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 3 8 4 - S CT BO BB Y T

AY L OR
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 21/ 2004 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. F RA NK G. VOL L OR COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W ARREN COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: J AM ES L. P ENL EY, J R. 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 D IS T R IC T A T T O R N E Y : G . G IL M O R E M A R T IN 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 - 03/ 22/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E W A L L E R , P . J. , D I A Z A N D C A R L SO N , JJ. DI AZ , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: S tat em en t of

the C ase ¶1. B obby T ayl or w as convi ct ed of one count of agg ravat ed as s aul t under M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97-3- 7( 2) ( a) (Rev. 2006) f orpouri ng a bot t l e of

rubbi ng al cohol on hi s gi r l f r i end and then s ett i ng he ron f

i r e. W hi l e both the def endantand the vi ct i m t es t i f i ed thatthe i nci dent
w a s p u re ly a c c id e n tal, th e S tate p ro v id e d o th e r ev id e n c e tha t su b sta n tially c o n tra d icte d th e ir tes tim o n y . T a y lo r w a s fo u n d g u ilty an d se n ten c e d to f iftee n y e a rs in th e S tate ’s c u sto d y w ith th e la s t f iv e y e a rs s u s p e n d e d o n p o s t- re le a s e s u p e rv is io n .

### 2

¶2. T he def

endant had been l i vi ng i n an apart m ent w i th hi s gi r l f r i end, D or i s J acks on, f

or tw o year s . T hey had been i nvol ved i n an on-a nd- of f romant i c r el at i ons hi p f orr oughl y ni ne years. T h o ug h the cou ple t est i fi ed thatthey had no texp eri enced any problem s i n the past three years, t he S t at e i ntr od uced s everal dom est i c vi olence charges that J ackson fi l ed ag ai nst the def endant . N one of

the char ges w er e everpr os ecut ed and both the def endantand J acks on deni ed know l edge of

the char ges . H ow ever , both J acks on and the def endantadmi t t ed that he had hi theri n the pas t . T hey al s o adm i t t ed t hathe had once s hotheri n the hand, though th e y b o th c la im e d it w a s a n a c c id e n t. ¶3 . O n t he ni ght of J ul y 16 , 20 03 , J a c ks on w e nt t o the c a s i no w he r e s he gambl ed and dr ank f orf ourt o f i ve hour s . She came back t o the apa r t m entw her e the d efendantw as p layin g d o m ino s w ith so m e o f his fri en d s. A ft er the d efe n d an t r efu sed to g ive h er m o re m oney f orgambl i ng, J acks on w entt o the nei ghbor ’ s apart m entt o dr i nk s om e m ore and
w at ch a movi e. W hen s he r eturned t o he ra part m ent , the vi s i t or s ha d l ef ta nd s he w as al one w i th the def

endant . T he eve nt s thatf ol l ow ed ar e di s put ed. ¶4 . B ot h t he def

endantand J a c ks on ga ve s i mi l a rt e s t i mony r e ga r di ng the s e que nce of event s . B oth t es t i f

i ed thats he w as f

ul l y cl othed and thatthe def endanthad a b ot t l e of
rubbi ng al cohol and had put“a da b” of the l i qui d on herhand. T hey both t es t i f i ed thathe had putal cohol i n hi s ha nd be f or e and l i ti t , butthathe w as al w ays “j us tpl ayi ng. ” W hen the def endantw entt o ans w era knock a tthe door , he gave J acks on the bott l e of al cohol t o hol d. She t es t i f

i e d tha ts he a c c i de nt a l l y s pi l tthe c on t e nt s of the bo t t l e on he rc l othe s a nd t hen
w al ked outof

the bedr oom i nt o the hal l w ay. A tthi s poi nt , the def endantw as comi ng back dow n the hal l w ay t o m eether , and J acks on t es t i f i ed, “[ the def

endant ] w as j us tf

l i cki ng a

### 3

l i gh t er, and m y arm caugh taf i re. T hen I j ustrubbed m y shirt , and i tcaug ht everyw here el se j us tby m e rubbi ng m y hand. ” T he def endantthen tr i ed t o us e the beds pr ead t o putoutt he f i r e, butJ acks on ha d t o ge ti n the s how ert o f i nal l y e xt i ngui s h the f

l ames. H e then hel ped her
c h a n g e c lo th e s a n d c a lle d a fr ie n d to d ri v e h e r t o th e h o s p ita l. ¶5 . U p o n ex am ination , the loca l h o sp ital se n t Ja c k so n to the G ree n w o o d B u rn C en ter,
w her e s he r emai ned f

ortw o w eeks . She s us t ai ned f i r s tand s econd degree burns overt he fr on tof her bo dy , co veri ng l arge po rt i on s of herface, neck , chest , st om ach, and i nn er thighs. ¶ 6 . T h e S tate o ffe re d tw o e x p e rt w itn e ss e s w h o tes tified th a t th e b u rn s w e re n o t a r e su lt of an ac ci dent . B oth expert s f ound thatthe burn patt erns i ndi cat ed t hatJ acks on w as l yi ng on herback a nd thats om eone ha d pour ed the al cohol on her . O ne expertal s o t es t i f i ed that th e fire sta rte d in th e b e d ro o m , n o t in th e h a llw a y a s b o th th e d e fe n d a n t an d th e v ictim al l eged. T he evi dence i ndi cat ed t hatw hi l e she w as w ear i ng a bra att he t i m e, she c oul d not have be en w ear i ng a s hi r torpa nt s a s ne i thera r t i cl e of c l othi ng w as damaged. A ddi t i onal l y, the i nves t i gat i ng pol i ce of f i cer s t es t i f

i ed thatthe bed w as s t i l l w arm and part i al l y damp. T he
s heet s al s o w er e cha r r ed, butthe def endantcl ai m ed thatthey had be en burned s i x m ont hs
e a rl ie r, a n d h e c o u ld n o t o ff e r a n e x p la n a tio n fo r w h y th e m a ttr e s s w a s s c o rc h e d .

I s s ues ¶7. T he def

endant r ai s es four i s s ues on appea l : ( 1) w hether the court err ed i n al l ow i ng evi dence of

pr i orbad ac t s ; ( 2) w hetherthe courterr ed i n cert i f yi ng L es l i e D eca r eaux a s an experta nd a l l owi ng h e rt o t e s t i f y; ( 3) whethe rthe c ou r te rr e d i n a l l owi ng e vi de nc e t o be pr es ent ed t o the j ury thatthe St at e di d notpr oduce i n di s covery; and ( 4) w hetherthe ver di ct
w as agai ns tthe s uf

f i ci ency of

the evi dence .

### 4 D i s cus s i on (1 ) W h e th e r th e C o u r t E r r e d in A llo w in g E v id e n c e o f P r io r B a d A c ts . ¶8. T he def

endantar gues thatthe courte rr ed i n a l l ow i ng the St at e t o a dm i tevi dence of pr i oract s of

dom es t i c vi ol ence. T he s t andar d of r evi ew governi ng the admi s s i bi l i ty of
e v id e n c e is w h e th e r t h e tr ia l c o u rt a b u s e d its d is c re tio n . P e terso n v. S ta te , 671 So. 2d 647, 655 ( M i s s . 1996) ( ci t i ng B a in e v. S ta te , 6 0 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 7 6 , 1 0 7 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ); W a de v. S ta te , 583 So. 2d 965, 967 ( M i s s . 1991) ) . T hi s C our tm us tf i r s tdet erm i ne i f

the pr operl egal
s ta n d a rd s w e re a p p lie d . I d. at655- 56 ( ci t i ng Baine , 60 6 S o . 2d at 1 0 7 8 ). If the tri al co u rt i ncorr ect l y appl i ed t he rul es of evi dence , r es ul t i ng i n pr ej udi ce t o the ac cus ed, then a r ever s al is w a rr a n te d . I

d. at656 ( ci t i ng P a rk e r v . S ta te , 6 0 6 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 2 , 1 1 3 7 -11 3 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 )). ¶9. B ef

or e t r i al , t he defend ant m oved t o excl ude any evi dence of pr i or act s of vi ol ence agai ns tthe vi ct i m , ar gui ng thatthey w er e r emot e i n t i m e and thatal l char ges had bee n di s m i s s ed. T he cour trul ed thatthe evi dence coul d be admi t t ed both as i m peac hm ent evi dence a nd a s e vi de nc e o f mot i ve u nd e rRul e 4 04 ( b) . The c ou r ta l s o f ou nd tha tany pr ej udi ci al ef

f ectw as out w ei ghed by t he pr obat i ve val ue of the evi dence beca us e the ce nt r al is s u e o f t h e c a s e w a s w h e th e r t h e fi re w a s a n a c c id e n t. ¶10. O n t he s t and, J acks on deni ed thatthe def endanthad eve rhur therbef or e. W hen as ked aboutfourpri orchar ges w hi ch s he f i l ed aga i ns tthe def

endant , s he ei therdeni ed f i l i ng them
orcl ai m ed thatshe cou l d notr emem ber . J acks on al s o t es t i f i ed thatthe ent i r e i nci dentat iss u e w a s a n a c c id e n t. A s a re su lt, th e p ro se c u to r w a s a llo w e d to in tro d u c e fo u r se p a ra te in sta n c e s in w h ich Ja c k so n h a d filed d o m e stic v io len c e ch a rg e s a g a in st th e d e fe n d a n t, bo th

### 5

as i m peac hm entevi dence a nd as s ubs t ant i ve evi dence of m ot i ve. T hes e cha r ges w er e f i l ed
o n J a n u a ry 1 , 1 9 9 7 ; A p ri l 1 5 , 1 9 9 8 ; M a y 5 , 1 9 9 8 ; a n d S e p te m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 0 . ¶11. T he def

endanta r gues thate vi dence of thes e char ges w as i m pr oper char act er evi dence that s ho uld not have b een adm i t t ed. H e ci t es L e v y v. S ta te , 7 2 4 S o . 2 d 4 0 5 , 4 0 8 (M iss . C t. A pp. 1998) f

orthe pr opos i t i on that“[ e] vi dence of a pr i orcr i m i nal act i vi ty on the partof one c ri m in a lly a c c u s e d is in a d m is s ib le w h e re th e p ri o r o ff e n s e h a s n o t r e s u lte d in a c o n v ic tio n .” H o w e v e r, L evy goes on t o e xpl ai n that“ the St at e has a ‘ l egi t i m at e i nt er es ti n t el l i ng a r at i onal
an d c o h ere n t st o ry o f w h at h ap p en ed . ’ W h ere su b stan ti all y n ec essa ry to p rese n t t o the ju ry

‘ the compl et e s t ory of

the cr i m e, ’ evi dence or t es t i m ony m ay be gi ven though i tm ay r evea l
orsug gest o t hercr i m es . ” I d. ( ci t i ng B ro w n v. S ta te , 4 8 3 S o . 2 d 3 2 8 , 3 3 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 )). Br o wn w a s w ritten o n ly a m o n th afte r th e R u les o f E v id e n c e ca m e into eff e c t, a n d R u le 4 0 4 (b ) c lea rly p ro v id e s in sta n c e s w h e re e v id e n c e o f o th e r c rim e s m a y b e a d m iss ib le to p re se n t “th e c o m p lete sto ry ” : E videnc e of

othercr i m es , w r ongs , oract s i s notadmi s s i bl e t o pr ove the char act erof

a per s on i n or dert o s how thathe ac t ed i n conf or m i ty ther ew i th. I tm ay how ever , be admi s s i ble f or otherpurpos es s uch as pr oof of m ot i ve, oppor tuni ty, i nt ent , pr epar at i on, pl an know l edge, i dent i ty, o r abs ence of m is ta k e o r a c c id e n t. M .R .E . 4 0 4 (b ). ¶ 1 2 . H e re , th e e v id e n c e w a s n o t a d m itt e d to p ro v e th a t th e d e fe n d a n t a c ted in c o n fo rm ity
w ith h is p ri o r ba d ac ts, b u t t o reb u t his all eg ati o n that the in cide n t w as a n ac cide n t. T her ef or e, the tr i al j udge pr oper l y admi t t ed evi dence of the pr i ordom es t i c vi ol ence char ges a s e v id e n c e o f m o tiv e an d ab se n c e o f ac c id e n t. See S ta llw o rth v. S ta te , 797 So. 2d 905 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ) (ev iden ce o f do m esti c v iolen ce c h arg e relev an t t o sh o w m o ti v e in m u rde r ca se);

### 6

K o lb e rg v. S ta te , 829 So. 2d 29 (M i s s . 2002) ( pr i orbrui s i ng on chi l d’ s body r el evantt o s how
a b s e n c e o f a c c id e n t) . ¶13. T he def

endant al s o ar gues that thes e i nci dent s s houl d not have been admi t t ed att r i al beca us e they w er e hi ghl y pr ej udi ci al t o the def endant . R ul e 403 pr ovi des, “[ a] l though
r el evant , evi dence m ay be excl uded i f i t s proba t i ve val ue i s subs t ant i al l y out w ei ghed by t he dangerof

unf ai rpr ej udi ce, conf

usi on of the i s s ues , orm i s l eadi ng the j ury, orby
cons i der at i ons of

undue del ay, w as t e of t i m e, orneedl es s pr es ent at i on of cum ulat i ve evi dence . ” M . R . E . 403. B eca us e the evi dence w as hi ghl y r el evantt o s how m oti ve and abs ence of ac c i de nt , i tc a nn otbe s a i d tha tthe j ud ge a bu s e d h i s di s c r e t i on i n a dmi t t i ng t he pri or charges. ¶ 1 4 . F in a lly , th e d e fe n d a n t a rg u e s th a t th e re m o ten e ss o f th e p rio r a c ts d e tra c ted fro m th e ir
re lev a n c e . T h e p re v io u s d o m e stic v io len c e c h a rg e s o c c u rre d fro m thr e e to six y e a rs p rio r to the i nci dent . A gai n, i tcannotbe s ai d thatthe j udge abus ed hi s di s cr et i on i n al l ow i ng e vi de nc e o f

the p r i orb a d a c t s a s i twas h i gh l y r e l e va ntt o pr ov e mot i ve a nd a bs e nc e of
a c c id e n t. ( 2) W he t he r t he C our t Err e d i n C e r t i f yi ng Les l i e D e c ar e aux as an Expe r t and A l l ow i ng H er t o T es t i f y. ¶15. T he def

endant ar gues that the tr i al court err ed i n admi t t i ng t he exp erttes t i m ony of L es l i e D eca r eaux. D eca r eaux w as a f i r e i ns pect orw ho i nves t i gat ed the f i r e and t es t i f

i ed
r egar di ng t he burn patt erns on J acks on’ s body. A s w i th o t her ev i dence, the s t andar d of
re v ie w fo r t h e a d m is s io n o r s u p p re s s io n o f e x p e rt te s tim o n y is a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Miss. T ran sp. Com m '

n v. McL em ore , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 3 1 , 3 4 (M is s . 2 0 0 3 ).

### 7

R ul e 702 governs the admi s s i on of expertt es t i m ony: I f s ci ent i f i c, t echni cal , o r others peci al i zed know l edge w i l l as s i s tthe tr i erof factt o u nd erst an d the e vidence o r t o d et erm i ne a facti n is sue, a w i tness qual i f i ed as an expe r tby know l edge, ski l l , exper i ence , t r ai ni ng, oreduca t i on, m ay t es t i f

y ther et o i n the f

or m of a n opi ni on orotherw i s e, i f ( 1) the t es t i m ony i s bas ed upon s uf

f i ci entf act s ordat a, (2) the t es t i m ony i s the pr oductof r el i abl e pr i nci pl es and m ethods , and (3) t he w i tnes s has appl i ed the pr i nci pl es and met hods r el i abl y t o t he f act s of the ca s e. M . R . E . 70 2. In this case, the t ri al j ud ge found that D ecareaux m etthe rul e’s requi rem ents . B ef or e al l ow i ng hert o t es t i f y, the tr i al courtconduct ed a D au bert hear i ng and f

ound thats he
w as qual i f

i ed t o give expertt es t i m ony. T he courtf ound thatbeca us e of

hertr ai ni ng and exper i ence , D eca r eaux w as abl e t o appl y r el i abl e pr i nci pl es and met hods t o t he f act s of the
c a s e a n d o ff

e r h e r e x p e rt o p in io n s o n th e b u rn p a tte rn . ¶16. T he def

endant ar gues that D eca r eaux s houl d not have been cert i f i ed as an expe r tf

or s ever al r eas ons . H e ar gues thats he has neverbeen qua l i f i ed as an expe r t , thatherm ai n ar eas of expert i s e ar e s tructur e f i r es , thats he had onl y w or ked on tw o orthr ee death c as es , thats he
w as notcert i f

i ed by the Int erna t i onal A s s oci at i on of A r s on I nves t i gat i on, and thats he
m a n ip u late d fa c ts to fit h e r o p in io n s. F irst, n o p rio r e x p e rt q u a lifica tio n in a c o u rt o f la w is
n ec essa ry u n d er R u le 7 0 2 . S ec o n d , h er D au bert t esti m o n y reve aled ex tens ive trai n ing i n fi re an d arso n inv esti g ati o n , inclu d ing a thirt e e n -ye ar e m p loy m en t w ith the V icks b u rg F ir e D epart m entand var i ous cert i f i cat i ons f

r om nat i on al l y r ecogni zed f i r e i nves t i gat i on or gani zat i ons , i ncl udi ng cert i f i cat i ons i n the f

i el d of burn pa t t erns . She f

ur thert es t i f

i ed that
s he had i nves t i gat ed more t han 100 fi res and t hats he had be en ce r t i f i ed as an emer gency m edi cal t echni ci an s i nce 1994. Fi nal l y, nothi ng i n hert est i m ony s ugges t s thats he
m ani pul at ed the f

act s t o fi theropi ni ons . T hough the def endantcl ai m s s he s t at ed as f actt hat

### 8

th e c o m fo rt e r w a s o n th e b e d , th e tra n s c ri p t re v e a ls o th e rw is e : “ A s I te s tif ie d to e a rl ie r, I can’ tbe one hundr ed per centconcl us i ve thati tw as on the bed. ” ¶17. I n l i ghtof

the D au bert

hear i ng and M s . D eca r eaux’ s tr ai ni ng and expe r i ence , the tr i al jud g e d id n o t abu se h is d isc re ti o n in allow ing h er to g ive e x p ert t esti m o n y o n the b u rn patt erns. ( 3) W het her t he C ourt E rre d i n A l l ow i ng E vi dence t o be P res ent ed t o t he Jury t hat t he St at e D i d N ot P roduce i n D i s cover y. ¶1 8. T he def

endantar gues t hatt he t r i a l c ou r te rr e d by a l l owi ng the St at e t o i nt r oduce af f i davi t s f r om p ri or c har ges f

i l ed by the vi ct i m beca us e thes e document s had neve rbeen pr oduced by the St at e. I ni t i al l y, the tr i al courts us t ai ned the def endant ’ s obj ect i on t o the i ntr oduct i on of

the af f i davi t s . H ow ever , once J acks on deni ed f i l i ng any cha r ges agai ns tt he def endant , the tr i al courtal l ow ed the af f i davi t s t o be i ntr oduced a s i m peac hm entevi dence . ¶19. O n r evi ew , thi s Court“ m ay r ever s e a tr i al j udge' s rul i ng r egar di ng di s covery i s s ues onl y i f w e f i nd an abuse of di s cr et i on. ” Co n ley v. S ta te , 790 So. 2d 773, 782 ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng H a rk in s v . P a sc h a ll , 348 So. 2d 1019, 1022 ( M i s s . 1977) ) . M . R . E . 103 pr ovi des t hat “err or m ay n ot be predi cat ed u p o n a ru li n g w hich adm i t s or excl ud es evi den ce un l ess a su b sta n tial rig h t o f th e p a rty is a ffe c ted .” T h is c o m p o rts w ith the p u rp o se o f U n ifo rm C irc u it and C ou nty C ou rtR ul e R ul e 9. 04, w hi ch i s “t o avoi d ambush orunf ai rs urpr i s e t o ei ther party attr i al . ” L e v. S ta te , 913 So. 2d 913, 938 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng Hu n t v. S ta te , 687 So. 2 d 1 1 5 4 , 1 1 6 4 (M is s . 1 9 9 6 )) . R u le 9 .0 4 (A ) o f th e U n ifo rm C irc u it an d C o u n ty C o u rt R u les sta tes in p a rt:

### 9

T he pr os ecut i on m us tdi s cl os e t o eac h def endantort o def

endant ' s att orney, and perm i tthe def

endantordef

endant' s att orney t o i ns pect , copy, t es t , and phot ogr aph upon w r i t t en r eques tand w i thoutt he nece s s i ty of c our tor derthe f ol l ow i ng w hi ch i s i n the pos s es s i on, cus t ody, orcontr ol of the St at e, the e x i s t e n c e o f

wh i c h i s k n o wn o rb y t h e e x e r c i s e o f d u e d i l i g e n c e ma y b e c o me know n t o t he pr os ecut i on:

. . . . 3 . C o p y o f th e c ri m in a l re c o rd o f th e d e fe n d a n t, i f p ro p o se d to b e u se d to i m peac h. A c c o rd in g ly , the S tate w a s re q u ire d to p ro v id e a c o p y o f th e d e fe n d a n t’s c rim in a l re c o rd to d e fe n se c o u n se l p rio r to trial. ¶2 0 . U . C . C . C . R . 9.04 (I) sets o u t the p roc ed u re tri al co u rt s m u st foll o w i n ca se o f d isco v ery v io latio n s : I f dur i ng the cour s e of

tr i al , the pr os ecut i on att empt s t o i ntr oduce evi dence w hich has not been t i m el y dis cl osed to the d efense as r equ i red by these rules , and the def

ens e obj ect s t o the i ntr oduct i on f orthatr eas on, the courts hal l act as f oll ow s: 1 . G ra n t th e d e fe n se a re a so n a b le o p p o rtu n ity to in ter v ie w th e n e w ly di s cover ed w i tnes s , t o e xami ne the new l y pr oduced doc um ent s , phot ogr aphs orotherevi dence ; and 2. I f , af t ers uch opportuni ty, the def ens e cl ai m s unf

ai rs urpri s e orundue pr ej udi ce and s eeks a c ont i nuance ormi s tr i al , the courts hal l , i n the i nt er es tof ju stic e a n d a b se n t u n u su a l circ u m sta n c e s, e x c lu d e th e e v id e n c e o r g ra n t a cont i nuance f

ora per i od of

t i m e r eas onabl y nece s s ary fort he def ens e t o m eet th e n o n -d isc lo se d e v id e n c e o r g ra n t a m istria l. 3. T he cour ts hal l notbe r equi r ed t o gr antei thera cont i nuance orm i s tr i al f or s uch a di s covery vi ol at i on i f the pr os ecut i on w i thdr aw s i t s ef f or t s t o i ntr oduce s u c h e v id e n c e . ¶2 1 . U n d e r th is ru le, th e tri a l co u rt w a s re q u ir e d to g iv e th e d e fe n s e a re a so n a b le oppor tuni ty t o exami ne the af f i davi t s . H ow ever , beca us e the defe ndanti s unabl e t o s how pr ej udi ce orthata s ubs t ant i al r i ghtw as af f ect ed, the i s s ue i s w i thoutm er i t . T he def endant

### 10

ar gu e s tha ta l tho ug h he was a w a r e tha tt e s t i mony of p r i ora c t s woul d be a l l owed, he w as unaw ar e of

the af f i davi t s and the pot ent i al of thei ri ntr oduct i on. T he S t at e count er ed that thes e af f i davi t s w er e di s cus s ed ata pr i orhear i ng. A l though the def endantw as r epr es ent ed by di f f er entcouns el attr i al , tr i al couns el w as pr ovi ded a tr ans cr i pt f r om thi s hear i ng. T he St at e ar gues thatbeca us e he w as provi ded w i th a tr ans cr i pt , def ens e couns el s houl d have been aw are of

the aff i dav i t s’ con t ents . ¶22. N ei ther the af

f i davi t s nor the pr i or hear i ng ar e i ncl uded i n the r ecor d. H ow ever , t he def endantw as f

ul l y aw ar e thatthe pr i or dom es t i c vi ol ence char ges w oul d be pr es ent ed at tr i al as evi dence of

m ot i ve orabs ence of

acc i dent . B eca use t r i al couns el w as aw ar e of t he pr evi ous char ges , he coul d have e as i l y di s cover ed the cont ent s of the af f i davit s. A d d iti o n a lly , itc a n n o t b e sa id fro m th e re c o rd b e fo re u s th a t th e trial ju d g e a b u se d h is di s cr et i on i n al l ow i ng the af f i davi t s t o be pr es ent ed as i m peac hm entevi dence . ( 4) W het her t he V erdi ct w as C ont rary t o t he Suff i ci ency of

t he E vi dence. ¶ 2 3 . W h e n rev iew in g a c a se fo r s u ff ic ie n c y o f t h e e v id e n c e , “ th e re le v a n t q u e s tio n is
w hether , af

t ervi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the pr os ecut i on, any ra tio n a l trier o f fa c t co u ld h a v e fo u n d the es se n tial ele m e n ts o f th e c rim e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt . ” B u sh v. S ta te , 895 So. 2d 836, 843 (M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng J a c kso n v. V

irg in ia , 443 U . S. 307, 315, 99 S . C t . 2781, 61 L . E d. 2d 560 (1979) ) . T he evi dence m us tshow “beyond
a r eas onabl e doubt t hat acc us ed comm i t t ed the ac tchar ged, and thathe di d s o unders uch ci r cumst ance s thatevery el ementof the of f ens e exi s t ed; and w her e the evi dence f ai l s t o m eet

### 11

thi s t es ti ti s i ns uf

f i ci entt o s uppor ta convi ct i on. ” I d . ( quot i ng Ca rrv. S ta te , 208 So. 2d 886, 8 8 9 (M iss. 1 9 6 8 )). ¶24 . T h e d efe n d an t w as co n v ict ed u n d er M iss. C od e A nn . § 9 7-3-7( 2)( a) (R ev. 20 06 ),
w h ich re a d s “ [a] p e rso n is g u ilty o f a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt if h e a ttem p ts to c a u se se rio u s b o d ily i njur y t o another , orcaus es s uch i nj ury purpos el y, know i ngl y orr eckl es s l y under ci r cumst ance s m ani f

es t i ng ext r eme i ndi f

f er ence t o the val ue of

hum an l i f

e. ” The def

endant
a rg u e s th a t th e e v id e n c e c o u ld n o t su p p o rt h is c o n v ictio n b e c a u se e v e n th o u g h b o th e x p e rts
a g re e d tha t a liqu id w a s p o u re d o n the v ictim , th e y co u ld n o t t e stify as to h o w the liq u id i gni t ed. T he def

endantfurtherar gues t hatt he i gni t i on coul d have been ac ci dent al and t hat nei therhe northe vi ct i m m ay “ha ve bee n aw ar e of al l the ci r cumst ance s s urr ou nd i ng t he in c id e n t.” ¶25. I ti s cl earfr om t he r ecor d t hatt her e w as suf f i ci entevi dence t o supporta convi ct i on of aggr avat ed as s aul t . A l though both the def endantand the vi ct i m ar gued t he fi re w as a n acc i dent , the St at e of f er ed s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o contr adi ctthei rt es t i m ony. T he def endant ’ s ver s i on of

the s t ory i s s i m pl y nots uppor t ed by the phys i cal e vi dence . W hi l e the def endantand the vi ct i m t es t i f i ed thats he w as s t andi ng up i n the hal l w ay and f ul l y cl ot hed, the evi dence i ndi cat es t hatshe w as i n fa ctl yi ng dow n on herback, i n the bedr oom , and not
w ear i ng hers hi r torj eans . H erext ens i ve bu rns a l s o s uppor ta f i ndi ng thatthe ac tw as i nt ent i onal and f

ur therdi s cr edi tthe def

endant ’ s t es t i m ony thathe onl y puta “da b” of al cohol on the vi ct i m . T her ef

or e, the St at e pr ovi ded s uf f i ci entevi dence t o s uppor tthe ver di ct , and th is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t.

### 12 C oncl usi on ¶26. B eca us e none of the i s s ues m er i t r ever s al , the convi ct i on and s ent ence of the W arr en C ounty C i r cui tC our ti s af f i r m ed. ¶ 2 7 . CO NV I CT I ON OF AGGRAVAT ED AS S AUL T A ND S EN TE NC E OF FI FTE EN ( 1 5 ) YEARS W I TH TE N ( 1 0 ) YEARS TO S ERVE, THE REM AI NDER S US P E ND E D, W I T H F I VE ( 5 ) YE AR S P OS T RE L E AS E S UP E RV I S I ON I N T HE CUSTODY OF THE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M EN T OF CORRE CT I ONS , W I TH CONDI TI ONS , AF F I RM ED . SM I TH , C . J. , W A LL ER A N D C O B B P . JJ . , EA SLE Y , C A R LSO N , G R A V ES, D I C K I N S O N A N D R A N D O L P H , J J ., C O N C U R .