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 0 5 4 9 - S CT W ANDA CLAR K v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 08/ 2008 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. KE NNE T H L . T HOMAS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: COAHO M A COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: CH ERY L AN N W EBSTER AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : S T E P HANI E BR E L AND W OOD DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : LAU REN CE Y . M ELLEN 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 - 08/ 05/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E G R A V E S, P . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ. CH AND LER, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. A ft er a j ury tri al , W and a C l ark w as con vict ed of tw o cou nts of fel on i ou s chil d ab use and s ent ence d on eac h countt o ei ght een ye ar s i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m ent o f C o rr e c tio n s , w ith s ix y e a rs s u s p e n d e d , to ru n c o n c u rr e n tly . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 5- 39( 2) ( a) ( R ev. 2006) . O n appea l , Cl ark a r gues thatthe tr i al c our terr ed by: ( 1) denyi ng her m ot i on f ora mi s tr i al bas ed on the court ’ s comm ent s t o the vi ct i m ; ( 2) admi t t i ng the t es t i m ony of

an em pl oyee of

t he M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof H um an Servi ces ; ( 3) excl udi ng

### Th e name o f the min or ch ild h as beenchan gedto p rotect h er identity. 1 

### 2 d efe n se e x h ibit s; an d (4) refu sing h er “ theo ry o f th e c ase ” jury instruction . F ind ing n o erro r, w e a ff ir m . FACTS ¶ 2 . O n M a rc h 2 9 , 2 0 0 5 , Jo h n n ie G ra v e s v isited h e r g ra n d d a u g h ter , H a iley , a t C lar k sd a le 1 H i gh School t o gi ve heran East erbas ket . G r aves t es t i f i ed thatshe had br oughtthe bas ket to th e sc h o o l b e c a u se , d e sp ite re p e a ted te lep h o n e c a lls a n d a v isit, G ra v e s h a d b e e n u n a b le to co n tact an y o n e at H ail ey ’s ho m e. G rav es v isi ted w ith H ail ey alon e in th e p rin c ip a l’s of f i ce. She observed t hatH ai l ey w as si t t i ng w i th herhead dow n, and G r aves as ked herw hat w as w rong. A tthat poi nt, G raves observed a cu ton H ai l ey’s earand abrasi on s on h er arm s. G r aves di r ect ed H ai l ey t o r emove herbl ous e, and then s he obs erved more cut s and brui s es on H ai l ey. G r aves cal l ed t he pr i nci pal , w ho cont act ed the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof H um an S erv ices (D H S ). D H S laun ch ed an inv es ti g ati o n . P h o tog rap h s tak en that d ay o f H ail ey ’s b o d y s h o w e d c u ts , b ru is e s , a n d s c a rs o n h e r e a r, h e r f a c e , h e r a rm , h e r l e g s , a n d h e r b a c k . ¶3. A s a res ult of t he i nves t i gat i on, H ai l ey’ s f ather , K enneth C l ark ( K enneth) , and her ste p m o th e r, W a n d a C lar k (C lar k ) (c o llec tiv e ly , the C lar k s), w e re c h a rg e d w ith tw o c o u n ts eac h of f el oni ous c hi l d a bus e bas ed on thr ee i nci dent s : ( 1) c ountone c har ged K enneth and C l ark w i th br eaking H ai l ey’ s arm on oraboutFebruary 13, 2001; ( 2) counttw o char ged K enneth and C l ark w i th beat i ng H ai l ey w i th an ext ens i on cor d on or a boutJ anuary 9, 2005; and ( 3) countthr ee c har ged C l ark w i th beat i ng H ai l ey w i th an ext ens i on cor d on orabout

### 3

M ar ch 25, 2005. H a i l e y d i d n otr e turn h ome a nd be ga n l i vi ng w i th h e rgr a nd mot he ron M ar ch 29, 2005. ¶4. T he C l arks w er e tr i ed t ogether . A t the tr i al , i t w as s t i pul at ed that K enneth had bee n aw ar ded cus t ody of

H ai l ey w hen s he w as approxi m at el y ni ne yea r s ol d. A tthatt i m e, K enneth w as m arr i ed t o C l ark and s he had c us t ody of tw o daught er s w ho w er e youngert han H ai l ey. H ai l ey w as e i ght een year s ol d a tthe t i m e of the tr i al . A ccor di ng t o H ai l ey, f orthe f i r s ttw o year s she had l i ved w i th the C l arks , thi ngs had bee n good, butaf t erherbaby br ot her w as born i n 2000, the C l arks began a dm i ni s t er i ng s ever e w hi ppi ngs w hen s he mi s behave d o rf a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y e x e c u t e h e rh o u s e h o l d c h o r e s . Ha i l e y t e s t i f i e d th a tth e i n

j u r i e s s h o wn i n the phot ogr aphs w er e f r om w hi ppi ngs w i th an ext ens i on cor d. She t es t i f i ed thatthe C l arks had w hi pped herot hers i bl i ngs w i th a bel t , butnotvery s ever el y. ¶ 5 . A lth o u g h H a iley tes tified th a t sh e w a s b e a ten a lm o st d a ily , sh e tes tified sp e c ifica lly a b o u t th e th re e s p e c ific in c id e n ts o f a b u se c h a rg e d in th e in d ictm e n t. H a iley tes tified th a t, i n February 2001, K enneth and C l ark had bea t en herand K enn et h had pi cked he rup and d rop p ed h er to the fl o o r, b rea k ing h er a rm . K en n eth h ad b rou g h t her to th e h o sp it al, w h ere s he r e c e i ve d tr e a t ment . H a i l e y s a i d tha t , t o pr ot e c th e rf a the r , s he t ol d the d oc t ors he had trip p e d a n d fa llen . H a iley tes tified th a t in a n o th e r in c id e n t o n Ja n u a ry 9 , 2 0 0 5 , b o th K e n n e th and C l ark had w hi pped herw i th ext ens i on cords as puni s hm entf orus i ng the phone. She t es t i f i ed t hatshe had m i s s ed t w o days of school due t o i nj ur i es t o herf ace . H ai l ey t es t i f

i ed t ha t , i n the thi r d i nc i de nt , o n M a r c h 25 , 2 00 5, Cl a r k ha d a c c us e d he ro f t a ki ng c andy f

r om h e r li ttl e b ro th e r’s E a ste r b a sk e t an d h a d w h ip p e d h e r w ith a n e x ten sio n c o rd a s p u n ish m e n t.

### 4

¶6 . H ai l ey al s o t es t i f i ed abo uthe rda y- t o- da y l i f e w i th the Cl a r ks . H a i l e y s t a t e d tha t C l ark had adm i ni s t er ed m os tof the w hi ppi ngs w hen K enneth w as atw or k. She t es t i f i ed that fo o d w a s w ith h e ld a s p u n ish m e n t. H a iley tes tified th a t o n o n e o c c a sio n , sh e w a s lo c k e d in a cl os etf ordays . S he, and nott he ot herchi l dr en, had t o do chor es i ncl udi ng hous ecl eani ng, m ow i ng the gr as s , and w as hi ng the ca r s , and any e rr ors y i el ded w hi ppi ngs f r om C l ark or K enneth. She s t at ed thats he had t o w al k t o and f r om s chool every da y a nd w as notal l ow ed t o acc epta r i de f

r om a nyone, e ven hergr andmot her . A l though the otherchi l dr en had be ds and as s i gned bedr oom s , s he s l epton the f l oorof the ki t chen, l i vi ng room, or den, oron a cot herf atherhad boughtherforC hr i s t m as . She t es t i f i ed t hat , bef

or e M ar ch 29, 2005, s he neve r had t ol d anyone aboutt he abus e and i ns t ead on se ver al occas i ons had l i ed aboutherl i vi ng c o n d itio n s in o rd e r t o p ro te c t h e r f a m ily . ¶7 . G r aves t es t i f

i e d tha t , s e ve r a l t i mes , s he h a d s e e n H a i l e y w a l ki ng the thr ee t o f our m i l es hom e f

r om s chool a nd ha d of

f er ed hera r i de, butH ai l ey al w ays had dec l i ned. G eor ge E ll is, the C larks’ n eigh b o r, testi fi ed tha t he h ad se en H ail ey m o w ing the y ard o r w ash ing ca rs one o r t w o t i m es perw eek, and thats he had be en the onl y f ami l y m emberhe had s een w or ki ng out s i de. D r . M i chae l B arr , an orthopedi c s urge on, t es t i f i ed that , on February 13, 2 0 0 1 , h e h a d p e rfo rm e d s u rg e ry to re p a ir a n u n u su a lly se v e re fra c tu re o f th e lef t p ro x im a te hu m erus, bu the h ad seen no reas on t o co ntactD H S . D r. P egg y W el l s of the C hil drens’ C l i ni c of C l arks dal e t es t i f

i ed thats he had exami ned H ai l ey on M ar ch 29, 2005. S he t es t i f i ed thatH ai l ey had s car s on herf ace , c hes t , ba ck, s houl der s , l egs , ba ck of the arm s , a nd he rback, w h ich w as c o m p let ely c o v ere d w ith sca rs do w n to the w aist . D r. W ell s stated th at th ere w ere m any ol d s car s w i th otherne w s car s ove r l appi ng. D r . W el l s s t at ed that , ata on e- w eek

### 5

f ol l ow - up vi s i t , H ai l ey h ad gained ni ne pounds , had an i m pr oved appe ar ance , and s eemed m or e r el axed. ¶8. C hr i s t i na Shum pert , w ho w or ked w i th D H S as a fa m i l y prot ect i on s peci al i s t , t es t i f i ed aboutheri nves t i gat i on of the al l egat i ons of

abuse . O n t he eveni ng of M ar ch 29, 2005, s he w entt o H ai l ey’ s home w i th tw o l aw e nf or cementof

f i cer s a nd s epar at el y i nt ervi ew ed ea ch f ami l y m ember . W hen Shum perta s ked C l ark w her e H ai l ey s l ept , C l ark pr oduced a cotf r om underC l ark’ s bed. C l ark t ol d Shum pertthatH ai l ey had c om e home w i th the i njur i es , and thata boy had done i t . K enneth al s o t ol d Shum pertthatH ai l ey had c om e home w i th the in ju rie s. B o th p a re n ts to ld S h u m p e rt th a t th e y sp a n k e d w ith a b e lt o r ru ler a s p u n ish m e n t. ¶9 . I n t hei r def

ens e , Cl a r k a nd K e nn e th a t t e mpt e d t o s ho w tha t the y di d no t c aus e t he in ju rie s d e p icte d in th e p h o to g ra p h s o f H a iley . C lar k tes tified th a t n e ith e r sh e n o r K e n n e th ev er h ad w h ipp ed H ail ey w ith a n ex tens ion co rd. S h e testi fi ed that sh e h ad b ee n u n aw are of H ai l ey’ s i nj ur i es unt i l heratt orney had s how n herthe phot ogr aphs . C l ark t est i f i ed that H ai l ey s har ed a be dr oom w i th hersi s t er s . C l ark t es t i f i ed thatH ai l ey had s neake d outof t he hous e numer ous t i m es . Fort hatr eas on, t o keep w at ch overH ai l ey, C l ark had m ade he rs l eep on a coti n the mast erbedr oom . C l ark denied t hat she everhad w i thhel d f ood orl ocked H ai l ey i n a cl os et . K enneth t es t i f i ed thathe had notbr oken H ai l ey’ s arm and had notbeat en herw i th an ext ens i on cor d. K enneth t es t i f i ed thathe had bee n unaw ar e of H ai l ey’ s i nj ur i es unt i l vi ew i ng the phot ogr aphs . H e admi t t ed thathe had re qui r ed H ai l ey t o w al k hom e f r om s chool and nott o acc epta r i de f r om anyone f

ors af ety purpos es . K enneth t es t i f i ed t hat puni s hm entforext r eme m i s behavi orby any of the C l arks ’ chi l dr en coul d i ncl ude w hi ppi ngs w ith a b e lt o r ru ler . C lar k tes tified th a t sh e n e v e r h a d b e a ten H a iley w ith a b e lt.

### 6

¶ 1 0 . H a iley ’s tw o s te p s is te rs te s tified th a t th e y n e v e r h a d se e n C lar k o r K e n n e th w h ip H ai l ey w i th an ext ens i on cor d. O ne s t eps i s t ert es t i f i ed thatH ai l ey had conf i ded i n herabout havi ng had phys i cal f

i ght s w i th boys ; how ever , she had ne vers een H ai l ey w i th i nj ur i es f r om thos e f i ght s r es embl i ng thos e s how n i n the phot ogr aphs . Sever al otherf r i ends and r el at i ves of the C l arks t es t i f

i ed aboutt i m e t hey had spe ntatthe C l ark hom e; the C l arks had s eemed t o l ove H ai l ey, and t hey had w i tnes s ed no i nappr opr i at e di s ci pl i ne orabuse of H ai l ey ort he otherchi l dr en. ¶11. B as ed on H ai l ey’ s t es t i m ony that K enneth, not C l ark, had broken her arm , the tr i al co u rtg ran ted th e S tate’s m o ti o n to d ism iss co u n t on e a s to C lark. T h e jury fou n d C lark gui l ty of count s tw o and thr ee, w hi ch cha r ged C l ark w i th w hi ppi ng H ai l ey w i th an ext ens i on cor d on tw o occa s i ons . T he j ury a cqui t t ed K enneth of c ountone , butw as unabl e t o r eac h a verdi ctas t o h i s guil ton cou nt tw o. C l ark app eal s. I . W HE T HE R T HE TR I AL COUR T ER RE D B Y R E F US I NG T O GR ANT A M I S T RI AL BA S E D UP ON THE C OUR T ’ S CO M M E NT S T O T HE AL L E GE D VI CT I M F OL L OW I NG HE R T E S T I M ONY. ¶12. A f

t er H ai l ey’ s t es t i m ony, the tr i al cou rt st at ed: “Y ou m ay be excus ed. T hank you. I th in k y o u h e ld u p n ice ly .” H a iley rep lied : “Y o u [’re ] w e lco m e .” C lar k an d K e n n e th jo in tly m o v e d fo r a m istria l, arg u in g th a t th e c o u rt’s c o m m e n ts w e re im p ro p e r b e c a u se th e y c o u ld have s w ayed the j ury’ s s ym pathy t ow ar d H ai l ey. T he courtexpl ai ned thatthe purpos e of t he comm ent s had bee n t o encour age t he chi l d w i tnes s , w ho “had a heavy ha nd l ai d on herby eac h of the tw o att orneys . ” The cour tdeni ed the mot i on f ora mi s tr i al , butgr ant ed the pr os ecut i on’ s r eques tf

ora l i m i t i ng i ns truct i on.

### 7

¶13. B ef

or e t es t i m ony r es um ed the next day, the tr i al court gave the f ol l ow i ng i ns truct i on t o the j ury: L etm e s ay t o you t haton yest er day, nearthe cl os e of the day, atthe end of the t est i m on y of the vict i m , [ H ai l ey] , s he t est i fi ed un der r i go rous c rossex am ination , d ir ec t exa m ination an d red ir ec t ex am ination . A n d a ft er the co u rt obs erved her , the courts ai d t o h er, y ou d i d w el l . T hatw as no i nt enton the partof the courtt o c om m entupon the bel i evabi l i ty of he rt es t i m ony, ori tw as i n no w ay t o mean thatthe courtdi s bel i eved he rt es t i m ony. T he courtand the att orneys have t ol d you thr oughout t his tr i al thatyou ar e the f actf i nder , that y o u ’r e to b a s e y o u r d e c is io n o n th e fa c ts a n d th e la w . T h e c o u rt fu rth e r in stru c ted th e ju ry th a t itw a s n o t to c o n sid e r a s e v id e n c e a n y sta tem e n ts of the courtorthe att orneys . T hen, the courtas ked i f t he j ury coul d l ay as i de the s t at ement m ade by the court , and the j ury r es ponded af f i r m at i vel y. T he cour taske d i f any i ndi vi dual ju ro r c o u ld n o t lay it a sid e , a n d n o ju ro r re sp o n d e d . A c c o rd in g ly , the c o u rt p ro c e e d e d w ith th e re st o f th e trial. ¶14. T he dec i s i on of

w hethert o gr anta mi s tr i al l i es w i thi n the s ound di s cr et i on of the tr i al court , and the tr i al court ’ s r ef us al t o gr ant a mi s tr i al i s r evi ew abl e on appe al f orabus e of d is c re tio n . D o ra v . S ta te , 986 So. 2d 917, 921 ( M i s s . 2008) . I f the tr i al courtdet erm i nes t hat err oroccurr ed i n t he pr ocee di ngs thats ubs t ant i al l y and i rr epar abl y pr ej udi ced the d e fe n d a n t’ s c a s e , th e c o u rt m u s t g ra n t a m is tr ia l. H a rrell v. S tate , 947 So. 2d 309, 316 ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng P a rk s v . S ta te , 9 3 0 S o . 2 d 3 8 3 , 3 8 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 )). B u t “[ w ] h ere

‘ s er i ous and i r r epar abl e damage’ has notr es ul t ed, the j udge s houl d ‘ admoni s h the j ury t hen and t her e t o di s r egar d t he i m pr op[ r i ety] . ’ ” Ca rp e n terv. S ta te , 91 0 S o. 2d 52 8, 53 4 (M i ss. 200 5) ( quot i ng R o u n dtre e v. S ta te , 5 6 8 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 7 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 )). O n re v iew , this C ou rtaff

ords the tr i al cou rtcon si dera b le dis cret i on , becau se the tr i al cou rtw as best

### We obse rvethat Canon Threeof

the Codeof Judic ia l Conduc t dire ct s that [a ] judge 2 

### sha llper for

m j udic ia l dutie s wi thout

re gard to bi as or pr ej udic e, ” but thec anon al so require s judge s t o be “patie nt, digni fi ed, and c ourt eous to litigants, j uror s, witnes se s, lawyer s, and othe rs with whom they de alin the ir off ic ia l c apa ci ti es . . . . ” Canon 3(B) (4) ; Canon 3(B) (5) , Miss. C od e of Ju dicial C on du ct. 8 p o s itio n e d to e v a lu a te th e p re ju d ic ia l e ff

e c t. H a rr e ll , 947 So. 2d at316 ( quot i ng P arks , 930 S o . 2 d at 38 6 ). ¶ 1 5 . C lar k a rg u e s th a t a m istria l w a s w a rra n ted , b e c a u s e th e tr ia l c o u rt’s c o m m e n ts to H ai l ey had de pr i ved C l ark of a f ai rtr i al . C l ark ar gues thatthe comm ent s vi ol at ed C anon T hr ee of the C ode of

J udi ci al C onductbecaus e they demonstr at ed thatthe tr i al j udge w as unf ai rand thathe fa i l ed t o conducthi m s el f i n an i m part i al m anner . H ow ever , s he ci t es no author i ty f

orherappar entpos i t i on thatthi s al l eged vi ol at i on of C anon Thre e w arr ant ed a m i st ri al . T he St at e count er s thatthe j ury w as pr oper l y admoni s hed t o di s r egar d t he

2
comm ent s t o H ai l ey, and a mi s tr i al w as notw arr ant ed, beca us e nothing indi cat ed the c o m m e n ts h a d c a u se d a d e c isio n in flu e n c e d b y p re ju d ice a g a in st C lar k . A s th e S tate p o in ts o u t, th e ju ry d id n o t ac c e p t th e e n tirety o f H a iley ’s te stim o n y , b e c a u se it ac q u itt e d K e n n e th of countone, and i tw as unabl e t o r eac h a ver di cton counttw o. ¶16. W e f

i nd that the tr i al court di d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on by overrul i ng C l ark’ s m ot i on f ora mi s tr i al . “I ti s a w el l - s ett l ed rul e i n thi s St at e thata f i ndi ng of m i s tr i al i s r es erved f

or thos e i ns t ance s w her e t he t ri al courtcannott ake a ny act i on w hi ch w oul d corr ecti m pr oper occurr ence s i ns i de orout s i de the courtr oom . ” Ma de re v. S ta te , 79 4 S o. 2d 20 0, 214 (M i ss. 2001) . W her e no s er i ous and i r r epar abl e damage w as engende r ed by an i m pr operr emar k, a curat i ve instruct i on i s deem ed suff i ci ent t o rem ov e t he tai nt f rom the m i nd s of t he jur ors.

### 9

Ma rtin v. S ta te , 854 So. 2d 1004, 1009 ( M i s s . 2003) . “Juri es ar e pr es um ed t o f ol l ow t he i ns truct i ons gi ven t o t hem by t he court . ” Mc G ilb e r r y v . S ta te , 74 1 S o. 2d 89 4, 91 3 (M i ss. 1 9 9 9 ). T h e trial c o u rt a c k n o w led g e d th a t it s c o m m e n ts m ig h t h a v e b e e n im p ro p e r, an d it gave a cur at i ve i ns truct i on ( 1) s t at i ng thatthe court ’ s comm ent s had notbeen i nt ended a s co m m en tary o n the b eli ev ab il ity of H ail ey ’s t esti m o n y an d (2) r eq u ir ing the ju ry to d isr eg ard the comm ent s . T hus , the tr i al courtpr oper l y admoni s hed the j ury, and thi s C our tpr es um es th e ju ry fo llo w e d th e a d m o n itio n . McG il berry , 741 So. 2d at913. T her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat the tr i al court ’ s comm ent s caus ed any s er i ous ori rr epar abl e damage orr es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on i nf l uence d by pr ej udi ce. T her ef or e, w e f i nd thatthe cur at i ve i ns truct i on r emoved any t ai nt cre ated b y the tri al co u rt ’s co m m en ts t o H ail ey , an d the tri al co u rtp rop erly o v erru led C lark’s m o tio n fo r a m is tr ia l. I I . W HETH ER TH E TRI AL C OU RT SHO ULD HA VE SU PP RESS ED CERTA I N TESTI M ON Y B Y SH UM PERT. ¶1 7. C l ar k m akes s ever al ar gumen t s p e r t a i ni ng t o al l egedl y i m pr opert es t i m ony by Shum pert . Speci f

i cal l y, C l ark ar gues that( 1) Shum pertw as a l l ow ed t o bol s t erthe t es t i m ony of H ai l ey, a com petentw i tness; (2) S hu m pertgav e op i nion evidence o n co nfi den t i al m at t ers ; ( 3) Shum pertopi ned thatH ai l ey w as pl ace d int o D H S cu st ody “due t o the s ever i ty of t he i nj ur i es as a cr i m i nal actcomm i t t ed by W anda Cl ark[ , ] w hi ch us urped the provi nce of t he ju ry ;” a n d (4 ) th e trial c o u rt p e rm itt e d S h u m p e rt to tes tify a b o u t C lar k ’s s tate m e n ts m a d e to Shum pertdur i ng the home i nves t i gat i on and al l ow ed t he St at e t o cr os s - exami ne C l ark us i ng th o s e s ta te m e n ts .

### See Miranda v. Ari zona , 38 4 U .S . 43 6, 8 6 S . Ct. 1 60 2, 1 6 L . Ed . 2d69 4 (1 96 6). 3 

### 10 ¶18. T he f

i r s t thr ee of C l ark’ s ar gu m ents are pr ocedur al l y barr ed, beca us e C l ark di d not pr es entthem t o the tr i al courtby obj ect i ng t o t he as pect s of Shum pert ’ s t es t i m ony of w hi ch s h e n o w c o m p la in s . R o ss v. S ta te , 954 So. 2d 968, 987 ( M i s s . 2007) . C l ark m ount ed no chal l enge w hat s oever attr i al t o thes e as pect s of C l ark’ s t es t i m ony. T he f ai l ur e t o m ake a con t em po raneou s object i on op erat es as a w ai ver of the is sue on app eal . “A n o bject i on m ust be m ade w i th specif

i cit y , a n d fai l ure t o art i culat e t he g round s f or object i on con st i tutes a w ai verof

the al l eged e r r or . ” I

d. C l ark di d r ai s e thes e ar gum ent s i n her m oti on for a new tr i al . H ow ever , “r ai s i ng obj ect i ons i n a mot i on f orne w tr i al w hi ch s houl d have be en made attr i al has neverbeen thoughtt o cur e the f ai l ur e t o obj ectatthe pr opert i m e. ” I d. ( quot i ng Sm ith v. S ta te , 797 So. 2d 854, 856 ( M i s s . 2001) ) . “ I ti s axi om at i c thata l i t i ganti s r equi r ed t o m ake a t i m el y obj ect i on. ” Sm ith , 7 9 7 S o . 2 d a t 8 5 6 . ¶1 9 . C lark’s rem ainin g arg u m en t is that the tr ial co u rt sh o u ld n o t h av e all o w ed S h u m p ert t o t es t i f y aboutC l ark’ s s t at ement s dur i ng the ho m e invest i gat i on, and s houl d nothave al l ow ed the St at e t o cr os s - exami ne C l ark us i ng thos e s t at ement s . C l ark con t end s thatt he s t a t e ment s wer e e l i c i t e d i n vi ol a t i on o f h e rFi f th- A mend mentr i gh t s b e c a us e s he w as not gi ven Mir anda w arni ngs pr i ort o m aki ng the s t at ement s . She f ur therar gues thatt he 3 sta tem e n ts s h o u ld h a v e b e e n e x c lu d e d b e c a u se the y w e re the fru it o f an u n law fu l se a rc h in v iolati o n o f th e F o u rth A m en d m en t; sh e c o n tend s tha t tw o law en fo rce m en t offi ce rs acc om pani ed Shum per tt o C l ark’ s r es i dence , and they had no s ear ch w arr ant , exi gent ci r cumst ance s , orany otherexce pt i on thatw oul d have per m i t t ed t hei rentry i nt o herhom e.

### Clark f il ed a motion t o suppres s Shumpe rt ’s t es timony, but no c opy of the m oti on 4 

### is inthe reco rd. T he co ntents of th e motio n are unkno wn . It is the ap pellant’s duty to com pil e an appe ll at e r ec ord that suf fi ci ently ref

le ct s the tri alcourt proce edings that for m t he factual b asis of th e arguments o n ap peal. Byro m v. State , 863 So. 2d 836, 853 (Mi ss . 2003) . As Clarkfailedto assure th at th e recordinclu deda cop y o f the mo tionto supp ress, we limit con sideratio n o f this issu e to C lark’s arg uments at the p retrial hearin g. 11 ¶20. B ef

or e tr i al , C l ark m oved t o s uppr es s any s t at ement s C l ark m ade t o Shum pert dur i ng t he h ome i nv e s t i ga t i on . I n s up po r to f the mot i on , s he a r gu e d tha tSh um per thad a 4 resp o n sibil ity to ad v ise C lark o f he r Mir anda ri g h ts be ca u se, as the D H S inv esti g ator, Shum per tkn e w ors ho ul d h a ve kn own t ha tc ha r ge s w ou l d r e s ul tf r om t he i nv e s t i ga t i on. C l ark’ s ar gum ent s w er e l i m i t ed t o hercl ai m t hathers t at ement s w er e el i ci t ed i n vi ol at i on of the F i fth A m end m ent; she cl ai m ed n o v i olat i on of her Fo urth-A m end m ent r i gh t s. B ecause C lark d id n o t raise he r Fo u rth -A m en d m en t cl aim s b efo re the tr ial co u rt , thes e a rgu m en ts are b a rr e d fr o m a p p e lla te c o n s id e ra tio n . R oss , 954 So. 2d at987. ¶ 2 1 . W e p ro c e e d to C lar k ’s a rg u m e n t th a t h e r state m e n ts t o S h u m p e rt w e re in a d m iss ib le beca us e s he w as notgi ven Mir anda w arni ngs . A tthe pr etr i al he ar i ng, i tw as es t abl i s hed that tw o l aw enf

or cementof

f i cer s acc om pani ed Shum pertt o C l ark’ s hom e f orsafety purpos es d u ri n g the in v esti g ati o n . A lth o u g h C lark w as n o t place d u n d er a rrest, S h u m p ert t o ld C lark that sh e h ad to answ er herqu est i on s or C l ark w ou l d n ot be perm i t t ed to see H ai l ey. C l ark ar gued thatthes e ci r cumst ance s r equi r ed thatC l ark be gi ven Mir anda w a rn in g s b e fore t al ki ng t o Shum pert . T he tr i al courtf ound thatC l ark w as notunde ri m m i nenta rr es tatt he t i m e of the home i nves t i gat i on; s he w as arr es t ed appr oxi m at el y tw o w eeks lat er. T he tr i al c o u rt h e ld th a t C lar k ’s s tate m e n ts w o u ld n o t b e su p p re ss e d u n les s C lar k p ro d u c e d a u th o rity

### 12

hol di ng thata s t at ementby an al l eged a bus erdur i ng a D H S i nv est i gati on shoul d be supp res sed. C l ark produ ced n o au tho ri ty, and S hu m pertt est i fi ed to C l ark’ s st at em ents . ¶22. “Thi s C our tw i l l r ever s e a tr i al court ' s de ni al of a m ot i on t o s uppr es s onl y i f the rul i ng i s mani f es te r r ororc ontr ary t o the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence . ” B a rn e s v . S ta te , 3 0 S o . 3 d 3 1 3 (M iss. 2 0 1 0 ). U n d er Mir anda , the a c c u se d m u s t b e w a rn e d o f th e rig h t to re m a in s ile n t a n d th e ri g h t to a n a tto rn e y b e fo re a n y c u s to d ia l in te rr o g a tio n m a y o c c u r. I d. ( ci t i ng Mir anda , 384 U . S. at479) . I f the ac cus ed i nv ok es t he r i ghtt o r emai n s i l ent , t he interrog ati o n m u st ce ase . “T o be subject to cu stod ial i n terrog ati o n , on e m u st b e b o th in cus t ody and under goi ng i nt err ogat i on. ” W ilso n v. S ta te , 9 3 6 S o . 2 d 3 5 7 , 3 6 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). A s us pecti s i n c us t ody i f a r eas onabl e per s on i n the ci r cumst ance s w oul d have be l i eved the ri g h t to l e a v e f

r e e ly h a d b e e n re s tr ic te d . C u lp v. S ta te , 9 3 3 S o . 2 d 2 6 4 , 2 7 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). T o b e “ in c u sto d y ,” th e su sp e c t m u st re a so n a b ly fe e l h e o r s h e is g o in g to jail, n o t m e re ly b e in g te m p o ra ri ly d e ta in e d . I d. at272. ¶23. T he det erm i nat i on of w hethera s us pectw as unde rc us t odi al i nt err ogat i on i s bas ed on th e to ta lity o f

t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . D ra k e v. S ta te , 800 So. 2d 508, 513 ( M i s s . 2001) . “The v it al po int is w h ethe r, ex am ining all th e circu m stan ce s, th e d efe n d an t w as d ep ri v ed o f h is fr e e d o m o f a c tio n in a n y s ig n if ic a n t m a n n e r, a n d th e d e fe n d a n t w a s a w a re o f s u c h re s tr a in t.” R o b e rts v. S ta te , 3 0 1 S o . 2 d at 85 9 , 8 6 3 (M iss. 1 9 7 4 ). “In a n o n -cu stod ial sett ing w h ere in te rr o g a tio n is in v e s tig a to ry in n a tu re . . . , Mir anda w arni ngs ar e notr equi r ed i n or dert hat a def endant ' s s t at ement s be admi s s i bl e. ” P o rte r v . S ta te , 6 1 6 S o . 2 d 8 9 9 , 9 0 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 3 ). T he f actthatther e i s a mer e pos s i bi l i ty of i ncr i m i nati on does notm ean thata cus t odi al in te rr o g a tio n o c c u rr e d . D r ake , 800 So. 2d at514. I n R o b e rts , the C our thel d t hata per s on

### 13

w as nots ubj ectt o cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on w hen the s her i f f ques t i oned heri n herf

r ontyar d, s h e w a s n o t u n d e r a rr e s t, a n d s h e w a s n o t a w a re o f a n y r e s tr a in t o n h e r f

re e d o m . R o b e rts , 3 0 1 S o . 2 d a t 8 6 3 . ¶24. C l ark ar gues that s he w as s ubj ect t o cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on because S hu m per tw as accom pan i ed b y tw o law enforcem ent of fi cers . M i ssi ssi pp i l aw authori zes D H S t o reque st the ac compani m entof

l aw enf or cementof

f i cer s dur i ng an i nves t i gat i on: I n any i nv e s t i ga t i on by the D e pa r t mentof H uman Se r vi c e s of

a r e po r tmade und erSect i on 43- 21- 101 ets eq. of the abus e ornegl ectof a chi l d as def

i ned i n Sect i on 43- 21- 105, the depa r t m entm ay r eques tthe appr op ri at e l aw e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic e r w ith ju risd ictio n to a c c o m p a n y th e d e p a rt m e n t in its in v e stig a tio n , an d in su c h c a se s th e la w e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic e r sh a ll co m p ly w ith su c h re q u e st. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 43- 27- 113 ( R ev. 2009) . C l ark w as quest i oned by Shum pert , notthe l aw enf or cementof

f i cer s w ho acc om pani ed her . T hi s C our thas hel d thatques t i oni ng by a s oci al w or kerdid no tcons t i tut e cus t odi al i nt err ogat i on, not i ng thata s oci al w or keri s nota l aw e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic e r an d h a s n o p o w e r to a rre st, a lth o u g h th e so c ial w o rk e r w a s u n d e r a d u ty to i n v e s tig a te c h ild a b u s e a n d re p o rt it to la w e n fo rc e m e n t o ff ic ia ls . He n n in g to n v. S ta te , 702 So. 2d 403, 409 ( M i s s . 1997) . D ur i ng the ques t i oni ng, Cl ark w as notunderarr es t ; s he w as i n herow n hom e and f r ee t o t erm i nat e the i nt ervi ew . “ [ A ] bs enta n arr es t , i nt err ogat i on i n the f ami l i ars urr oundi ngs of one ' s ow n home i s gener al l y notdeemed cus t odi al . ” U . S. v. P lugh , 522 F. Supp. 2d 481, 491 ( W . D . N . Y . 2007) ( ci t i ng U nited States v. N

ew ton , 369 F. 3d 6 5 9 , 6 7 5 (2d C ir . 20 0 4 )). N o thing i n the testi m o n y o f C lark o r S h u m p ert i n d icated that C lark bel i eved thats he w as goi ng t o j ai l r atherthan t empora r i l y bei ng det ai ned. T he C our tf i nds that , consi der i ng the t ot al i ty of the ci r cumst ance s , C l ark w as nots ubj ect ed t o cus t odi al

### Exhibi t D- 3 and Exhibit D-6 a ppear t o des cribetwo di ff er ent inst anc es of

s ex in t he 5 

### fast-foo d restaurant’s b athro om. 14 i nt err ogat i on; thus , no Mir anda w arn ing s w ere req u ir ed , an d h er statem en ts t o S h u m p ert w er e admi s s i bl e. I I I . W HETH ER TH E TRI AL COURT ERRED BY EXC LUD I NG EXH I BI TS D - 3, D - 4, D - 5, A N D D - 6 AN D PRO H I BI TI N G TH E C RO SSEX A M I N A TI O N O F H A I LEY CO N CE RN I N G TH ESE E X H I BI TS. ¶25. C l ark s ought t o cr os s - exami ne H ai l ey usi ng a do cum ent of f er ed i nt o evi dence and m arked f ori dent i f i cat i on as E xhi bi tD - 3. E xhi bi tD - 3 w as a conduc tr eportw hi ch s t at ed that H ai l ey had engage d i n sexua l re l at i ons w i th a boy i n the bathr oom of a f as t - f ood r es t aur ant on J une 23, 2005. T he St at e ar gued thatthi s conductw as i rr el evantbeca us e i thad occ ur r ed af t erthe al l eged a bus e. T he tr i al courtacc ept ed the pr of f erof E xhi bi tD - 3 butpr ohi bi t ed the ques t i oni ng of

H ai l ey aboutt he i nt i m at e act , and hert es t i m ony re s um ed. T he t r i al cour tgave C lar k a n o p p o rtu n ity to p re se n t a u th o rity h o ld in g th a t a c h ild ’s s u b se q u e n t se x u a l ac tiv ity is a d m is s ib le in a c h ild -a b u s e c a s e , b u t C la rk p ro d u c e d n o s u c h a u th o ri ty . ¶26. Subse quent l y, C l ark pr of f er ed E xhi bi t s D - 4, D - 5, and D - 6. E xhi bi t D - 4 w as another conductr eports t at i ng t hat , on February 23, 2005, H ai l ey had s hoved her d esk atanother s tudentand had us ed pr of ani ty. E xhi bi tD -5 w as a student - r ef err al f or m dat ed A pr i l 19, 2 0 0 4 , in w h ich a stu d e n t h a d re p o rte d th a t H a iley ’s p a re n ts d id n o t trea t h e r rig h t, an d in w hi ch the pr i nci pal s t at ed thatH ai l ey had deni ed any m i s tr eatm entw hen conf r ont ed w i t h t he s tudentr eport . E xhi bi tD - 6 w as a w r i t t en narr at i ve dat ed February 23, 2005, f r om s om eone w h o h a d w itn e ss e d H a iley e n g a g e in se x u a l ac tiv ity w ith a b o y a t a f a st-fo o d re sta u ra n t. 5

### 15

¶27. C l ark pr of

f er ed E xhi bi t D - 4 but di d not obt ai n a rul i ng on w hy i t w as excl uded f r om e v id e n c e . T h e tr ia l co u rt p e rm itt e d C lar k to c ro ss -e x a m in e H a iley a b o u t th e in c id e n ts d e sc rib e d in th e stu d e n t re fe rra l fo rm , E x h ib it D -5 . A t th a t ti m e , C lar k s ta te d th a t E x h ib it D -5 w a s n o t be in g o ffe re d as ev id e n c e . A fte r th e cro ss -e x a m in a tio n , C lar k p ro ffe re d E x h ib it D - 5. C l ark al s o pr of

f er ed the narr at i ve, E xhi bi tD - 6, t o s how H ai l ey had behav i ora l pr obl ems l eadi ng u p t o t he di s covery of the abus e. T he St at e ar gued thati tw as i rr el evant an d infl am m atory , an d it s ad m issi o n w o u ld v iolate th e b est-ev iden ce rule . T h e c o u rt excluded i tfr om evidence. C l ark’ s argum ent r egardi ng the ad m i ssi bil i ty of al l four of these exhi bi t s w as thatt hey w er e pr obat i ve of H ai l ey’ s cr edi bi l i ty, and t hey t ended t o s how t hat H ai l ey coul d have r ece i ved the i nj ur i es f r om s om eone otherthan C l ark. ¶2 8. C l ar k ar gues t hatt he t r i a l c ou r t ’ s e xc l us i on of the s e e xh i bi t s pr e ve nt e d h e r f r om pr es ent i ng hertheory of the ca s e, w hi ch w as t hatH ai l ey w as i nj ur ed by s om eone othert han C l ark “bec aus e ( 1) [ H ai l ey] ha d c om e hom e w i th brui s es on herf ace bef or e, ( 2) [ H ai l ey] had f oughtw i th a pr evi ous boyf r i end, ( 3) [ H ai l ey] w as know n t o geti nt o f i ght s ats chool , and ( 4) C l ark di dn ’tdo i t . ” Sh e al so argues t hat herri gh tof cr oss- exam i nati on w as vi olat ed b ecause s h e w a s u n a b le to q u e s tio n H a ile y a b o u t th e e v e n ts d e s c ri b e d in th e e x h ib its . ¶29 . T he st and ard of revi ew app l i cable t o the adm i ssi on or exclusi on of evidence i s abuse o f d is c re tio n . E v a n s v. S ta te , 2 5 S o . 3 d 1 0 5 4 , 1 0 5 7 (M iss . 2 0 1 0 ). In a c rim in a l ca se , w e w ill af f i r m the tr i al court ’ s exer ci s e of di s cr et i on unl es s the rul i ng r es ul t ed i n pr ej ud i ce t o t he a c c u s e d . J

o n e s v . S ta te , 918 So. 2d 1220, 1223 ( M i s s . 2005) . T he tr i al courthas br oad d is c re tio n c o n c e rn in g th e s c o p e o f c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n . D e de a u x v. S ta te , 519 S o. 2d 886, 890

### 16

( M i s s . 1988) . A l though w i de l at i tude mustbe af f or ded dur i ng cr os s - exami nat i on, any m a tte rs p ro b e d o n c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n m u s t b e re le v a n t. I d. ; M iss . R . E v id . 6 1 1 c m t. ¶ 3 0 . “ A c rim in a l d e fe n d a n t is e n tit led to p re se n t h is d e fe n se to th e fin d e r o f fa c t, a n d it i s fundam ental l y u nfai r t o d eny the jury the op po rtun i ty to consi der the d efendan t ' s defense w her e ther e i s t es t i m ony t o s uppor tthe theory. ” T e rr y v. S ta te , 71 8 S o. 2d 11 15 , 11 21 (M i ss. 19 98 ). H ow ever, all ev i den ce ad m i t t ed in supp ortof the d efendan t ’s theo ry of the case m ust c o m p o rt w ith th e M is s is s ip p i R u le s o f E v id e n c e . I

d. M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 401 pr ovi des that“evi dence havi ng any t endenc y t o m ake the exi s t ence of any f actthati s of 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 o r le ss p ro b a b le th a n it w o u ld be w i thoutthe evi dence ” i s r el evantevi dence . M i s s . R . E vi d. 401. “The r el evanc y and admi s s i bi l i ty of

evi dence ar e l ar gel y w i thi n the di s cr et i on of the tr i al court. . . . ” T

erry , 718 So. 2d at1122. ¶3 1. W e fi nd t ha tt he E xh i bi t s D - 3, D - 4, an d D - 6 w e r e notr e l e va nt . The r e f or e , t he t r i al courtpr oper l y excl uded them fr om evi dence and r es tr i ct ed C l ark f r om cr os s - exami nat i on co n ce rnin g them . T h e tri al co u rtp rop erly d eterm ined that the d o cu m en tat ion o f H ail ey ’s s exual conductand herbehavi orats chool w as notpr obat i ve of w hetherC l ark ors om eone e lse h a d a b u se d h e r. In d e e d , n o th in g in th e se e x h ib its c o u ld h a v e s u p p o rte d a re a so n a b le in fe re n c e th a t H a iley w a s in ju re d b y so m e o n e o th e r th a n C la rk . A d m itt in g th e e x h ib its w oul d have i nvi t ed t he j ury t o spec ul at e f rom the r ecor ds of H ai l ey’ s sexua l conductand a q u a rre l at sc h o o l th a t sh e h a d b e e n b e a ten se v e re ly b y a b o y frie n d o r sc h o o lm a te. W e n o te th a t C lar k ’s d e fe n se th e o ry w a s su p p o rte d b y te stim o n y th a t H a iley h a d p h y sic a l fig h ts w ith a b o y fr ie n d a n d h a d g o tte n in to fi g h ts a t s c h o o l.

### 17

¶32. A s pr evi ous l y not ed, C l ark di d cr os s - exami ne H ai l ey on the subs t ance of Exhi bi t D - 5, butthatexhibi tw as notadmi t t ed i nt o evi dence . I n E xhi bi tD - 5, the pr i nci pal s t at ed that H ai l ey had de ni ed bei ng m i s tr eat ed and thats he cl ai m ed t o e nj oy mow i ng the gr as s , w al ki ng, and w ashi ng the c ar, and t hat s he ate a l ot butcou l d n ot gai n w ei gh t . D uri ng the crosse x a m in a tio n , C lark a sk ed H ail ey w h ethe r she h ad m ad e tho se re p re se n tatio n s to th e p rin c ip a l; H ail ey stat ed that sh e d id n o t r em em b er the co n v ersa ti o n . T h e tri al co u rtd id n o t al low C lark t o r ead the pr i nci pal ’ s st at ement s t o H ai l ey bec aus e Exhi bi tD - 5 w as noti n evi dence . T hen, the f ol l ow i ng occurr ed:

Q . ( B y M r . W al l s cont i nued. ) W el l , do you, do you not , do you deny thatyou evert ol d M s . M cB r i de thatther e w as j ustsom e upsetpeopl e tryi ng t o m es s w i th you and yourf ami l y, yourm om and dad? A . I d o n ’t re m e m b e r t a lk in g to M s . M c B ri d e p e ri o d a b o u t th a t. Q . S o isn’t th at, so if

M s. M c B rid e fil led o u t a stu d en t r efe rral f o rm r el at i ng thos e thi ngs thatyou j us ts ai d you don’ tr emem berthathappeni ng? A . I do n ’trem em b er. ¶33. H ai l ey’ s s t at ement s t o the pr i nci pal w er e i ncons i s t entw i th her tr i al t es t i m ony about her l i ving con dit i on s. M i ssi ssi pp i R ule of E vidence 6 13 provides: (a) E xam i ning W itn ess C on cerni ng P ri or Stat em ent. In exam i ning a w i tness conce r ni ng a pr i ors t at ementm ade by hi m , w hetherw r i t t en or not , the s t at ementneed notbe s how n nori t s c ont ent s di s cl os ed t o hi m atthatt i m e, but o n re q u e st th e sa m e sh a ll b e sh o w n o r d isc lo se d to o p p o sin g c o u n se l. (b ) E x trin s ic E v id e n c e o f P rio r In c o n sis ten t S tate m e n t o f W itn e ss . E x trin sic evidence o f a pr i or i nco nsi st ent s t at em ent by a w i tness i s not adm i ssi ble unl ess the w i tnes s i s af

f or ded an opportuni ty t o expl ai n ordeny the s ame and the op po s i t e p a r ty i s a f

f or de d a n op po r tun i ty t o i nt e rr og a t e h i m t he r e on , o rt he in ter e sts o f ju stic e o th e rw ise re q u ire . T h is p ro v isio n d o e s n o t ap p ly to ad m issi o n s o f a p arty-o p p o n en t as d efine d in R u le 80 1 (d)(2 ).

### 18

T he pr operpr edi cat e f or a pr i ori ncons i s t ents t at ement“r equi r es the w i tnes s be as ked ‘w hetheror not on a specif i c date, ata speci fi c place, and i n the presence of speci fi c persons, the w i tnes s m ade a part i cul ars t at ement . ’ ” B u sh v. S ta te , 6 6 7 S o . 2 d 2 6 , 2 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). If th e w itn e ss d e n ies o r c a n n o t re c o llec t h a v in g m a d e th e p rio r sta tem e n t, or o th e rw ise fa ils to acknow l edge the pr i ors t at ement , then ext ri nsi c evi dence of the s t at ementi s admi s s i bl e. H a rr iso n v. S ta te , 5 3 4 S o . 2 d 1 7 5 , 1 8 0 (M is s . 1 9 8 8 ). ¶34. A f

t erl aying a p redi cat e, C l ark que st i on ed H ai l ey ab ou ther pr i or i ncons i s t ent s t at ement s t o the pri nci pal . H ai l ey t es t i f i ed thats he di d notr eca l l havi ng m ade the s t at ement s . A tthatpoi nt , extr i ns i c evi dence of herpr i ori ncons i s t ents t at ement s w as a d m is s ib le u n d e r R u le 6 1 3 (b ). I d. H ow ever , t he t r i al cour tdi d notadmi tthe s chool r ef err al f or m i nt o evi dence . I ti s cl earthatthi s err ordi d notpr ej udi ce Cl ark. H ai l ey pr evi ous l y had t es t i f i ed on cr os s - exami nat i on that , unt i l the t i m e thathergr andmot herhad di s cover ed her i nj ur i es i n M ar ch 2005, s he al w ays had l i ed aboutthe true natur e of herl i vi ng condi t i on s. S h e a lso tes tified e x ten siv e ly a b o u t h a v in g w ritten a fa lse lette r to th e sc h o o l co u n se lo r in w hi ch s he had deni ed any abus e and had pr ai s ed C l ark’ s par ent i ng s ki l l s . H ai l ey expl ai ned thats he had l i ed t o pr ot ecthe rf ami l y. Subst ant i al t es t i m ony w as be f or e the j ury conce r ni ng pr i ori nc on s i s t e nts t a t e ment s by H a i l e y. T he r e f or e , Exhi bi tD - 5 was c umul a t i ve of othe r evi dence . A s C l ark s uf f er ed no pr ej udi ce f

r om the fai l ure t o admi tthe extr i ns i c evi dence , the C our tf

i nds thatno r ever s i bl e err oroccurr ed. I V . W H ETH ER TH E T RI A L C O U RT ER RE D BY D EN Y I N G D EFEN SE I N ST R U C T I O N D - 7.

### 19

¶3 5. C l ar k ar gues tha tthe tr i a l c our ter r ed by r ef us i ng J ur y I ns t ruct i on D - 7. T he i ns truct i on s t at ed:

T he C our ti ns truct s the j ury t hatyou m us tbe convi nced by the evi dence pr es ent ed beyond a r easona bl e doubtthatthe al l eged a bus e of [ H ai l ey] w as in flicte d a n d c a u se d b y W a n d a C lar k o n the d a tes a s c h a rg e d in th e in d ictm e n t, and i f you can de t erm i ne f

r om the evi dence thatthe al l eged abus e of [ H ai l ey] coul d have be en orw as caus ed by som ethi ng el s e otherthan the i nt ent i onal act s of W anda C l ark then you s hal l f i nd W anda C l ark notgui l ty of the cha r ges ag ains t her. C lark c o n tend s tha t she w a s en ti tl ed to this i n stru cti o n , b ec au se itw as th e o n ly jury i ns truct i on thatart i cul at ed hertheory of the ca s e. ¶ 3 6 . T h is C o u rt re a d s ju ry in stru c tio n s a s a w h o le to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e ju ry w a s fu lly a n d fa ir ly in s tr u c te d a c c o rd in g to th e a p p lic a b le la w . D avis v. State, 18 So. 3d 842, 847 (M iss . 2 0 0 9 ). “I n o th e r w o rd s, if a ll i n stru c tio n s ta k e n a s a w h o le fa irly , b u t n o t n e c e ss a rily per f ect l y, announce the appl i cabl e rul es of l aw , no err orr es ul t s . ” I d. A n accu sed has a f undament al r i ghtt o have he rt heory of the ca s e pr es ent ed t o the j ury, butthe ri gh tis not a b s o lu te . I

d. “ A d e fe n d a n t is e n tit led to h a v e ju ry in stru c tio n s g iv e n w h ich p re se n t h is theory of

the ca s e; how ever , thi s ent i t l ementi s l i m i t ed i n thatthe courtm ay r ef us e an i nst ruct i on w hich i nco rr ect l y st at es the law , i s covered fai rl y els ew here i n the i nst ruct i on s, ori s w i thoutfounda t i on i n t he evi dence . ” S p ire s v. S ta te , 10 So. 3d 477, 483 ( M i s s . 2009) ( quot i ng He ide l v. S ta te , 5 8 7 S o . 2 d 8 3 5 , 8 4 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 )). ¶37. C l ark ar gues thatthe j ury i ns truct i ons w er e def i ci entw i thouti ns truct i on D - 7. W e f i nd th a t an y n e e d fo r in stru c tio n D -7 w a s o b v iate d b y th e e lem e n ts in stru c tio n , w h ich sta ted , in p a rt:

### 20 T he D ef endant , W A N D A CL A R K , ha s be en char ged by a m ul t i - count i ndi ctm entw i th t w o count s of Fel oni ous A bus e/ B att ery of a C hi l d. I n C ountI I , i f

you f i nd f r om the evi dence i n thi s cas e beyond a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t: ( 1) on oraboutJ anuary 9, 2005 i n C oahoma C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi the D ef endant , W A N D A C L A R K , di d i ndi vi dual l y orw hi l e ai di ng and a b e ttin g a n o th e r, (2) unlaw ful l y, w i l l ful l y, and fel on i ou sl y w hip, s tri ke, o r ot herw i se a b u s e o r m u tila te a c h ild , [H a ile y ], (3 ) w h o w a s fi ft e e n (1 5 ) y e a rs o f a g e , (4) c au sing b o d il y injury b y b ea ti n g [H ail ey ] w ith an ex tens ion co rd aboutthe arm s , l egs , back a nd t or s o, and (5) sai d abuse w as noti n s el f - def ens e ort o pr eventbodi l y harm t o a th ir d p a rt y , then you s hal l f

i nd the D ef

endant , W A N D A C L A R K , gui l ty i n C ountI I of Fel oni ous A bus e/ B att ery of a C hi l d. If th e S ta te f

a iled to p ro v e a n y o n e o r m o re o f th e a b o v e e lem e n ts b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t, t h e n y o u sh a ll find th e d e fe n d a n t n o t g u ilty in C o u n t I I. T he i ns truct i on r eci t ed i dent i cal el ement s pert ai ni ng t o C ountI I I . T he el ement s i ns truct i on requi red the jury to f

i nd bey on d a reasonab l e do ub tthat C l ark had caused the inj uri es. T her ef or e, the i ns truct i on f

ul l y i nf or m ed the j ury that , i f

i tbel i eved s om eone e l s e had c aus ed the i nj ur i es , ori f

itd i d notbel i eve be yond a r eas onabl e doubtthatC l ark had ca us ed the i nj ur i es , then itw as t o acqui t . T he C our tf i nds thatthe tr i al courtdi d noterrby r ef us i ng i ns truct i on D - 7. CO NC L US I ON ¶3 8 . T h e C o u rt fi n d s that n o m istri al w as w arran ted b ase d o n the tr ial co u rt ’s co m m e n ts t o H ai l ey. W e f

i nd thatShum pert ’ s t es t i m ony w as admi s s i bl e. W e f ur therf i nd thatthe tr i al court ’ s e xcl us i on of

the document s pr of

f er ed by Cl ark w as nota n a bus e of di scr et i on. Fi nal l y, w e f

i nd t hat t he j ury w as pr oper l y i ns truct ed, and the tr i al courtpr oper l y r ef us ed

### 21

C l ark’ s “theory of

the cas e” i ns truct i on. T her ef or e, w e af

f i r m C l ark’ s convi ct i on and s e n te n c e . ¶39. CO UNT I I : CO NVI CT I ON OF F EL ONI OUS ABUS E/ BATTERY OF A CH I LD AND S EN TE NCE OF EI GHTE EN ( 1 8 ) YEARS, W I TH S I X ( 6 ) YE ARS S US P EN DE D, I N TH E C U STO D Y O F T H E M I SSI SSI PPI DE PA R T M E N T O F C O R R EC TIO N S, AF F I RMED . COU NT I I I : CO NV I CT I ON OF F E L ON I OU S AB US E / B AT T E RY OF A CHI LD AND S EN TE NCE OF EI GH TE EN ( 1 8 ) YE ARS , W I TH S I X ( 6 ) YE ARS S US P E NDE D, I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CORRE CT I ONS , AF F I RM ED . S EN TE NCE S I N COUNT S I I AND I I I S HALL RUN CONCURR EN TL Y W I TH E ACH OTHE R AND C ONS EC UT I VE LY TO AN Y AND AL L S EN TE NCE S P RE VI OUS LY I M P OS ED . W AL L E R, C. J . , CA RL 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.