epart m ent of H um an Ser vi ces ( D H S) unl es s he t ol d the truth. D ur i ng hi s t es t i m ony, O f f i cerA nder s on 3 acknow l edged thatthe D epart m entof H uman Se rvi ces m ay have been di s cus s ed w i th W i l s on and hi s gi r l f

r i end, s i nce the coupl e had mi norchi l dren a nd b oth pa r ent s w er e i n cus t ody. H ow ever , O f

f i cerA nder s on expl i ci t l y deni ed thr eat eni ng t o turn the coupl e’ s chi l dr en over t o D H S i n or dert o obt ai n thei rs t at ement s . W i l s on di d notal l ege thatany thr eat s w er e made in co n n ec ti o n w ith h is s e c o n d stat em en t. T h e tri al co u rtfou n d that b o th o f W il so n ’s
c h a llen g e d sta tem e n ts w e re v o lu n ta rily g iv e n a n d a d m iss ib le. T h e S tate sa tisfie d a ll i ts

### 7

p roc ed u ral an d ev iden tiary re q u ir em en ts atthe s u p p ression h ea ri n g , an d the tri al co u rt ’s deci s i on t o adm i tt he st at ement s w as notagai ns tt he overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence
. T h e re fo re , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶1 2
. W il so n w as co n v ict ed o f o n e co u n t o f ag g rav ated assa u lt a n d o n e c o u n t o f m u rde r. W ilso n ’s c o n ten tio n th a t h is c o n v ictio n s m u st b e re v e rse d b e c a u se th e trial c o u rt im p ro p e rly excluded t est i m on y fr om S ham i ka P arkeri s w i tho ut m eri t . T he err or, i f any, w as harm l ess, beca us e the exc l uded t es t i m ony came i n thr ough the t es t i m ony of J us t i n W as h a nd W i l s on. S im il arly, W il so n ’s co n tention that tw o o f his stat em en ts t o law -en forc em en t offi cials w ere admi t t ed i m pr oper l y a l s o i s w i thoutmer i t . T he tr i al courtpr oper l y conduct ed a s uppr es s i on hear i ng, and i t s det erm i nat i on thatt he st at ement s w er e gi ven vol unt ar i l y w as notagai ns tthe
o v erw h elm ing w eigh t of th e e v iden ce . T h e re fo re, W il so n ’s co n v ict ion s an d sen tenc es a re af f i r m ed. ¶13. CO UN T I : C O N V I C TIO N O F M U R D ER A ND SENTE NC E O F LI FE I M P RI S ON M E NT I N T HE CU S T OD Y OF TH E M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RRECTI ON S , AFF I RM ED. CO UN T I I : CO NVI CTI ON OF AG GR AVA TED AS S A U L T A N D S E N T E N C E OF T E N ( 1 0 ) Y E A R S I N T HE C U S T OD Y OF T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M EN T OF CORRE CT I ON S , AFF I RM ED . THE S EN TE NCE I M P OS ED I N COUNT I I SHALL RUN CONS EC UT I VE LY TO T HE S EN TE NCE I M P O S E D I N C O U N T I . W A LL ER , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D R A N D O LP H , P. JJ . , K I TC H EN S, CHANDL ER , P I ER CE , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.