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 4 - KA- 0 2 4 4 8 - S CT KEV I NE DALE P

ARKS

v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 01/ 2004 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. W
. ASH LEY H I NES COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W ASHI NGTON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: W AY NE O
. LEE 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 OS E B. S I M O DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : J OY CE I
. CH I LES 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 - 05/ 25/ 2006 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. W ALLER, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. K evi ne Par ks appea l s fr om hi s convi ct i on i n W as hi ngton C o u n t yC i r cui tC our t of aggr avat ed as s aul t and sent ence of t w entyy ear s i n t he cus t odyof t he M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m ent
o f C o rr e c tio n s . W e a f

f ir m . FACTS ¶2. L ol i t a T hom ps on and Par ks had dat ed j us t over one and one hal f y ear s . T w o w eeks

a f ter th e e n d o f th e ir re latio n sh ip , T h o m p so n , th e n a stu d e n t at M iss iss ip p i D e lta C o m m u n ity C ol l ege, w as appr oache d by Par ks as s he w as l eavi ng cl as s . T hom ps on t es t i fi ed thatPar ks

### 2

hi therand for ced he ri nt o her car . Par ks r epea t edl y hi t T hom ps on i n t he fa ce a nd bodyas he dr ove heraw ayfr om t he col l ege, and, byus e of f or ce, pr event ed anyes cape at t empt s by T hom ps on. Par ks w as as s i s t ed i n hi s at t ack by hi s cous i n, E r i c H as l et t
. T hom ps on’ s or deal cont i nued unt i l Par ks w as pul l ed over by N ar cot i cs A gentR i ck M cD ani el of t he W as hi ngt on C ount ySher i ff’ s D epart m ent aft er he s aw t he t w o s t ruggl i ng. T hom ps on w as t aken t o a l ocal hos pi t al foreval uat i on and tr eat ed forext ens i ve brui s es and i nj ur i es t o herfac e and he ad. P a rk s w a s a rr e s te d a n d c h a rg e d w ith k id n a p in g a n d a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt. ¶3. A t t r i al , t he St at e offe r ed phot ogr aphs of T hom ps on’ s injuries, the testi m o n y of hos pi t al s t aff

t hatT hom ps on’ s i nj ur i es w er e the r es ul tof s er i ous phy s i cal t r auma, t he t es t i m o n yo f

a n a d v er s e w i t nes s agai ns tPar ks , T hom ps on’ s ow n t es t i m onyagai ns tPar ks , and even l et t er s w r i t t en byPar ks t o T h om ps on w her ei n he al l butconfe s s ed t o t he cr i m e and offe red T h om ps on m oneyt o dr op t he cha r ges agai ns thi m . T he St at e r es t ed, and Par ks p rod u ce d n o w itn esse s o r e v iden ce in h is de fe n se, bu t m o v ed fo r a d ir ec ted v erd icto r a
m i str ial w hi ch w er e deni ed. A ft erj ur yi ns t ruct i ons w er e gi ven, t he j ur ydel i ber at ed and

r etur ned a gui l t yver di cton t he cha r ge of a ggr avat ed as s aul t
. T he j ury , h o w ever , w as deadl ocked a s t o t he i s s ue of k idn api ng, and the ci r cui tcour tdecl ar ed a mi s t r i al as t o t hat char ge. Par ks w as s ent ence d t o t w enty ( 20) y ear s i n pr i s on for hi s convi ct i on of aggr avat ed

a s s a u lt. I S S UES I. D en ial of M o ti o n s for D irec ted V er d ict an d J u d g m en t N o tw it h stan d ing th e V er d ict.

### 3

¶4. Par ks cont ends t he ci r cui t cour t err ed w hen i tdeni ed hi s m ot i ons fora di r ect ed ver di ct and fora j udgm entnot w i t hs t andi ng t he ver di ctbeca us e he w as i nd ict ed for s t r i ki ng T hom ps on w i t h hi s fi s t s and notat t empt i ng t o s t r angl e her
. Par ks cont ends he shoul d have be e n c o n v i c t e d o f s i mpl e a s s a u l t u n d e r M i s s . Cod e Ann
. Se c t i o n 9 7
- 3
- 7 ( 1 ) i n s t e ad of aggr avated as s aul tunderM i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 97- 3- 7( 2) and al l eges t her e w as in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to su sta in a c o n v ictio n o f a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt b e c a u se h e u se d n o d e a d ly

w eapon i n t he comm i s s i on of hi s as s aul ton T hom ps on. I n J a c k so n v . S ta te , 594 So. 2d 20, 23 ( M i s s . 1992) , w e s t at ed thata vi ol entand aggr av ated ass aul tw i t h one’ s fi s tm aybe encompas s ed byt he s t atut or yw or ds of M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 97- 3- 7( 2) ( b) “orot her

m eans l i kel yt o pr oduce de ath ors er i ous bodi l yhar m . ” Thi s hol ds t rue eve n i f one’ s hands cannotbe s ai d t o cons t i tut e a de adl yw eapon. It is n o t n e c e ss a ryu n d e r § 9 7
- 3
- 7 ( 2 ) ( b ) th a t th e u se o f h a n d s a n d f

ists con st i tute the u se of a “d eadlyw e a p o n ;” rat her, i ti s enou gh i f t heiruse c o n s titu te s a “ m e a n s lik e ly to p ro d u c e [ e ith e r] d e a th o r s e ri o u s b o d ily h a rm .” N or i s i tnece s s ar yundert hi s s ect i on fort he St at e t o pr ove the vi ct i m s uffe r ed “s eriou s” bodi l yi nj ur y . M er e “bodi l yi nj ur y ” i s s uffi ci ents o l ong as i tw as c a u s e d w ith “ o th e r m e a n s lik e ly to p ro d u c e d e a th o r s e ri o u s b o d ily h a rm .” Id . A c c o rd in g ly, P a rk s ’s a s s e rt io n s to th e c o n tr a ry a re w ith o u t m e ri t. ¶5. T he pr oof i n s uppor t of t he S t at e w as overw hel m i ng. T he St at e pr oduced a num ber of w i t nes s es w ho t es t i fi ed as t o T hom ps on’ s i nj ur i es and thei rknow l edge t hatPar ks w as t he in d iv id u a l w h o in f

licte d th o se in

ju rie s. T h e v ictim g a v e a c o m p e lli n g a c c o u n t o f th e e v e n ts
s ur r oundi ng herabduct i on and as s aul t ; m edi cal offi ci al s ver i fi ed that T hom ps on had i ndeed been f er oci ous l yas s aul t ed; and otherw i t nes s es w er e abl e t o pl ace Par ks i n t he pr es ence of

### 4

T hom ps on dur i ng t he t i m e s he r ece i ved heri nj ur i es . A ft ervi ew i ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ght

m os tfavor abl e t o t he pr os ecut i on, w e fi nd t hata r at i onal t r i erof fa ctcoul d have f ound t he

e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts o f

th e c ri m e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. See B u sh v . S ta te , 895 So. 2d 8 3 6 , 8 4 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). A s su ch , w e f ind the c ir cu itco u rtd id n o t err w h en itd en ied P ark s’s

m o tio n s f

o r d ir e c te d v e rd ic t a n d ju d g m e n t n o tw ith s ta n d in g th e v e rd ic t. I I . W e ig h t o f t h e E v id e n c e . ¶6. Par ks al s o ar gues t hathi s convi ct i on w as ag ains t t he overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof t he evi dence
. W hen r evi ew i ng a deni al of a m ot i on for a new t r i al bas ed on an obj ect i on t o t he

w ei gh tof the evidence, w e si t as a “t hirt eenth j uror” revi ew i ng t he ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost favor ab le to the v erdi ct , and w e w i l l onl ydi s turb a ver di ctw hen i ti s s o contr aryt o t he

overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof t he evi dence t hatt o al l ow i tt o s t and w oul d s an cti o n an
u n c o n s c io n a b le in

ju s tic e . Id
. at844- 45. A ppar ent l y , Par ks ’ s t r i al s t r at egy w as t o cas tdoubt on t he St at e’ s w i t nes s es and evi dence
. C ons i der i ng t he amount of t es t i m onyand evi dence pr es ent ed byt he S t at e, w e cannots ayt hatt he ver di ctof t he j ur yw as contr aryt o t he w ei ght

o f th e e v id e n c e b e f

o re it. Id . A c c o rd in g ly, P a rk s ’s a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e ri t. I I I . W h e th e r th e C ir c u it C o u r t E r r e d in R e fu s in g to D e c la r e a M is tr ia l. ¶ 7
. P a rk s n e x t as se rts th a t th e c irc u it co u rt e r r e d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n f o r a m istria l. P a rk s’s m o tio n w a s b a se d o n th e tes tim o n yo f D r. A llen B ill sb y . D r. B ill sb ytes tifie d a s to the in juri es s u s ta in e d b yT h o m p so n an d the f o rce req u ir ed to inf

li ct su ch injuries. D r. B ill sb y ’s te stim o n yth a t th e “ c o n sid e ra b le f o rc e ” u se d to in f

lict T h o m p so n ’s in

ju rie s w o u ld

### 5

be enough t o pos s i bl ycaus e dea t h w as excl uded byt he ci r cui t cour t
. W hi l e t he cour tdi d not gr anta mi s t r i al , i tdi d gi ve a ca ut i onaryi ns t ruct i on t o t he j ur yconce r ni ng t he exc l uded por t i on o f D r. B i l l s by ’ s t es t i m ony . Par ks ar gues t hatB i l l s by ’ s t es t i m onyw arr ant ed a

m istria l. ¶8. T hi s C our t r evi ew s m ot i ons for m i s t r i al under an abuse of di s cr et i on s t andar d. T a te
v . S ta te , 912 So. 2d 919, 932 ( M i ss. 2 0 0 5 ). T h e tr i al cour tm us tdecl ar e a mi s t r i al w hen t her e i s an err orin the pr ocee di ngs r es ul t i ng i n s ubs t ant i al and i r r epar abl e pr ej udi ce t o t he defe ndant ' s cas e, how ever , t he t r i al j udge i s per m i t t ed cons i der abl e di s cr et i on i n det er m i ni ng
w hethera mi s t r i al i s w ar r ant ed b ec au se t he j udge i s bes tpos i t i oned t o m eas ur e the p r e j u d i c ia l e f

f e c t. Id
. ( ci t i ng G o ss e tt v. S ta te , 660 So. 2d 1285, 1290- 91 ( M i s s . 1995); R o u n dtre e v . S ta te , 568 So. 2d 1173, 1178 ( M i s s . 1990) )
. I n t he pr es entcas e, w h i l e the

c o m m e n ts o f

D r. B ill sb y m a y b e o f so m e c o n c e rn , the c irc u it co u rt ju d g e to o k th e a p p ro p ria te
s t eps t o ens ur e t hatt he w it n ess’s comm ent s w oul d notbe cons i der ed byt he j ur yw hen he is s u e d a c a u tio n a ry in s tr u c tio n to th e ju ry to d is re g a rd p a rt o f th e w itn e s s ’s te s tim o n y . W e have he l d t hat , gener al l y , a j udge’ s di r ect i ons t o a j ur yt o di s r egar d t he comm ent s of a

w i t ness w i l l suffici entl y al l eviat e t he p rej ud i ci al effects of suc h co m m ents
. K in g v . S ta te , 5 8 0 S o . 2 d 1 1 8 2 , 1 1 8 9 (M is s . 1 9 9 1 ). See a l so D e n n is v . S ta te , 55 5 S o. 2d 67 9, 68 0 (M i ss. 1 9 8 9 ); Mc Fe e v . S ta te , 5 1 1 S o . 2 d 1 3 0 , 1 3 5 -36 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ); W e a v e r v . S ta te , 497 So. 2d 1 0 8 9 , 1 0 9 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 ); J o h n so n v . S ta te , 477 So. 2d 196, 210 ( M i s s . 1985)
. Par ks has not
s how n t hatD r . B i l l s by ’ s excl uded t es t i m ony w as of a s uffi ci ent pr ej udi ci al natur e t o w ar r ant

### M ississip p i Ru le o f E v id en ce 6 1 1 (c) read s as f o llo w s: “[ l] ead in g qu estio n s sh o u ld 1 

### not be us e d on the di r e c t

ex am in ati on of awi tne s s e xc e pt a s m ay be ne c e s s ary

t o de ve l op hi s t e s t i m ony . Or di nar i l y , l e a di ng que s t i ons s houl d be pe rm i tt e d on c r os s - e xam i nat i on. Wh ena p arty

calls a h o stile w itn ess, anadv erse p arty , o r a w itn ess id en tif iedw ithanadv erse p arty , in terro g atio nm ay

b e b y lead in g qu estio n s.”

6 a m istria l a f

ter th e c irc u it c o u rt’s c a u tio n a ry in stru c tio n , a n d w e d o n o t f in d th a t th e c irc u it

c o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g P a rk s’s m o tio n f o r a m istria l. I V . W het her the C i rcui t C ourt E rre d i n A l l ow i ng t he St at e to C al l E ri c H as l et t as an A d v e r s e W it n e s s . ¶9. P arks nex t argues t hat t he ci rcui t cou rt err ed w hen i t al l ow ed t he S t at e to c a ll E ric H as l et tas an adve r s e w i t nes s beca us e, Par ks r eas o n s, H asl et tw as nei t herqual i fi ed as an adver s e w i t nes s , nordi d t he St at e t enderH as l et tas an adve r s e w i t ness. G en era l l y , t he d e c isio n to a llo w lea d in g q u e stio n s re sts w ith in th e so u n d d isc re tio n o f th e trial c o u rt a n d w ill

n o t b e d is tu rb e d a b s e n t a s h o w in g o f a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . Mc Fa rla n d v . S ta te , 707 So. 2 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 5 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 ). W e h a v e h e ld th a t w h e n d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a w itn e ss is i dent i fi ed w i t h an adver s e par t y for purpos es of al l ow i ng l eadi ng ques t i ons underM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of Evi dence 611 ( c) , t he tr i al cour ts houl d “det er m i ne fr om t he fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s 1 of t he ca s e w hethert he w i t nes s pr opos ed t o be ca l l ed i s one w ho i s iden ti fied w it h t he adver s e par t y w i t hi n t he meani ng and cont empl at i on of t he rul e. ” N e a l v. S ta te , 805 So. 2d 520, 5 2 6 -27 ( M i s s . 2002) ( ci t i ng H ar r is v. B uxton T

. V. , I nc. , 46 0 S o. 2d 82 8, 83 3 (M i ss. 1984) )
. I n t he pr es entcas e, H as l et t , Par ks ’s c o u sin, w as t r eat ed as one i dent i fi ed w i t h an adver s e par t y . W hi l e Par ks m ay be corr ect t hat H as l et t w as never char ged for t h e c ri m es

### 7

c o m m itt e d a g a in st T h o m p so n , tha t d o e s n o t ch a n g e th e f a m ili a l re latio n sh ip b e tw e e n H a sle tt and P arks orH asl et t ’s m i nim al i nv olvem ent i n t he even t s leadi ng t o t he present case. T hese t w o fac t or s al one coul d eas i l ypl ace H as l et ti n t he cat egory of a w i t nes s “i dent i fi ed w i t h an adver s e part y ” w i t hi n the meani ng of M
. R
. E
. 611 ( c)
. Par ks has not s how n t hatbyal l ow i ng t he St at e t o us e l eadi ng ques t i ons i n i t s di r ect exami nat i on of H as l et t t he ci r cui tj udge abus ed h is d is c re tio n . A c c o rd in g ly, P a rk s ’s a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r i s w ith o u t m e ri t. CO NC L US I ON ¶1 0
. B ec au se K ev ine P ark s h as f ail ed to b ri n g to the att en ti o n o f th is C o u rtan y erro rs
w arr ant i ng r emand or r ever s al of anypar tof hi s t r i al ors ent ence , w e uphol d t he ver di ctand

s e n te n c e o f

P a rk s . ¶ 1 1
. CO NV I CT I ON OF AG GR AV AT ED ASS AULT AN D S E NT E NC E OF TW EN TY ( 2 0 ) YE ARS I N THE CUS TODY OF THE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M EN T OF CO RR E CT I ON S AN D P AY M E NT OF CO UR T CO S T S I N T HE AMOUN T OF $ 2 8 4 .0 0 A N D A B O N D F E E I N T H E A M O U N T O F $ 2 0 0 .0 0 , A F F I R M E D . S M I TH, C. J . , COBB , P . J . , EA S L E Y , C A R L S ON , GRAVE S AND DI CKI NS ON, J J . , CO NC UR . DI AZ AN D R AN DO L P H, J J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .