I NTH E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CT - 0 0 6 9 5 - S CT DA V I D J A C K S O N WI L L I A MS
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 27/ 2007 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. AN DR EW K. HO W OR TH COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LAF AYETT E COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: DA VI D G
. HI LL 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. HENRY, J R. DI S TRI CT AT TORNEY: BENJ AM I N F. CRE EKM ORE 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 : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 11/ 10/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. CAR LS ON , PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. D a v id J a c k so n W ill iam s w as c o n v ict ed o f m u rde r i n the L afa y ette C o u n ty C irc u it C our tand s ent ence d t o l i f e i m pr i s onm ent i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons . W i l l i ams appeal ed, and w e as s i gned thi s cas e t o the C our tof A ppeal s . A f

t erthe C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a ffirm e d th e trial-c o u rt ju d g m e n t, w e g ra n ted W ill iam s’s p e tit io n fo r w rit of cert i or ar i
. Fi ndi ng err ori n the tr i al court ’ s r ef us al t o gi ve an a s s i s t ed- s ui ci de i ns truct i on,
w e re v erse the ju d g m en t of th e C o u rto f A p p ea ls an d the L afa y ett e C o u n ty C ir cu itC o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e a n d re m a n d th is c a se to th e tri a l co u rt fo r a n e w trial.

### Williams also was a stu dent at the Univ ersity o f Mississip pi. 1 

### 2 F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶ 2
. T h e fo llo w in g h isto ry is tak e n fro m th e fa c ts a n d trial-c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s a s se t o u t in th e o p in io n o f th e C o u rto f A p p e a ls
. W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 2009 W L 4808181 (M i s s . C t . A pp. D e c . 1 5 , 2 0 0 9 ), r eh’

g deni ed A pr . 20, 2010. T hi s appea l cent er s on the un t i m el y death of D e m e tria B ra c e y , w h o w a s a stu d e n t at th e U n iv e rsity o f M iss iss ip p i in O x fo rd
. T h e e v e n ts thatl ed t o B r ace y’ s death w er e s eti nt o m ot i on w hen B r ace y m etW i l l i ams on the i nt ernet d u ring Jan u ary 2 0 0 5
. S h o rt ly after they m et, B rac ey an d W il li am s form ed a ro m a n tic 1
r el at i ons hi p. ¶3
. B r a c e y a nd W i l l i a ms mai nt a i ne d the i r r e l a t i on s hi p thr ou gh ou t the e ar l y m ont hs of 2 0 0 5 . H o w e v e r, d u rin g the su m m e r o f 2 0 0 5 , B ra c e y lef t th e U n ited S tate s fo r a n o p p o rtu n ity t o s tudy abr oad i n Par i s , Fr ance . B r ace y and W i l l i ams br oke up bef or e she l ef

tand r emai ned
s e p a r a t e d f

o rth e s u mme r . S o me t i me a f t e rBr a c e y r e tu rn e d t o Ox f o r d , s h e a n d W i l l i a ms
r es um e d the i rr oman t i c r e l a t i on s hi p. The e ve nt s c e ntr a l t o thi s a pp e a l o c c urr e d du r i ng t he
s econd w eek of

N ovember2005. ¶4. A t the begi nn i ng of t he w eek, B r ace y unchar act er i s t i cal l y f ai l ed t o r eport f

orband pr act i ce a nd f

ai l ed t o r eportf

orherdut i es as a dorm i t ory r es i denta dvi s or . L at eri n the w eek, one of B r ace y’ s cl os e f

r i ends , J es s i ca Smi th, beca m e conc erned f orB r ace y. Sm i th cal l ed W i l l i ams on h i s cel l ul art el ephone a nd as ked hi m w hetherhe knew w her e s he coul d f i nd Br a c e y . W i l l i a ms r e p o r t e d th a tBr a c e y ’ s f a th e rwa s d y i n g a n d th a tBr a c e y h a d g o n e h o me

### 3

t o J acks on s o t hatshe coul d be w i th hi m . Sm i th w as notabl e t o re ach B r ace y on hercel l ul ar tel ep h o n e, so sh e a sk ed W il li am s for the tel ep h o n e n u m b er o f B ra c e y ’s fathe r. H o w ev er, W il li am s w o u ld n o t give Jess ica a telep h o n e n u m b er. W il li am s told S m ith that B rac ey ’s fathe r w o u ld n o t w an t W il li am s to g ive o u t his t elep h o n e n u m b er. ¶5. U ndet err ed, Sm i th as ked W i l l i ams w hether he w oul d s et up a thr ee- w ay conf er ence cal l s o s he coul d atl eas ts peak t o B r ace y. Shor t l y af t erw ar d, W i l l i ams arr anged a conf er ence cal l , and Sm i th w as abl e t o t al k t o B r ace y f ora s hor tper i od of

t i m e. A ccor di ng t o Sm i th, B r ace y ha d s ou nd e d a s tho ug h s he ha d b e e n c ryi ng . Smi th a t tr i bu t e d Br a c e y’ s e mot i onal
s t at e t o herf

ather ’ s i l l nes s . H ow ever , B r ace y w as notatherf ather ’ s hous e. She w as not even i n J acks on. I ns t ead, B r ace y w as w i th W i l l i ams athi s apart m enti n O xf or d. She had bee n
w i th W i l l i ams i n hi s apart m ents i nce Sunday, N ovember6. ¶6
. Som et i m e betw e e n l a t e Thur s da y n i gh t , N ov e mber10 , a nd e a r l y Fr i da y m or ni ng, N ov em ber 11, B racey died i n W i l l i am s’ s apartm ent af t er a ki t chen kn i fe penetr at ed h er chest
a n d p u n c tu re d th e rig h t v e n tricle o f h e r h e a rt. B ra c e y a n d W ill iam s w e re a lo n e in h is apart m entatthatt i m e. D uri ng an i nt ervi ew w i th O xf or d pol i ce of

f i cer s , W i l l i ams cl ai m ed th a t B ra c e y h a d k ill e d h e rse lf p u rsu a n t to a m u tu a l su icid e p a c t. ¶7. A ccor di ng t o W i l l i am s , s om et i m e betw een T hur s day ni ght and Fr i day m orni ng, he and B r ace y both w enti nt o one of hi s cl os et s . D ur i ng i t s cas e- i n- chi ef , the pr os ecut i on i ntr oduced i nt o evi dence a tr ans cr i ptof W i l l i ams’ s i nt ervi ew w i th t he pol i ce. I n that i nt ervi ew , W i l l i ams cl ai m ed thathe and Bra cey ea ch had cons um ed s ubs t ant i al amount s of

### Klonopin is thebrand nam e f or c lonazepam , an anti -anxie ty m edi cati on in t he 2 

### benz odiazepinefami ly, thesamefami ly t hat inc lude s di az epam (Val ium), al orazikan (Xan ax), lo razepa m (A ti v an ), flu ra ze p am ( D al ma n e) , an d o thers. http ://www.med icinen et.com. Anauto psyrevealedthat th e kitch en knife h adpen etrated b etweenfive an d six 3 

### inch es into Bracey ’s chest, whichwo uldhav e requ ired “co nsid erable” fo rce. 4 al cohol and thatthey ea ch had s w al l ow ed t en K l onopi n t abl et s . W i l l i ams s t at ed thatB r ace y 2 had then st abbed he r s el f w i th one of

hi s ki t chen kni ves . W i l l i ams s t at ed thathe w as 3
su p p o sed to stab h im self at th e sam e ti m e. A cc o rdin g to W il li am s, h e tri ed to stab h im self, b u t h is k n ife d id n o t go in fa r en o u g h , a n d h e lo st c o n sc io u sn e ss b e c a u se o f th e p a in , as w e ll
as the al cohol and pr es cr i pt i on drug he had c ons um ed. ¶8. W i l l i ams c l ai m ed thathe regained co nsci ou sness a coup l e of hou rs l at er and di s cover ed thatB r ace y w as dead. W i l l i ams t ol d author i t i es t hathe re m oved the kni f e f r om B ra c e y ’s c h e st a n d th re w it ac ro ss th e ro o m . W ill iam s re p o rte d th a t h e th e n a ttem p ted to k ill hi m s el f agai n, butcoul d notdo s o. ¶9
. W i l l i a ms s pe nt the ne xt f e w da ys i s ol a t e d i n hi s a pa r t ment dr i nk i ng beer , w at chi ng t el evi s i on, and pl ayi ng vi deo games
. A ccor di ng t o W i l l i am s, h e d rank “a l ot ” dur i ng that ti m e. W il li am s said h e h ad h o p ed the a lcoh o l w o u ld h elp h im find the co u rag e to k il l him self. O n S atur day, W i l l i ams or der ed pi zza , and ar ound the s ame t i m e, he r ece i ved a not i ce that
a p a rtm e n t in sp e c to rs w o u ld b e v isitin g h is a p a rtm e n t. W ill iam s p u sh e d B ra c e y ’s le g s in to h is
c lo se t a n d c o v e re d h e r b o d y w ith c lo th e s. H e s lep t in a n o th e r c lo se t so h e w o u ld n o t ea sily b e d isc o v e re d if a n in sp e c to r e n ter e d h is a p a rtm e n t.

### 5

¶10
. O n the fol l ow i ng T uesday , N ov em ber 15, 2005 , W i l l i am s deci ded t o g o to hi s parent s’ h o u se in O liv e B ra n c h . W ill iam s re p o rte d ly a s k e d h is p a re n ts w h a t h e sh o u ld d o . H is par ent s cons ul t ed an a t t orney and s ubs equent l y cont act ed author i t i es and i nf or m ed them t hat they s houl d exami ne W i l l i ams’ s apartm ent . W i l l i ams’ s par ent s had hi m admi t t ed t o the B a p tist-D e S o to H o sp ital in S o u th a v e n , M iss iss ip p i. ¶11. O n N ovem ber 15 , L i eutenant W es H at cherof the O xf or d Pol i ce D epart m ent w as di s pat ched t o W i l l i ams’ s apart m ent . L i eut enantH at cherw enti ns i de W i l l i ams’ s apart m ent
a n d d isc o v e re d B ra c e y ’s b o d y . L ieu ten a n t H a tch e r se c u re d W ill iam s’s a p a rtm e n t so it co u ld be exa m i ned by cr i m e- s cene i nves t i gat or s . O f f i cer s f r om the O xf

or d Pol i ce D epart m entm et
w i th W i l l i ams the nextday. ¶12. O n N ovember 16, 2005, W i l l i ams w as r el eas ed f r om the hos pi t al
. T w o m ember s of th e O x fo rd P o lice D e p a rtm e n t d ro v e W ill iam s to O x fo rd
. W ill iam s a n d h is a tto rn e y m e t w ith I nves t i gat orJ i m m y W i l l i ams of the O xf or d Pol i ce D epart m entan d M ast erSer geantJ ohn M ar s h of the M i s s i s s i ppi H i ghw ay Patr ol ’ s cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i on bure au. W i l l i ams agr eed to b e in ter v iew e d w ith h is a tto rn e y p re se n t. ¶13
. D ur i ng the i nt ervi ew , W i l l i ams cl ai m ed that B racey had kil l ed h ers el f. W i l l i ams s t at ed thathe and Bra cey had m ade a suici de pac tand thatthey had s t art ed di s cus s i ng s ui ci de d u ri n g the s u m m er. ¶14
. R egardi ng the n i gh tthat B racey died, W i l l i am s, i n h i s i nterview w i th law enfor cement off i ci al s, present ed the f

oll ow i ng versi on of even t s:

### 6

W e had ki nd of

t al ked aboutcomm i t t i ng s ui ci de t ogether and s tuf f l i ke that and w e dec i ded w e w er e goi ng t o do i tl as tw eek a nd s he ca m e over , i tw as Sunday. W e j us thung outt ogether , di dn' tgo t o cl as s , s he di dn' tw or k, um and w e ju st h u n g o u t fo r a c o u p le o f d a y s a n d d e c id e d th a t w e w e re g o in g to d o it th a t n ig h t an d sh e , w e b o th d ra n k a lo t an d to o k so m e p ill s b u t it w o u ld n ' t h e lp the pai n, you know
. A nd w e dec i ded t o do i ti n the cl os ets o i tw oul d t ake l ongerf orpeopl e t o f

i nd us i f s om ebody s how ed up l ooki ng f orus and w e got knive s and w enti n ther e and w e dec i ded t o do i tatthe s ame t i m e and mi ne di dn' tgo as f

ari n. W i l l i ams al s o s ai d: I w o k e u p lat er a n d saw that [B rac ey ] w as alrea d y de ad
. A n d I g o t th e k n if e o u t of h e r an d ch e c k e d if sh e w a s a liv e a n d sh e w a sn ’t. I sta b b e d m y se lf a g a in w i th t hatkni f

e and I j us tcoul dn’ tdo i thar d enough t o m ake i tw or k. T he next fe w d a y s I w a s d rin k in g a n d try in g to d o it at e v e ry n ig h t b u t I c o u ld n ’t d o it. ¶ 1 5
. W ill iam s w a s in d icte d o n M a rc h 2 , 2 0 0 6 , b y a L a fa y e tte C o u n ty g ra n d ju ry o n th e so le char ge of

m ur der
. H e pl eade d notgui l ty, and on Sept ember24, 2007, he w entt o tr i al
. T he p rose cu ti o n ca ll ed n ine w itn esse s. T h ree o f tho se w itn esse s testi fi ed reg ard ing B rac ey ’s personali ty, W i l l i am s’ s pers on al i ty, and the rel at i on shi p b etw een B racey and W i l l i am s. ¶16
. S m i th t est i fi ed regar ding B racey’s personali ty, B racey’s rel at i on shi p w i th W i l l i am s, and the eve nt s thathad tr ans pi r ed dur i ng ear l y N ovember2005. B r ace y’s m other , G l enda H ill , als o tes tified re g a rd in g B ra c e y ’s p e rso n a lity a n d re latio n sh ip w ith W ill iam s. E n jo li C ananka m p t es t i f

i ed that , dur i ng t he spr i ng and ear l y summ erof 2005, s he and W i l l i ams had dat ed “off

and on. ” C ananka m p al s o t es t i f i ed thats he had s poken w i th W i l l i ams about B r ace y’ s death. A ccor di ng t o C ananka m p, W i l l i ams had s ai d thathe and Bra cey ha d a
su icid e p a c t.

### 7

¶17. T he pr os ecut i on al s o cal l ed l aw enf or cement w i tnes s es w ho had part i ci pat ed i n the in v e stig a tio n . L ieu ten a n t H a tch e r te stifie d a s to h is p a rticip a tio n in th e in v e stig a tio n , as d id I nves t i gat orW i l l i ams and A gentM ar s h, w ho by thi s t i m e had l ef tthe M i s s i s s i ppi H i ghw ay Patr ol ’ s cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i on bur eau a nd had j oi ned the Fed eral B ur eau of I nves t i gat i on. D yw ana B r ought on, a n e m pl oyee of the M i s s i s s i ppi H i ghw ay Patr ol ’ s cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i on bur eau’ s cr i m e- s cene uni t , t es t i f i ed thats he had f

ound tw enty- thr ee s epar at e bl ood s t ai ns th ro u g h o u t W ill iam s’s a p a rtm e n t. ¶18. D r . St even H ayne, a f or ens i c pathol ogi s t , a l s o t es t i f i ed f orthe pr os ecut i on. D r . H ayne t es t i f i ed thaton N ovember16, 2005, some f i ve days af

t erB r ace y’ s death, he per f or m ed an
a u to p sy o n B ra c e y . D r. H a y n e tes tified th a t, at th e tim e h e p e rfo rm e d h is a u to p sy , itw a s h is bel i ef thatB r ace y ha d be en dead f ora ppr oxi m at el y thr ee days
. A ccor di ng t o D r . H ayne, the
caus e of B r ace y’ s death w as the s t ab w ound t o herheart . D r . H ayne t es t i f i ed thatthe manner of herdeath w as hom i ci de. D r . H ayne l i kew i s e t es t i f i ed r egar di ng w hy he di d notbel i eve thatB r ace y had comm i t t ed s ui ci de. ¶19. D r . H ayne expl ai ned that he had found brui s es on the s t ernocl ei dom as t oi d m us cl es in B rac ey ’s ne ck , so ft -t issue h em o rrha g ing in h er n ec k , a n d b ruising in th e a rea o f B rac ey ’s lar y n x . D r. H a y n e o p in e d th a t th e in ju rie s to B ra c e y ’s n e c k w e re c o n sis ten t w ith
s tr angul at i on thatw as nots el f
- i nf l i ct ed, butw as s us t ai ned w hi l e s he w as al i ve. D r . H ayne
a lso fo u n d a n a b ra sio n o n B ra c e y ’s r ig h t h a n d th a t h e c o n sid e re d to b e c o n sis ten t w ith d efe n sive p o sturing
. A d d it ion all y , D r. H ay n e testi fi ed that “h esit ati o n m ark s” so m eti m es a re pr es entw hen a pe r s on has comm i t t ed s ui ci de. “H es i t at i on m arks ” appe arw hen one be gi ns

### 8

t o comm i ts ui ci de w i th a sharp obj ect , butthen hes i t at es t o actual l y m ake the mort al w ound and i ns t e a d s l i gh t l y i nj ur e s h i mse l f
. D r . Hayn e s a i d he h a d f ou nd n o he s i t a t i on m ar ks on B r ace y’ s body. Fi nal l y, D r . H ayne e xplai ned thati tw oul d t ake a “cons i der abl e” or “s i gni f i cant ” amoun tof

f or c e t o c omm i ts ui ci de by s t abbi ng thr ough the ca r t i l agi nous por t i on of the r i b cage
. ¶2 0. O n cr os s - e xa mi na t i on , Dr
. Hayn e t e s t i f i e d tha t“ he s i t a t i on m ar ks ” do not al w ays appea rw hen s om eone c om m i t s s ui ci de w i th a s harp obj ect . A ddi t i onal l y, he admi t t ed that B r ace y coul d have s us t ai ned the abr as i on t o herr i ghthand i n a numberof w ays otherthan d e fe n siv e p o stu rin g . H o w e v e r, h e o p in e d th a t B ra c e y h a d su sta in e d th e a b ra sio n sh o rtly bef or e herdeath. ¶2 1. T he pr os e c ut i on ’ s f i na l wi tne s s was Dr
. Ea rne s tLyk i s s i , a n e xp e r ti n the f i el ds of cl i ni cal and f

or ens i c t oxi col ogy. D r . L yki s s i t es t i f i ed that , contr ary t o W i l l i ams’ s cl ai m that B r ace y had t aken appr oxi m at el y t en K l onopi n t abl et s bef or e s he di ed, no drugs w er e det ect ed in B ra c e y ’s s y ste m . D r. L y k iss i tes tified th a t B ra c e y h a d a su b sta n tial am o u n t of a lco h o l in h e r s y s te m . T o b e p re c is e , D r. L y k is s i t e s tif ie d th a t B ra c e y ’s b lo o d -a lc o h o l c o n te n t w a s .6 per cent . D r . L yki s s i expl ai ned that, w hen a per s on has a bl ood- al cohol cont entof
. 2, he or sh e is “ c o m m o d e h u g g in g , flo o r c ra w lin g d ru n k .” H e fu rth e r e x p lain e d th a t so m e o n e w ith a bl ood- al cohol cont entof
. 3 i s l i kel y t o be unc ons ci ous , and a pe r s on w i th a bl ood- al cohol
c o n ten t o f .4 is “ re a d y fo r th e u n d e rta k e r.” A c c o rd in g to D r. L y k iss i, so m e o f th e a lco h o l in B r ace y’ s s ys t em coul d have be en attr i but ed t o deco m po si t i on, butonl y as m uch as
. 14

### Bec aus e the tri alcourt e xcluded Father Re nche r’ s st at em ent

to the pol ic e regarding 4 

### his initi alre ac ti on to Brac ey’ s de ath, this Court does not rely on thi s s tate me nt in re ac hing its ho ldin g. T his statement was n ever b efore th e jury
. 9 p e rc e n t. D r. L y k iss i sa id h e “ se rio u sly ” d o u b ted th a t an y o n e w o u ld b e a b le to fu n c tio n w ith a b loo d -alco h o l con tent o f . 3 o r hig h er. ¶22
. A ft er the prosecuti on res t ed i t s case- i n-chi ef, W i l l i am s cal l ed D r. R
. W
. S cal es. D r. Scal es t es t i f

i ed t hat he had a Ph. D
. i n i m m unol ogy and thathe w as the di r ect orand ow ner of Scal es B i ol ogi cal Labor at ory, a D N A t es t i ng f aci l i ty i n B r andon, M i s s i s s i ppi
. A ccor di ng t o D r . Scal es , a l m os ta l l of the bl ood s t ai ns i n W i l l i ams’ s apartm entw er e W i l l i ams’ s bl ood. H ow ever , B r ace y’ s bl ood w as f ound i n the cl os etw her e she di ed, and i n t he l ef tpor t i on of W i l l i ams’ s ki t chen s i nk. ¶23. W i l l i ams cal l ed Father O l l i e R enche r as a w i tnes s . Father R enche r w as the A s s i s t ant R ect oratSt
. Pet er ’ s E pi s copal C hur ch i n O xf or d, w hi ch B r ace y had att ended. H e al s o w as the E pi s copal chapl ai n t o t he uni ver s i ty. F atherR enche rt es t i f i ed thathe had know n B r ace y and thathe had c ouns el ed her i n rel i gi ous m att er s . W hen FatherR enche rf i r s tdi s cover ed thatB r ace y had died, h e vol unt ar i l y had cont act ed the O xf or d Pol i ce D epart m entand had p ro v id e d a sta tem e n t i n w h ich h e h a d d isc lo se d inf o rm a tio n ab o u t B ra c e y . In h is s tate m e n t, FatherR enche ri ndi cat ed that , f r om hi s per s onal know l edge aboutB r ace y, he thoughtthat sh e m ay h av e c o m m itted s u ici d e. A t tri al, h o w ev er, Fa ther R en ch er d ec lin e d to testi fy
r egar di ng hi s s t at ement , bas ed on the pr i es t - peni t entpr i vi l ege. 4

### 10

¶2 4. W i l l i ams’ s fi nal w i t nes s w a s D r . A r thu rCope l a nd , a f or e ns i c pa tho l og i s tw i t h a
m edi cal degr ee a nd a Ph. D
. i n m ol ecul arbi ol ogy. D r . C opel and t es t i f i ed thathe had r evi ew ed D r . H a yn e ’ s a ut op s y r e po r ta nd othe rr e c or ds r e l a t e d t o Br a c e y’ s de a th. D r . Copel and di s agr eed w i th D r . H ayne’ s concl us i on thatBra cey’ s body had demonstr at ed s i gns of m anual
s tr angul at i on. D r . C opel and not ed thatD r . H ayne di d notper f or m a “f ancy ne ck di s s ect i on” by w hi ch one di s s ect s the t i s s ues ar ound the nec k and t akes phot ogr aphs fora more det ai l ed exami nat i on. D r . C opel and t es t i f i ed thatw hatD r . H ayne conc l uded w as hem orrhagi ng i n the neck t i s s ues coul d have si m pl y been change s thatoccurw i th decomposi t i on. D r . C opel and fu rth e r n o ted tha t m a n u a l stran g u latio n p ro d u c e s “ p e tec h ia,” w h ich h e d e sc rib e d a s “ sm a ll
m in u te p in p o in t h e m o rrh a g e s” th a t ap p e a r “ [l] ik e a little tin y d o t.” D r. C o p e lan d w e n t o n to t es t i f y thatther e w er e no otheri ndi cat i ons of m anual s tr angul at i on , such a s br oken fi ng ernai l s or “of

fensi ve” inj uri es t o W i l l i am s. ¶25. D r . C opel and al s o cr i t i ci zed D r . H ayne f or no tp res enti ng h i s f

i ndi ngs t o another pathol ogi s tbef

or e he c oncl uded thatthe man nerof B r ace y’ s death w as hom i ci de. A ddi t i onal l y, D r . C opel and s t at ed thatD r . H ayne s houl d have r eques t ed addi t i onal i nves t i gat i on i nt o w hetherB r ace y had a hi s t ory of m ent al or emot i onal tr eatm entand thathe sh o u ld h a v e c o n tac ted a fo re n sic p sy c h o lo g ist o r a fo re n sic p sy c h iatris t to d isc u ss h is fi nd i ng s. ¶26. D r . Copel and expl ai ned that a l ack of hes i t at i on m arks does not nece s s ar i l y rul e out the po ssi bil i ty that som eon e com m i t t ed sui ci de. In cont ras tt o D r. H ayn e’s t est im o n y , D r. C opel and t es t i f

i ed thati ti s “notthatdi f f i cul t ” t o penetr at e the cart i l agi nous por t i on of the

### Williams is C aucasian , andBraceywas A frican-A merican. 5 

### 11 r i b cage
. D r . C opel and t es t i f i ed thathe coul d notr ender a con cl us i on as t o the mannerof B r ace y’ s death, buthi s observat i ons w er e “cons i s t entw i th sui ci de. ” D r . C opel and w enton t o t es t i f y thatD r . H ayne “ i m m edi at el y j um ped the gun [ and] c al l ed thi s a homi ci de f r om the g e t[-] g o .” O n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , D r. C o p e lan d a g re e d th a t itis n o t ty p ica l fo r so m e o n e to
comm i ts ui ci de by s t abbi ng her s el f w i th a kni f

e. D r . C opel and al s o t es t i f i ed that“[ s ] ui ci de
a m o n g m in o ri ty g ro u p s is ra re .” 5 ¶ 2 7
. A fte r D r. C o p e lan d tes tified , W ill iam s re ste d . W ill iam s d id n o t tes tify d u rin g th e trial. D ur i ng the conf

er ence on j ury i ns truct i ons , W i l l i am s r eques t ed an a s s i s t ed- s ui ci de i ns truct i on. T he ci r cui tcourtr ef us ed the i ns truct i on on the bas i s thata s s i s t ed s ui ci de i s not
a les se r-in c lu d e d o ffe n se o f m u rd e r. A s p rev io u sly m e n tio n e d , the ju ry fo u n d W ill iam s g u ilty
o f m u rd e r. Wil

lia ms , 2009 W L 4808181, at**1- 5, ¶¶3- 28. PROCEEDI NG S I N THE C OU RT OF APPE ALS ¶ 2 8
. B e fo re th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls, W ill iam s a ss e rte d th a t th e trial c o u rt h a d e rre d w h e n it: ( 1) r ef us ed hi s r equest foran as s i s t ed- s ui ci de i ns truct i on; ( 2) al l ow ed a pr i es tt o cl ai m the pr i es t - peni t entpri vi l ege r egar di ng conver sat i ons thatthe pr i es thad had w i th the vi ct i m ; ( 3) al l ow ed D r . H ayne t o t es t i f y a s a n e xperti n the f

i el d of f or ens i c pathol ogy; and ( 4) deni ed h is m o tio n to d ism iss b a se d o n th e a lleg a tio n th a t h e h a d b e e n d e n ied a rig h t to a sp e e d y trial. W ill iam s a d d itio n a lly c laim e d in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls tho rou g h ly ad d resse d all issue s an d fo u n d the m to b e w ith o u t m erit , a ffi rm ing the tr ial co u rt ’s

### Howeve r, so there beno mi sunde rs tanding a s to a pot ential d ispositive i ss ue 6 

### dis cus se d by theCourt

of Appe al s, we have c onsi dered Wi ll iams ’s ass erti ons c once rning the deni alof hi s c onstit

uti onaland st at

utor y right s to a spe edy trial, and find the m to be wi thout merit, as discu ssed b y th e Co urt o f Ap p eals. Wil li ams , 2009 WL 4808181, at **17-18, ¶¶ 67-71. 12 ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ic tio n a n d lif e s e n te n c e fo r m u rd e r. Wil lia ms , 2009 W L 4808181, at*22, ¶82. DI S CU S S I ON ¶ 2 9
. O n J u ly 2 2 , 2 0 1 0 , w e g ra n te d W illia m s ’s p e titio n fo r w ri t o f c e rt io ra ri
. W il liam s v. S ta te , 39 So. 3d 5 ( M i s s . 2010)
. B eca us e thi s C our tf i nds r ever si ble er rordue t o the tr i al
cour t ’ s f a i l ur e t o g i ve a n a s s i s t e d- s ui c i de i ns truc t i on , w e ne e d n otdi s c us s the r e mai ni ng iss u e s W ill iam s ra ise d b e fo re th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls. M .R .A .P . 1 7 (h ); D o ra v. S ta te , 986 So. 6 2 d 9 1 7 , 9 2 1 n . 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ). ¶30. A L af

ayet t e C ou nt y gr and j ury char ged W i l l i ams w i th the m ur der of B r ace y under M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 9 7 -3-1 9 (1)(a) (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e c en tr al i ssu e b efo re this C o u rt tod ay i s w h ethe r th e tr ial co u rterred by no t g ran ti n g W il li am s’s r eq u es t fo r a les serno nincl ud ed instruct i on on assi st ed suici de. M i ssi ssi pp i C od e S ect i on 97 -3- 49 st at es: A p e rso n w h o w ilfu lly , o r in an y m a n n e r, ad v ise s, e n c o u ra g e s, a b e ts, o r a ss ists anotherpe r s on t o t ake, ori n t aki ng, the l att er ’ s l i f e, ori n att empt i ng t o t ake the l att er ’ s l i f

e, i s gui l ty of

[ a] f el ony and, on convi ct i on, s hal l be puni s hed by i m pr i s onm enti n the peni t ent i ary notexce edi ng t en yea r s , orby fi ne not exce edi ng one thous and dol l ar s , and i m pr i s onm enti n the county j ai l not ex ce ed ing o n e y ea r. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-4 9 (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ).

### 13

¶3 1
. W il li am s, thro u g h co u n sel, p roffere d jury instruc ti o n D -3, w h ich stat ed tha t i f th e jury f ound W i l l i ams notgui l ty of m ur der , the j ury s houl d pr ocee d t o del i ber at e on w hethe rthe S tat e h ad p rov en “the elem en ts of the lesse r crim e o f a ssisti n g su ici d e.” In stru cti o n D -3 fu rth e r sta ted in p e rtin e n t p a rt: If y o u fin d fro m th e e v id e n c e in th is c a se b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t: 1 . O n o r a b o u t N o v e m b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 [5 ][ ,] in L a fa y e tte C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i; 2. T hatD E M E T R I A B R A C E Y w as a human bei ng; and 3
. T h at D A V ID JA C K S O N W IL L IA M S d id w il lf u lly o r i n an y m an n er, advi s e, encour age, abetoras s i s tD E M E T R I A B R A C E Y i n t aki ng herl i f e; then you s hal l f

i nd the def

endantgui l ty of

as s i s t i ng s ui ci de. If th e S tate h a s fa iled to p ro v e a n y o n e o r m o re o f th e a b o v e li s te d e lem e n ts b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , th e n y o u s h a l l f i n d DAVI D J AC KS ON W I L L I A M S notgui l ty of as s i s t i ng s ui ci de. Wil lia ms , 2009 W L 4808181, at*6, ¶30. T he tr i al courtr ef us ed W i l l i ams’ s as s i s t ed- s ui ci de in stru c tio n , rea so n in g th a t W ill iam s w a s a llo w e d an ins tru c tio n o n h is th e o ry o f th e c a se o n ly i f thattheory i nvol ved a l es s er - i ncl uded of f ens e. ¶3 2
. H o w ev er, this C o u rt h as h eld that a d efe n d an t is en ti tl ed to an instruction o n a lesse rn o n in c lu d e d o ff

e n s e ( a ls o k n o w n a s a le s s e r o ff e n s e ) u n d e r p a rt ic u la r c ir c u m s ta n c e s . B r ooks
v. S ta te , 18 So. 3d 833, 839- 40 ( ¶27) ( M i s s . 2009) ( ci t i ng Mo o re v. S ta te , 799 So. 2d 89, 91 ( ¶7) ( M i s s . 2007) )
. “I f

a l es s erof

f ens e, as oppos ed t o a l es s er - i ncl uded of f ens e, ar i s es f

r om the s ame oper at i ve f

act s and has an e vi dent i ary bas i s , w e have hel d the def endanti s ent i t l ed

### 14

t o an i ns truct i on f

orthe l es s erchar ge the s ame as i f i tw er e a l es s er - i ncl uded cha r ge. ” Moo re , 799 So. 2d at91 ( ¶7) ( ci t i ng G riffin v. S ta te , 5 3 3 S o . 2 d 4 4 4 , 4 4 7 -48 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 )). ¶ 3 3
. M o re o v e r, th is C o u rt h a s a rt ic u la te d th e fra m e w o rk b y w h ich a trial c o u rt sh o u ld det erm i ne w hethert o gi ve an i ns truct i on f ora l es s er - i ncl uded of

f ens e ( orl es s er - noni ncl uded
o ff e n s e ). B o

y d v. S ta te , 557 So. 2d 1178, 1181 ( M i s s . 1990) ( ci t i ng G riffin v. S ta te , 533 So. 2d a t447)
. Speci f

i cal l y, “ [ i ] n de ci di ng w hetherl es s eri ncl uded i ns truct i ons a r e t o be gi ven, tr i al court s m us tbe mi ndf ul of the di s par i ty i n m axi m um puni s hm ent s . G ener al l y, w her e the di s par i ty i s gr eatthi s C our thas r equi r ed l es s eri ncl uded i nst ruct i on s t o be gi ven. ” I d . If di s par i ty i n the puni s hm ent s does exi s t , the tr i al j udge s t i l l cannotgi ve the i ns truct i ons “on the bas i s of

pur e s pecul at i on. ” I

d . ( ci t i ng Me a se v. S ta te , 53 9 S o. 2 d 13 24 , 13 29 -30 (M i ss. 1989) )
. T her e mustexi s t“s om e evi dence r egar di ng the l es s eri ncl uded of f ens e. ” I d. ¶34. I n di s cus s i ng the l ens thr ough w hi ch a tr i al court s houl d vi ew evi dence as a bas i s f or th e g iv in g o f in stru c tio n s o n les se r-in c lu d e d o ffe n se s (a n d les se r-n o n in c lu d e d o ffe n se s), th is C our thas s t at ed: [A n ] i n stru c tio n sh o u ld b e g ra n te d u n les s th e trial ju d g e
– a n d u lti m a tely th is C ourt–c a n s a y, t a ki ng a l l the e vi de nc e i n the l i gh tmos tf a vo r a bl e t o t he a c c u se d a n d c o n sid e rin g a ll rea so n a b le in fe re n c e s w h ich m a y b e d ra w n in f avorof the ac cus ed f

r om the evi dence , thatno r eas onabl e j ury c oul d f i nd the def endantgui l ty of

the l es s eri ncl uded of

f ens e ( and conve r s el y notgui l ty of at le a s t o n e e s s e n tia l e le m e n t o f t h e p ri n c ip a l c h a rg e ). Mease , 539 So. 2d at1330 ( quot i ng H a rp e r v . S ta te , 4 7 8 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 7 , 1 0 2 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 )). A c c or di ng l y, we i ni t i a l l y a r e t o a s c e r t a i n w he the r“ s ome” e vi de nc e e xi s t e d t o s uppor tt he i ns truct i on r eques t ed. B oyd , 557 So. 2d at1181 ( ci t i ng Mease , 5 3 9 S o . 2 d a t 1 3 3 0 ). If th is

### 15

C our ti s abl e t o i dent i f

y s om e evi dence i n s uppor tof the i ns truct i on, thi s Courti s notcal l ed
u p o n to w e ig h th is e v id e n c e w ith re g a rd to th e ju ry ’s v e rd ic t. Wil lia ms , 2009 W L 4808181, at *2 3 , ¶8 6
. R athe r, w h en v iew ing this ev iden ce , this C o u rtm u st f ind that an ev iden ti ary bas i s exi s t ed f

orthe i ns truct i on unl es s “t aki ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the
acc used, and cons i der i ng al l r eas onabl e f avor abl e i nf

er ence s thatm ay be dr aw n f r om the evi dence i n f

avorof the ac cus ed, thatno hypothet i cal j ury coul d fi nd t he f actas the ac cus ed
s ugges t s . ” A n de rs o n v. S ta te , 5 7 1 S o . 2 d 9 6 1 , 9 6 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶35
. P u rsua n t t o M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 9 7 -3-4 9 , W il li am s re q u e sted a lessern o n in c lu d e d in stru c tio n o n a ss iste d su icid e an d n o t a les se r-in c lu d e d o ffe n se . T h e d isp a rity of m axim um pu nis hm ents betw een the charged off ense a nd the l esser -nonincl ud ed o ff ense i s obvi ous : t he puni s hm entform ur deri s l i f e i m pr i s onm ent , and t he maxi m um puni s hm ent for assisted su ici d e is t en y ea rs in the stat e p en it en ti ary . M iss. C o d e A n n . § § 9 7 -3-1 9 (1)(a), 97- 3- 49 ( R ev. 2006)
. Becaus e the r ecor d i s s tr ew n w i th evi dence of the i nt er act i ons betw een W i l l i ams and Bra cey be f or e herdeath, the ques t i on thi s Courtmustans w eri s w hetherany of this evidence, w hen view ed an d co n sider ed in the li gh tm ostfavorabl e t o W i l l i am s,
s u p p o rt s a ju ry in s tru c tio n th a t W illia m s “ in a n y m a n n e r, a d v is e [d ], e n c o u ra g e [d ], a b e t[te d ],
o r assist [ed]” B rac ey to co m m itsu ici d e. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-4 9 (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶36. E vi dence i n the r ecor d rel evan tto t he i nstruct i on on as s i s t ed s ui ci de i ncl udes ( 1) conf l i ct i ng expertt es t i m ony as t o w het herB r ace y comm i t t ed s ui ci de; ( 2) evi dence that B r ace y and W i l l i ams w er e depr es s ed i ndi vi dual s i nvol ved i n a r om ant i c r el at i ons hi p and had ent er ed a sui ci de pact ; (3) evi dence t hatW i l l i ams had as s i s t ed B r ace y’ s pl ans by hel pi ng her

### 16

l i qui dat e herbank ac count ; ( 4) evi dence thatW i l l i am s had as s i s t ed B r ace y by pur chas i ng b e e rt o f a c i l i t a t e th e e n a c t me n to f th e i rs u i c i d e p a c t ; ( 5 ) e v i d e n c e th a tBr a c e y a n d W i l l i a ms had been atW i l l i ams’ s apart m enti n t he days bef or e the eve nt , tryi ng t o r emai n undi s cover ed; ( 6) evi dence that W i l l i am s had f aci l i t at ed the ena ctm entof the s ui ci de pac tby pr ovi di ng ki t chen kni ves ; and ( 7) evi dence by w ay of W i l l i ams’ s s t at ement , w hi ch w as bef or e the j ury, thatB r ace y had s t abbed her s el f
. Forthe s ake of

t oday’ s di s cus s i on, w e have combi ned our
re v ie w o f t h is e v id e n c e in to th re e s u b h e a d in g s . 1
. E xper tTes t i m ony ¶37. Fort he pr os ecut i on, D r . H ayne per f or m ed an aut ops y on B r acey fi ve days af t erher death. D r . H ayne t es t i fi ed attr i al thatthe mannerof herdeath w as hom i ci de, nots ui ci de, b e c a u se o f “ (1 ) th e a n g le a n d d e p th o f th e fa tal w o u n d , ( 2 ) th e p re se n c e o f in ju rie s to D emet r i a’ s neck, ( 3) the abs ence of ‘ hes i t at i on m arks , ’ and ( 4) the abr as i on on the bac k of D emet r i a’ s hand. ” Wil

lia ms , 2 0 0 9 W L 4 8 0 8 1 8 1 , a t* 2 8 , ¶ 1 0 5 ( Ro b e r t s , J
. , d i s s e n t i n g )
. As the C o u rto f A p p ea ls’ d issen t correc tl y p o sit s, h o w ev er, D r. C o p elan d co n tr ad ict ed D r. H a y n e ’s fin d in g s o n a ll p o in ts . I d. at29, ¶¶106- 111. D r . C opel and s peci f i cal l y t es t i f

i ed that hi s obs ervat i ons w er e “c ons i s t entw i th s ui ci de. ” ¶38. D r . L yki s s i t es t i f i ed as w el l f

or the pr os ecut i on, opi ni ng t hat B racey had nott aken K l onopi n, contr ary t o W i l l i ams’ s s t at ement s , and thatB r acey’s bl ood- al cohol cont entw as

. 6 percent. H e s ai d he doubt ed anyone w oul d be abl e t o f unct i on w i th a bl ood- al cohol
co n tent o f . 3 o r hig h er. I m p o rt an tl y , h o w ev er, “the re w as n o testi m o n y fro m D r. H ay n e, D r. E arnes tL yki s s i , orD r . C opel and thatB r ace y w oul d h ave been t oo i nt oxi cat ed t o s t ab

### Again, this trans cript of Mars h’s int er

vie w with Wil li am s wa s rec eived into e vide nce 7 

### during theState ’s ca se -in-c hie f. 17 her s el f
. ” I d. a t 2 7 , ¶1 0 3 . A c c o rd in g ly , in v iew in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le t o W i l l i ams, s uf

f i ci entevi dence e xi s t s i n the r ecor d t o s uppor ts ui ci de as a pos s i bl e ca us e of death. 2. Sui ci de Pact ¶39. A t tr i al , evi dence of a s ui ci de pact betw een B r ace y and W i l l i ams beca m e a r ecurr i ng theme. O n N ovember16, 2005, I nves t i gat orW i l l i ams of the O xf or d Pol i ce D epart m entand Ser geantM ar s h o f t he M i s s i s s i ppi H i ghw ay Patr ol ’ s cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i on bur eau in ter v iew e d W ill iam s. S g t. M a rsh a n d In v e stig a to r W ill iam s te stifie d th a t (d e fe n d a n t) W il li am s h ad stat ed in th is interview that h e (W il li am s) an d B rac ey h ad “a su ici d e p ac t w h ere they dec i ded they w er e goi ng t o comm i ts ui ci de. ” M or eover , C anankam p t est i f i ed that W i l l i ams had r el at ed t o herthatB r ace y a nd W i l l i ams ha d e nt er ed a s ui ci de pacti n w hi ch “he [W illia m s ] w a s g o in g to d o h im s e lf a n d s h e [B ra c e y ] w a s g o in g to d o h e rs e lf .” ¶40. A l s o i n that i nt ervi ew and of i m por t ance t o thi s cas e, W i l l i ams pr es ent ed hi s ver s i on of event s f r om the ni ghtof

B r ace y’ s death: 7 W e had ki nd of

t al ked aboutcom m i t t i ng sui ci de t oget her and s tuf f l i ke that and w e dec i ded w e w er e goi ng t o do i tl as tw eek a nd s he ca m e over , i tw as Sunday. W e j us thung outt ogether , di dn' tgo t o cl as s , she di dn' tw or k, um and w e j us thung outf

ora coupl e of

days and de c i de d t hatw e w e r e goi ng t o do it th a tn i g h ta n d s h e , w e b o th d r a n k a l o ta n d t o o k s o m e p i l l s b u ti tw o u l d n 't hel p the pai n, you know
. A nd w e d e c id e d t o d o it in th e c lo se t so it w o u ld take l on ger for p eop l e to f i n d u s i f s om eb od y sh ow ed u p l oo ki n g for u s and w e gotkni ves and w enti n ther e and w e deci ded t o do i t at t he s am e t i m e and m i ne di dn' tgo as f

ari n.

### 18

(E m p h asis ad d ed ). T h e C o u rt of A p p ea ls’ m ajority o p inion fou n d n o n e o f W il li am s’s test im o n y su ffi cien t t o w arran t a j u ry instruction o n assisted su ici d e. S p ec if icall y , the C o u rt of A ppeal s r eas oned thatW i l l i ams’ s ver s i on of event s l i kel y w as s cr i pt ed thr ough i nt er act i ons w i th hi s att orney, and thatthes e st at em ent s i ndi cat ed onl y thatB r ace y and W illia m s h a d d is c u s s e d s u ic id e . Wil lia ms , 2009 W L 4808181, at*8, ¶37. 3. O therE vi dence R el evant t o the Sui ci de Pact ¶41. I n the same i nt ervi ew w i th author i t i es , other e vidence ar os e w hen W i l l i ams’ s thena tto rn e y in v o lv e d h im se lf in th e in ter v iew p ro c e ss a n d b e g a n q u e stio n in g W ill iam s: [W ill iam s’s A tto rn e y ]: O k a y . U h , the d a y , the T h u rsd a y th a t all o f th is happene d, T hur s day l eadi ng i nt o Fr i day, t el l them aboutgoi ng t o the bank. W i l l i ams: She w ant ed t o go t o t he bank a nd getherm oney outand puti ti n her pur s e s o thatherm om coul d geti t . She s ai d s he w as n' ts ur e thats he coul d get acc es s t o the ac count . So w e w entby the bank a nd t ook outal l of herm oney ou t . I don' tkn ow exactl y h ow m uch i tw as. [ W i l l i a ms ’ s At t o rn e y ] : I twas a n ATM ? Wi l l i a m s : Y e s , i tw a s a n A T M. [W ill iam s’s A tto rn e y ]: A n d w h ich b a n k w a s th a t? W i l l i ams: T rus t m ark on W es tJ acks on. [ W i l l i ams’ s A t t orney] : T hatw as Fr i day? W i l l i ams: Y es , thatw as Fr i day. [ W i l l i ams’ s A t t orney] : A nd w ho putthe ca r d i n? W i l l i ams: I di d that
. She t ol d m e the pi n num berand I p un ched iti n. She s ear ched on the [ I ] nt ernett o see h ow m uch t o getbeca us e s he di dn' tknow

### 19

w hatherbal ance w as so she gotpr etty m uch al l of i t , I thi nk. She t ol d m e how m u ch itw as, I do n ' t r em em b er. [ W i l l i ams’ s A t t orney] : O kay. W ho w ound up w i th the money? W ill iam s: S h e d id
. S h e jus t pu t i t i n h e r p u rse so m e w h e re , in lik e a little c o in pur s e thi ng. She puti ti n ther e. [W ill iam s’s A tto rn e y ]: W a s th e m o n e y still th e re w h e n y o u lef t? W i l l i ams: I ts houl d be, yeah. [ W i l l i ams’ s A t t orney] : O kay. N ow , t el l them aboutthe phone c al l that you r ece i ved f

r om J es s i ca Smi th. W i l l i ams: Jes s i ca had bee n t ryi ng t o cal l um , D emet r i a on hercel l phone and s he had turned i tof

f beca us e s he di dn' tw antanybody t o know w her e s he w as and she cal l ed m e and I t h ou gh tI s ho uld answ er and d o som ething. B ecause sh e sa id sh e w as w o rri ed ab o u t w h ere sh e is, that sh e h ad b ee n m issi n g w o rk and notgoi ng t o ban d and al l thats o, I deci ded t o t el l herthats he had gone dow n t o herda d’ s hous e and I s ai d thathe rda d di dn’ tw anthernum bergi ven outs o I di d t he thr ee w ay cal l i ng. I t ol d hert o turn hercel l phone on r eal qui ck and s he turned i ton. I di d a thr ee w ay ca l l t o D emet r i a’ s cel l phone and s he ans w er ed and s he s ai d thats he w as dow n atherdad’ s pl ace and thatherdad w as n’ tdoi ng t oo good. [ W i l l i am s’ s A t t orney] : O kay
. W hen w as this ? W i l l i ams: I thi nk i tw as um , T hur s day orW ednes day. [ W i l l i ams’ s A t t orney] : W ednes day orT hur s day? W i l l i ams: Y eah.

. . . D e tec tiv e W ill iam s: Y o u sa id , let m e v e ri fy th is. Y o u sta ted th a t D e m e tria w ant ed t o t ake hermoney outof heracc ountt o m ake s ur e thatherm othergot the money i s [ s i c] s he w entthr ough w i th the s ui ci de. W ill iam s: R ig h t?

### 20

D et ect i ve W i l l i ams: A nd actual l y ki l l ed her s el f and s ai d he rmot herw oul d get t he m oney a nd c utthr ou gh a l l the r e d t a pe f r om ha vi ng t o g o thr ou gh t he banki ng s ys t em t o getthe money. W i l l i ams: R i ght
. I don' tknow i f s he coul d ge ta cce s s t o i tthr ough the bank, the acc ount . I thi nk i tw as t i ed thr ough herschool accountsomehow
. I don' tknow if sh e c o u ld g e t ac c e ss to it. D e tec tiv e W ill iam s: B u t y o u a re th e o n e th a t to o k th e m o n e y o u t? W ill iam s: R ig h t. B a sic a lly it w a s h e r id e a . S h e w a n ted to d o it. ¶42. W hen consi deri ng t hi s evi dence , the C our tof A ppeal s ’ m aj or i ty opi ni on f ound no
e v id e n ce th at W il li am s ha d m ad e an “o v ert ac t” th at “ca u sed or he lped he r [ B rac ey ] t o
comm i tthe phys i cal a ctof t aki ng herow n l i f

e. ” I d. a t *1 1 , ¶ 4 2
. M o re p arti cu larl y , the C o u rt of A ppeal s opi ned thatdr i vi ng B r ace y t o the bank, hel pi ng herw i th t he A T M m achi ne, and
ans w er i ng a ca l l t o l i e as t o B r ace y’ s l ocat i on di d notr i s e t o the l evel of “ac t i ons cal cul at ed t o ef f ectuat e the dea th of

another” t o s at i s f

y the l anguage of

the as s i s t ed- s ui ci de s t atut e, b e c a u s e th e s e a c ts d id n o t le a d to B ra c e y ’s d e a th
. I d. at*10, ¶¶39- 40. F ur ther , the C our tof A ppeal s r eas oned thatB racey’s death atW i l l i ams’ s apart m ent , w her e the tw o l over s had b e e n h i d i n g o u ta n d b i n g e - d r i n k i n g p r i o rt o Br a c e y ’ s d e a th , f a i l e d t o i n d i c a t e th a tW i l l i a ms h a d e n c o u ra g e d o r a s s is te d B ra c e y to c o m m it s u ic id e . I d. at*10, ¶43. ¶ 4 3
. W e re sp e c tf

u lly f in d th a t i n r e a c h in g th e c o n c lu sio n th a t n o e v id e n c e e x iste d to
w a rra n t a ju ry in stru c tio n o n as sis ted su icid e , th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a p p lied th e fa c ts o f th is
ca se in too n arro w a m an n er to the b roa d lang u ag e o f th e a ssist ed -suicide statu te. W ith reg ard t o eac h pi ece of

e vi dence , the C our tof

A ppeal s r eas oned thatW i l l i ams ha d f ai l ed t o pr ovi de

### 21

evi dence of

as s i s t ance of

s ui ci de, s peci f

i cal l y “ac t i on on the par to f the as s i s t orthatl eads di r ect l y t o the phys i cal actof t erm i nat i ng [ B r ace y’ s ] l i f e. ” I d . at*7, ¶35. ¶44. I n s o doi ng, the C our t of A ppeal s vi ew ed eac h pi ece of evi dence i ndepende nt l y f r om th e re c u rrin g e v id e n c e re latin g to th e su icid e p a c t an d n o t in th e li g h t m o s t fa v o ra b le to W i l l i ams. Cer t a i nl y, w he n v i e w e d i n i s ol a t i on , t a ki ng s omeo ne t o the A TM do e s not
encour age s ui ci de, nordoes pur chas i ng beerort el l i ng l i es . N ei therthe l anguage of the
as s i s t ed- s ui ci de s t atut e northe evi dent i ary s t andar d f ora l es s er - noni ncl uded of f ens e, how ever , cont empl at es s uch a na rr ow appl i cat i on of the evi dence t o thi s cas e: A person w ho w i l ful l y, o r i n any m anner, advi s es , encourages , abet s , or as s i s t s anot her pers on t o t ake , ori n t aki ng, the l att er ’ s l i f e, ori n att empt i ng t o t ake the l att er ’ s l i f

e, i s gui l ty of

f el ony and, on convi ct i on, s hal l be puni s hed by i m pr i s onm enti n the peni t ent i ary no tex ceedi ng t en yea r s , orby f i ne not exce edi ng one thous and dol l ar s , and i m pr i s onm enti n the county j ai l not e x c e e d in g o n e y e a r. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 49 ( R ev. 2006) (em ph asi s added)
. A per s on i s gui l ty of as s i s t ed
s ui ci de i f “i n any manner ” he ors he “a dvi s es , encour ages , abet s, oras s i s t s anotherper s on to ta k e ” h is o r h e r l if

e . I d . M oreove r, the ev i den t i ary st and ard f or a l esser -i ncluded off

ense requi res this C ou rtt o m ake “a l l reas on able f avo rabl e i nfer ences” in fav o r o f W i l l i am s. A nders on , 571 So. 2d at964. ¶45. I n vi ew i ng the t ot al i ty of the evi dence i n the l i ght m os t f avor abl e t o W i l l i ams, w e do f i nd thatW i l l i ams’ s s t at ement s t o l aw enf or cement , w hi ch w er e of f er ed i nt o evi dence – c o mb i n e d wi th th e o th e re v i d e n c e i n th e r e c o r d c o n c e rn i n g th e i n t e r a c t i o n s b e twe e n W i l l i a ms

### 22

an d B rac ey – ind icate tha t a hy p o thetical reaso n ab le j u ror m ay h av e b eli ev ed W il liam s’s versi on of even t s. ¶ 4 6
. A s Ju d g e R o b e rts a rticu late d in h is d iss e n t, w h e n v iew e d in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to W ill iam s, th e su ic id e p a c t, co n sid e re d in c o n ju n c tio n w ith th e o th e r e v id e n c e , co u ld
s uppor ta conc l us i on thatW i l l i ams di d encour age a nd/ oras s i s tB r ace y i n comm i t t i ng s ui ci de. F o r p u rp o se s o f th is o p in io n , w e a d o p t h is fin d in g s o n th is iss u e :

T he pos i t i on advoca t ed by the maj or i ty i s bas ed on the conc l us i on that no evi dence s uppor t s the conce ptthatW i l l i ams a dvi s ed, encour aged, abett ed, o r assist ed D em etri a in c o m m itti n g su ici d e. R esp ec tf u ll y , the m ajority ’s pos i t i on i gno res t he s ubs t ant i al evi dence thatW i l l i ams and D emet r i a had a s ui ci de pac t . B y agr eei ng t o comm i ts ui ci de t ogether , e ach m emberof the pac t w as encour aged

to com m i ts ui ci de bec aus e they no l ongerhad t o f ace the po ssi bil i ty of com m i t t i ng s uici de al on e. W i l l i am s and D em etri a w ere l ov ers . T he s ui ci de pac tcoul d e as i l y be i nt erpr et ed as a n a gr eementbe tw een them t hat “i f you ar e goi ng t o ki l l your s el f , I do notw antt o cont i nue t o l i ve w i thoutyou, s o I w i l l l i ke w i s e ki l l mys e l f
. ” W i l l i a ms' s s t a t e menti nd i c a t e d tha the ha d a tte m p te d to c o m m it s u ic id e , b u t c o u ld n o t m u s te r t h e c o u ra g e to d o s o . A p h o to g ra p h th a t w a s in tro d u c e d in to e v id e n c e sh o w e d th a t W ill iam s h a d c u ts on hi s ches t , and the t es t i m ony attr i al demonstr at ed thatW i l l i ams' s bl ood w as f ound i n num er ous pl ace s i n hi s apart m ent . B as ed on W i l l i ams' s s t at ement , he and D emet r i a both dr ank a s ubs t ant i al am ountof al cohol t o gai n the cour age t o comm i ts ui ci de. V i ew ed i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o W i l l i ams, by dr i nki ng t ogether , he and D em etr i a w er e ea ch encour aged to co m m itsu ici d e. Itb ea rs r epea t i ng thatthe s t atut e thatpr ohi bi t s a s s i s t i ng s ui ci de i ncl udes l anguage that e n c o u ra g e m e n t o r a ss ista n c e “ in a n y m a n n e r” m a y b e a p u n ish a b le a c t. A ddi t i onal l y, ther e w as otherevi dence thatW i l l i ams encour aged D em etri a t o co m m itsu ici de. D uri ng A gen tM ars h' s i nterview of W i l l i am s, W i l l i ams s t at ed t hat he and D emet r i a had be en di s cus s i ng s ui ci de s i nce the pr evi ous s um m er . A ccor di ng t o W i l l i ams, he t al ked aboutc om m i t t i ng s ui ci de m ore than D em etri a did, “bu tshe w an ted to d o itw i th m e. ” W i l l i am s al so sta ted th a t h e “ p ro b a b ly b ro u g h t itu p in h e r m in d .” A d d iti o n a lly , a re a so n a b le p e rso n co u ld ha v e also co n clud ed th at, by pro v iding th e p lace t o c o m m it s ui c i de a nd the ki t c he n k ni ve s t o a c c ompl i s h the t a s k, W i l l i a ms a s s i s t ed D em etri a in co m m itti n g suicide
. Iti s ne ce ssary t o rem em b er th at ou r t as k in an a l yz i ng thi s i s s ue i s s ol e l y t o de t e r mi ne w he the rthe r e w a s s uf f i ci ent

### 23

e v id e n c e to ju s tif

y a j u r y i n s tru c tio n
– n o t to w e ig h th e e v id e n c e . A g a in , a cr i m i nal def

endanti s ent i t l ed t o a l es s er - of f ens e i ns truct i on w her e ther e i s an e v id e n tia ry b a s is fo r i t in th e re c o rd
. McG ow an , 541 So. 2d at1028- 29. C ontr ary t o the s ubs t ance of the maj or i ty' s opi ni on, the as s i s t ed- s ui ci de s t atut e does notre qui r e thatt he cont empl at ed as s i s t ance or e ncour agementbe per s uas i ve, di r ect , ors i gni f i cant . A s s i s t ance orencour agement“i n any m a n n e r” is s u ff

ic ie n t to c o n s titu te th e c ri m e . A s p re v io u s ly m e n tio n e d , a d efe n d an t i s en ti tl ed t o a l esse r no n -i n clud ed -offen se instruc ti o n “w h ere there i s evi dent i ary s uppor tthata def endanti s gui l ty of a l es s erchar ge ar i s i ng f r om the s ame nucl eus of

oper at i ve f

act s . ” G re e n v. S ta te, 884 So. 2d 733, 737( ¶ 12) ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng Me a se v. S ta te, 5 3 9 S o . 2 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 )). “In f act , pr opos ed i ns truct i ons s houl d gener al l y b e gr ant ed i f they ar e corr ect s t at ement s of

l aw , ar e s uppor t ed by t he evi dence , and ar e notr epet i t i ous . ” I d. at (¶ 1 3 ). Wil l ia ms , 2 0 0 9 W L 4 8 0 8 1 8 1 , * 2 9 -30 , ¶¶ 1 1 2 -1 1 4 (R o b e rts, J., d iss e n tin g ) (fo o tn o te om itted). ¶ 4 7
. In su m , w h e n v iew e d in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to W ill iam s, a re a so n a b le ju ro r c o u ld
con cl ud e that W i l l i am s and B racey had enter ed i nto a sui ci de pact, an agre em en t w h o se f ul f i l l m entencour aged e ach pa r ty t o comm i ts ui ci de. W i th thi s a gr eementi n m i nd, w e f i nd th a ta j u ry ma y h a v e v i e we d th e o th e re v i d e n c e a s s u p p o r t i n g th e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a tW i l l i a ms
an d B rac ey h ad g o n e b ey o n d m ere c o n v ersa ti o n s a b o u t co m m itti n g su ici d e tog ethe r. A jury
m a y h a v e re a so n e d th a t W ill iam s’s a c c o m p a n y in g B ra c e y to th e A T M , p u rc h a sin g a lco h o l,
a n d ly in g to B ra c e y ’s frie n d p ro v id e d s u ffic ien t ev id e n c e o f a su icid e p a c t an d w e re a c ts in furtherance of t his p actsuff i ci ent t o con st i tute enco uragem ent. M oreove r, the evi den ce al so sh o w s th a t W ill iam s k n o w in g ly a ss iste d B ra c e y b y p ro v id in g h e r w ith a k n ife to fa c ili tate h e r su icid e a n d a p lac e (h is c lo se t) to c o m m it th e s u icid e to g e th e r w h e re th e ir b o d ies w o u ld be har d t o f

i nd. C ons i s t entw i th t hi s pact , W i l l i ams had m arks on hi s body i ndi cat i ve of f ai l ed at t em pts t o co m m i tsui ci de. A nd forthe sake of em ph asi s, w e no t e again that the jury als o

### 24

had bef or e i tW i l l i ams’ s s t at ementthatBra cey had s t abbed her s el f
. G i ven al l thi s evi dence , i n the l i ghtm os tf

avor abl e t o W i l l i ams, a hypothet i cal re as onabl e j ury m ay have f ound the fa c ts to b e a s W illia m s s ta te d
. A nders on , 571 So. 2d at964. CONCL US I ON ¶48. B eca us e of

the br oad l anguage of

the as s i s t ed- s ui ci de s t atut e as w el l as ourexi s t i ng stan d ard o f rev iew co n ce rn in g w h ethe r a tri al co u rtsh o u ld g ive a n instruction o n a lesse rno nincl ud ed o ff

ense, w e are const rai ned t o fi nd that the learned tri al j ud ge in t od ay’s case
com m i t t ed reversi ble errori n fai l i ng t o instructthe jury o n the l esser -nonincl ud ed o ff ense of as s i s t ed s ui ci de. W e r ecogni ze thata tr i al j udge’ s e rr ori n f ai l i ng t o gi ve a j ury i ns truct i on of t en w i l l be dee m ed harm l es s bas ed on the t ot al i ty of the r ecor d; how ever , the f ai l ur e t o gi ve the as s i s t ed- s ui ci de i ns truct i on i n t oday’ s cas e may have bee n t he di f f er ence i n a convi ct i on f ora l es s eroff

ens e w i th a subs t ant i al l y l es s erpeni t ent i ary sent ence as oppos ed t o a murde r
c o n v ic tio n a n d a lif

e s e n te n c e . See B ro w n v. S ta te , 3 9 S o . 3 d 8 9 0 , 9 0 0 (M iss. 2 0 1 0 ). T her ef or e, w e r ever s e W i l l i ams’ s convi ct i on f orm ur derand sent ence of l i f e i m pr i s onm ent in th e s tat e p en it en ti ary , an d w e re m an d this case to the C ir cu itC o u rto f L afa y ett e C o u n ty fo r a n e w tr ia l c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n . ¶49. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. DI CKI NS ON, LA M AR, KI TC HENS AND CHAN DL ER , J J . , CONCUR. W ALLER, C . J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED BY G R A V E S, P . J. , R A N D O L P H A N D P I E R C E , JJ. W AL L E R, CH I E F J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG :

### “Be ca usesui ci de c ar

ri es a tre me ndous s oci alstigm a, it is te mpting to as sum e that 8 

### if two lo vers decid e to co mmit su icide, o ne o f them h as to advise o r enco urag e the o ther to do so.
. . . [ This ] i s by no me ans a l ogic alinf

erenc e that

an a ppel latecourt m ay t akenoti ce of indetermin ingwh ether th ere is sufficient ev iden ce [fo r anassistedsuicid e instru ction .” 25 ¶50. A def

endant m ay r eques t a j ury i ns truct i on on a l es s er - noni ncl uded of f ens e w hen the evi dence support s t he i ncl us i on and t he l es s eroff ens e or i gi nat es fr om com m on f act s . H er e, I fin d n o e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g th e a ss iste d -su icid e in stru c tio n re q u e ste d b y W ill iam s. H is d e fe n se a t trial w a s h e d id n o t co m m it m u rd e r a n d n o t th a t he m e re ly as sis ted th e v ictim in sui ci de. B eca us e the overw hel m i ng f act s s uppor ta murde rconvi ct i on and bec aus e of the la c k o f a f

a c tu a l b a s is to s u p p o rtth e le s s e r- n o n in c lu d e d o ff e n s e o f a s s is te d s u ic id e , I
re s p e c tf u lly d is s e n t. I . T h e a s s is te d -s u ic id e ju r y in s tr u c ti o n is n o t s u p p o r te d b y e v id e n c e . ¶5 1
. E v en v iew ing the ev iden ce in a li g h t m o st fav o rab le to W il li am s, n o rea so n ab le j u ry coul d f i nd hi m gui l ty of

a s s i s t i ng s ui ci de “w i thoutr es or t i ng t o s pecul at i on orconj ectur e” a s to th e m e a n in g o f t h e e v id e n c e . B ra zz le v . S ta te , 1 3 S o . 3 d 8 1 0 , 8 1 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 9 ) (en b an c). W i l l i ams had t o dem ons tr at e tw o t hi ngs t o avai l hi m s el f t o an as s i s t ed- s ui ci de i ns truct i on – th a tBr a c e y h a d c o mmi t t e d s u i c i d e a n d th a th e h a d he l p e d
. Th e o n l y e v i d e n c e W i l l i a ms pr es ent ed attr i al t o s uppor thi s as s i s t ed- s ui ci de theory w as thathe and Bra cey ha d f or m ed
a m u tu a l ag re e m e n t to c o m m it su icid e to g e th e r – a su icid e p a c t. ¶52. T he pl ai n m eani ng of a sui ci de pact – a m utual agr eement to die at the same t i m e – does nots ugges tencour agementoras s i s t ance of s ui ci de as cont em pla t ed by M i s s i s s i ppi C o d e S e c tio n 9 7 -3 -4 9
. See Wil lia ms , 2009 W L 4808181, **14- 15. Fi r s t , the evi dence at 826

tr i al does notsupportt hatB r ace y di d t ake herow n l i f e. Second, even i f

w e as s um e s he di d,
no evidence at tri al even sl i gh t l y sug gest ed thatshe w as enc ou raged or adv i sed to act because
o f a mu tu a l a g r e e me n twi th W i l l i a ms . An d h e o f f e r e d n o e v i d e n c e a ttr i a l t o e x p l a i n h o w a
s ui ci de pac tencour aged oras s i s t ed heral l eged s ui ci de. F urt her, forus t o i nt erpr etthe
m eani ng of

an al l eged s ui ci de pac tbe tw een thes e tw o pe opl e ( e .g ., did she enteri tbecau se he f or ced her , ordi d s he al r eady i nt end t o comm i ts ui ci de .
. . ) r equi r es a l evel of s pecul at i on
n o t al low ed b y o u r l aw . T h e stated fi n d ing s in the M a jo rity o p inion d o n o t sup p o rt W illia m s ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e y h a d a g re e d to c o m m it s u ic id e . See M aj
. O p. ¶ 46. H ad they, i n f act , agr eed t o comm i ts ui ci de, i tdoes notf oll ow thatW i l l i ams as s i s t ed orencour aged B ra c e y ’s d e c is io n sim p ly b e c a u s e it o c c u rr e d a t h is a p a rt m e n t a n d w ith h is k itc h e n k n if e . I I . A l es s er- noni ncl uded-of f ens e i nst ruct i on m ust ari s e f rom t he s am e f

act s al l eged in th e in d ic tm e n t. ¶53. Som e set s of f

act s l end t hem sel ves t o p rosecut i on fort w o separat e and dis t i nct of f ens es . A de f

endanti s e nt i t l ed t o j ury i ns truct i ons on a l es s er - noni ncl uded of f ens e w hen th e s e to f f a c t s s u rr o u n d i n g th e c r i me r e a s o n a b l y s h o ws th a tth e d e f e n d a n ti s g u i l ty o f

two crim es – the c ri m e c h arg ed an d the lesse r-no n inclu d ed o ffen se -- “ w i thoutany i ncons is t ency i n evi dent i ar

y or ul t i m at e f

i ndi ngs . . . .” G riffin v. S ta te , 533 So. 2d 444, 448 ( M i s s . 1988) ( emphasi s added)
. W e expl ai ned the cons i s t ency- i n- evi dence r equi r ementi n G a n g l v. S ta te , 539 So. 2d 132, 1 3 6 (M iss . 1 9 8 9 ) ( e n b a n c ). T h e les se r-n o n in c lu d e d o ffe n se m u st “ a rise [] outof a nucl eus of

oper at i ve f

actc om m on w i th the f

actual s cena r i o gi vi ng r i s e t o the cha r ge27

l ai d i n the i ndi ctm ent . ” I d. S e e , e .g ., Mo o re v. S ta te , 799 So. 2d 89, 90 ( M i s s . 2001) ( chi l ds c a ld in g in c id e n t im p lic a te d c h a rg e s fo r e ith e r f e lo n y a b u s e o r m is d e m e a n o r n e g le c t)
. ¶54. T he i ndi ctm ent her e al l eges that W i l l i ams m ur der ed B r ace y. T hus , thi s becomes the oper at i ve f

actf r om w hi ch a l es s er - noni ncl uded of f ens e m us ta r i s e. W i th the oper at i ve f act i n m i nd, w e cons i deral l the evi dence prese nt ed attr i al t o det erm i ne i f i ts uppor t s the
r eques t ed i ns truct i on, w i thoutan i ncons i s t ency i n the ul t i m at e f i ndi ngs . W hi l e w e do
cons i derthe evi dence i n the l i ghtmostf avor abl e t o the ac cus ed, w e ca nnoti gnor e evi dence th a t is in c o n s is te n t w ith th e d e fe n s e ’s th e o ry o r th a t su p p o rt s th e p ro s e c u tio n ’s c h a rg e . See G riffin , 5 3 3 S o . 2 d a t 4 4 7 ; B o y d v. S ta te, 5 5 7 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 8 , 1 1 8 2 (M is s . 1 9 8 9 ). ¶55. I n ourcas es addr es s i ng l es s er - noni ncl uded of f ens es , the ac cus ed has ar gued thathe i s “l es s cul pabl e” by pr opos i ng j ury i ns truct i ons f oran of f ens e thatl og i cal l y w oul d s t em fr o m th e c h a rg e o r fr o m th e o p e ra tiv e f a c ts in th e in d ic tm e n t. Se e , e .g ., G riffin , 533 So. 2d
a t 4 4 7 (s im p le a s s a u lt rath e r th a n ra p e ); B oyd , 5 5 7 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 8 2 (sa m e ); Moo re , 799 So. 2 d at 9 0 (m isde m ea n o r child-n eg lect rathe r th an felon y ch il d -ab u se). B u t here , W il li am s’s
a ss iste d -su icid e in stru c tio n d o e s n o t fo llo w lo g ica ll y fro m a m u rd e r c h a rg e , an d it co n tra d icts the oper at i ve f

acti n the i ndi ctm ent . T hi s r es ul te xcee ds the boundar i es a nd purpos e of our hol di ng i n G riffin
. ¶56. W i thi n the oper at i ve f act s of thi s cas e, W i l l i ams cannot be gui l ty of both m ur derand
a ss istin g su icid e . T h e p ro p o se d a ss iste d -s u ic id e in stru c tio n re q u ire s a n irre c o n c ilab le i ncons i s t ency i n the evi den ce an d ul t i m at e f i ndi ngs . A m ur derchar ge r equi r es the p ro s e c u tio n to p ro v e th e d e fe n d a n t k ille d th e v ic tim
. See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 19( 1) ( a)28

( R ev. 2006)
. Conver s el y, a s s i s t i ng s ui ci de r equi r es the pr os ecut i on t o pr ove the vi ct i m ki l l ed h e rs e lf
. See M i s s . Code A nn. § 97- 3- 49 ( R ev. 2006)
. B eca us e W i l l i ams has nots how n how hi s as s i s t ed- s ui ci de i ns truct i on f ol l ow s f r om the oper at i ve fa ct s i n the i ndi ctm entand the f act s s how n attr i al , thathe murde r ed B r ace y, he i s notent i t l ed t o the i ns truct i on. I I I . W hen t here i s s t rong evi dence of the i ndi ct ed charge, the acc use d i s n ot ent i t l ed t o a j ury i nst ruct i on on a l es s er- noni ncl uded off ens e. ¶57
. O urcas es al l ow i ng i ns truct i ons f orl es s er - noni ncl uded of f ens e s r el y on the r ecogni t i on th a t litt le o r c o n fl ic tin g e v id e n c e e x is te d o n o n e e le m e n t o f t h e in d ic te d c r im e . B r ooks v. S ta te , 18 So. 3d 833, 8 4 0 -4 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 9 ); G riffin , 5 3 3 S o . 2 d a t 4 4 7 ; G angl , 539 So. 2d at 1 3 5
. T h u s , w e a s k w h e th e r a r e a s o n a b le ju ry c o u ld f in d W illia m s n o t g u ilty o f m u rd e r. W e need no tm ake a d et erm i nati on on w hetherthe j ury could al so f i nd guil tf

or the l esseroff

ense
w h e n th e re is s tr o n g e v id e n c e o f t h e in d ic te d c h a rg e . See D e la sh m it v. S ta te , 991 So. 2d 1 2 1 5 , 1 2 2 2 (M is s . 2 0 0 8 ). ¶58
. H ere , the pr osecuti on pres ented s trong evidenc e o f W il li am s’s g u il t f o r m u rde r. B r ace y had bee n f

ound dead f

r om a kni f

e w ound atW i l l i ams’ s apart m ent . Fol l ow i ng her death, W i l l i ams cover ed herbody t o hi de i tfr om i ns pect or s . B ef or e he not i f

i ed author i t i es of herdeath, he dr ank bee r , w at ched t el evi s i on, p l ayed vi deo games , and or der ed pi zza . U p o n a rre st, W ill iam s c o n fe ss e d to th e c rim e , sta tin g “ I m u st h a v e d o n e it. I w a s th e o n ly one ther e. ” A ttr i al , one experto pine d that , beca us e of the angl e of

the kni f e w ound, the stra n g u latio n m a rk s a ro u n d h e r n e c k , an d th e d e fe n siv e m a rk s o n h e r h a n d , B ra c e y ’s d e a th
w as a homi ci de. T he otherexpertcoul d st at e onl y t hatherdeath coul d have bee n a homi ci de29

o r a su icid e . H o w e v e r, af ter a re v iew o f a ll th e e v id e n c e , n o t ju st th e a u to p sy , n o re a so n a b le ju ry c o u ld h a v e f

o u n d h im n o t g u ilty o n a n y e le m e n t o f th e m u rd e r c h a rg e . See D am pierv. S ta te , 9 7 3 S o . 2 d 2 2 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 8 ); J o n e s v . S ta te , 9 1 8 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 3 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). ¶ 5 9
. B e c a u se I w o u ld a ffirm th e d e c isio n o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls, I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. GRAVE S , P . J . , RANDOL P H AND P I ER CE , J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.