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 8 - KA- 0 1 6 0 6 - S CT J ON ATH AN BAR FI ELD
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 25/ 2008 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. L I S A P . DODS ON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HARRI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F I ND I GEN T APPEALS BY: BENJ AM I N ALLE N SUBE R LESL I E S. LEE 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 : LI SA LY NN BLO UN T D IS T R IC T A T T O R N E Y : C O N O A . C A R A N N A , II NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 12/ 03/ 2009 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. , R A N D O L P H A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ. CH AND LER, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. J onathan B ar f

i el d w as i ndi ct ed f

or the m ur der of T i f

f any D eanna T al l ey. O n J ul y 3- 10, 2008, B ar f

i el d w as tr i ed i n the C i r cui tC our tof t he F i rs tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H arr i s on C ounty f orthe D ece m ber27, 2006, s hoot i ng of Tal l ey. T he j ury convi ct ed B ar f i el d of t he les se r o ffe n se o f m a n sla u g h ter fo r T a lley ’s d e a th . T h e trial c o u rt se n ten c e d B a rfie ld to tw e n ty y e a rs in the cu sto d y o f th e M iss iss ip p i D e p a rtm e n t o f C o rre c tio n s (M D O C ). B a rfie ld

### 2

now appeal s fr om t hatconvi ct i on. Fi ndi ng no er r or , w e af f i r m the j ury ver di ctand s ent ence o f twe n ty y e a r s i n th e c u s t o d y o f th e M DOC. FACTS ¶2 . B ar f

i el d t e s t i f

i e d o n h i s own be ha l f

a ttr i a l . A c c or di ng t o Bar f i e l d, he met Tal l ey w h il e the tw o att en d ed h igh sch o o l. T h ey d ated for a p p rox im ately tw o y ea rs be fore T all ey ’s d ea th. A t th e ti m e o f th e sh o o ti n g , B arfiel d w as li v ing i n his f athe r’s F E M A tr ail er in a p ark
nearC anal R oad i n G ul f por t , M i s s i s s i ppi . H e kepttw o guns i n the tr ai l erbe caus e he thought the tr ai l erpa r k w as “ pr etty s cary, ” and the pol i ce vi s i t ed the park atl eas tthr ee t i m es a w eek. ¶ 3 . O n D e c e m b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 , a fte r fin ish in g b a sk e tb a ll p ra c tice at G u lfp o rt H ig h S c h o o l, T a lley m a d e se v e ra l t e lep h o n e ca lls to B a rfie ld . D e sp ite te stim o n y to th e c o n tra ry , B a rfie ld deni ed thathe and Tal l ey had br oken of f t hei rre l at i ons hi p on D ece m ber26, 2006, t he day b efo re the sh o o ti n g . B arfield stated that as h e w as tak ing a sh o w er, he an sw ere d T all ey ’s t e l e p h o n e c a l l . W h i l e s p e a k i n g t o T a l l e y , B a r f i e l d h e a r d b a n g i n g o n h i s f r o n td o o r . He
w r apped hi m s el f

i n a t ow el and hea ded t o the door . Bar f i el d t ol d T al l ey t o “hol d on” and put the t el ephone dow n on a t abl e. U pon r eac hi ng the door , B ar f i el d s aw thats om eone w as tw i s t i ng the doorknob and at t empt i ng t o geti nt o the tr ai l er . T he bott om l ock w as unl ocked,
w hi l e the t op l ock w as l ocked. B ar f i el d gr abbed hi s . 22 r evol verf r om the t abl e, and he pl anned t o “s urpr i s e” w hom everw as a tthe door . H e neverl ooked outthe w i ndow ortr i ed t o s ee w ho w as tr yi ng t o geti nt o the tr ai l er . B ar f i el d had the r evol vercocke d and r eady
w h e n h e o p e n e d th e d o o r. T h e n , h e sa w T a lley . A c c o rd in g to B a rfie ld , h e w a s try in g to uncock the re vol veras T al l ey ent er ed the tr ai l er . T al l ey w as noti n the door“a good 30
se c o n d s” w h e n sh e b u m p e d B a rfie ld , w h ich ca u se d the p isto l to a c c id e n tally fire . B a rfie ld

### 3

s ai d he w as s o s hocked by the bang f r om the gun thath e s t epped out s i de and thr ew the
r evol veri nt o an adj oi ni ng fi el d. W hen ques t i oned, B ar f i el d st at ed t hatw hen he w as t r yi ng to u n c o c k th e g u n , the g u n w a s a n g led u p w a rd , an d w h e n T a lley h a d b u m p e d in to h im , h is h a n d w a s k n o c k e d u p w a rd a s w e ll. ¶4. W hen B ar f

i el d re turned t o t he t r ai l er , he saw T al l ey on t he gr ound and t houghtt hat
s he had f al l en t o the gr ound t o coverher s el f . H e ca l l ed Tal l ey and t ol d hert o getup f r om the f l oor . A tthatpoi nt , B ar f i el d s t at ed, he s aw bl ood. B ar f i el d t ri ed t o st op t he bl eedi ng w ith a sw e a tsh irt tha t T a lley h a d g iv e n h im fo r C h ristm a s. A t th a t p o in t, B a rfie ld c a lled h is fa th e r a n d th e n c a lle d 9 1 1 . ¶ 5 . D e p u ty Jo se p h F o re w a s th e first law e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic e r to re sp o n d to th e 9 1 1 c a ll. W hen he a rr i ved, B ar f

i el d t ol d hi m that“I tw as a n a cci dent . I di dn’ tmean t o s hoother , and I thr ew the gun overthe f ence . ” A ccor di ng t o D eputy For e, B ar f i el d al s o s t at ed thathe and T al l ey had “ goti nt o a l i tt l e ar gum ent , nothi ng bi g, a nd thatthey w er e pl ayi ng w i th the gun. H e sa id h e h a d th e g u n c o c k e d b y h is le g , p o in ted a t th e g ro u n d a n d th e y h a d b u m p e d in to eac h ot herand t he gu n wentof f a nd s ho the ri n the f

a c e . ” D e pu ty Fo r e a l s o d e s c r i be d B ar f i el d’ s demeanoras s i m i l art o “t al ki n g aboutthe w eather . ” D eputy For e s t at ed that D e p u ty G len R o e , w h o arr iv e d sh o rtly afte r h im , p lac e d B a rfie ld in h a n d c u ffs w h ile D e p u ty For e che cked on Tal l ey. W hen D eputy For e ent er ed the tr ai l er , he obs erved Tal l ey f ace d o wn i n a p o o l o f

b l o o d . On a n e a rb y c o f f e e t a b l e i n th e l i v i n g r o o m, De p u ty F o r e s a w two boxes of . 22 gun s hel l s . O n c r os s - exami nat i on, Bar f i el d de ni ed t el l i ng D eputy For e thatt he g u n w as p o inted tow ard the floo r. In fa ct, h e stated that the g u n w as p o inted in an u p w ard di r ect i on.

### 4

¶6. W hi l e i n the pol i ce car, E dw ard T w om ey, form er cr i m i nal i nv est i gatorf or the H a rriso n C o u n ty S h e riff’s D e p a rtm e n t, qu e stio n e d B a rfie ld a b o u t th e sh o o tin g . B a rfie ld to ld T w om ey thatT al l ey had s t opped by hi s hous e bef or e w or k, thats he had s hoved B ar f i el d as
s he w al ked by hi m , and the gun f i r ed. L at erthatday, T w om ey conduc t ed a s econd i nt ervi ew w i th B ar f

i el d, w hi ch i ncl uded a t aped s t at ement . T w om ey cha r a c t e r i z e d Bar f i el d’ s i nt ervi ew as “i ncons i s t ent . ” A ccor di ng t o T w om ey, B ar f i el d t ol d hi m t hatw hen he had s een Tal l ey at the door , B ar f

i el d had l ow er ed the gun dow n by hi s s i de, and had the gun po i nti ng att he fl o o r. W h e n T a lle y b u m p e d B a rf ie ld , h e h e a rd a n e x p lo s io n a s th e g u n fi re d . ¶7. W hen conf

r ont ed w i th the l ocat i on of T al l ey’ s w ound, B ar f

i el d the n t ol d Tw omey tha t h e “ m u st h a v e d ro p p e d th e g u n b e c a u se h e w a s h o ld in g it l ig h tly , an d th a t itm u st h a v e h it the f l oorand w entof

f . ” A l s o, T w om ey t es t i f i ed t hatB ar f

i el d i ni t i al l y s t at ed thats om eone w as bangi ng l oudl y and knocki ng on the door , butl at ers t at ed thats om eone j us tturned the knob t o s ee i f

the doorw as open. B ar f i el d al s o gave i ncons i s t enti nf or m at i on conce rni ng t he di s pos al of

the w eapon, acc or di ng t o T w om ey. B ar f i el d f i r s ts t at ed thathe had di s pos ed of the gun af

t erhe had s hotT al l ey, butl at ers t at ed thathe had di s pos ed of t he gun af

t ercal l i ng hi s f atherand before t he par amedi cs arr i ved atthe s cene . B ar f i el d t ol d T w om ey thathe th re w th e g u n b e c a u s e , “ th a t’ s w h a t h a d k ille d T a lle y .” ¶8 . A t tri al, there w a s c o n flictin g te stim o n y a s to w h e the r B arfiel d an d T all ey w ere to g e th e r a n d th e n a tu re o f th e ir rela tio n sh ip . A q u e stio n a ro se c o n c e rn in g w h e th e r B a rfie ld and Tal l ey had broken up on D ece m ber26, 2006, the day be f or e the s hoot i ng. A ccor di ng to B a rfie ld , the rela tio n sh ip b e tw e e n the tw o o f th e m w a s “ ju st fin e ,” a n d th e y h a d b e e n still t ogetheron D ece m ber27, 2006. B ar f i el d des cr i bed thei rr el at i on shi p as “[ p] r etty m uch a

### Ther e wa s no rec ord of Tall ey having used her

cel l phone to ca llShaw, but Shaw’s 1 

### phone r ec ords wer e not

put into e vide nce . Twome y t es ti fi ed that Tal le y coul d havejus t us ed ano ther p ho ne. Shaw ne ver

as ked, and Tal le y never

sai d, what i te m s he wa s ret urning to Barf

ie ld. 2 

### 5 reg u lar rel ati o n sh ip li k e a n y b o d y else, yo u h av e u p s a n d d o w n s, b u t f o r th e m o st pa rt everythi ng w as okay. ” ¶9 . Fel i ci a Shaw , Tal l e y’ s a un t , t e s t i f i e d a ttr i a l tha ts he ha d s po ke n t o Ta l l e y on t he t el ephone the morni ng of herdeath. A ccor di ng t o Shaw , T al l ey w as t aki ng s om ethi ng over

1 t o “J ohnny’ s ” ( J onathan B ar f i el d’ s ) hous e. T al l ey sa i d t hey had br oken of f thei rr el at i ons hi p. T al l ey t ol d Shaw thats he w as t aki ng thi s i t em back t o B ar f i el d t o s how hi m thati tw as over f ors ur e thi s t i m e. Shaw st at ed t hatT al l ey and B ar f i el d had broke n off

t hei rr el at i ons hi p on 2
m or e than one oc cas i on i n the pas t . W hen Shaw asked T al l ey i f the r el at i ons hi p w as over th is tim e , T a lle y re p lie d “ Y e s , th is is it. T h is is th e la s t tim e .” ¶1 0 . W alt er Ja ck so n , a form er c o -w o rke r of T all ey ’s, test if ied a b o u t th e status o f B arfiel d ’s
re latio n sh ip w ith T a lley . Ja c k so n h a d w o rk e d w ith T a lley a t th e N ik e O u tlet S to re in G ul f por t . H e had know n T al l ey s i x ors even m onths pr i ort o he rde ath. H e s ai d T al l ey had des cr i bed herr el at i ons hi p w i th Bar f i el d a s be i ng “ r ocky” and that“ ther e w as a l otof on and of f . ” Tal l ey al s o t ol d J acks on thats he w as s t i l l w i th B ar f i el d beca us e s he w as s car ed t o l eave hi m a nd be caus e s he w as uns ur e of w hathe w as goi ng t o do. W hen as ked w hats he meant by that , T al l ey t ol d J acks on t hatB ar f i el d had s ai d thati f

he coul d nothave her , t hen, no one coul d have he r . She m ade thi s s t at ementappr oxi m at el y one w eek ors o bef or e herdeath. ¶11 . Ju li sia T ay lor, T all ey ’s fri en d sinc e the sixth g rad e, t esti fi ed ab o u t T all ey ’s
r el at i ons hi p w i th B ar f

i el d. J ul i s i a s aw T al l ey atbas ketbal l pr act i ce the morni ng T al l ey w as

### 6

s hot . A tbas ketbal l pr act i ce, T al l ey t ol d J ul i s i a thats he and Bar f i el d had br oken up and that i tw as s er i ous thi s t i m e. T al l ey di d nott el l J ul i s i a thats he w as goi ng t o s ee Bar f i el d l at ert hat day. ¶12. D r . Paul M cG arry, a for ensi c p at ho l og i st , t es t i f i ed aboutthe i nj ur i es that T al l ey s us t ai ned and he rcaus e of death. H e des cr i bed Tal l ey’ s i nj ury as a guns hotw ound t hat ent er ed herf

ace atthe ce nt erof

herr i ghtchee k i n l i ne w i th the t i p of hern ose. T he bul l et
w entba ckw ar d a nd upw ar d ata f or ty- f i ve degr ee a ngl e and l ef tw ar d ata tw enty- f

i ve degr ee angl e t ow ar d the t op l ef

tof herhead. T he bul l etw as re cover ed f r om T al l ey’ s br ai n. A r ound th e e n try w o u n d , D r. M c G a rry fo u n d s tip p lin g o n th e s k in , o r p o w d e r p a rticle s e m b e d d e d in the s ki n. A ccor di ng t o D r . M cG arr y, st i ppl i ng i s i ndi cat i ve of a cl os e- r ange guns hotw ound. D r . M cG arr y es t i m at ed thatthe gun w oul d have ha d t o be t w el ve t o ei ght een i nches aw ay f r om T al l ey t o caus e the s t i ppl i ng. T he st i ppl i ng w as i n an upw ar d oval patt ern, w hi ch i ndi cat ed thatthe bul l etent er ed the hea d i n an upw ar d di r ect i on and w entl ef tw ar d and b a c k w a rd . W ith the typ e o f in ju ry T a lley su sta in e d , D r. M c G a rry e stim a ted th a t sh e w o u ld hav e li ved onl y m i nut es . H e s t at ed thatthe ca us e of death, w i thi n a r eas onabl e degr ee of
m edi cal cert ai nty, w as a cl os e- r ange guns hotw ound thatent er ed herr i ghtchee k, per f or at i ng herbr ai n and ca us i ng m as s i ve hemor rhagi ng and as pi r at i on on herow n bl ood. DI S CU S S I ON I . P h o to g r a p h s . ¶1 3. B ar f

i el d ar gues tha tthe p ho t og r a ph s a dmi t t e d i nt o e vi de nc e w er e grues om e and
un f ai r l y pr ej udi ci al . I n part i cul ar , B ar f i el d ar gues thatthe tr i al courterr ed by admi t t i ng St at e’ s E xhi bi t6 i nt o evi dence . St at e’ s E xhi bi t6 w as an enl ar ged phot ogr aph of the i nj ur i es

### [St at e] : Your honor , we ’d m ove num ber 6 int o evi denc e at t

his time . 3 

### The Cour

t: Def ens e? [De fe nse ] : No obje ction. The Cour

t: It may be m ar

ked a s St at e’ s 6 into e vide nce . 7 to T all ey’s head, w i th an i nsert ed p robe sho w i ng the tr aj ect ory of the b ull et . B arfi eld’s cl ai m , how ever , i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed f orf ai l ur e t o obj ectto the i ntr oduct i on of t he p h o to g ra p h in to e v id e n c e a t trial. W h e n th e S ta te in tro d u c e d th e p h o to g ra p h s a t trial, B ar f i el d f ai l ed t o m ake a ny obj ect i on, and eve n r epl i ed t o the tr i al cour t“N o obj ect i on” pr i or t o i t s admi s s i on i nt o evi dence . “F ai l ure t o m ake a cont empora neous obj ect i on w ai ves an 3 i s s ue f orpurpos es of

appea l . ” J

o n e s v . S ta te , 962 So. 2d 1263, 1270 ( M i s s. 2 00 7) ( ci t i ng S p ice r v . S ta te , 921 So. 2d 292, 305 ( M i s s . 2006)) . B ar f i el d’ s cl ai m i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed f orf ai l ur e t o m ake a cont empora neous obj ect i on. ¶14. N otw i t hst andi ng the pr ocedur al ba r , Bar f i el d’ s a s s ert i ons a r e w i thou tm eri t . A s a g en era l ru le, the a d m issi o n o f ph o tog rap h s is w ith in the d iscreti o n o f th e tri al c o u rt;

“ [a ]d m is s io n o f p h o to g ra p h s b y th e tria l c o u rt is r e v ie w e d fo r a b u s e o f d is c r e ti o n .” Ch a m b e rlin v. S ta te , 989 So. 2d 320, 340 ( M i s s . 2008) . T hi s C our tm us tcons i derw hether the pi ctur es w er e s o grues om e and i nf l am m at ory as t o l ack a ny evi dent i ary purpos e and, th e re fo re , b e in a d m is s ib le . Mc Fe e v. S ta te , 5 1 1 S o . 2 d 1 3 0 , 1 3 4 -35 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). ¶15. “Som e probat i ve value i s t he onl y r equi r ementneede d i n or dert o s uppor ta tr i al j udge' s deci s i on t o admi tphot ogr aphs i nt o evi dence . ” Ch a m b e rlin v. S ta te , 989 So. 2d at 340 ( quot i ng J

o n e s v . S ta te , 9 2 0 S o . 2 d 4 6 5 , 4 7 6
- 7 7 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 6 ) ) . Ho we v e r , “ g ru e s o me p h o tog rap h s w h ich h av e n o ev iden ti ary pu rpo se an d w h ich o n ly aro u se th e e m o ti o n s o f a jury
s houl d notbe admi t t ed. ” S h a rp v. S ta te , 4 4 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 8 , 1 0 0 9 (M iss . 1 9 8 4 ). W h ile

### 8

r ever s al f

orthe admi s s i on of

grues om e and/ orcumul at i ve phot ogr aphs i s r ar e, w e have advi s ed j udges and pr os ecut or s t o “ us e gr eatcaut i on i n thi s ar ea. ” Ho llida y v. S ta te , 455 So. 2d 750, 752 ( M i s s . 1984). T hi s C our thas hel d t hatphot ogr aphs have e vi dent i ary val ue w hen they “( 1) ai d i n desc r i bi ng t he ci r cumst ance s of the ki l l i ng; (2) des cr i be the l ocat i on of t he body and ca us e of

death; [ and] (3) suppl ementor [ cl ar i f y] w i tnes s t es t i m ony. ” McI ntos h v. S ta te , 9 1 7 S o . 2 d 7 8 , 8 3 (M is s . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). ¶16 . B arf

i el d ci t es W

e lch v . S ta te , 566 So. 2d 680 ( M i s s . 1987) , and He w lett v . S ta te , 607 So. 2d 1097 ( M i s s . 1992) , a s author i ty. I n W elch , Jo se p h R a y H e a th w a s k ill e d b y m u lti p le
s e v e re tr a u m a . W

elch , 5 6 6 S o . 2 d a t 6 8 1 . H e a th su sta in e d re p e a ted b lo w s to th e h e a d “ w ith
a ‘b u d d y b a r,’ w h ic h is a la rg e th re e -f o o t lo n g ir o n b a r, w e ig h in g s ix ty o r s e v e n ty p o u n d s .” Id . W hen H eath’ s body i ni t i al l y w as di s cover ed, i tw as f ace - dow n w i th arm s out s pr ead, and p a rt ia lly c lo th e d . Id . A ttr i al , va r i ous phot ogr aphs of H eath’ s di s s ect ed body w er e admi t t ed in to e v id e n c e . Id . at 685. T hi s C our thel d thatthe phot ogr aphs of the vi ct i m ’ s di s s ect ed
c a d a v e r h a d n o p ro b a tiv e v a lu e . Id . T he W elch C our tfound thatthe phot ogr aphs “do not
s how the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng the death, the cruel ty of the cr i m e, the pl ace of the
w ou nd s , orthe e xt e ntof the f or c e orvi ol e nc e us e d” a nd “ w e r e e xtr e mel y u np l e a s a ntand
us ed i n s uch a w ay t o be over l y pr ej udi ci al and i nf l amm at ory. ” Id . ¶17. T he admi s s i on of St at e’ s E xhi bi t 6 at B ar f i el d’ s t ri al i s easi l y di s t i ngui s habl e f r om W elch . The d i s s e c t e d c a da ve ri n W elch w as noti ndi cat i ve of the s t at e of

H eath’ s body at t he t i m e of

i t s di s c ov e r y, bu tr a the ri t s s t a t e du r i ng the a ut op s y p r oc e s s . The ph ot og r a ph in tro d u c e d in to e v id e n c e a s S ta te’ s E x h ib it 6 w a s n o t o f a “ d iss e c ted c a d a v e r,” b u t a phot ogr aph of

the vi ct i m ’ s f

ace s how i ng the gunshotw ound and a rod i ns ert ed i nt o the hea d

### 9

t o show t he t r aj ect ory and angl e of t he bul l et . U nl i ke W

elch , the p h o tog rap h p lace d b efo re the j ury depi ct ed every aspe ctt hatt he C our thel d the phot ogr aphs i n W elch lack ed . S tat e’s E xhi bi t6, as expl ai ned by D r . M cG arry t o the j ury, s how ed t he l ocat i on of the w ound, t he sti p p li n g o f gu n sh o t po w d er, i n d icati v e o f a c lose -ran g e g u n sh o t, the p ath a n d u p w ard t r a j e c t ory o f

the bu l l e ta nd c orr e s po nd i ng up w a r d s t i pp l i ng of the gu np owder , the pa s s age of the bul l etthr ough the r i ghti nt ernal car ot i d art ery and br ai n, w hi ch ca us ed ext ens i ve bl eedi ng, and the di s rupt i on of t he s i nus , s how i ng the path f r om w hi ch the bl ood f

l ow ed over the fa ce . T h is C o u rth as h eld th at, alth o u g h p h o tog rap h s m a y b e u n p leasa n t, m ere u n p le a s a n tr y d o e s n o t e s ta b lis h re v e rs ib le e rr o r. See N o e v. S ta te , 61 6 S o. 2d 29 8, 30 3 (M i ss. 1 9 9 3 ) (“ A p h o to g ra p h , ev e n if g ru e so m e , g risly , u n p lea sa n t, o r e v e n in fla m m a to ry , m a y still be admi s s i bl e i f

i thas pr obat i ve val ue and i t s i ntr oduct i on i nt o e vi dence s erves a meani ngf ul
ev iden ti ary p u rpo se.”). ¶18. B ar f

i el d al s o r el i es on He w lett v . S ta te . I n He w lett , thr ee f ami l y m ember s di ed w hen H e w le tt’ s v e h ic le h it th e irv e h ic le a n d b u rs t in to fl a m e s . He w lett , 607 So. 2d at1099. T he tr ia l c o u rt a d m itte d tw o p h o to g ra p h s d e p ic tin g th e c h a rr e d b o d ie s o f tw o o f th e v ic tim s . Id . a t 11 0 1 . B a rfie ld is c o rre c t in h is a ss e rtio n th a t th is C o u rt sta ted , “[p ]ho to g ra p h s o f a v ictim
s houl d notor di nar i l y be a dm i t t ed i nt o e vi dence w her e the ki l l i ng i s nei thercontr adi ct ed nor deni ed, and the corpus del i ct i and t he i dent i ty of the dec eas ed have been e s t abl i s hed. ” Id . at1102. H ow ever, the very nexts ent ence of the opi ni on s t at es , “Phot ogr aphs m ay neverthel es s be admi t t ed i nt o evi dence i n c r i m i nal c as es w her e they have pr obat i ve val ue and
w her e they ar e nots o grues om e orus ed i n s uch a w ay as t o b e o verl y prej udi ci al or in fl a m m a to ry . Id . ( ci t i ng S u dd u th v . S tate , 5 6 2 S o . 2 d 6 7 , 7 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 )). F u rth er,

### 10

“ p h o to g ra p h s u se d to su p p o rttest im o n y o f w itn e ss e s h a v e b e e n a c c e p ted a s re lev a n t an d th e ir admi s s i on as evi dence w as notan abus e of di s cr et i on. ” Id . ( ci t i ng L a n ierv. S ta te , 533 So. 2d 473, 484 ( M i s s . 1988)) . T hi s C our tul t i m at el y af f i r m ed t he tr i al court ’ s admi s s i on of t he phot ogr aphs of

the cha r r ed bodi es , beca us e they depi ct ed t he bodi es as “ vi ew ed atthe s cene b y th e m e d ic a l e x a m in e r” a n d th e y s u p p le m e n te d a n d c la ri fi e d h is te s tim o n y a t tr ia l. Id . ¶ 1 9 . A g a in , He w lett

i s e as i l y di s t i ngui s habl e. H er e, the St at e i ntr oduced the phot ogr aph dur i ng t he t es t i m ony of D r . P aul M cG arry, a for ens i c pathol ogi s t . T he phot ogr aph w as us ed by D r . M cG arr y t o s how the path the bul l ettr avel ed as i tt ook the l i f e of T al l ey. T he p h o tog rap h w as also use d t o sho w th e sti p p li n g , or p o w d ere d p arti cles e m b ed d ed in T all ey ’s sk in . D r. M c G a rry sta ted tha t th e stip p lin g w a s in d ica tiv e o f a c lo se -ra n g e g u n sh o t w ith in tw el ve t o eight een inches. T his evidence w as si gn i fi cant because co ntr adict ory evidence w as pr ovi ded by t es t i m ony f r om otherw i tnes s es as t o B ar f i el d’ s s t at em ent s conce rni ng the pos i t i on of

the g un a tthe t i me i tf i r e d a nd s ho tTa l l e y. Contr a ry t o the t e s t i mony of l aw enf or cementof

f i cer s , B ar f

i el d deni ed maki ng any s t at ementt o l aw enf or cementthatthe gun
w as poi nt ed i n a dow nw ar d posi t i on or thatt he gun m us thave s l i pped and s truck the gr ound,
caus i ng i tt o fi r e w hen T al l ey bum ped i nt o hi m as s he ent er ed t he tr ai l er . A s the phot ogr aphs
w er e us ed t o hel p the j ury bett erund ers t and the t es t i m ony of D r . M cG arry and the
c irc u m sta n c e s a n d c a u se o f th e s h o o tin g , th e y w e re c lea rly re lev a n t. L ik e w ise , p u rsu a n t to M i s s i s si pp i R ul e of

E vi dence 403, the pr obat i ve val ue of thes e phot ogr aphs w as not s ubs t ant i al l y outw ei ghed by the dange rof unf ai rpr ej udi ce. ¶20. A ddi t i onal l y, B ar f i el d us ed the phot ogr aphs i n the cr os s - e xa mi na t i on of D r . M c G a rr y. B a rfie ld ’s c o u n se l h a d D r. M c G a rry h o ld th e p h o to g ra p h fo r th e ju ry to se e , in o rd e r to

### 11

expl ai n the upw ar d angl e o f the path of the bul l etw hen i ts truck and ki l l ed Tal l ey. H ad
c o u n se l fo r B a rfie ld se e n th e se p ictu re s a s b e in g m o re p re ju d icia l th a n p ro b a tiv e fo r h is cl i ent , s ur el y he w oul d have s oughtt o l i m i tthe j ury’ s expos ur e. I ns t ead, he us ed the pi ctur es hi m s el f w hi l e cr os s -exam i ning D r . M cG arry and br oughtaddi t i onal att ent i on t o the pr obe
w hi ch had be en i ns ert ed i nt o the w ound. ¶ 2 1 . T h e trial co u rt d id n o t e rr b y a d m itt in g the p h o to g ra p h , E x h ib it 6 . B a rfie ld fa iled to co n tem p o ran eo u sly object, an d th e issue i s pro ce d u rall y ba rred . A lt ern a tely , B arfiel d ’s
a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit, a s th e p h o to g ra p h se rv e d an ev id e n tiary p u rp o se , w a s n o t u n d u ly p re ju d icia l, an d , the re fo re , w a s p ro p e rly a d m itt e d a t trial. I I . V e nue . ¶ 2 2 . B a rfie ld a s s e rt s th a t h e w a s d e n ie d th e r ig h t to a fa ir trial d u e to th e p u b licity gener at ed by hi s cas e i n and ar ound H arr i s on C ounty. H e cont ends thatthe tr i al courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on by denyi ng hi s m ot i on f ora cha nge of

venue. ¶23. T hi s Courtr ece nt l y addr es s ed a c hange- of
- venue i s s ue i n W

e lde v. S ta te , 3 So. 3d 113 ( M i s s . 2009) . “The deci s i on t o gr antordeny a mot i on f orchange of

venue i s w i thi n the dis cret i on of

the tr i al j udge. ” Id . at118 ( quot i ng Mc C u n e v. S ta te , 989 So. 2d 310, 316 ( M i s s . 2008) ) . T hi s C our thas hel d that“[ a] mot i on f orc hange of

ve nue ‘ m us tbe i n w r i t i ng and s uppor t ed by af

f i davi t s of

tw o orm or e cr edi bl e per s ons s how i ng thatthe def endant cannotr ece i ve an i m part i al and f ai rtr i al i n thatpart i cul arcounty beca us e of pr ej udgm entof the cas e orgrudge ori l l w i l l t o the def endanti n the mi nd of

the publ i c. ’ ” G ra

y v . S ta te , 799 So. 2 d 53 , 6 2 ( M i s s . 2 001) ( quot i ng D a v is v . S ta te , 7 6 7 S o . 2 d 9 8 6 , 9 9 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 )). W h e n th e a p p lica tio n fo r a c h a n g e o f v e n u e is file d , alo n g w ith tw o su p p o rtin g a ffid a v its

### 12

s t at i ng thatthe def

endanti s unabl e t o r ece i ve a f ai rtr i al i n a part i cul arar ea, a pr es um pt i on a ri s e s th a t a n i m p a r ti a l ju ry is u n a tta in a b le . W el de , 3 S o . 3 d a t 1 1 8 ; see al so M i s s . C ode A n n . § 9 9 -15 -35 (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶24. B ar f

i el d di d s at i s f

y the r equi r em ents o f a “p roperappl i cat i on” i n thathe di d f i l e a m ot i on w i th tw o att ache d af f i davi t s al l egi ng thatB ar f i el d cou l d no tre cei ve a f ai rtr i al due t o the publ i ci ty of

the ca s e. U pon thi s s how i ng by B ar f i el d, the bur den then s hi f t ed t o t he S ta te to re b u t th e p re s u m p tio n th a t B a rf ie ld w o u ld n o t b e a b le to re c e iv e a fa irtr ia l. ¶25. T hi s pr es um pt i on, how ever , m ay be r ebutt ed by t he St at e upon proof thatan i m part i al ju ry w a s e m p a n e le d d u ri n g v o ird ir e . Ho lla n d v. S ta te , 7 0 5 S o . 2 d 3 0 7 , 3 3 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). I n G r ay thi s C our ts t at ed: T hi s C our tenumer at ed “c ert ai n el ement s w hi ch, w hen pr es entw oul d s erve as a n in d ic a to r t o th e tr ia l c o u rt a s to w h e n th e p re s u m p ti o n is ir re b u tta b le .” W h ite , 49 5 S o. 2d at13 49 . T he elem ents are as fol l ow s: (1) ca p it al ca ses b ase d o n co n side rati o n s o f a h e i g h t e n e d s t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w; ( 2) cr ow ds thr eat eni ng vi ol ence t ow ar d the ac cus ed; ( 3 ) an i nor di nat e am oun t of medi a c ov er age, part i cul ar l y i n cas es of ( a) s eri ous cr i m es agai ns ti nf l uent i al fam i l i es; (b ) se rio u s c rim e s a g a in st p u b lic off i ci al s; (c) ser i al cri m es; ( d) cr i m es comm i t t ed by a bl ack d e f e n d a n tu p o n a wh i t e v i c t i m; ( e) w her e ther e i s an i nexper i ence d trial c o u n se l. Id .; D a v is , 7 6 7 S o . 2 d a t 9 9 3 -9 4 ; B a ldw in v. S ta te , 73 2 S o. 2d 23 6, 24 1 (M i ss. 1999) ; B u rr e ll , 613 So. 2d at1189- 90. G r ay , 799 So. 2d at62.

### Ha rris al so wa s use d f or com paris on in Ho llan d v. State , 705 So. 2d 307, 336-37 4 

### (Mi ss . 1997). In Holl

and, de spi tetwe nty- ninenews pape r c lippings and thir te en c lips f

rom 13 ¶2 6 . F irst, th e fac tors set forth b y th is C o u rtt o de term ine w h eth e r th e p re su m p tio n is i rr ebutt abl e ar e i nappl i cabl e t o t he f act s of B ar f i el d’ s cas e beca us e: (1) t hi s w as nota capi t al
c a se ; (2 ) n o c ro w d s h a d th re a ten e d v io le n c e a g a in st B a rfie ld ; (3 ) th e a m o u n t o f m e d ia
cover age, w hi ch w i l l be di s cus s ed i n furtherdet ai l , had not been i nor di nat e, and t he ca s e had notbeen: ( a) a gai ns ta n i nf l uent i al f ami l y; ( b) agai ns ta publ i c of f i ci al ; ( c) a s er i al cr i m e; ( d)
a b la c k d e fe n d a n t a g a in s t a w h ite v ic tim ; a n d (d ) t ri a l c o u n s e l w a s n o t in e x p e ri e n c e d . ¶27. N onethel es s , thi s C our tw i l l addr es s t he am ountof m edi a cover age, due t o the num ber
o f e x h ib its filed b y B a rfie ld . E x h ib its A -L a ll a re n e w sp a p e r a rticle s su b m itt e d b y B a rfie ld i n s uppor tof

hi s m ot i on f

ora cha nge of

venue. A l l of the art i cl es as s ert ed thatB ar f i el d had been c har ged i n the dea th of T al l ey, butnone spec i f

i cal l y st at ed ori m pl i ed thatB ar f i el d w as gui l ty. O nl y one art i cl e se ems t o have com e cl os e t o thi s as s ert i on, E xhi bi tA . A n art i cl e by the B ilo x i Su n He ra ld

quot ed f r i ends of T al l ey as s ayi ng thats he had t ol d them she w as af r ai d t o br eak up w i th B ar f i el d, af r ai d he w oul d ki l l her . T he art i cl e rea d, “s he may have been r i ght . ” Som e ar t i cl es , how ever , such as E xhi bi tB , anotherart i cl e by the Su n He ra ld , r eport ed B ar f

i el d’ s expl anat i on thatthe gun had f al l en f r om h i s han d, di s char gi ng upon i m pact w i th the groun d. I n al l , the art i cl es s tuck t o un dis pu t ed fact s such as B arf i el d’s arres t
a n d m a n s la u g h te r c h a rg e . (T h e m a n s la u g h te r c h a rg e e v e n tu a lly w a s u p g ra d e d to m u rd e r.) T h e s e a rt ic le s fa il to m e e t th e re q u ir e m e n t o f a n “ in o rd in a te ” a m o u n t o f m e d ia c o v e ra g e . ¶28. H ow ever , t o bett er under s t and the m eani ng of “i nor di nat e, ” t his C ou rt m ay l ook at ho w t he C our trul ed i n H a rr is v . S ta te , 537 So. 2d 1325, 1329 ( M i s s . 1989) . T he H a rris 4

### the lo cal televisio n statio n, th e Co urt h eld th at an imp artial jurystill cou ld b e impan eled. 14 cas e i nvol ved f

arm or e publ i ci ty than i n B ar f i el d’ s cas e. Y etthe C our tf ound thatan im p a rt ia l j u ry s till c o u ld b e e m p a n e le d . Id . a t 1 3 2 9 . H a rr is i nvol ved a brut al r ape c over ed
a t le a s t tw ic e b y t e le v is io n a n d b y n in e te e n n e w s p a p e r a rt ic le s . Id . at 1 3 2 7 . H e re , o n ly tw el ve new s s t or i es f

r om bot h new s paperand t el evi s i on w er e des i gnat ed as exhi bi t s . A l s o, atveni r e i n H

a rr is , f i f ty- tw o of e i ghty- tw o ve ni r e per s ons had s om e know l edge of the ca s e. I n the pr es entcas e, onl y thi r t een of t he s i xty veni r e per s ons st at ed thatthey had r ead the pr i or m edi a cove r age, and thos e w ho had s een medi a cove r age a dvi s ed t he tr i al courtthatt hey coul d s t i l l be i m part i al . D ur i ng voi rdi r e, onl y one m emberof the s el ect ed pane l ans w er ed thats he had s een the medi a cover age of the ca s e pr i ort o the tr i al . T he j ur oral s o t ol d t he
courtthatthe medi a cove r age w oul d notaf f ectherver di ctand thats he coul d r el y on w hat
s he hea r d i n t he courtr oom t o deci de the ca s e. ¶29. “[ H ] ow ever , the St at e can r ebut thi s s how i ng by pr ovi ng f r om voi r di r e that the tr i al
courti m panel ed an i m part i al j ury. ” H a rr is v . S ta te , 537 So. 2d at1329 ( quot i ng U ni ted States v. H

ar r el s on , 754 F. 2d 1153, 1159 ( 5th C i r . 1985) ) . I f the St at e demonstr at es s uch, thi s C our tw i l l notoverturn the tr i al court ' s f i ndi ng thatan i m part i al j ury cou l d be f ound, d e s p ite a d v e rs e p u b lic ity . Id . T h is C o u rtrev iew s the tr ial co u rt ' s fi n d ing u n d er a n ab u se-o fd is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . Id . I n a n y c a s e , th i s C o u r tw i l l tr e a tw i th d e f e r e n c e a v e n i r e p e r s o n 's
as s ert i ons of

i m part i al i ty. S c o tt v. B a ll , 5 9 5 S o . 2 d 8 4 8 , 8 5 0 (M is s . 1 9 9 2 ).

### 15

¶30. A s r evea l ed i n the r ecor d, the t ot al i ty of the voi r di r e conduct ed by the tr i al courtand
couns el r es ul t ed i n t he se at i ng of a f ai rand i m part i al j ury, t hus re but t i ng t he pr es um pt i on t hat
a n im p a rtial ju ry c o u ld n o t b e o b tain e d b y B a rfie ld . A c c o rd in g ly , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I I I . THE W

EAT HERSB Y RULE ¶31. B ar f

i el d nextar gues thatthe t ri al co urterr ed by d enyi ng hi s m ot i on f or di r ect ed
ver di ct , and he w as ent i t l ed t o an ac qui t t al bas ed on the W eat hers by R u le . See W

eat hers by
v . S ta te , 16 5 M iss. 20 7 , 20 9 , 14 7 S o . 48 1 , 48 2 (19 3 3 ). A ft er th e S tat e rested , B a rfie ld
r eques t ed a di r ect ed ver di ctbas ed, i n part , on the W eat hers by R u le. H e a ss e rt s th a t h is versi on of even t s w as r easona ble and n ot s ub st anti al l y co ntr adict ed in m at eri al part i cular s. ¶32. T he W

eat hers by rul e st at es: I tha s b e e n f

ors ome t i me the e s t a bl i s he d rul e i n thi s s t a t e tha tw her e t he def endantorthe def

endant ' s w i tnes s es ar e t he onl y eyew i tnes s es t o the ho m i ci de, t heirversi on , i f r easona ble, m ustbe acc epted as true, un l ess s ubs t a nt i a l l y c on tr a di c t e d i n mat e r i a l p a r t i c ul a r s b y a c r e di bl e wi tnes s or w i tnes s es f

orthe s t at e, o r by t he phys i cal f act s orby the f

act s of comm on know l edge. W eat hers by , 147 So. at482. ¶33. H ow ever , thi s Courtha s pr ovi ded s om e gui dance f or ci rcum st ances i n w hi ch the W eat hers by R ul e w oul d be i nappl i cabl e w her e a de f endantw as the onl y eyew i tness t o a h o m ic id e . See J

o h n so n v. S ta te , 987 So. 2d 420, 425 ( M i s s . 2008). “[ I ] f the def endantor the def endant ' s eyew i tnes s es ' t es t i m ony s at i s f i es al l the el ement s of

m ur derorm ans l aught er , t he d e fe n d a n t w o u ld n o t b e e n tit led to a d ire c ted v e rd ic t o f a c q u itt a l, as th e ir tes tim o n y w o u ld be t he basi s f

ora val i d convi ct i on. ” Id . I n addi t i on, the W eat hers by R u le is in a p p lica b le
w her e: ( 1) “the def

endant ' s ver s i on i s pat ent l y unr eas onabl e, orcontr adi ct ed by phys i cal

### 16

f act s ”; ( 2) “w her e the acc us ed, f ol l ow i ng the s l ayi ng, gi ves conf l i ct i ng ver s i ons of

how the ki l l i ng t ook pl ace ”; a nd ( 3) w her e the ac cus ed “i ni t i al l y deni es the ac t . ” Id . ( quot i ng B lanks
v. S ta te , 547 So. 2d 29, 33- 34 (M i s s . 1989)) . W hen a def endanti s the s ol e eye w i tnes s t o the ki l l i ng and the W

eat hers by R ul e does notappl y, t he ques t i on “then bec om es a j ury i s s ue as t o w hethert o be l i eve ornotbel i eve the def endant ' s t es t i m ony of

how the s l ayi ng occurr ed, and t o ei therconvi ctoracqui t . ” Id . ( quot i ng B lanks , 5 4 7 S o . 2 d at 33 -34 ). ¶34. “M ot i ons f

ora di r ect ed ver di cta nd j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ctchal l enge the l egal s uf

f i ci ency of

the evi dence , and the s t andar d of r evie w f ora di r ect ed ver di ctand j ud gmen tno tw i ths t a nd i ng the ve r di c ta r e i de nt i c a l . ” N e lso n v. S ta te , 10 So. 3d 898, 905 (M iss . 2 0 0 9 ). “[T ]he c ri tica l in q u iry is w h e th e r th e e v id e n c e sh o w s ‘b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubtthat[ the] acc us ed comm i t t ed t he actchar ged, and thathe di d s o unders uch ci r cumst ance s thatevery el ementof t he of f ens e exi s t ed; and w her e t he evi dence f ai l s t o m eet t his te s ti ti s i ns uf

f i ci entt o s uppor ta convi ct i on. ’ ” J o n e s v . S ta te , 904 So. 2d 149, 153- 54 ( M i s s . 20 05 ) ( qu ot i ng Ca r rv . S ta te , 208 So. 2d 886, 889 ( M i s s . 1968) ) . T hi s C our thas fu rth e r sta ted : In a n a ly z in g th e s u ff

icie n c y o f th e e v id e n c e , “[t]he re lev a n t q u e stio n is w hether , af

t ervi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the p ro se c u tio n , an y ra tio n a l trie r o f f a c t c o u ld h a v e fo u n d th e e ss e n tial e lem e n ts of the cr i m e beyond ar eas onabl e doubt . ” J o n es v . S tate , 9 04 S o. 2d 149, 153- 54 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng J a c kso n v. V

irg in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 5 , 9 9 S . C t. 2781, 61 L . E d. 2d 560 ( 1979) ) . T hi s C our t“ac cept[ s] as true al l of the evi dence thati s f

avor abl e t o the St at e, i ncl udi ng al l r eas onabl e i nf er ence s that may be d r a w n the r e f

r om, a nd . . . d i s r e ga r d[ s ] e vi de nc e f a vo r a bl e t o” [ t he d e fe n d a n t]. A n de rs o n v. S ta te , 9 0 4 S o . 2 d 9 7 3 , 9 7 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). Mo o re v. S ta te , 9 9 6 S o . 2 d 7 5 6 , 7 6 0 -61 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ).

### 17

¶3 5. W e f

i nd tha t thi s c a s e pr op e r l y w a s de c i de d by a j ury. D e s pi t e Bar f i e l d’ s a s s e r t i on t ha th i s t e s t i mony w a s u nc on tr a di c t e d, the e vi de nc e p r e s e nt e d s ho w e d othe rw i s e . The evi dence s how ed i ncons i s t enci es as t o t he pl ace m entof the gun atthe t i m e of

the s hoot i ng, the di s pos al of

the gun, and the natur e of the r el at i ons hi p bet w een Bar f i el d and Tal l ey. “W her e conf

l i ct i ng s t or i es ar e gi ven abouta homi ci de by the ac cus ed, the W eat hers by R u le does notappl y. ” Fa irle y v. S ta te , 8 7 1 S o . 2 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). ¶36. W hen D eputy For e arr i ved at the s cene, B arf i el d t ol d hi m that the s hoot i ng w as an acc i dent , he di d noti nt end t o s hootTal l ey, a nd thathe ha d thr ow n the gu n o ver a f ence . B ar f i el d al s o t ol d D eputy For e thathe a nd Tal l ey “goti nt o a l i t t l e ar gum ent , nothi ng bi g, and thatthey w er e pl ayi ng w i th the gun. H e had the gun coc ked athi s l eg poi nt ed atthe gr ound and they bumped i nt o eac h otherand the gun w entof f and s hotherin t he f

ace . ” W hen In v e stig a to r T w o m e y q u e stio n e d B a rfie ld a t th e sc e n e , B a rfie ld g a v e n o in d ica tio n o f a “ little
ar gum ent ” betw een hi m s el f and Tal l ey. W hi l e i n t he patr ol car , B ar f i el d t ol d T w om ey that T al l ey had s t opped by the t rai l er, s he had s hoved hi m , and the gun f i r ed. A ta s econd i n t e r v i e w, Ba r f

i e l d t o l d T wo me y th a twh e n h e h a d s e e n T a l l e y , h e h a d l o we r e d th e g u n d o wn b y h is s id e , a n d it w a s a c tu a lly p o in tin g to w a rd th e fl o o r. ¶ 3 7 . W h e n q u e stio n e d a b o u t th e lo c a tio n o f th e g u n sh o t w o u n d o n T a lley ’s fa c e , B a rfie ld change d hi s ver s i on of

event s . T w om ey s t at ed thatB ar f i el d, conf

r ont ed w i t h t he fa ctt hat T al l ey h ad suff

ered a w ou nd to t he face, st at ed that he “m usth ave dropp ed the g un becau se he w as hol di ng i tl i ght l y, and thati tm us thave hi tthe f l oorand w entof

f . ” Tw om ey al so sta ted th a t B a rfie ld w a s in c o n sis ten t c o n c e rn in g th e d isp o sa l o f th e g u n . B a rfie ld first to ld T w om ey thathe ha d di s pos ed of the gun a f

t ers hoot i ng Tal l ey. L at er , Bar f i el d s t at ed thathe

### 18

had di s pos ed of

the gun a f

t erhe ha d c al l ed hi s f

ather , butpr i ort o the arr i val of par amedi cs t o the s cene . ¶38 . D r. M cG arry t est i fi ed con cerni ng the w ou nd s t hat Tall ey h ad sust ai ned and the cause o f d e a th . B y a ll i n d ica tio n s, D r. M c G a rry ’s te stim o n y in d ica ted th a t th e g u n w a s p o in ted in a upw ar d di r ect i on and w as f i r ed atc l os e r ange. Speci f i cal l y, D r . M cG arrry t es t i f i ed thatt he b u ll et th a t e n ter e d T all ey ’s ri g h t che ek w as a n g led in an u p w ard p o sit ion . T h e b u ll et’s tr aj ect ory w as upw ar d ata f or ty- f i ve degr ees angl e and t ow ar d the l ef tat a tw enty- f

i ve degr ee a ngl e t ow ar d the t op and lef to f Tal l ey’ s head. Fur therm or e, T al l ey’ s f ace had
s t i ppl i ng i n a l ef

t , upw ar d pa t t ern. T hi s s t i ppl i ng pa t t ern i ndi cat ed thatthe bul l ethad ent er ed i n an upw ar d and l ef

tdi r ect i on. T he st i ppl i ng al s o i ndi cat ed a c l os e- r ange guns hotw ound. D r . M cG arr y es t i m at ed thatthe gun w as betw een tw el ve and ei gh t een i nches f r om T al l ey w h e n it w a s fi re d . ¶3 9. N um er ous w i t nes s es al s o t e s t i f i e d c on c e rni ng Tal l e y a nd Bar f i e l d’ s r el at i ons hi p. T w omey s t a t e d tha tBar f i e l d h a d d e s c r i be d h i s r e l a t i on s hi p wi th Ta l l e y a s e nd ur i ng. H ow ever , Sha w s t a t e d tha tTal l e y a nd Bar f i e l d h a d b r ok e n u p o n mor e tha n o ne oc c a s i on. T a lley h a d to ld S h a w th a t sh e w a s tak in g so m e th in g b a c k to B a rfie ld a n d th a t th e re latio n sh ip
w as overthi s t i m e. T he m orni ng of the s hoot i ng, T al l ey had t ol d T ayl or , herchi l dhood f r i end, thats he and Bar f i el d had broken u p t he r el at i ons hi p and thats he w as s er i ous about i t . I n addi t i on, J acks on s t at ed thatT al l ey had des cr i bed herr el at i ons hi p w i th B ar f i el d as

“ ro c k y ” a n d “ o n a n d o ff.” T a lley a lso to ld Ja c k so n th a t sh e w a s a fra id to lea v e B a rfie ld b ec au se sh e d id n o t kn o w w h at B arfiel d w o u ld d o ab o u t i t. A p p rox im ately o n e w ee k b efo re

### 19

herdeath, Tal l ey t ol d J acks on thatBar f i el d ha d s t at ed thati f

he c oul d notha ve her , then, no o n e c o u ld h av e h er. ¶4 0. W e f

i nd tha tBar f

i e l d’ s a c c ou nto f

the e ve ntwas n otr eas onabl e and thati t w as s ubs t ant i al l y contr adi ct ed s uf f i ci ent l y t o gi ve r i s e t o a j ury quest i on. T her ef or e, the tr i al
c o u rt d id n o t e rr in d e n y in g B a rf ie ld ’s m o tio n fo r a d ir e c te d v e rd ic t. ¶ 4 1 . A d d iti o n a lly , su ffic ien t e v id e n c e su p p o rte d th e ju ry v e rd ict o f m a n sla u g h te r in th is
cas e. B ar f

i el d w as convi ct ed by the j ury of the l es s erof

f ens e of m ans l aught eri n l i eu of the i ndi ct ed char ge of m urder . M ans l aught erhas been de f i ned by the Legi s l atur e as “[ T ] he ki l l i ng of

a human bei ng, w i thoutm al i ce, i n the hea tof pas s i on, buti n a cruel orunus ual
m an n er, o r by th e u se o f a da n g ero u s w ea p o n , w ith o u t auth o ri ty o f l aw , an d n o t i n n ec essa ry s el f
- def ens e . . . . ” See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-3 5 (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶42. W hi l e the evi dence i s contr adi ct ory on a numberof i s s ues , B ar f

i el d admi t t ed s hoot i ng T a lley w ith h is .22 rev o lv e r w h e n sh e en ter e d h is h o m e . T h e e v id e n c e sh o w e d th a t B a rfie ld sta ted to D e p u ties F o re a n d R o e a n d In v e stig a to r T w o m e y a t th e sc e n e th a t T a lley ’s d e a th
w as an “a cci dent . ” B ar f i el d t ol d D eput y For e thatw hen Tal l ey i ni t i al l y had come t o the tr a ile r t h a t th e y h a d “ a little a rg u m e n t, n o th in g b ig , a n d th a t th e y w e re p la y in g w ith th e g u n .” ¶43. T he t es t i m ony al s o s how ed that the pos i t i on of the gun w as at i s s ue. B ar f i el d s t at ed th a t h is te stim o n y w a s c o n sis ten t b e c a u se h e alw a y s h a d sta ted tha t th e g u n w a s p o in ted in a upw ar d di r e c t i on when Ta l l e y ha d bu mped i nt o hi m. H e c l a i med tha tthe r e wer e no contr adi ct ory s t at ement s f r om hi m , and any st at ement s t o t hatef f ectw er e mer el y r es pons es t o theori es posed t o h i m by l aw enforcem ent of fi ci al s.

### 20

¶ 4 4 . V iew in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e v e rd ict, a ra tio n a l trier o f fa c t, the j ury i n thi s cas e, coul d have f ound the es s ent i al el emen t s of m ans l aught erbeyond a
re a so n a b le d o u b t. T h e re fo re , B a rfie ld ’s is su e is w ith o u t m e rit. I V . W ei ght of

t he E vi dence. ¶45. B ar f

i el d ar gues that the j ury’s ver di ct w as agai ns t the overw hel m i ng w ei ght of t he
e v id e n c e , th e re fo re , th e tr ia l c o u rt e rr e d b y d e n y in g h is m o tio n fo r n e w tr ia l. ¶ 4 6 . A n e w -t ri a l m o tio n c h a lle n g e s th e w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e . W ilk in s v . S ta te , 1 So. 3d 8 5 0 , 8 5 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 8 ). T h is C o u rt w ill re v e rse o n ly if th e trial c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g a m o tio n f

o r n e w tr ia l. Ma ss e

y v. S ta te , 9 9 2 S o . 2 d 1 1 6 1 , 1 1 6 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 8 ). T h is C our thas s t at ed: W h e n re v iew in g a d e n ial o f a m o tio n fo r a n e w tria l b a se d o n a n o b jec tio n to the w eigh t of th e e v iden ce , w e w il l on ly d istu rb a v erd ictw h en itis so c o n tr ary to th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e th a t to a llo w it t o sta n d w o u ld s a n c tio n a n u n c o n s c io n a b le in ju s tic e . He rr in gv. S ta te , 691 So. 2d 948, 957 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ). T h e 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. Id . J o n e s v . S ta te , 9 0 4 S o . 2 d 1 4 9 , 1 5 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ). O n q u e stio n s o f w itn e ss tes tim o n y , this C ou rthas held that “[ t ] he jury d et erm i nes the w ei gh tand credi bil i ty to gi ve w i tness t es t i m ony and otherevi dence . ” Mo o re v. S ta te , 93 3 So . 2d 91 0, 92 2 ( M i s s . 20 06 ) ( ci t i ng J o h n so n v. S ta te , 904 So. 2d 162, 167 ( M i s s . 2005) ) . T hi s Court“ m ay not‘ pas s upon the
cr edi bi l i t y of w i t nesse s and, w her e the evi dence j us t i f i es a ver di ct , i tm us tbe ac cept ed as havi ng been f

ound w or thy of

bel i ef . ’ ” Id . ( quot i ng D a v is v . S ta te , 568 So. 2d 277, 281 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 )).

### 21

¶4 7. W i t houtr e i t e r a t i ng a l l the e vi de nc e r e c i t ed i n I s s ue I I I above, and vi ew i ng t he evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the ver di ct , thi s C our tcannots ay thatthe ver di ctof
m ans l aught eri s s o contr ary t o the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence thatt o al l ow t he
c o n v ic tio n to s ta n d w o u ld s a n c tio n a n u n c o n s c io n a b le in ju s tic e . ¶48. B ar f

i el d admi t t ed shoo t i ng t he gun and caus i ng T al l ey’ s death. T he j ury hear d t he conf l i ct i ng t es t i m ony of

B ar f i el d’ s acc ountof

the s hoot i ng and pl acem entof the gun as oppos ed t o the t es t i m ony of l aw e nf or cementof

f i cer s w ho ques t i oned B ar f i el d conce r ni ng the f act s of the s hoot i ng. T he j ury al s o hear d t he t es t i m ony of D r . M cG arry and s aw t he phys i cal evi dence conce r ni ng t he angl e of the bul l etand s ubs equents t i ppl i ng and i nj ur i es th a t T a lley su ffe re d fro m th e g u n sh o t w o u n d , ind ica tin g a n u p w a rd traje c to ry o f th e b u llet. T he j ury al s o hear d conf l i ct i ng evi dence conce rni ng B ar f i el d’ s and Tal l ey’ s r el at i ons hi p. ¶49. A f

t erhear i ng al l the evi dence , i ncl udi ng t he conf l i ct i ng evi dence , t he j ury r es ol ved the e v iden ce in fav o r of a co n v ict ion ag ains t B arfiel d o f th e lesse r offen se o f m an slau g h ter. A c c o rd in g ly , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶50. For the f

or egoi ng r eas ons , thi s C our t af f i r m s the convi ct i on of m ans l aught er and the
s e n te n c e o f t w e n ty y e a rs in th e c u s to d y o f t h e M D O C . ¶ 5 1 . C O N V I C T I O N O F M A N SL A U G H T E R A N D SE N T E N C E O F T W E N T Y ( 20) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RRECTI ON S , AFF I RM ED . W AL L E R, C. J . , CARL S ON AN D G RA VE S , P . J J . , DI CK I NS ON , RA ND OL P H, LA M AR, KI TC HENS AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR.