I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 2 - KA - 0 1 0 6 6 - CO A M I CH AEL T. AND ERS ON A/ K/ A M I CH AEL ANDE RS ON A/ K/ A M I CHAE L T HERONE AN DE RS ON AP P EL LA NT

v. STATE O F M I SS I SS I PPI APP ELLEE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 30/ 2012 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. W I NS T ON L . KI DD CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F S TATE PUB LI C D EFENDER B Y : M O L L IE M A R IE M C M IL L IN 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 : L ADONN A C . HOL L AND DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : RO BERT SHU LER SM I TH NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY TRI AL C OU RT D I SP OSI TI ON : CO NV I CTED OF M UR DER , AG GR AV ATED AS S AUL T , AND F E L ON I N P OS S E S S I ON O F FI RE A RM , A N D SEN TEN CE D A S A H A BI TU A L O FFEN D ER TO TH RE E LI FE SENTENC ES TO BE SERVED CO NS E CU T I VE L Y I N T HE CU S T ODY OF T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RR E CT I ONS D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 10/ 21/ 2014 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 I R V I N G , P . J. , B A R N E S A N D C A R L T O N , JJ. CAR LTON, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . M ich a e l A n d e rso n w a s c o n v ict ed of m u rd e r, ag g ra v a ted a ss a u lt, a n d fe lo n in pos s es s i on o f a fi r earm i n the H i nds C ounty C i r cui tC our t . T he tr i al courts ent ence d

### 2

A nder s on t o serve t hr ee l i f e se nt ence s w i thoutt he pos s i bi l i ty of par ol e i n the cus t ody of the M iss iss ip p i D e p a rtm e n t o f C o rre c tio n s, o n e life s e n ten c e fo r e a c h c o u n t in th e in d ictm e n t. An d e r s o n n o w a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e . F i n d i n g n o e rr o r , we a f f i r m. FACTS ¶2 . O n A p ri l 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 , A n d erso n sh o t an d k il led D rystle S an d ers in fron t o f the T ri p le-A store in J ac k so n , M issi ssipp i. T h e re co rd r e fle cts d ispu ted e v en ts atthe T ri p le-A store cul m i nat i ng i n the s hoot i ng death of Sande r s . H ow ever , the r ecor d r ef l ect s no di s put e exi s t ed
as t o the ac t i vi t i es of

Sander s , Syl ves t erC ol eman, thei rm other s , and C ol eman’ s s t epbr other dur i ng t ha te ve ni ng , pr i ort o d r i vi ng t o the Tr i pl e - A s t or e , a s w e l l a s the e ve nt s oc c urr i ng s ubs equentt o the s hoot i ng. ¶3. Sander s and hi s m other , W ys i a Sander s , al ong w i th E rnes t i ne C olem an, S ylvest er C o lem a n , an d E rn e stin e ’s s tep so n , T ra v is B ro w n , sp e n t tim e th a t e v e n in g to g e th e r p lea sa n tly
v isi ti n g an d h an g ing o u t, an d d rov e to th e T ri p le-A store to g et ch ips, ci g are tt es, an d b ee r. W e w i l l r evi ew the f

act s a nd e vent s of

the eveni ng i n que s t i on a s s etf or th i n the t es t i m ony of the v ari ou s w i tnesses. ¶ 4 . Co l e ma n ’ s mo th e r , Ern e s t i n e Co l e ma n , t e s t i f i e d th a ts h e a rr i v e d t o th e S a n d e r s h o me
w i th C ol eman, hers on, and T ravi s B row n, hers t eps on, on the eve ni ng of A pr i l 10, 2009. Sander s and W ys i a Sander s w er e i ns i de of t he house
. E rnes t i ne C ol eman st at ed thats he had been a tthe hous e f

orappr ox i m at el y thi r ty m i nut es bef or e the gr oup deci ded t o go t o the T r i pl e - A s t or e t o pu r c ha s e b e e ra nd c i ga r e t t e s . Er ne s t i ne Col e man t e s t i f i e d tha twhen t he gr oup dr ove t o the s t or e, “[ e] verybody w as i n a good m ood .
. . l aughi ng, j oki ng. ” Erne s t i ne s t at ed thatshe, W ys i a Sander s , and B r ow n r emai ned i ns i de of the ca r , w hi l e C ol eman and

### Sy lv es te r C oleman ’s moth er is Ern estine C oleman , andhis step bro ther is T ravis 1 

### Brown. 3 S and ers w ent i nsi de to purchase b eer and cigar et t es. ¶5. A notherw i tnes s , W ys i a Sander s , t es t i f i ed t haton A pr i l 10, 2009, she pi cked up he r so n , S an d ers, f

rom h is j o b a t L ab o r F ind ers aro u n d ap p rox im ately 3 :30 p . m . W y sia S an d ers tes tified th a t sh e h a d n o t se e n h e r so n a ll d a y , u n til sh e p ick e d h im u p fro m w o rk . W y sia Sander s s t at ed thataf

t erpi cki ng up Sander s , the tw o purc has ed s om ethi ng t o eat , then stop p ed by t o visi t a fri en d at the fu n era l h o m e. S h e the n dro p p ed off Sa n d ers at his fri en d ’s hous e t o pl ay “vi deos or s om ethi ng [ and l i s t en] t o m us i c. ” W ys i a Sander s s t at ed that S an d ers’s g ir lf

ri en d d rop p ed h im b ac k o ff at ho m e a ro u n d 1 0 :30 p . m . W y sia S an d ers t es t i f i ed thatE rnes t i ne C ol eman, C ol eman, and B r ow n then arr i ved atthe hous e, and the gr oup “[ s at ] ar ound l aughi ng and gri nni ng and t al ki ng. ” W ys i a Sander s s t at ed thatC ol eman and Sander s expr es s ed thatthey w ant ed t o pur chas e more ci gar ett es , s o E rnes t i ne C ol eman of f er ed t o dr i ve eve ryone t o the s t or e. W ys i a Sander s al s o t es t i f i ed thaton the w ay t o the
s t or e, “eve rybody w as happy. ” W hen as ked on cr os s - exami nat i on w hetherSander s and C ol eman i nt ended t o purc has e ci gar ett es and beeratt he Tri pl e- A , W ys i a Sander s ans w er ed “ci gar ett es . ” ¶6. C ol eman t es t i f

i ed that he, hi s m other , and s t epbr other arr i ved at the Sander s hom e at 7 p .m . o n A p ril 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 . C o lem a n sta ted tha t w h ile a t th e h o u se , “ w e sa t aro u n d a little 1
w h il e,” w atch ing tel ev isi o n . H e fu rth er testi fi ed that: “W e h ad b ro u g h t a co u p le of b ee rs
w i th us and w e r an outand w e w as goi ng back t o the s t or e t o gets om e more . ” ¶7. T r avi s B row n t est i f i ed that on the af

t ernoon bef

or e the s hoot i ng, he, C ol eman, and

### 4

E rnes t i ne C ol eman “[ w er e] chi l l i ng” athom e, “havi ng f un. ” The t r i o deci ded t o r i de ar ound, and ended up att he Sander s house atappr oxi m at el y 10 p. m . O nce a tthe Sander s ’ s hous e, B ro w n tes tified th a t th e g ro u p p lay e d d o m in o e s, a n d e v e n tu a lly d e c id e d to g o to th e sto re “ to g e t a fe w b e e rs a n d g e t u s a c o u p le o f s n a c k s .” B ro w n a d m itte d th a t “ [w ]e h a d a fe w d ri n k s .” T h e te stim o n y re fle c tin g th e a c tiv iti e s th ro u g h o u t th e e v e n in g re fle c t th a t n o d isp u te e x ists thatSande r s , a l ong w i th Col eman and B r ow n, cons um ed s om e bee rt ogetherw hi l e hangi ng outthateveni ng. T he St ore ¶8 . D if

feren t w itn esse s pe rce ived diff ere n t p iece s of th e e v en ts oc cu rri n g at th e T ri p le-A
s t or e thatc ul m i nat ed i n the s hoot i ng de ath of Sande r s . A tthe T r i pl e- A , A nders on ( the
a p p e llan t) m a in tain s th a t h e w a s o u tsid e o f th e sto re w h e n S a n d e rs a n d C o lem a n w a lk e d in to the s t or e. E rnes t i ne C ol eman, B row n, an d W ys i a Sander s al l t es t i f i ed thatthey r emai ned i nsi de thei r carw hil e S and ers and C olem an w ent i nto the st ore t o b uy beer and snacks. ¶9 . A n d erso n test if

ied tha t h e “sp o k e w ith a ha n d ge sture” t o th e tw o w o m en in th e c ar, and ac cor di ng t o A nder s on, the w om en di d nots peak t o hi m . A nder s on t es t i f i ed thathe w ent i nt o the s t or e and s poke t o the cl erk. H e t es t i f i ed t hathe t ol d t he cl erk t hathe f el the nee ded to c le a n u p h is a c t b e c a u s e th e w o m e n h a d lo o k e d a t h im lik e h e w a s “ fr o m a n o th e r p la n e t.” A nder s on t es t i f

i ed thataf

t erhi s conver s at i on w i th the cl erk, S ander s t ol d hi m thatthe w om en
w e re h is a n d C o le m a n ’s m o th e rs . ¶10. H ow ever , the r ecor d r ef l ect s C ol eman’ s t es t i m ony that he pos s es s ed no r ecol l ect i on o f spe ak in g to A n d e rso n in the store, an d C o lem an also test if ied th at he rec all ed S an d ers exi t ed the s t or e bef

or e C ol eman. C ol eman’ s t es t i m ony r ef l ect s thathe r eca l l ed no

### 5

conver s at i on w i th A nder s on i ns i de of t he st or e, butA nder s on t es t i f i ed di f f er ent l y, pr ovi di ng thatSander s s eemed agi t at ed and s t or m ed outof the st or e w i th C ol eman. A nder s on t es t i f i ed thataf t erhe pur chas ed hi s i t ems, he t hen exi t ed the s t or e. U pon l eavi ng the s t or e, A nder s on pr ovi ded t es t i m ony cl ai m i ng thathe w as hi ti n the bac k of the hea d and knocke d t o the gr ound. A nder s on al s o t es t i f i ed thathe r ai s ed up hi s hands t o pr ot ecthi s head, and thathe
w as hi tagai n. A nd ers on t es t i f i ed thataf

t erhe w as hi tthe s econd t i m e, a gun f el l t o the g rou n d
. A n d erso n test if ied th at he g rab b ed the g u n an d test if ied th a t h e the n sh o t Sa n d ers in se lf-d e fe n se . A n d e rso n te s tified th a t af ter sh o o tin g S a n d e rs, h e w a lk e d h o m e to h is
m other ’ s hous e. C ur i ous l y, the pol i ce i nves t i gat i on of the s hoot i ng r evea l ed tw o di f f er ent ty p e s o f b u llet c a sin g s, fire d fro m tw o d iffe re n t g u n s, a t th e sc e n e , an d trial te stim o n y re fle c ts th a t n o w itn e s s e s s a w S a n d e rs w ith a g u n . ¶11. W i th r es pectt o Sander s ’ s compani on i n the s t ore, C olem an t est i fi ed t hatw hen he
w alke d o u t of the T ri p le-A S tore, h e saw S an d ers an d an o ther m an “tus sli n g . ” S h o ts w ere f i r ed, and C ol eman hear d a guns hotand s aw S ander s f al l t o the gr ound. C ol eman t es t i f i ed th a t th e sh o o ter , late r id e n tified a s A n d e rso n , the n tu rn e d a n d p o in ted th e g u n a t h im ( C ol eman)
. A nder s on f i r ed atC ol eman as C ol eman s t art ed runni ng aw ay f r om the s t or e and
ou tof the p arki ng l ot. C olem an tes t i fi ed thath e fl ed aft er he saw A nd ers on shoo tS and ers , a n d h e tes tified th a t h is m o th e r, E rn e stin e , d ro v e a w a y a n d p ick e d h im u p o n a n e a rb y stre e t, around the co rner . T he group in the car (C olem an, E rnest i ne, B row n, and W ysi a S and ers ) then retu rne d t o th e store to ch ec k on S an d ers. C o lem an ex p lai n ed th at as he , his m o the r, W ys i a San ders, and B r ow n dr ove bac k t o the s t or e t o chec k on Sander s , they pas s ed A n d e rso n a s h e w a s w a lk in g “ th e o p p o site w a y fro m th e sto re ” o n R id g e w a y S tre e t.

### 6

C ol eman t es t i f

i ed thata s the cara ppr oache d the s t or e, A nder s on be gan s hoot i ng a tt he car
a s h e w a lk e d d o w n R id g e w a y S tr e e t a w a y fr o m th e s to re . ¶1 2. T he r e c or d r e f

l e c t s tha tthe s t or e c l e r k ha d al r eady e xi t ed t he s t or e t o chec k on Sander s , as w el l
. T he r ecor d s how s thatSande r s s uf f er ed s ever al guns hotw ounds , and w as p ron o u n ce d d ea d o n the s c e n e b y law en forc em en t and m ed ical pe rson n el. Inv esti g ators
r ecove r ed f

i ve s pent9 mi l l i m et erc artr i dge cas i ngs on and ar ound Sander s ’ s body, and f ound tw o m or e s pent9 m i l l i m et ercartr i dge ca s i ngs 12 0 f eetaw ay f

r om Sander s ’ s body. B r i an M cI ntyr e, a f

or ens i c s ci ent i s tatthe M i s s i s s i ppi C r i m e L abor at ory, t es t i f i ed thatthe ca s i ngs
w er e f i r ed f r om tw o s epar at e guns — al l f i ve ca s i ngs r ecover ed fr om on and ar ound S an d ers’s b o d y w ere fi red from o n e g u n , an d the tw o c asin g s loc ated 1 2 0 fee t f rom S an d ers’s body w er e f

i r ed f r om a s econd gun. ¶13 . W i th r es pectt o event s s ubs equent t o the shoo t i ng , of f
- duty J acks on Pol i ce D epartm ent I nves t i gat orG ar l and W ar d w as exi t i ng the es t abl i s hm entnextdoort o the Tri pl e- A St or e at the t i m e of

the murde r . W ar d t es t i f i ed thath e w as w al ki ng t o hi s vehi cl e w hen he he ar d a
comm ot i on i n the nea rby l ot . H e hea r d tw o s hot s , s aw Sande r s f al l t o the gr ound, a nd s aw A nder s on s t andi ng o ver S and er s , l yi ng on the gr ound, ai m i ng the gun athi m . W ar d s aw C o lem an ru n n ing from the s tore y ell ing at th e o cc u p an ts of a c ar to “ g et do w n . ” W ard i m m edi at el y cal l ed anotheri nves t i gat orand hea r d m or e s hot s w hi l e he w as on the phone. W hen he l ooked bac k t ow ar d the s cene , he t es t i f i ed thathe sa w A nder s on w al ki ng of f aw ay fr o m th e s to re a n d d o w n th e ro a d . W a rd la te r i d e n tif ie d A n d e rs o n fr o m a p h o to lin e u p . ¶14 . A no ther w i tness atthe shoo t i ng , St eph en John son, t est i fi ed t hat he w as dr i ving past the conveni ence st or e w hen he s aw Sander s l yi ng on the gr ound. A s J ohns on pul l ed i n t o the

### 7

l ot , he s aw A nder s on s t and overSande r s a nd f i r e tw o more s hot s . J ohns on s t at ed thathe and A nder s on m ade e ye cont act , and then J ohns on w i t nessed A nder s on w al ki ng of f
. T hen, as J ohns on pul l ed outof

t he l ot , he t es t i f

i ed t hathe saw a w om an w al k outof the s t or e. J ohns on t es t i f i ed thatthe w om an w entup t o Sander s ’ s body and “l ooked ati t , leaned over , and
w a lk e d b a c k in s id e th e s to re .” A t tr ia l, J o h n s o n id e n tif ie d A n d e rs o n a s th e s h o o te r. ¶ 1 5 . E rn e stin e tes tified th a t a fte r d riv in g a w a y fro m th e T rip le- A a fte r S a n d e rs w a s s h o t,
s he pi cked up Col eman dow n the s tr eeta nd a r ound the cornerf r om the s t or e. A f

t erhe got i n the ca r , E rnes t i ne dr ove bac k t o the s t or e. She t es t i f i ed thatas t hey dr ove back t o the s t or e, s he w i tnes s ed A nder s on “comi ng on t he s i de of the s t or e w al ki ng, s hoot i ng. . . . [ H ] e w as s hoot i ng atm y carorus . ” ¶16. B r ow n, E rnes t i ne’ s st eps on and C ol eman’ s st epbr other , t es t i f i ed t hath e w as si t t i ng i n th e c a ro u t s i d e o f

th e T r i p l e - A wh i l e Co l e ma n a n d S a n d e r s we r e i n th e s t o r e . Br o wn l o o k e d u p a n d wi tn e s s e d An d e r s o n a n d S a n d e r s “ tu s s l i n g ” o u t s i d e o f th e s t o r e . Br o wn i ns truct ed hi s s t epmot hert o open the door , and bega n hel pi ng herl ocat e the l ocks on the ca r d o o r . B r o wn t e s t i f

i e d th a th e h e a r d g u n s h o t s , l o o k e d u p , a n d s a w S a n d e r s f a l l
. B r o wn t es t i f i ed thathe then w i tnes s ed A nder s on st arts hoot i ng atC ol eman. B r ow n s t at ed that C ol eman i ns truct ed B r ow n, Er nes t i ne C ol eman, a nd W ys i a Sander s t o dr i ve aw ay f r om the
s t or e, and C ol eman f

ol l ow ed, runni ng af

t erthem. B r ow n t es t i f

i ed thatthey s t opped the ca r o n the n ex t stree t so that C o lem an c o u ld g et in, an d then they m ad e a b lock aro u n d the s tore i n or dert o go back a nd chec k on Sanders. A s t he group i n the ca rdr ove bac k t ow ar ds the
s t or e, they pas s ed A nder s on on R i dgew ay Str e e t . Br ow n t es t i f i ed thatA nder s on w as w al ki ng dow n R i dg ew ay S t ree ti n the di r ect i on aw ay f r om the s t or e. A nder s on f i r ed s hot s atthe

### 8

p a s s i n g c a rc o n t a i n i n g E rn e s t i n e Co l e ma n , W y s i a S a n d e r s , Co l e ma n , a n d Br o wn . Br o wn t es t i f i ed thatA nder s on cont i nued w al ki ng on R i dg ew ay Str eetand aw ay f r om the s t or e, p ro v id in g B ro w n , C o lem a n , W y sia S a n d e rs, a n d E rn e stin e C o lem a n a c h a n c e to g o b a c k to the st ore and check on S and ers . E vi dence of

A l cohol C onsum pt i on ¶17. W e turn t o acknow l edge the f act s r el evant t o A nder s on’ s as s i gnm ent of err orr el at ed t o excl us i on of

the vi ct i m ’ s p ost - m or t em bl ood- al cohol r es ul t s . A s pr evi ous l y s t at ed, C ol eman’ s m other, E rnest i ne C olem an, t est i fi ed thatshe, C olem an, and B r ow n had onl y been
a t th e S a n d e rs re sid e n c e fo r ap p ro x im a tely thirty m in u tes b e fo re the g ro u p d e c id e d to g o to the Tri pl e- A s t or e t o pur chas e beerand ci gar ett es . E rnes t i ne C ol eman t es t i f i ed t hatw hen the gr oup dr ove t o the s t or e, “[ e] verybody w as i n a good mood .
. . l aughi ng, j oki ng. ” W hen
as ked by the def

ens e w hether“Sanders had som ethi ng t o dr i nk pr i or ” t o the s hoot i ng, the St at e obj ect ed, and the tr i al courts us t ai ned the obj ect i on. T he def ens e al s o r ead port i ons of E rnes t i ne C ol eman’ s s t at ement , gi ven t o pol i ce on A pr i l 11, 2009, the day a f t erthe s hoot i ng, in to e v id e n c e , d e sc rib in g th a t sh e , W y sia S a n d e rs, S a n d e rs, B ro w n , a n d C o lem a n a rriv e d to th e T rip le- A a little a fte r 1 0 p .m . o n A p ril 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 . A s p re v io u sly sta ted , the re c o rd re fle c ts B ro w n a n d C o lem a n b o th tes tified th a t th e y d ra n k b e e r w ith S a n d e rs th a t ev e n in g , p rio r to the s h o o ti n g , an d d rov e to th e T ri p le-A store w ith the in tent to p u rch ase m o re b ee r. ¶1 8 . T h e jury also h ea rd test im o n y from W ard ; O ffi ce rs C h arles T a y lo r, D arry l Stash er, Q u in c y R u s s e ll, a n d K im b e rly B ro w n o f th e Ja c k so n P o lice D e p a rtm e n t; D e p u ty D o n a ld R hodes of

t he H i nds C ounty S her i f f’ s D epart m ent ; B r i an M cI ntyr e, a for ens i c s ci ent i s tatthe M i s s i s s i ppi C r i m e Labor at ory; J acob B ur chf i el d, a for ens i c chemi s ti n the Tra ce Evi dence

### 9

S e c tio n o f th e M iss iss ip p i C rim e L a b o ra to ry ; a n d D r. A m y M c M a ste r, a fo re n sic p a th o lo g ist. T he tr i al courtr ef

us ed t o a dm i tSande r s ’ s pos t - m or t em bl ood- al cohol c ont enti nt o evi dence
. T h e jury co n v ict ed A n d erso n o f m u rde r, a g g ra v a ted assa u lt , an d felon in p o sses sion o f a fi re a rm . T h e tr ia l c o u rt s e n te n c e d A n d e rs o n a s a h a b itu a l o ff e n d e r to th re e life s e n te n c e s . ¶1 9 . A nd ers on no w ap p ea ls, claim ing the fo ll o w ing assig n m en ts of erro r: (1) the tr ial co u rt erred in g iving a fli g h t i n stru cti o n to the jury ; ( 2 ) th e tri al co u rterred in g iving jury i ns truct i on S- 7, w hi ch pr event ed A nder s on f r om havi ng hi s theory of s el f
- def ens e s ubm i t t ed to th e ju ry o n th e fe lo n -in -p o ss e ss io n -o f-a -f ir e a rm c h a rg e ; an d (3 ) th e trial c o u rt e rre d in
re fu s in g to a llo w e v id e n c e o f S a n d e rs ’s b lo o d -a lc o h o l le v e l a t th e tim e o f h is a u to p s y . S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶2 0 . T h is C o u rtg ives “a b u se-o f-discreti o n d efe ren ce to the tr ial jud g e' s d ec isio n ” w ith
re g a rd to g iv in g o r r e fu s in g ju ry in s tru c tio n s . F lo w e rs v . S ta te , 51 So. 3d 911, 912 ( ¶5) ( M i s s . 2010)
. I n det erm i ni ng i f any er r oroccurr ed r egar di ng t he j ury i ns truct i ons pr es ent ed
a t tr ia l, th e in s tru c tio n s g iv e n m u s t b e re a d a s a w h o le
. Sh e ffi e ld v . S ta te , 844 So. 2d 519, 524 ( ¶12) (M i s s . C t . A pp. 2003) ( ci t i ng T u rn e r v . S ta te , 7 2 1 S o . 2 d 6 4 2 , 6 4 8 (¶2 1 ) (M iss. 1 9 9 8 )). N o r ever s i bl e err orw i l l be f ound w her e t he j ury i ns truct i ons fa i r l y announce the l aw of the
c a s e a n d c re a te n o in

ju s tic e . J

o h n so n v . S ta te , 908 So. 2d 758, 764 ( ¶20) ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 6 3 , 6 5 (¶ 5 ) (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 3 )). “ A d e fe n d a n t is e n tit led to have j ury i ns truct i ons gi ven w hi ch pr es enthi s t heory of the ca s e; how ever , thi s ent i t l ement is lim ited in th a t th e c o u rt m a y re fu se a n in s tr u c tio n w h ich in c o rre c tly sta tes th e law , is
c o v e re d fa ir ly e ls e w h e re in th e in s tru c tio n s , o r i s w ith o u t f o u n d a tio n in th e e v id e n c e .” B y ro m v . S ta te , 863 So. 2d 836, 874 ( ¶129) ( M i s s . 2003) ( quot i ng He ide l v. S ta te , 587 So.

### 10

2 d 8 3 5 , 8 4 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 1 )). Ju ry in stru c tio n s a re w ith in th e so u n d d isc re tio n o f th e trial c o u rt. G o o d in v . S ta te , 7 8 7 S o . 2 d 6 3 9 , 6 5 7 (¶6 0 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). ¶ 2 1 . A trial ju d g e p o ss e ss e s a g re a t d e a l o f d isc re tio n a s to th e re lev a n c y a n d a d m iss ib ili ty
o f e v id e n c e . G ille

y v . S ta te , 748 So. 2d 123, 126 ( ¶5) ( M i s s . 1999)
. U nl es s the j udge abus es h is d is c re tio n s o a s to b e p re ju d ic ia l to th e a c c u s e d , th e C o u rt w ill n o t r e v e rs e th is ru lin g . Id
.

DI S CU S S I ON I . F l i ght I nst ruct i on ¶22. A nder s on ar gues thatthe tr i al c our te rr ed i n gi vi ng i ns truct i on S- 6, a f l i ght i ns truct i on, t o the j ury, thus al l ow i ng the j ury t o i nf ergui l tf r om the ac tof

A nder s on’ s purpor t ed f l i ght fr om the scene of

the s hoot i ng. A nder s on s ubm i t s thathe obj ect ed t o the St at e’ s f l i ght i ns truct i on, a r gui ng thatbe caus e he r ai s ed s el f
- def ens e as hi s def

ens e theory attr i al , then the tr ia l c o u rt e rr e d in g iv in g th e fl ig h t in s tru c tio n . ¶23. T he i ns truct i on pr es ent ed t o the j ury her ei n s t at ed: “F l i gh t ” i s a ci rcum st ance fr om w hich guil ty k no w l edg e and / or f ear of arr est m ay be i nf

err ed. I f you bel i eve f

r om the evi dence i n thi s cas e beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthat
. . . [ A nder s on] di d f l ee orgo i nt o hi di ng, s uch f l i ghtor hi di ng i s t o be cons i der ed i n connec t i on w i t h al l otherevi dence i n thi s cas e. Y ou w i l l det erm i ne f

r om al l the f

act s w hethers uch f

l i ghtorhi di ng w as f

r om a c o n sc io u s s e n se o f g u ilto r w h e th e r it w a s c a u se d b y o th e r th in g s a n d g iv e it s uch w ei ghta s you thi nk i ti s e nt i t l ed t o i n de t erm i ni ng the gui l tori nnocenc e o f [ A n d e rs o n ]. ¶24. I n r evi ew i ng thi s as s i gnm entof err or, w e ack no w l edg e thatthi s C our tappl i es an ab u se-o f-discreti o n stan d ard for rev iew ing a tri al co u rt ’s de cisi o n to g ive o r refuse jury in s tru c tio n s . F low ers , 5 1 S o . 3 d at 91 2 (¶5 ). W h en rev iew ing the g iving o r refusa l of j u ry i ns truct i ons , thi s C ourtreads the i ns truct i ons as a w hol e, r atherthan s i ngl i ng outany one

### 11

i ns truct i on ort aki ng the i ns truct i ons outof cont ext . In turni ng t o pr ece dentt o as s i s ti n our
r evi ew , w e f

i nd thati n Fu se lierv . S ta te , 4 6 8 S o . 2 d 4 5 , 5 6
- 5 7 ( M i s s . 1 9 8 5 ) , th e s u p r e me c o u rt e x p lain e d th a t “a n in stru c tio n th a t flig h t m a y b e c o n sid e re d a s a c irc u m sta n c e o f g u ilt
orgui l ty know l edge i s a ppr opr i at e onl y w her e thatf l i ghti s une xpl ai ned and somehow probati ve of

gui l torgui l ty know l edge. ” The supr eme cour tadopt ed the f ol l ow i ng tw opr ong t es tt o det erm i ne w hetheran i ns truct i on thatf l i ghtm ay be cons i der ed i s pr oper : “( 1) O nl y une xpl ai ned f

l i ghtmer i t s a f

l i ghti ns truct i on; and ( 2) Fl i ghti ns truct i ons ar e t o be gi ven onl y i n c as es w her e thatc i r cumst ance ha s cons i der abl e pr obat i ve val ue. ” T ra n v . S ta te , 681 S o . 2 d 5 1 4 , 5 1 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶2 5. I n t hi s cas e, t he r e c or d s ho w s tha tA nd e r s on pr e s e nt e d n o e vi de nc e of a n exi s t i ng thr eatatt he T r i pl e- A st or e att he t i m e w hen he w al ked aw ay f r om the s t or e, dow n R i dgew ay S tr ee t, after sh o o ti n g S an d ers o n the store ’s side w alk. T h e re co rd re fl ec ts th at th e sto re c lerk
ex it ed the s tore an d ch ec k ed o n S an d ers a ft er A n d erso n w alke d o ff, an d that w itn esse s W ard
an d Jo h n so n also saw A n d erso n w alk o ff f rom the store aft er sh o o ti n g S an d ers. T h e re co rd sh o w s A n d e rso n lef

t th e sto re p re m ise s a fte r C o lem a n ra n o ff, a n d a fte r th e c a r w ith E rnes t i ne, W ys i a, and B r ow n drove off
. A ddi t i onal l y, C ol eman and t he occ upant s of the ca r t es t i f i ed thatas they re turned t o the s t or e t o chec k on Sander s , they s pot t ed A nder s on
w a lk in g d o w n th e s tr e e t a n d a w a y fr o m th e s to re . ¶2 6. I n appl yi ng the l a w t o the f a c t s he r e i n, w e turn t o p r e c e de ntf orgu i da nc e . I n Tran , the s upr eme cour thel d the f act s of thats peci f

i c ca s e f ai l ed t o f

al l w i thi n ei ther of the
c irc u m sta n c e s w h e re a flig h t i n stru c tio n w o u ld b e ap p ro p ria te . Tran , 681 S o. 2d at519. I ns truct i ve t o the i s s ues r ai s ed by A nder s on, the s upr eme cour texpl ai ned that“Tra n' s f l i ght

### 12

w as expl ai ned by both hi m s el f and hi s co- def

endant

— they w er e f

l eei ng t o avoi d r etr i but i on f r om the f r i ends of [ the vi ct i m ] . ” Id
. T he Tran c our tr el i ed upon B a n k s v . S ta te , 631 So. 2d 748, 751 ( M i s s . 1994) , w hi ch hel d: “[ W ] her e t he per s on agai ns tw hom s el f
- def ens e has been
exer ci s ed i s s t i l l al i ve and has t he back up supportof otherper s ons , f l i ghts eems l ogi cal and
nece s s ary. ” Tran , 681 So. 2d at519 . T he supre m e courtdet erm i ned thats i nce “ T r an w as a rg u in g se lf-d e fe n se a n d th e ju ry h e a rd th e tes tim o n y o n T ra n ' s flig h t, it w a s fre e to d ra w its
ow n concl us i ons as t o t he f l i ghts i gni f

i canc e. ” Id
. I n Tran , the c o u rt fo u n d u n d e r th e se fa c ts th a t th e flig h t se e m e d lo g ica l an d n e c e ss a ry in lig h t o f th e se lf-d e fe n se arg u m e n t an d th e fa c ts
o f n e c e s s it y ra is e d th e re in
. I d. T he Tran co u rtrem an d ed the c ase b ac k to the tr ial c o u rt, hol di ng thatitw as cl ear l y r ever s i bl e err ort o gi ve the f l i ghti ns truct i on and ca l l undue
a tte n tio n to T ra n ’s fl ig h t. Id
. ¶27. A l s o, s i gni f

i cantt o the r es ol ut i on of the i ssue be for e u s i n t he i ns t antcas e, i n the
o p inion o f Sh u m

p e r t v . S ta te , 9 3 5 S o . 2 d 9 6 2 , 9 7 0 (¶2 8 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ), the s u p rem e c o u rt obs erved thatt he def

endantt her ei n, S hum pert , cl ai m ed t hathe r an t o avoi d bei ng hur tby the vict i m , and t hi s expl anat i on cons t i tut ed the onl y expl anat i on Shum pertof f er ed f orf l eei ng fr om the scen e of that cr i m e. H ow ever, the suprem e co urtackn ow l edg ed thatS hu m pertal so s t at ed the vi ct i m d i d no t hi ng t o thr eat en orharm Shum pert . T r i al t es t i m ony al s o pr ovi ded
e v id e n c e th a t th e v ictim n e v e r th rea ten e d o r h a rm e d S h u m p e rt. T h e su p re m e c o u rt u lti m a tely f ound i n Sh um

pertth a t th e trial c o u rt d id n o t er r in g iv in g th e flig h t in stru c tio n b e c a u se : “A l l of thi s evi dence s uppor t s the cont ent i on thatthe f l i ghtw as notexpl ai ned by any r eas on otherthan cons ci ous nes s of gui l t . T he tr i al courtagr eed and [ gave] t he f l i ghti ns truct i on, and i tdi d noterri n doi ng s o. ” Id
.

### See a lso Sta tes v. Sta te , 88 So. 3d 749, 758 (¶38) (Miss. 2 01 2). In States , the 2 

### suprem e court found thetrial c ourt ’s er ror in giving a

fl ight ins tr uction t o be harm le ss er

ror du e to the o verwhelmin g ev iden ce of th e defen dant’s gu ilt. Id . The Sta tes court e xplaine d: “An e rror i s harm le ss if

it is cl ear be yond a reas onabl e doubt that it did not contributeto t

he verdic t. ” Id . ( ci tati ons and int er nalpunct uation om itte d). In States , the supreme co urt h eld that b ased o n th e ov erwh elmingevid ence o f the d efend ant’s g uilt, th e trial co urt’s error in giv ingthe flig ht in structio n d id n ot co ntrib ute to the g uiltyverd ict. Id
. 13 ¶2 8. I n appl yi ng pre cede ntt o the f a c t s of the i ns t a ntc a s e , the St a t e he r e i n a r gu e s tha t A nder s on neverpr ovi ded a r eas onabl e expl anat i on f orhi s f l i ghtf r om the m ur ders cene . The 2
rec o rd re fl ec ts th at A n d erso n test if ied th at after h e sh o t Sa n d ers, he w alke d to h is m o ther’s hous e. A s r ef

l ect ed by the s t at ementof f act s her ei n, the r ecor d s how s thatva r i ous w i tnes s es al s o t es t i f

i ed att r i al as t o the ci r cumst ance s af t erthe s hoot i ng, and thei rt es t i m ony r ef l ect ed
n o ev iden ce o f an y ex ist ing threa t t o A n d e rso n p rior to d ep arti n g from the T ri p le-A store
w h e re S a n d e rs la y d y in g . ¶29 . A s previ ou sl y n oted, C olem an tes t i fi ed tha t after h e saw A nd ers on shoo t S and ers , C ol eman f

l ed f r om the s t or e, a nd Er nes t i ne al s o dr ove aw ay f r om the s t or e w i th W ys i a and B r ow n. E rnes t i ne pi cked u p her son on a nearby s tr eet . A f t erA nder s on l ef

tthe s t or e, the gr oup then r eturned t o the s t or e t o chec k on Sander s . A s C olem an, E rne s t i ne C ol eman, W ys i a Sander s , and B r ow n dr ove bac k t ow ar d the s t ore t o check on Sander s , they pas s ed A nder s on as he w as w al ki ng dow n R i dgew ay Str eet“the oppos i t e w ay f r om the s t or e. ” The
r ecor d r ef

l ect s thatthe y p a s s e d hi m on R i dgew ay Str eet , and C ol eman t es t i f i ed thatA nder s on th e n p o i n t e d th e we a p o n b a c k t o wa r d s t h e s t o r e a n d t o wa r d s t h e i rc a r , f i r i n g t h e g u n a tth e m. ¶30. A s pr evi ou sl y st at ed i n t he revi ew o f t he fact s herei n, the r ecor d r ef l ect s other t es t i m ony, i ncl udi ng the t es t i m ony f r om w i tnes s es W ar d and Johns on, s uppor t i ng the f l i ght

### See F low ers , 51 So . 3dat 91 2 (¶5 ). 3 

### 14 in stru c tio n . T h e re c o rd sh o w s th a t Jo h n so n p u lled b a c k in to th e lo t to c h e c k o n th e v ictim
w hen he s aw A nder s on s t and overSander s and f i r e tw o m or e s hot s . J ohns on s t at ed thathe and A nder s on m ade e ye cont act , and then J ohns on w i tnes s ed A nder s on w al ki ng of f f r om the
s t or e w her e Sander s l ay dyi ng on the s i dew al k and parki ng ar ea. T he recor d s how s that C o lem an fl ed o n foo t and W y sia S an d ers, E rne sti n e C o lem an , an d T rav is B row n d rov e o ff
aw ay from the s tore p ri o r t o the p o int w h e n A n d e rso n b eg an w alkin g aw ay from the s tore dow n R i dgew ay Str eet . A l s o, as pr evi ous l y acknow l edged, J ohns on s t at ed thata w om an then w al ked outof

the s t or e, w entup t o S ander s ’ s body, and “l ooked ati t , l eane d over , and
w al ked bac k i ns i de the s t or e. ” ¶31. A f

t er our r evi ew of the f

act s of thi s cas e and appl i cabl e l aw , w e f i nd that i n thi s cas e, as i n Sh u m

p e rt, the r ecor d r ef

l ect s no abus e of

di s cr et i on occurr ed by the tr i al court ’ s gi vi ng of the f l i ghti ns truct i on her ei n. 3 I I . F el on i n P os s es s i on of a F i rear m ¶32. A nder s on nextar gues thatt he t r i al cour terr ed i n gi vi ng i ns truct i on S- 7, w hi ch s t at ed: “T h e c o u rtinstructs the jury that self-de fen se is n o t a viab le de fen se to p o sses sion o f a f i r earm by a convi ct ed f

el on. ” See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 37- 5 ( R ev. 2014) ( convi ct ed f el on
m ay notpos s es s a f

i r earm )
. A nder s on as s ert s thatt he t r i al cour tcom m i t t ed r ever s i bl e err or by pr event i ng hi s theory of s el f
- def ens e f r om bei ng s ubm i t t ed t o the j ury on the f el on- i np o ss e ss io n -o f-fire a rm c h a rg e . A n d e rso n ’s a rg u m e n t co n fu se s th e d e fe n se o f n e c e ss ity w ith thatof s el f
- def ens e.

### 15

¶33. A nder s on ar gues thathi s theory of def ens e con si st ed of argui ng thatSander s and C ol eman act ed as the i ni t i al aggr essor s, and thatA nder s on pos s es s ed the gun outof
nece s s i ty. W e ac know l edge, how ever , thatA nder s on f ai l ed t o r eques tthatthe j ury be instructed o n the d efe n se o f ne ce ssity , an d w e fu rth er a ck n o w ledg e tha t th e fa cts i n the re co rd fail to s u p p o rt a n ec essity instruc ti o n . A n d erso n test if ied th at after he ex it ed the T ri p le-A
s t or e, he w as hi ti n the hea d and fe l l t o one knee. A nder s on s t at ed thathe w as hi tagai n, and then “the gun f

el l the thi r d t i m e t hathe t r i ed t o hi tm e. ” A nder s on t es t i f i ed t hathe gr abbed t he gun and “ w a s tryi ng t o po i nta nd s ho ota tthe s a me t i me. ” The r e c or d r e f l e c t s no t e s t i mo n y s h o wi n g th a tS a n d e r s p o s s e s s e d a f i r e a r m o rwe a p o n wh e n An d e r s o n s h o th i m. ¶3 4 . In th is a ss ig n m e n t of erro r, A n d erso n a c k n o w led g e s th a t se lf-d e fe n se fa ils to
c o n s titu te a v a lid d e fe n s e to th e c h a rg e o f f e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f a fi re a rm . See W i l l i am s v. S ta te , 9 5 3 S o . 2 d 2 6 0 , 2 6 3 (¶8 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). A n d erso n ’s arg u m en t, h o w ev er, as s ert s thatthe tr i al court ’ s r ef us al of a s el f
- def ens e i ns truct i on prevent ed t he j ury f r om c o n sid e rin g w h e th e r A n d e rso n a c ted o u t o f n e c e ss ity , a n d th a t n e c e ss ity c o n stitu tes a v a lid def ens e t o thi s of

f ens e. H e ci t es t o Wi l l i a ms , 9 5 3 S o . 2 d a t2 6 3
- 6 4 ( ¶ 9 ) , wh e r e i n th e s u p r e me c o u r th e l d th a tn e c e s s i ty i s a v a l i d d e f e n s e f o rth e c h a r g e o f

f e l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m. T he Wi l l i a ms C our thel d that“i n or dert o be ent i t l ed t o a de f ens e of nece s s i ty, the def

endant
m u st p rov e the foll o w ing : (1) th e ac t ch arg ed w as d o n e to p rev en t a si g n if ican t evil, (2) the re
w as n o ad eq u ate a lt ern ati v e, an d (3) th e h arm ca u sed w as n o t dispro p o rt ion ate to the h arm avoi ded. ” I

d. ¶ 3 5 . A re v iew o f p re c e d e n t re lev a n t to th e c h a rg e a t iss u e a n d se lf-d e fe n se re fle c ts th a t in R o b e rs o n v . S ta te , 19 So. 3d 95, 101 ( ¶9) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2009) , the def endant , a convi ct ed

### Instru ctionS-7 stated: “T he co urt in structs the jurythat self-defense is not a v iable 4 

### def ens e t o poss es si on of a

fire ar m by a convi ct ed f

el on.” Se eWi lli am s , 953 So. 2d at 263-64 (¶9)
. 5 

### 16 f el on, ar gued t hathe poss es s ed a w eapon bas ed on hi s al l eged be l i ef thathe w as i n i m m i nent
a n d im m e d ia te d a n g e r o f b e in g k ill e d b y th e v ictim . T h is C o u rt fo u n d n o m e rit to th is arg u m en t, ac k n o w ledg ing that “se lf -de fen se is n o t a viab le de fen se to p o sses sion o f a fir ea rm by a convi ct ed fe l on. ” Id
. ( quot i ng Wi l l i a ms , 9 5 3 S o . 2 d a t 2 6 3 (¶ 8 )). C o n sis ten t w ith p re c e d e n t, th e S tate a rg u e s th a t se lf-d e fe n se is n o t a v a lid d e fe n se to th e c h a rg e o f fe lo n in p o ss e ss io n o f a fire a rm . T h e S tate fu rth e r a ss e rts th a t th is iss u e is n o t p ro p e rly b e fo re th is C o u rt b e c a u se A n d e rso n n e v e r re q u e ste d a n e c e ss ity in stru c tio n a t trial. A s p re v io u sly acknow l edged, the r ecor d i ndeed r ef l ect s t hatt he def

ens e obj ect ed t o the j udge’ s i ns truct i on in S -7 in form ing th e ju ry tha t sel f-de fen se fa il ed to co n sti tute a d efe n se to p o sses sion o f a f i r earm by a convi ct ed f

el on. H ow ever , the def

ens e neve rr eques t ed a ne ces s i ty i ns truct i on. 4 ¶36. A r evi ew of pr ece dent as w el l as s ect i on 97- 37- 5, w hi ch def i nes the of

f ens e of f el on in p o ss e ss io n o f a fire a rm , ref lec ts th a t th e S tat e c o rr e c tly a rg u e s th a t se lf-d e fe n se fa ils to
cons t i tut e a de f

ens e t o thatcr i m e. C l ear l y, the s t atut e es t abl i s hi ng the of f ens e, s ect i on 97- 5 3 7 -5 , co n tain s n o se lf-d e fe n s e e x c e p tio n . T h e re fo re in th is c a se , the trial c o u rt p ro p e rly i nst ruct ed the j ury t hat s el f- defense fai l ed to con st i tute a defense t o the charge ag ai nst A n d e rs o n fo r t h e c h a rg e d o ff e n s e o f f e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f a fi re a rm . ¶37. Fur therm or e, as acknow l edged, n ecessi t y i nd eed provides a v al i d def ens e t o the
o ffe n se o f fe lo n in p o ss e ss io n o f a firea rm , b u t as a lso a c k n o w led g e d , the re c o rd m u st c o n tain
a n e v id e n tia ry fo u n d a tio n to su p p o rt th e d e fe n s e . See Wi l l i a ms , 9 5 3 S o . 2 d a t 26 3 -64 (¶9 );

### Go odin , 78 7 S o. 2 d at 6 57 (¶60 ). 6 

### 17 L e n a rdv . S ta te , 828 So . 2d 232, 237 ( ¶25) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2002)
. W i th r es pectt o the
re q u ire d e v id e n tiary fo u n d a tio n , the su p re m e c o u rt h a s fo u n d th e d e fe n se o f n e c e ss ity
a v a ilab le o n ly w h e re th e d e fe n d a n t re a so n a b ly a c ts o u t o f fe a r o f im m in e n t d a n g e r o f d e a th
o r s e ri o u s b o d ily h a rm to h im s e lf o r o th e rs . S tod

g h il l v. S ta te , 8 92 So. 2d 236, 238 ( ¶8) (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). A s p rev iou sly discu ssed , th e su p rem e co u rtestab li sh ed that in o rde r t o su p p o rt an i ns truct i on on ne ces s i ty, the def endantmustpr ove the f

ol l ow i ng: “ ( 1) the actchar ged w as d o n e to p rev en t a si g n if ican t evil, (2) the re w as n o ad eq u ate a ltern a tive , an d (3) the h arm caus ed w as notdi s pr opor t i onat e t o the harm avoi ded. ” Wi l l i a ms , 953 So. 2d at263- 64 ( ¶9)
. ¶38. Instruct i ve t o t he case bef or e us , i n Wi l l i a ms , the s up r e me cour tf ound t hat t he
nece s s i ty i ns truct i on w as notj us t i f i ed i n thatcas e bec aus e W i l l i ams f ai l ed t o s how thatno a d e q u a te a lte rn a tiv e e x is te d b u t t o p o s s e s s th e g u n . Id
. a t264 ( ¶10)
. I n thi s cas e, A nder s on
n o t o n ly fa iled to re q u e st a n in stru c tio n o n th e n e c e ss ity d e fe n se , b u t th e re c o rd a lso fa ils to
s uppor tany evi dent i ary bas i s f ori ns truct i ng t he j ury on the nec es s i ty def ens e s i nce A nder s on fail ed to sh o w tha t no a d eq u ate alt ern ati v e w as av ail ab le o ther than p o sses sing the firearm h e u s e d to s h o o t S a n d e rs , w h e n S a n d e rs w a s u n a rm e d
. ¶3 9 . In fi n d ing n o m erit to this assig n m en t o f erro r, w e a c k n o w led g e th a t the tr ial co u rt g av e a se lf

-de fen se in stru cti o n o n A n d erso n ’s ri g h t t o u se re aso n ab le force to d efe n d h im self. W e f i nd no err ori n the tr i al court ’ s i ns truct i ons t o the j ury r egar di ng s el f
- def ens e and the
o f f e n s e o f f e l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m. 6 I I I . Sande r s ’ s Bl oo d- A l c oho l C ont e nt

### 18

¶ 4 0 . A n d e rso n fin a lly a rg u e s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in re fu sin g to a llo w th e d e fe n se to i ntr oduce evi dence of

Sande r s ’ s bl ood- al cohol l evel a tthe t i m e of hi s a ut ops y. A nd ers on as s ert s thats uch evi dence w as r el evantt o s how Sander s ’ s s t at e of m i nd atthe t i m e of

the
s h o o tin g a n d th a t A n d e rs o n fe lt th re a te n e d b y S a n d e rs . ¶ 4 1 . G e n e ra lly , e v id e n c e o f a v ictim ' s c h a ra c ter is i rre lev a n t. M .R .E . 4 0 4 (a )(2 ). W e
r ecogni ze thatthe comm entt o thi s rul e, how ever , s t at es thati n l i m i t ed i ns t ance s , the char act er of

a vi ct i m m ay be r el evant“w her e the def endantcl ai m s thatthe vi ct i m w as the i n i t i a l a g g r e s s o ra n d th a tth e d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i o n s wer e i n th e n a tu r e o f s e l f
- d e f e n s e . ” M . R. E. 404 cmt . I n or dert o pr es entthi s evi dence , how ever, the de fe ndantm us tof f erevi dence of
a n o v e rt a c t o f a g g re s s io n p e rp e tr a te d a g a in s t h im b y th e v ic tim
. Id
. ( ci t i ng Fre e m a n v . S ta te , 204 So. 2d 842 ( M i s s . 1967) )
. O nce the ac ti s pr oven, the d efendan tm ay then of f erpr oof
o f t h e v ic tim ' s c h a ra c te r. Id .; s e e S h in a ll v. S ta te , 1 9 9 S o . 2 d 2 5 1 , 2 5 8 (M is s . 1 9 6 7 ). W e
r ecogni ze thatno mat t erhow r el evantthe evi dence , the tr i al courtm ay exc l ude the evi dence
w h e n u n fa irp re

ju d ic e o u tw e ig h s it s p ro b a tiv e v a lu e . M .R .E . 4 0 3 . See R o u ste r v . S ta te , 981 So. 2d 314, 320 ( ¶17) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2007) ( T he tr i al courtpr oper l y excl uded evi dence of the v ict im ’s i n tox icati o n b y b alan cing it s p rob ati v e a n d p rejud ici al effec ts un d er R u le 40 3 . ). ¶42. Pr i ort o the tr i al , the tr i al j udge hea r d ar gum ent s on the S t at e’s m oti on t o excl ude Sander s ’ s bl ood- al cohol l evel
. T he j udge rul ed that“atthi s poi nt , i ti s notadmi s s i bl e, ” but advi s ed that“i tm i ghtbecome admi s s i bl e dur i ng the tr i al a s t o the vi ct i m ’ s s t at e of m i nd, but i two u l d h a v e t o b e s o me th i n g a d d i t i o n a l o f f e r e d b y t h e d e f

e n d a n ti n o r d e rf

o rth i s t o b e c o me re le v a n t.” ¶4 3. A tt he cl os e of the St a t e ’ s e vi de nc e , the def ens e as ked t he t r i al j udge f or an

### 19

oppor tuni ty t o ques t i on a w i tnes s r egar di ng w hetheri tappea r ed thatal cohol af f ect ed S a n d e rs’ s a c tio n s a n d sta tem e n ts o n th e d a y o f th e s h o o tin g . T h e tria l c o u rt e x p lain e d th a t, gener al l y, t he char act erof the vi ct i m i s notadmi s s i bl e. T he tr i al courtul t i m at el y rul ed that Sander s ’ s bl ood- al cohol cont entatthe t i m e of hi s death w as no trel evan tt o the ca s e, and fo u n d th a t “ a n y p re

ju d ic ia l e ff

e c t fa r o u tw e ig h s a n y p ro b a tiv e v a lu e , if th e re w o u ld b e a n y .” T he tr i al courtst at ed thati tw oul d, how ever , al l ow t es t i m ony f r om any w i tnes s es w ho ob served S and ers dri nk i ng , and the o bservat i on s of these w i tnesses. ¶44. A nder s on mai nt ai ns thathe s hotSande r s i n s el f
- defense. H e argues t hat the tr i al
court ’ s r ef

us al t o al l ow evi dence of Sander s ’ s bl ood- al cohol cont entatt he t i m e he w as s hot i s r ever s i bl e err or . I n s uppor tof hi s ar gum ent , A nder s on ci t es t o N e w e ll v. S ta te , 49 So. 3d 66, 73 ( ¶18) ( M i s s . 2010) , w her e the s upr eme cour tf ound reve r s i bl e err orw her e the tr i al
co u rtrefu sed to allow ev iden ce of th e d ec ea sed ’s t o x icolo g y rep o rtin a m u rde r ca se w h ere th e d e fe n d a n t c la im e d s e lf -d e fe n s e . ¶45. W e f

ur thera cknow l edge thatpr ece dentr ef l ect s thatthe s upr eme courtha s he l d that i nt oxi c a t i on e vi de nc e of f e r e d f orthe pu rpo s e of

gi vi ng r i s e t o the vi c t i m’ s mot i ve or i nt ent i on, orthe def

endant ’ s bel i ef

i n the i m m i nence of

hi s da nger , i s admi s s i bl e as l ong as its re le v a n c e h a s b e e n e s ta b lis h e d b y th e ti m e th e e v id e n c e is o ff e re d
. N e w e ll , 49 So. 3d at 7 3 (¶ 1 6 ). S e e a lso B

y rdv . S ta te , 154 M i s s . 742, 123 So. 867, 869 (1929). I n N e w e ll, the d efe n d an t cl aim ed the tri al co u rterred i m p rop erly refu sed t o all o w ev iden ce o f th e v ict im ’s to x ic o lo g y re s u lts
. N

e w e ll , 49 So. 3d at72 ( ¶14)
. D ur i ng the tr i al i n N e w e ll , the def

endant att empt ed t o cr os s - exami ne the f or ens i c pathol ogi s tr egar di ng the vi ct i m ’ s bl ood t oxi col ogy, b u t th e tr ia l c o u rt e x c lu d e d it. Id
. T he t ri al courtexplai ned that evidence o f t h e v ict im ’s

### 20

t oxi col ogy w as i rr el evantbeca us e, atthe t i m e the f or ens i c pathol ogi s tt es t i f i ed, no evi dence h a d b e e n b r o u g h t f

o r th t o s h o w a n y v io le n t a c tio n o r b e h a v io r b y th e v ic tim
. Id
. at (¶1 5 ). T he s uprem e courtf

ound, how ever , thatatthe t i m e the f or ens i c pathol ogi s tt es t i f i ed, the
r el evanc e of

the vi ct i m ’ s t oxi col ogy r es ul t s had bee n es t abl i s hed, expl ai ni ng: T he j ury obvi ous l y kne w that[ the def endant ] w as on tr i al f

orf at al l y s hoot i ng [ the vi ct i m ] , a nd i ta l r eady had hear d thatthe s hoot i ng had occ urr ed s oon af t er [ the vi ct i m ] ' s al l egedl y a gg r e s s i ve and vi ol entbehavi or , evi dence of w hi ch had been pr es ent ed thr ough t es t i m ony by [ w i tnes s es ] pr es entatthe s t and- of f
. [ So, the vi ct i m ’ s ] t oxi col ogy re s ul t s w er e r el evantt o s how “al l the ci r cumst ance s u n d e r w h ic h th e fa ta l d if fi c u lty o c c u rr e d , a n d w h ic h w o u ld in a n y m a n n e r . .

. i ndi cat e the m ent al s t at e of the dece as ed. ” . . . Ther ef or e, the excl us i on of [ vi ct i m ] ' s t oxi col ogy re s ul t s w as an abuse of di s cr et i on, beca us e the r el evanc e of thatevi dence had been es t abl i s hed atthe t i m e [ the f or ens i c pathol ogi s t ] t ook the s t and. Id
. at 73 (¶1 7 ) (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). ¶46. T he s upr eme cour tul t i m at el y f ound that t he exclus i on of the t oxi col ogy evi dence amount ed t o r ever s i bl e err or , s t at i ng: [ T he def endant ’ s ] theory of

the c as e w as s el f

- def ens e, and evi dence of

[ the vi ct i m ’ s ] t oxi col ogy cou l d have af f ect ed the j ury' s under s t andi ng of [ the vi ct i m ’ s ] m ot i ve ori nt ent i on a nd [ the def endant ’ s ] bel i ef

i n the i m m i nence of hi s danger
. So t he exc l us i on of the evi dence pr event ed [ the def endant ] f r om f ul l y pr es ent i ng hi s theory of the cas e t o the j ury and thus adver s el y af f ect ed h is rig h t to a fa ir trial. Id
. at (¶1 8 ). ¶47. I n t his case now bef or e us , the St at e as s ert s that no evi dence w as pr es ent ed attr i al
r ef l ect i ng thatSander s had bee n aggr es s i ve orvi ol entatthe t i m e of the murde r , orthat Sander s had eve rdi s pl ayed vi ol entor aggr es s i ve behavi ori n t he pas tt ow ar ds A nder s on or a n y o n e e ls e a fte r c o n su m in g a lco h o l. T h e S tate c laim s th a t th e p re se n t ca se is d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f

r o m N e w e ll, beca us e i n N

e w e ll , w hen the def

endantatt emp t ed t o puton

### 21

evi dence of

the vi ct i m ’ s i nt oxi cat i on, evi dence had al r eady bee n pre s ent ed show i ng thatthe
v ic tim a c te d v io le n tly a t t h e ti m e o f th e k illin g . Id
. T he St at e ar gues thatno evi dence w as pr es en t e d t o i nd i c a t e tha tSa nd e r s i n a ny w a y p r ov ok e d Ande r s on pr i ort o the mur de r , a nd thus Sander s ’ s s t at e of m i nd w as notr el evantatthe t i m e A nder s on sou gh tt o i ntr oduce
e v id e n c e o f S a n d e rs’ s b lo o d -a lco h o l l e v e l. S e e R o u ste r v . S ta te , 981 So. 2d 314, 318- 20 ( ¶¶10- 17) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2007) ( vi ct i m ’ s c har act ernotr el evanta tthe t i m e the evi dence w as o ffered b y R o u ster). ¶48. I n R ous t er , th is C o u rt h e ld tha t th e p ro p o s e d te s tim o n y o n th e v ic tim ’s p o ss ib le i n t o x i c a t i o n f

a i l e d t o c o n s t i tu t e a n e x c e p t i o n t o i n a d mi s s i b l e c h a r a c t e re v i d e n c e f o rtwo
r eas ons : (1) att he t i m e t he def ens e couns el at t empt ed t o el i ci tthi s t es t i m ony, R ous t erhad
n o t cla im e d se lf-d e fe n se o r e sta b lish e d th a t th e v ictim w a s th e in iti a l ag g re ss o r, an d , thu s it
w as i rr el evantatthatpoi nt i n the tr i al , and ( 2) no evi dence w as pr es ent ed thatm ar i j uana sm o k in g is lin k e d w ith a p ro p e n sity fo r v io len c e , eith e r g e n e ra lly o r re g a rd in g th e v ictim
s p e c if ic a lly
. Id
. at319 ( ¶¶15- 16)
. I n R ous t er , thi s C our tr ecogni zed that , r egar di ng the vi ct i m ’ s i nt oxi cat i on, m odern cas el aw “em phas i zes notw hetherthe vi ct i m i s i nt oxi cat ed, but the vi ct i m ' s pr opens i ty f orvi ol ence atthe t i m e of the cr i m e. ” Id . a t 3 2 0 (¶ 1 7 ). See Farm er
v . S ta te , 770 So. 2d 953, 958 ( ¶16) ( M i s s . 2000) ( hol di ng i tw as pr opert o excl ude t es t i m ony o f v i c t i m' s b l o o d
- a l c o h o l c o n t e n tb e c a u s e r e l e v a n c y n o te s t a b l i s h e d a tt i me i ntr oduced— t es t i m ony al s o excl uded thatw oul d have s how n vi ct i m ' s t endenc y t ow ar ds
v io len c e w h e n d ru n k ); H u g g in s v . S ta te , 911 So. 2d 614, 618 ( ¶¶ 9- 12) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2005) ( hol di ng i tw as pr opert o excl ude t es t i m ony of vi ct i m ' s al cohol i nt oxi cat i on— no evi dence p rov ided th at victi m ' s ch ara cter w as to b eh av e v iolen tl y , dru n k or sob er). T h e C o u rt

### 22

e x p l a i n e d th a t“ [ t ] h e p u rp o s e o f i n tr o d u c i n g th e c h a r a c t e re v i d e n c e o f th e v i c t i m 's i nt oxi cat i on i s t o f

ur therthe def

endant ' s sel f

- def ens e cl ai m by pr ovi ng t he vi ct i m , w ho had a pr opens i ty f

orvi ol ence , beca m e more vi ol entaf t eri nt oxic at i on. ” R ous t er , 981 So. 2d at 3 2 0 (¶1 7 ). ¶49. I n appl yi ng the l aw t o thi s as s i gnm ent of err or , w e ar e m i ndf ul that the admi s s i on or ex clus ion o f ev iden ce b y the tri al co u rtis r ev iew ed for ab u se o f d iscreti o n , ab sen t plain erro r. G i l l ey , 7 4 8 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 6 (¶ 5 ). I n th e p re se n t c a se , th e re c o rd s h o w s th a t A n d e rso n tried to i ntr oduce the evi dence atthe cl os e of the St at e’ s cas e- i n- chi ef
. B y thi s poi nt , C ol eman and B r ow n had pr ovi ded t es t i m ony that Sander s ha d be en dr i nki ng be erw i th them pr i ort o the in c id e n t, a n d C o lem a n tes tified tha t he an d S a n d e rs e n ter e d the sto re w ith the in te n t to pu rchase m ore be er. A nd ers on tes t i fi ed i n h i s ow n d efense, and he st at ed thatw hen he fi rs t
enco un t ered Sa nd ers i n the st ore on the nightof the i ncident , he “tho ug ht [ S and ers ] w as j ust a drunk. ” The r ecor d i s undi s put ed thatSander s had cons um ed bee rpr i ort o goi ng t o the
s t o r e t o p u r c h a s e mo r e b e e r . Th e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s n o e v i d e n c e t o s h o w t h a tS a n d e r s b e c a me
v io le n t, o r p o s s e s s e d a p ro p e n s ity fo r v io le n c e , w h e n d ru n k
. ¶50. A nder s on t es t i f

i ed that he r ece i ved a bl ow t o the head as he exi t ed the s t or e and that Sander s pos s es s ed a gun thatf el l f r om hi s hand. W i t ho ut c om m ent i ng on the w ei ghtor cr edi bi l i ty of

thi s t es t i m ony f

r om A nder s on, w e ac know l edge thatthis tes t i m ony by A nder s on pr ovi des s om e evi dence thatSander s ac t e d a s a n i ni t i al aggr es s or , openi ng the door to S a n d e rs ’s c h a ra c te r f

o r v io le n c e . N

e w e ll , 49 So. 3d at73 ( ¶16)
. H ow ever , evi dence i n the
r ecor d cl ear l y r ef

l ect s thatthe j ury al r eady r ece i ved evi dence a ttr i al thatSande r s cons um ed beerthateveni ng w hi l e hangi ng outw i th C ol eman and B row n, and thatthey w entt o the

### We fin d n o ab use o f discr et io ni nthe trial co urt’s ex clusio n o f the b loo d-alco ho l- 7 

### cont ent report sinces uch evi denc e was c umul ativet o e vide ncepres ent ed at trial showing Sande rs drank be er

the eve ning of thes hooting. Howe ver , we a ls o ac knowle dge: “Er ror s in t he a dmi ss ion of

evi denc e aresubj ec t t o a harm le ss er ror ana lys is bec aus e, a s i s of

te n said, a defen dant is entitledto a fair trial, no t a perfect on e. Anerro r is h armless wh en th e same re sult woul d havebee n re ac hed ha d it not e xis te d.” Jam es v. Sta te , 124 So. 3d 693, 699 (¶ 18) ( Mis s. Ct. App. 2013) (inte rna l c it ations and quot ationsomi tt ed)
. See H arp er v. Sta te , 10 2 S o. 3 d 1 15 4, 1 16 1 (¶2 1) (M iss. Ct. App . 20 12 ) (“ [A]n 8 

### appe ll at e c ourt

may af firm a tri alcourt[ ' s de ci si on] if thecor re ct re sult i s rea che d, e ven i f the trial c ourt re ac hed the res ult

for thewrong rea sons .” ) ( ci tati on omi tt ed)
.

23 T r i pl e- A s t or e t o buy m or e bee r . H ence , the j ury r ece i ved evi dence as t o Sander s ’ s al cohol
co n su m p ti o n p ri o r t o the s h o o ti n g . A s stated, no ev iden ce p rese n ted a t tri al refl ec ts Sa n d ers pos s es s ed a pr opens i ty f orvi ol ence w hen dr i nki ng, orthatA nder s on w as aw ar e of any pr opens i ty f

orvi ol ence by Sander s . T her efor e, even i f the al cohol cons um pt i on w as det erm i ned t o be r el evantt o Sande r s ’ s c har act erors t at e of m i nd, w e f

i nd no err ori n the tr i al
court ’ s excl us i on of

Sander s ’ s bl ood- al cohol cont ent , s i nce the exc l uded evi dence of bl oodalco h o l con tent w as c u m u lat ive to o ther d ir ec t t esti m o n y fro m e y ew itn esse s a s to S an d ers’s alco h o l con sum pti on pri or t o the shoo t i ng . S t at ed o therw i se, the toxi cology resul t s w ere 7 cumul at i ve t o the w i tnes s t es t i m ony i n the r ecor d es t abl i s hi ng thatSander s had bee n dr i nki ng th a t e v e n in g a n d w e n t to th e s to re to g e t m o re b e e r. S e e W e e k s v . S ta te , 493 So. 2d 1280, 1 2 8 4 -8 5 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ); se e a lso R o ss v . S ta te , 954 So. 2d 968, 99 4 (¶48) (M i s s . 2007) (“ E v id e n c e m a y b e e x c lu d e d u n d e r [ R u le ] 4 0 3 if it is m e re ly c u m u la tiv e .” ). ¶51. A f

t erourr evi ew o f t he recor d, w e f i nd no abus e of

di s cr et i on i n the exc l us i on of
ev iden ce co n ce rnin g S an d ers’s blo o d -alco h o l co n tent. A cc o rdin g ly, w e a ffi rm A n d erso n ’s 8 convi ct i on and s ent ence . ¶ 5 2 . T HE J UD GMEN T OF TH E HI ND S COU NT Y C I R C U I T C OU RT OF

### 24

C O N V IC T IO N O F M U R D E R , A G G R A V A T E D A S S A U L T , A N D F E L O N IN P OS S ES S I ON OF A F I RE ARM AND S EN TE NCE , AS A HAB I TU AL OF F EN DE R, OF T HR E E L I F E S E NT E NC E S T O B E S E RV E D C ON S E CU T I VE L Y I N T HE C U S T O D Y O F T H E M ISS ISS IP P I D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T IO N S IS AF F I RM ED . AL L C OS TS OF TH I S APP EA L A RE AS S ES S ED TO HI NDS COUNT Y. LE E, C. J . , I RVI NG, P . J . , I S HEE , ROBE RTS AND FA I R, J J . , CONCUR. GR I F F I S , P . J . , BAR NE S AN D MAX W E L L , J J . , CO NC UR I N P AR T AN D I N T HE R E S U L T W IT H O U T S E P A R A T E W R IT T E N O P IN IO N . JA M E S , J. , C O N C U R S IN P ART W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.