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 6 - CT - 0 1 0 6 5 - S CT DES M OND D. W

AL TON
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI O N W R IT O F C E R T IO R A R I DA TE OF J UD GM ENT: 08/ 04/ 2005 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . ROBER T B. HEL F RI CH COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: F ORRES T COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T : M I S S I S S I P P I O F F I C E O F I NDI G E N T APPEALS BY : GEO RG E T. HO LM ES 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 : J OHN R . HE NR Y DI S TRI CT AT TORNEY: J ON M ARK W EAT HERS 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 - 11/ 13/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. CAR LS ON , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. A f

t era j ury tr i al i n the C i r cui tC ou rto f Fo rr estC ou nty, J udge R obertB . H el f r i ch presi ding, D esm on d D . W al t on w as convict ed of m urder and s entenced t o a t erm o f l if e i m pr i s onm enti n the s t at e peni t ent i ary. W al t on appea l ed hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence , and th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls u n a n im o u s ly a ff ir m e d . W a lto n v. S ta te , 2007 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 757 (M is s . C t. A p p . N o v . 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 ), r ehear i ng deni ed , W alton v. State, 20 0 8 M iss. A p p . L E X IS 1 6 2 (M iss . C t. A p p . M a rc h 1 8 , 2 0 0 8 ). W a lto n p e tit io n e d th is C o u rt fo r a w rit o f c e rtio ra ri,

### The f ac ts of thi s opini on aref

or themos t part

gle ane d from t

he f ac ts in t he Cour t of 1 

### Appea ls opini on , W

a lt o n v. S tate , 2007 Mi ss . App. LEXIS 757 ( Mis s. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2007). 2 a n d w e g ran ted c erti o rari to ad d ress the issue of w h ethe r th e C o u rtof A p p ea ls e rre d in h o lding tha t the ad m issi o n o f his stat em en t give n w ith o u t a pro p er Mir anda w arni ng w as h a r ml e s s e r r o r . F i n d i n g th a tth e e r r o rwa s h a r ml e s s , we a f f i r m. F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT 1 ¶2. O n J une 1, 2004, P at ri ck A nd ers on a/ k/ a “PoB i l l ” w as f ound dead f

r om a guns hot
w ound, l yi ng f

ace dow n i n hi s dri vew ay. A nder s on w as a re put ed drug deal erand mem ber of the B l ack G angs t erD i s ci pl es . H e l i ved i n the R aw l s Spr i ngs comm uni ty j us tout s i de H a tti e sb u rg in a h o u se su rro u n d e d b y a six -fo o t fe n c e , g u a rd d o g s, a n d c lo se d -c irc u it t el evi s i on camer as . N o f oot age of

t he m ur derw as captur ed by t hes e ca m er as . N o w eapon w a s re c o v e re d fro m th e sc e n e . A n d e rso n w a s fo u n d w ith six h u n d re d d o llars in c a sh o n h is per s on. N o eyew i tnes s es came f orw ar d; how ever , obs erver s of the pol i ce i nves t i gat i on of the murde rs cene i ndi cat ed thata d a rk- c ol or e d Li nc ol n a ut omobi l e mi gh tha ve bee n i nvol ved. ¶3. A f

t erhear i ng thatl aw enf

or cementper s onnel w er e l ooki ng f orhi s c ar , J onah Pi nkney turned hi m s el f

i nt o the G eor ge C ounty Sheri ff’s D epar t m enti n L uceda l e. Pi nkney gave i nves t i gat or s the names of J err y St r eet , E r i c Love, and M i chae l L ove. St r eetand M i chae l L ove eve ntual l y w oul d s urrendert o l aw enf or cementas w el l . E ach ga ve s t at ement s and t es t i f i ed attr i al . B oth P i nkney and Str eeti m pl i cat ed W al t on as the s hoot er , and M i chae l L ove s t at ed thatW al t on admi t t ed t o hi m , “ M an I di d hi m [ A nder s on] . I had t o do hi m . ”

### 3

¶4 . P ink n ey test if

ied th at he o w n ed a 2 0 0 2 L inco ln L S . H e testi fi ed that h is co u sin, Jerry St r eet , cal l ed him o n the day of the murde rand as ked hi m f ora r i de t o H att i es bur g f ort he purpos e of

vi s i t i ng “s om e gi r l s . ” Pi nkney then m etStr eet , M i chae l Love, Er i c L ove, a nd a per s on w hom he di d notknow , butl at erl earned w as D es m ond W al t on. P i nkney, St r eet , and W al t on r ode t o H att i es bur g i n Pi nkney’ s c ar . M i chae l a nd E r i c Love f ol l ow ed i n a pi ck- up tru c k . P i n k n e y r e c a l l e d th a t , u p o n a rr i v i n g i n Ha tt i e s b u r g , t h e y ma d e a n i n i t i a l s t o p a t“ s o me apart m ent s, ”w here E r i c Love goti nt o hi s caral ong w i th St r eetand W al t on. T hey l ef tt he apart m ent s i n Pi nkney’ s car . M i chae l L ove r emai ned i n hi s truck. ¶ 5 . T h e y co n tin u e d d riv in g aro u n d in th e tw o v e h icle s u n til M ic h a e l L o v e fla sh e d h is l i ght s atPi nkney’ s cart o al ertthem t hatPatr i ck A nder s on, the s oon- t o- be vi ct i m , had pas s ed b y P ink n ey ’s ca r i n h is truc k . P ink n ey w as instruc ted to turn aro u n d an d foll o w A n d erso n ’s vehi cl e. U pon arr i vi ng atA nder s on ’s h om e, W al t on i ns truct ed Pi nkney t o pul l i n behi nd A nder s on’ s truck. W al t on go to ut of the ca rw ear i ng a H al l ow een mas k thatr es embl ed a
s kul l . A s A nder s on a ppr oache d Pi nkney’ s c ar , W al t on methi m ; a nd the pai rbegan t al ki ng. Pi nkn e y s a w W a l t on gr a b Ande r s on by the s hi r ta nd s ho othi m. Pi nk ne y the n d r ov e Str e et and W al t on back t o L ucedal e. E n r out e, W al t on di s car ded the H al l ow een mas k al ongs i de H i ghw ay 98. T he mask w as recovered by a M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof T r ans por t at i on empl oyee. A ttr i al , P i nkney i dent i f i ed thi s m as k as the one w orn by W al t on on the day of the ki l l i ng. ¶ 6 . M i c h a e l Lo v e t e s t i f i e d a tt r i a l th a tAn d e r s o n wa s h i s d ru g s u p p l i e rwho “ f r o n t e d h i m” drugs t hathe w oul d, i n turn, sel l on behal f of A nder s on. H e t es t i f

i ed thatthe purpos e of

t he

### 4

tr i p t o H att i es bur g w as t o buy drugs . M i chael a l s o t es t i f i ed thathe w as atthe apa r t m ent s at the t i m e of

the s hoot i ng a nd ther ef

or e di d notactual l y w i tnes s the s hoot i ng. H e f ur thers t at ed thathe l at erm etE r i c L ove, and t he tw o dr ove bac k t o L uceda l e, w her e they r ej oi ned W al t on, St r eet , and P i nkney. H e r eca l l ed t hatW al t on, i n di s cus s i ng t he m ur der , st at ed t o hi m : “M an I d id h im [A n d e rs o n ]; I h a d to d o h im .” ¶ 7 . S t r e e tt e s t i f

i e d th a tP i n k n e y , E r i c L o v e , a n d Mi c h a e l L o v e w e r e h i s c o u s i n s . He t es t i f i ed thatthe purpos e of

t he t r i p t o H att i es bur g w as t o rob s om eone. A f t erdr i vi ng ar ound and s pot t i ng A nder s on i n hi s vehi cl e, they f ol l ow ed A nder s on t o hi s hous e, w her e W al t on gotoutof

the ca rw ear i ng a H al l ow een mas k and s hotA nder s on. ¶ 8 . W a lto n w a s ta k e n in to c u sto d y o n Ju n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 4 , in M o b ile , A lab a m a . W h ile in
cus t ody, he w as i nt ervi ew ed on tw o occa s i ons . T he i nt ervi ew s w er e vi deot aped butnot tr ans cr i bed. A n agentw i th the D rug E nf orce m entA gency c onduct ed the f i r s ti nt ervi ew concerni ng inc i dent s unr el at ed t o the murde rof A nder s on. T hi s i nt ervi ew w as t erm i nat ed
w hen W a l t on s t a t e d he d i d no twantt o c on t i nu e t o a ns w e rq ue s t i on s . Thi s v i de ot ape w as s uppr es s ed by the tr i al j udge af t erthe age nt ’ s r ef

us al t o appearin M i s s i s s i ppi t o t es t i f y. A f t erthi s i nt ervi ew , as W al t on w as bei ng es cort ed back t o hi s cel l , a M obi l e pol i ce of f i cer t ol d hi m thati f

he w er e goi ng t o m ake a s t at ementt o hel p hi m s el f “now w as the t i m e. ” The
s econd i nt ervi ew w as conduct ed by D et ect i ve D on G om i en w i th the M obi l e Pol i ce D epart m ent . Form os tof the f or ty- m i nut e i nt ervi ew , W al t on m ai nt ai ned hi s i nnocen ce. W al t on then cl ai m ed thathe had gone t o A nder s on’ s house t o buy drugs and that , dur i ng t he

### Miranda v. Ari zona , 384 U.S. 436, 472-75, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 ( 1966). 2 

### 5 drug excha nge, A nder s on had pul l ed outa gun and W al t on had shothi m i n s el f
- def ens e. W al t on w as not gi ven his Mir anda wa rn i n g s p r i o rt o th i s s e c o n d i n t e r v i e w. 2 ¶9. E r i c L ove w as aw ai t i ng hi s ow n tr i al at the t i m e of W al t on’ s tr i al , and E r i c di d not t es t i f y. W al t on di d nott es t i f

y on hi s ow n behal f

or of f erany ot herevi dence . T he j ury f ound W alt o n g u il ty o f th e m u rde r of A n d erso n , an d the jud g e sen tenc ed W alt o n to a term o f l if e i m pri sonm ent i n the cust od y o f the M i ssi ssi pp i D epart m ent of C orr ect i on s. PROCEEDI NG S I N THE C OU RT OF APPE ALS ¶10. T he C our tof

A ppeal s di d notc har act er i ze the s t at ement s i n the s econd i nt ervi ew as a conf es si on , b utas an as s ert i on by W al t on thathe ac t ed i n s el f
- def ens e i n s hoot i ng A nder s on. The C our tof A ppeal s , how ever , di d f i nd thatthe admi s s i on of thi s vi deot ape w as p r e ju d ic ia l to W a lto n ’s d e fe n s e . W a lto n v. S ta te , 2007 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 757, *10- 11 (M iss . C t. A p p . N o v . 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 ). A s n o ted b y the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls: “ H o w e v e r, th e iss u e is nots i m pl y p rej ud i ce. Iti s , w hetheri n l i ghtof the r ecor d as a w hol e, W al t on w oul d have been c onvi ct ed beyond a r eas onabl e doubteven w i thoutthe t ai nt ed s t at ement . ” Id . T he appel l at e courtf

ound beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthateven w i thoutthe t ai nt ed conf es s i on, W al t on w oul d have be en f ound gui l ty bas ed on the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence , w h ic h in c lu d e d th e te s tim o n y o f h is th re e c o -d e fe n d a n ts . Id . A s a r es ul t , the C our tof A p p e a ls fo u n d W a lto n ’s f irst a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r to b e w ith o u t m e rit.

### 6

¶11. A s t o W al t on’ s i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m , the C ou rt of A ppeal s f ound th e re c o rd “ in s u ff

ic ie n t” f o rs u c h a d e te r m in a tio n . Id . at*12. M or eover , the C our tof A ppeal s r el i ed on the hol di ng i n R a m sey v. S ta te , 959 S o. 2d 15 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2006) ( ci t i ng R e a d

v. S ta te , 4 3 0 S o . 2 d 8 3 2 , 8 4 1 (M iss . 1 9 8 3 )) in sta tin g : “ A n a p p e llate c o u rt w ill onl y addr es s an i s s ue of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el on di r ectappea l i f the part i es st i pu l at e cou nsel w as i neff ecti v e, o r the record i s cl ear that coun sel ’s perf orm ance w as so def i ci entas t o r ai s e cons t i tut i onal is sues . ” The C our tof A ppeal s f

ound atl eas tone l egi t i m at e r eas on thatW al t on’ s couns el decl i ned t o r equestt he mansl aught eri ns truct i on i ns om uch as “a char ge carr yi ng a tw enty- yearmaxi m um s ent ence w oul d nothav e been
s uf f i ci ent l y l es s oner ous than a l i f e s ent ence , t o r i s k al l ow i ng the j ury t o cons i dera cha r ge carryi ng l i ght ened e l ement s of a cr i m e. ” I

d. at * 1 2 -1 3 . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls d ism iss e d th is
c laim w ith o u t p re

ju d ice so a s to a llo w W a lto n to ra ise it m o re p ro p e rly in a p e tit io n fo r p o stc o n v ic tio n re lie f. Id . at*13. T he C our tof A ppeal s unani m ous l y af f i r m ed the convi ct i on and
s ent e nc e o f the tr i a l c ou r t . A f t e rh i s mot i on f

orr e he a r i ng was d e ni e d by the Courtof A ppeal s , W al t on f

i l ed hi s pet i t i on f

orw r i tof

cert i or ar i s eeki ng thi s C our t ’ s r evi ew of t he C o u rt o f A p p e a ls’ ju d g m e n t. DI S CU S S I ON ¶12. W a lto n e sp o u se s tw o a ss ig n m e n ts o f e rro r b y th e trial c o u rt a n d th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls for this C o u rt ’s rev iew : ( 1 ) w h ethe r th e C o u rto f A p p ea ls erred in fi n d ing that the tri al co u rt ’s

### No thingi n thi s op i ni ons ho ul d b e c on s tr ue d a s our st at i ng , or

ev e n i mplying , that

we 3 

### ar e addressing theis sueas to whe the r Wa lt on’s se cond s tate me nt t o law enf orc em ent was “a coe rc ed c onfe ss ion. ” 7 admi s s i on of

hi s s t at em ent ( or, as phr as ed by W al t on, hi s “coe r ced c onf es s i on”) gi ven

3
w ith o u t a pro p er Mir anda w a rn in g w a s h a rm les s e rro r, a n d (2 ) w h e th e r th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
e rre d in d ism iss in g W a lto n ’s in e ffe c tiv e -a ss ista n c e -o f-c o u n se l cla im fo r fa ili n g to re q u e st a
m a n sla u g h ter in stru c tio n a s a les se r-o ffe n se in stru c tio n . N o tw ith s ta n d in g th e a ss ig n m e n ts o f e rro r w h ich W a lto n p re se n ts to u s fo r re v iew , this C o u rt u n q u e stio n a b ly h a s a u th o rity to lim it th e q u e s tio n fo r r e v ie w u p o n a g ra n t o f c e rt io ra ri . See M iss. R . A p p . P . 1 7 (h). ¶ 1 3 . A s to th e se c o n d iss u e ra ise d b y W a lto n w e a d o p t th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls’ re a so n in g in t ot o i ns om uch as the i s s ue w as pr oper l y di s m i s s ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce due t o a n i ns uf f i ci ent
r ecor d. T he C our tof

A ppeal s qui t e appr opr i at el y f ound thatthi s i s s ue s houl d be di s m i s s ed
w i thoutpr ej udi ce s o thati tcoul d be more pr oper l y r ai s ed i n pos t - conv i ct i on -r el i ef pr ocee di ngs . W e thus addr es s the one i s s ue w e have chos en to dis cuss upon our gr antof
c e rtio ra ri. W HET HER T HE COUR T OF AP P EA LS E RRE D I N F I NDI NG THAT THE ADM I S S I ON OF W AL TON’ S S EC OND S TA TE M EN T W AS HARM LE S S ER ROR. ¶14. C o n s ti tu ti o n a l e rr o r d o e s n o t a u to m a tic a lly re q u ir e re v e rs a l o f a c o n v ic tio n . Chapm an v. Ca li fo rn ia , 3 86 U . S. 18, 22, 87 S. C t . 824, 17 L . E d. 2d 705 ( 1967) . H ow ever , bef or e a cons t i tut i onal err ori s det erm i ned t o be harm l es s , “the courtmustbe a bl e t o decl ar e a be l i ef that i tw as harm l ess beyo nd a reas on able dou bt. " A riz o n a v. F u lm in a n te , 499 U . S. 279, 295,

### 8

111 S. C t . 1246, 113 L . E d. 2d 302 ( 1991) . A n err orm ay be found by thi s C our tt o be harm l es s beyond a r eas onabl e doubtonl y “w her e t he w ei ghtof the evi dence agai ns tthe
acc us ed i s overw hel m i ng. ” Cla rk v. S ta te , 891 So. 2d 136, 142 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng R iddley v. S ta te , 777 So. 2d 31, 35 (M i ss. 2000)) . A harm l es s - err ordet erm i nat i on “r equi r es an exami nat i on of t he f

act s , the tr i al cont extof the err or , and the pr ej udi ce c r eat ed ther eby as j uxt apos ed agai ns tthe s tr ength of the evi dence of

def endant ' s gui l t . ” Ho

p k in s v. S ta te , 799 So. 2d 874, 879 ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng U nited States v. D i

xon , 5 9 3 F . 2 d 6 2 6 , 6 2 9 (5th C ir . 1979) . A harm l es s - err ordet erm i nat i on i s m ade based on a de novo r evi ew of the r ecor d. F u lm in a n te, 499 U . S. at295. ¶ 1 5 . B a s e d o n th e r e c o rd , it is c lea r th a t W a lto n w a s n o t p ro p e rly a d v ise d o f h is rig h ts
u n d er Mir anda in the sec o n d p o li ce interrog ati o n an d that the a d m issi o n o f th e s tate m e n ts dur i ng thi s i nt ervi ew r eac hed the l evel of c ons t i tut i onal e rr or . A s s uch, the tr i al court ’ s err or m us tbe s ubj ect ed t o a harm l es s err oranal ys i s –w het her t he er r orw as harm l es s beyond a
r eas onabl e doubtupon r evi ew of the w ei ghtof

the evi dence . T hi s C our tagr ees w hol ehea r t edl y w i th t he C ourto f A ppeal s ’ f i ndi ng that , even w i thoutthe vi deot aped
s t at ement , bas ed on the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence of

W al t on’ s gui l tas r evea l ed i n the r ecor d be f

or e us , a j ury w oul d ha ve f ound be yond a r eas onabl e doubtthatW al t on w as gui l ty of the murde rof

A nder s on. ¶16. T hr ee of

the f ourc o- def

endant s pr es enton the day of the murde rt es t i f

i ed that W al t on w as the s hoot er . T w o of thes e co- def

endant s w er e eyew i tnes s es t o t he m ur der . A nothercodef endant , M i chae l L ove, t es t i f i ed t hatW al t on admi t t ed t o bei ng the s hoot er . M i chae l L ove

### 9

r eca l l ed W al t on s ayi ng, “M an I di d hi m [ A nder s on] ; I had t o do hi m . ” H ad the vi deot ape b e e n p r o p e r l y e x c l u d e d , th e j u r o r s s t i l l wo u l d ha v e h a d th e o p p o r tu n i ty t o a s s i g n th e s a me amount of

w ei ghtand cr edi bi l i ty t o the w i tnes s es ; ther ef or e, the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the e v iden ce p o ints t o the g u il t of th e a cc u sed . Itis no t th e role o f th is C o u rtt o usu rp th e jury
a s fin a l ar b ite r o f th e w e ig h t an d c re d ib ili ty a ss ig n e d to th e tes tim o n y o f w itn e ss e s. T h is C our tr epea t edl y has hel d thatthe pr operr ol e of j ur or s i s t o r es ol ve f

act ual di s put es by assi gn i ng the p roper cr edibi l i ty to w i tnesses: I n B e n so n v. S ta te , 551 So. 2d 188, 193 ( M i s s . 1989), thi s C our thel d that f actual di s put es ar e pr oper l y r es ol ved by the j ury i n a cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on and d o n o t m a n d a te a n e w tr ia l. T h e ju ry is th e tr ie r o f w itn e s s c re d ib ility . Col lier v. S ta te , 711 So. 2d 458, 462 ( M i s s . 1998) . J ur or s a r e perm i t t ed t o, a nd have a d u ty to , r e s o lv e c o n fl ic ts in te s tim o n y th e y h e a r. G ro se c lo se v. S ta te , 440 So. 2 d 2 9 7 , 3 0 0 (M iss . 1 9 8 3 ); G a n d y v. S ta te , 37 3 S o. 2d 10 42 , 10 45 (M i ss. 1979) . "[ J ur or s ] m ay bel i eve ordi s bel i eve, acc eptorr ej ect , the utt er ance s of a w i tness. " G andy , 373 So. 2d at1045. T her e i s no f or m ul a thatdi ct at es the ju ro r's d e c is io n in re s o lv in g c o n fl ic ts in te s tim o n y o f t h e w itn e s s . Id . T h e jury is th e fi n a l a rb ite r o f a w itn e s s ' s c re d ib ility . Mo rg a n v. S ta te , 681 So. 2d 82, 93 ( M i s s . 1996) . T he j ury w ei ghs the w ei ghtand w or th of any conf

l i ct i ng te s tim o n y . W

ill ia m s v . S ta te , 7 5 7 S o . 2 d 9 5 3 , 9 5 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ). H ick s v . S ta te , 8 1 2 S o . 2 d 1 7 9 , 1 9 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). ¶17. W al t on di s m i s s es the i ncr i m i nat i ng t es t i m ony of thes e w i tnes s es by vi r tue of the f act that , as co- def

endant s , thei rs t at ement s w er e notcr edi bl e. T hi s C our thas l ong hel d that“the t es t i m ony of

an ac compl i ce mustbe vie w ed w i th ‘ gr eatcaut i on and s us pi ci on. ’ ” Str ahan
v. S ta te , 729 So. 2d 800, 8 05 (M i s s . 1998) ( quot i ng J o n e s v . S ta te , 368 So. 2d 1265, 1267 ( M i s s . 1979) ) . A s t o w hetheran ac compl i ce j ury i ns truct i on s houl d be gr ant ed by the tr i al
court , thi s C our thas s ai d:

### 10

I ti s w i thi n the di s cr et i on of the tr i al courtt o gr anta ca ut i onary i ns truct i on p e rt a in in g to th e te s tim o n y o f a n a c c o m p lic e w itn e s s . B u rk e v. S ta te , 576 S o. 2d 1239, 1242 ( M i s s . 1991) . T he di s cr et i on i s notabs ol ut e and may be abus ed. Id . T hi s C our t , i n W

h e e lerv. S ta te , 560 So. 2d 171 ( M i s s . 1 990), hel d the f ol l ow i ng: I n V

a n B u re n v. S ta te , 4 9 8 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 4 , 1 2 2 9 (M iss .1 9 8 6 ), th is C our ts ai d, "the gr ant i ng of a ca ut i onary i ns truct i on r egar di ng the t es t i m ony o f an ac co m p li ce is d isc retion ary w ith the tri al j u d g e." (C it ati o n s o m itted). H o w e v e r, th a t d is c re tio n is n o t a b s o lu te ; it m a y b e a b u s e d . [D er den ] , 522 S o. 2d 752, 754. T he D er den cas e s t at ed thattw o of the as pect s i n det erm i ni ng w he the ra tr i a l j ud ge h a s a bu s e d hi s d i s c r e t i on c on c e rni ng a " c a ut i on and su sp icio n " in stru c tio n a re : (1 ) w a s th e w itn e ss a n a c c o m p lice ; a n d , (2 ) w a s h is t es t i m ony w i thoutcorr obor at i on. S la u g h terv. S ta te , 8 1 5 S o . 2 d 1 1 2 2 , 1 1 3 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ). In th is c a se , the trial ju d g e d id , in f act , gr antan ac compl i ce j ury i ns truct i on. T he f ol l ow i ng j ury i ns truct i on, m arked “A m ended D -3 ,” w a s g iv e n b y th e trial ju d g e : T he courti ns truct s the j ury thatthe l aw l ooks w i th suspi ci on and di s trus ton t est i m on y of a n acc es s ory t o a cr i m e and r equi r es the j ury t o w ei gh the tes tim o n y fro m a n a c c e ss o ry a n d in p a ss in g o n w h a t w e ig h t, if a n y , y o u sh o u ld gi ve thi s t es t i m ony, you s houl d w ei gh i tw i th gr eatc ar e and ca ut i on, and l ook upon i tw i th di s trus tand s us pi ci on. J u ri e s a re p re s u m e d to fo llo w th e in s tru c tio n s g iv e n to th e m b y th e c o u rt . W h e e lerv. S ta te , 826 So. 2d 731, 740 ( M i s s . 2002) ( ci t i ng W e a v e r v . S ta te , 49 7 S o. 2d 10 89 , 10 94 (M i ss. 1986) ) . T her ef

or e, the j ury i s pre s um ed t o have pr oper l y w ei ghed the w i tnes s es ’ t es t i m ony w ith g re a t c a re a n d c a u tio n a n d to h a v e lo o k e d u p o n it w ith d is tru s t a n d s u s p ic io n . ¶ 1 8 . W a lto n c ites in c o n s is te n c ie s a m o n g th e w itn e s s e s ’ t e s tim o n y in a n a tte m p t to d isc re d it them . A s to the v arian ce in w itn esse s’ pe rce p ti o n s o f a c o m m o n n u cleu s o f ev en ts th is C o u rt h a s re m a rk e d , “S e ld o m d o w itn e ss e s a g re e o n e v e ry d e tail. In d e e d , th e ir failu re to d o so is of t en st rong evi dence eac h i s tr yi ng t o por tr ay the s i tuat i on as he s aw i t , and thati s t o t he

### 11

cr edi t , ra thert han t he di s cr edi tof the w i tnes s es . ” N

o e v. S ta te , 61 6 S o. 2d 29 8, 30 2 (M i ss. 1993) . M or eover , W al t on poi nt s t o def ens e exhi bi t s thats ugges tthe co- def endant s –w i t h t he
ex ce p ti o n o f W alt o n
– sh are d ce ll s w h il e in c u stod y at th e loc al j ail . W alt o n a sserts th at Jerry S tre e t’s s tate m e n ts to la w e n fo rc e m e n t w e re in flu e n c e d b y h is h a v in g s h a re d a jail c e ll w ith J onah Pi nkney pr i ort o gi vi ng the s t at em ents . H ow ever , J erry St r eet ’ s cr os s - exami nat i on t es t i m ony m akes i tc l earthathe ga ve hi s s t at ementt o l aw enf or cementpr i ort o bei ng hous ed i n a ce l l w i th J onah Pi nkney: Q . B efo re y o u g av e the se statem en ts tho u g h , yo u w ere in tha t cell ; w ere n ’t you? A . B ef

or e? Bef or e? Q . U h- huh. Y ou w er e i n the ce l l w i th J onah f ora f ew days ? A . N u h -u h , I g a v e it b e fo re I g o t in th e c e ll w ith J o n a h . Q . A r e you pos i t i ve aboutthat ? A . Y es , s i r . I goti n the ce l l –bef or e I goti n the cel l w i th J onah, I gave that s ta te m e n t. S tre e t’s v e rsio n o f th e se e v e n ts w a s c o n firm e d b y th e tes tim o n y o f F o rre st C o u n ty I nves t i gat orD avi d Jarr el l on cr os s exam i nat i on, i . e. thatthe tw o w er e i n s epar at e ce l l s t hr ee t o f ourdays pr i ort o thei rhavi ng gi ven s t at ement s . J arr el l f ur thert es t i f

i ed thatany document at i on t o t he contr ary w as a mi s t ake. T he f act s , as pr es ent ed t o the j ury, s i m pl y do nots uppor tW al t on’ s theory thathi s c onvi ct i on w as the r es ul tof a c ons pi r acy on the par tof h is a c c o m p lic e s to fr a m e h im fo r A n d e rs o n ’s m u rd e r.

### 12

¶ 1 9 . F o r t h e re a s o n s d is c u s s e d , w e fi n d th is is s u e to b e w ith o u t m e ri t. CO NC L US I ON ¶20. H avi ng f

ul l y di s cus s ed the s ol e i s s ue w e have cho sen t o add res s upon our gr antof
cert i or ar i , and f

orthe r eas ons s t at ed, w e af f i r m the j udgm entof the C our tof A ppeal s and the Forr es tC ount y C i r cui tC our t ’ s j udgm entof c onvi ct i on and l i f e s ent ence i m pos ed upon D es m ond D . W al t on f

orthe murde rof

Patr i ck A nder s on. ¶21. TH E JU D G M E N T S O F T H E C O U R T O F A PPE A LS A N D TH E FO R R EST COUNT Y CI RCUI T C OURT ARE AF F I RM ED . CONVI CT I ON OF M URDE R AND SENTE NC E O F LI FE I M PRI SON M EN T I N T H E C USTO DY O F TH E M I SS I SS I PPI DE P ART M EN T OF CORRE CT I ONS , AF F I RM ED . S M I T H , C .J ., W A L L E R , P .J ., E A S L E Y , D I C K I N S O N A N D R A N D O L P H , J J ., CO NCU R. DI AZ , P . J . , DI S S EN TS W I TH S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON J OI NED B Y G RA VE S , J . L AMAR , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . DI AZ , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶22. I mustr es pect f

ul l y di s s entf

r om t oday’ s opi ni on as the contr adi ct ory t es t i m ony of the three co -de fen d an ts i n this case ca n h ard ly co n sti tute “o v erw h elm ing ” e v iden ce o f m u rde r. ¶2 3. A s t he maj or i ty a dmi t s , the o nl y e vi de nc e the St a t e h a d a ga i ns tW al t on w as t he t es t i m ony of

thr ee of hi s c o- def

endant s , al l of

w hom w er e r el at ed t o one another . I ni t i al l y, al l of the co- def

endant s w er e i ndi ct ed f

orA nder s on’ s m ur der , butpr i ort o W al t on’ s tr i al , t he t es t i f yi ng co- def

endant s eac h pl eade d gui l ty as acc es s or i es af t ert he f actand w er e gi ven l i ght
se n ten c e s. In ad d iti o n , e a c h o f th e se w itn e ss e s g a v e c o n flictin g sta tem e n ts to p o lice , as w e ll
as c o n fl ict ing t esti m o n y at tr ial . O ther than th e ad m itted p arti cipa n ts to th e crim e, th ere w ere n o w itn e s s e s , a n d th e re w a s n o p h y s ic a l e v id e n c e p o in tin g to W a lto n .

### 13

¶2 4. T he m aj or i t y cor r ect l y re ci t es t he l ong- s t andi ng rul e tha t“ the t e s t i mony of an acc om pl i ce mustbe vi ew ed w i th ‘ gr eatcaut i on and suspi ci on. ’ ” M aj . O p. at9 ( quot i ng S tra h a n v. S ta te , 729 So. 2d 800, 805 ( M i s s . 1998) ) . Y et , even though ourl aw i s cl earthat
su c h tes tim o n y is h ig h ly q u e stio n a b le, th e m a jo rity so m e h o w fin d s th a t th e se sta tem e n ts cons t i tut e “ove rw hel m i ng” evi dence of W al t on’ s gui l t . I f

a i l t o s e e how s us pi ci ous t es t i m ony can r i s e t o the l evel of

“overw hel m i ng. ” ¶25. T he C our t f

ur ther er odes our cas e l aw by hol di ng that , i n thi s cas e, the rul e does not
a p p ly b e c a u se th e ju ry w a s p ro p e rly in stru c ted o n a c c o m p lice tes tim o n y . H o w e v e r, th is
c o m p lete ly ig n o re s th e p re ju d icia l e ffe c t o f th e v id e o tap e d sta tem e n t. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls cl ear l y, and corr ect l y, f ound thatthe conf

es s i on “ had

t o have be en pr ej udi ci al . ” W alton v. S ta te , 2007 M i s s . A pp. LE X I S 757, ¶ 13 ( N ov. 13, 2007) . T he j ury coul d have e as i l y f ound the w i tnes s es ’ t es t i m ony s us pi ci ous – as does , on nor m al occa s i ons , thi s C our t– and r es t ed its v e rd ict o n th e im p ro p e rly a d m itt e d sta tem e n t. ¶26. A ccompl i ce t es t i m ony, by i t s ver y natur e, cannot f or m the bas i s of

“overw hel m i ng evi dence . ” Ther ef

or e, the maj ori t y i m pl i ci t l y acknow l edges thatthe vi deot aped s t at ement i s w hatra i s ed the w ei ghtof the evi dence t o an “ove rw hel m i ng” l evel . G i ven thi s , one ca n har dl y cont end thatthe admi s s i on of the vi deot aped s t at ementhad no ef f ecton the j ury and
wa s h a r ml e s s . I n d e e d , g i v e n th a ti tma y h a v e l e d t o a c o n v i c t i o n f o rth e mo s ts e r i o u s c r i me re c o g n iz e d in o u r s ta te , th e e rr o r i s th e m o s t h a rm fu l im a g in a b le . ¶27. I n l i ghtof the hi ghl y quest i onabl e t es t i m ony of hi s co- def endant s , W al t on’ s s t at ement
m us thave ha d a s i gni f

i canti m pactupon the j ury, and suc h t es t i m ony c a n n o t fo rm th e b a sis

### 14

of “ove rw he l mi ng ” e vi de nc e of hi s gu i l t . Thi s Cour tc a nn otc on c l ud e tha tthi s evi dence coul d ha ve es t abl i s hed gui l tof m ur der“beyond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” T h o m a s v. S ta te , 711 S o . 2 d 8 6 7 , 8 7 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 ) (in ter n a l cita tio n s a n d q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). T h e im p ro p e rly ad m itted s tat em en t w as c ertainly o f gre at si g n if ican ce “in re lat ion to ev ery thing else the jury
cons i der ed on the i s s ue, ” I d. at873, and ther e can be no otherconcl us i on thatthe admi s s i on of the s t at ementw as r ever si ble err or . T he j udgm ent s of the C our tof

A ppeal s and the tr i al
c o u rt s h o u ld b e re v e rs e d , a n d th is c a s e s h o u ld b e re m a n d e d fo r a n e w tr ia l. GRAVE S , J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.