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 7 - KA- 0 0 2 8 2 - S CT W I L L I AM THOMASROL L I NS
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 15/ 2006 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. M I CH AE L M
. T AYL OR COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LI NCOLN COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: LOUI S I VAN BURGHARD 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 : S T E P HANI E BR E L AND W OOD DI S TRI CT AT TORNEY: DEW I TT “ DEE ” BATE S , J R. 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 - 12/ 13/ 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 SM I T H , C . J. , C A R L SO N A N D R A N D O L P H , JJ. CAR LS ON , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. W i l l i am Thom as R ol l i ns w as convi ct ed of one count of s exual batt ery, one countof t ouchi ng a chi l d f

orl us t f ul purpos es , and tw o count s o f contr i but i ng t o the del i nquency of a mi nori n the C i r cui tC our tof Li ncol n C ounty, J udge M i chae l M
. T ayl or , pr es i di ng. R ol l i ns
a p p e a ls to th is c o u rt, arg u in g th a t h e is e n tit led to a n e w tr ia l b e c a u se h e w a s d e n ied h is
c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h tt o c o n f r o n tth e wi tn e s s e s a g a i n s th i m. F i n d i n g n o e rr o r , we a f f i r m.

### A copy of thi s m oti on appe ar s in the re cord, but does not c ontain thec ircui t c le rk’ s 1 

### fi lest am p. A hearing onth is moti on was sc hedul ed t o be he ld on Nove mbe r 6, 2006. Howeve r, a transc ript of

thi s he aring wa s not

inc lude d in t

he r ec ord. In a ddition t o thete stim ony of the m inor chi ldren, theothe r wi tne ss es who te stif ie d 2 

### in t he St at e’ s c as e- in- chi ef

wer e Judy Wil son, a l ic ens ed s oci alworker who worke d in t

he FamilyandCh ildrenServ ices Div isionof the M ississipp i Dep artment o f Human S ervices; Rodney Fos te r, a c ri minalinve stigator with theLinc oln County S heri f f ’ s Depa r tm ent ; Brook Th ornton , a mental h ealth th erapist; J o hnny H all, an emp loy ee withthe L inco ln C ounty Sherif f’ s Departm ent ; and Dr. Cathe rine Dixon, a li ce nse d psyc hologi st

who was thecl ini ca l directo r of th e Mississip pi C hildren’s A dv ocacyCenter in Jack son . 2 F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶2. O n A pri l 1 3, 2 00 6, the L i nco l n C ou nty G r and J ury handed dow n a m ul t i
- count i ndi ctm entchar ging t hirty-ni ne-year- old W i l l i am T ho m as R oll i ns w i th the f ol l ow i ng: ( 1) one
c o u n t o f se x u a l b a tte ry b y in se rtin g h is fin g e r in to th e v a g in a o f a n e lev e n -y e a r-o ld , in vi ol at i on of

M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 95 ( R ev. 2006) ; ( 2) one countof t ouchi ng a chil d for l us t f ul purpos es by rubbing the chi l d’ s br eas t s and geni t al ar ea i n vi ol at i on of M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 5- 23 ( R ev. 2006) ; and ( 3) tw o count s of contr i but i ng t o the del i nquency of a mi nor by r out i nel y pl ayi ng s tr i p pokerw i th the el even- year - ol d and a t w el ve- year - ol d, i n vi ol at i on
o f M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -5 -3 9 (1 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶ 3
. O n O c to b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 , th e S ta te s u b m itte d a M o tio n fo r U se o f C lo se d C irc u it T el evi s i on pur s uantt o M i s s . R
. E vi d. 617, as the means of pr es ent i ng the t es t i m ony of the 1

m i norchi l dr en t o the j ury, w hich m ot i on w as gr ant ed by the tr i al court . A j ury tr i al w as 2 conduct ed on N ovember 8-10, 2006, dur i ng w hi ch the tr i al j udge perm i t t ed the mi nor

### 3

c h ild re n to tes tify v ia c lo se d -c irc u it t e lev isio n . T e c h n ica l d iffic u lti e s w ith th e v id e o /au d io equi pm entoccurr ed dur i ng the f i r s tchi l d’ s t es t i m ony. ¶4. A ft er the p robl em w as r em edied, the p rosecut i on r epeated the q uest i on s t o the w i tness i n an ef f or tt o as s ur e thatthe j ury hear d the ques t i ons and answ ers . T he s econd c hi l d then t es t i f i ed, and more t echni cal di f f i cul t i es occurr ed. A gai n, af t ercur i ng the pr obl em, t he pr os ecut i on fol l ow ed t he s ame pr ocedur e w i th thatchi l d as w i th the otherchi l d. A tt he concl us i on of

the t es t i m ony of

the t w o m i no rs , the tr i al j udge made the f ol l ow i ng f

i ndi ngs on the r ecor d, out s i de the pr es ence of the j ury: T H E C O U R T : B efo re w e g et th e jury in, I w an t t o g o o n the re co rd a n d clarif y th e re c o rd a little b it. W e h a d ju st ta k e n tes tim o n y in c h a m b e rs f ro m tw o c h ild w i tnes s es . T he t es t i m ony w as t aken i n the pr es ence of a r epr es ent at i ve f

r om the D istri ct A tt o rne y ’s office a n d D efe n se c o u n sel, th e J u d g e, an d co u rt re p o rte r. T h e d e fe n d a n t w a s in a n a d jac e n t ro o m a n d w a s a b le to c o m m u n ica te w i th hi s att orney by t el ephone. A nd i n o rderto sat i sf

y the con fr on t at i on i ssues – M r. B urghard w as – D efense c o u n se l, M r. B u rg h a rd , w a s a llo w e d to lea v e th e ro o m a n d c o n fe r w ith h is cl i ent atvari ou s t i m es upo n h i s requestd uri ng the t est i m on y an d b efor e cross exami nat i on. A nd ther e w as not– and the ca m er as w er e s eti n s uch a w ay s o i tw as not appar entt o the j ury thatthe def endantw as notin t he room . A camer a w as trai ned o n the w i tnes s es , and the otherpart i ci pant s i n the r oom w er e not vi s i bl e. A nd dur i ng the t es t i m ony i tw as di f f i cul tt o c onf

erof f the r ecor d f

orf earthat w hatw e t al ked aboutw oul d be br oadca s ti n the courtr oom . A nd so counsel and the Jud ge ex i t ed the r oo m t o take up a cou ple of obj ect i on s.

### The tri altrans cript re fl ec ts a m inimum

of f our tim es that t

he Co urt wen t o ff

the 3 

### re cord for a br eak. 4 C ouns el f

orR ol l i ns then moved f ora mi s tr i al , ar gui ng thatR ol l i ns w as deni ed hi s f eder al
cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o conf r ontthe w i tnes s es agai ns thi m , w hi ch mot i on the tr i al courtdeni ed
w i th the f

ol l ow i ng di s cus s i on on the r ecor d. T H E C O U R T : T h e C o u rtis g o ing to d en y the m o ti o n fo r m istri al. T h e C o u rt sp ec if icall y w o u ld no te th at du ri n g th e m o ti o n he aring , co u n sel did n o t – couns el f orthe D ef

ens e aba ndoned hi s pos i t i on thatthe t es t i m ony had t o be tak e n in o p e n c o u rt. T he C our tatal l t i m es – every t i m e the – every t i m e, M r . B ur ghar d, you re q u e ste d a b re a k , the C o u rt g a v e it t o y o u .[ ] In fa c t, y o u h a d m o re tim e to 3 conf erw i th yourcl i entthan you w oul d have had i n the or di nary courtr oom t es t i m ony s ett i ng. A nd t he comm uni cat i on probl ems, fort he r ecor d, deal tw i th tr ans m i t t i ng the info rm ati o n to the jury
. A n d the C o u rt w a s in tou ch w ith the c o u rt admi ni s tr at ori n the courtr oom atal l t i m es . So w hen the pr obl em ar os e, I w as i nform ed o f i tand cou l d take corr ect i ve m easures. I don’ tbel i eve ther e w as any s uch comm uni cat i on pr obl em w i th the sound sy ste m th a t th e d e fe n d a n t w a s liste n in g to . I co u ld h e a r th e e c h o fro m th a t, sitti n g in ch am b ers, w h il e w e w ere takin g the testi m o n y . T h o se sp ea k ers f u n c t i o n e d
. Th e p r o b l e m wa s t r a n s mi t t i n g i ta c r o s s t h e h a l l t o th e c o u r tr o o m. So I don’ tf

i nd ther e w as any C ons t i tut i onal probl em. Fur ther , thatpart i cul ar obj ect i on i s nott i m el y. T he C our t , had i tbeen m ade ear l i er , coul d have ha d a c h a n c e to h a v e th e tes tim o n y tak e n in o p e n c o u rt. A n d th a t o p p o rtu n ity is gone now . T he w i tnes s es have t es t i f i ed. A nd so even i f

I thi nk i tw as m er i t or i ous , I w oul d f

i nd t hati tw as nott i m el y m ade, comi ng as i tdoes af t er the t es t i m ony, i ns t ead of pr i ort o the t aki ng of t hat t es t i m ony. A nd I under s t and thatyou coul d notnece s s ar i l y have a nt i ci pat ed – M R
. B U R G H A R D : Itis b ased o n the t echn i cal problem , no tthe actual even t s. W e don’ tha ve a pr obl em w i th – w e ar e notobj ect i ng, bas ed on the w ay that everythi ng w as s etup.

### Ms. Jone s i s the a ss is tant di stri ct attor ney. 4 

### 5 T H E C O U R T : A ll righ t. I w ill d e n y th e m o tio n fo r m istria l. M S. J O N E S [ ] : A nd jus tt o not e f orthe r ecor d, w hen I w as exami ni ng [ one 4 chi l d] and w as not i f

i ed of a problem , I t r i ed t o r epea tthe ques t i ons t o m ake s u r e th e j u r y h e a r d a l l o f th e m. M R . B U R G H A R D : A n d I w ill s tip u la te to th a t f a c t. ¶ 5
. A fte r th e S tate re ste d fo llo w in g its c a se -in -c h ief , R o lli n s m o v e d fo r a d ire c ted v e rd ict, and i n t he al t ernat i ve, m oved t o di s m i s s the s exual
- batt ery char ge. D ur i ng the cour s e of the
a rg u m e n ts o n th e se m o tio n s, th e S tate m o v e d to a m e n d th e in d ictm e n t ag a in st R o lli n s a s to C ountI
. T he St at e had a l l eged s exual batt er y i n w hi ch R ol l i ns i ns ert ed hi s f i ngeri nt o t he
e lev e n -y e a r-o ld ’s v a g in a . T h e a m e n d m e n t in ste a d a lleg e d tha t R o lli n s in se rte d h is p e n is in to herm outh. T he tr i al courtt ook thes e mot i ons underadvi s ementand di r ect ed R ol l i ns t o go fo rw a rd w ith h is c a se -in -c h ief. A fte r re stin g h is c a se -in -c h ief , R o llin s , th ro u g h c o u n se l,
m oved f ora mi s tr i al on t he bas i s of M i s s . R
. E vi d. 617(d) , becaus e R ol l i ns coul d notobs erve the d em ea n o r of the m ino r w itn esse s d u e to R o ll ins’s v ideo scre en ’s fail u re. T h e tri al co u rt
m ade the f

ol l ow i ng f

i ndi ng on the r ecor d, out s i de the pr es ence of the j ury: T H E C O U R T : T he C our tw i l l deny the mot i on f ordi r ect ed v erdi ctthatw as j us tr enew ed atthe cl os e of the def ens e ca s e. A nd the C our tw i l l al s o deny the m o tio n fo r m istria l. Fi r s t , t he C our tr emoved t he def endantf r om oral l ow ed t he defenda ntt o be rem o v ed from the c o u rtroo m rathe r th an w atch ing i t on the T V w ith the ju rors beca us e the C our tdi d notw antt o hi gh l i ghtthe f actthatthe def

endantw as bei ng s epar at ed f

r om the w i tnes s . A nd [ I ] w entt o gr eatl ength t o i ns ur e that the def endantw as notpr ej udi ced by the pr ocedur e and thatthe def endanthad aud i o/ vi s ual f

eed of the t es t i m ony of

the chi l d w i tnes s , pl us i ns t ant

### 6

comm uni cat i on w i th counse l
. T hatt he def endantw as sea t ed acr os s – on t he other si de of a w al l , t en f eetf r om D ef ens e couns el
. A nd the C our tal l ow ed D e fe n se c o u n se l to c o n fe r lib e ra lly w ith h is c lien t. I f ther e w as a t echni cal di f f i cul ty w i th the def

endantactual l y ob servi ng the t es t i m ony, cert ai nl y, i ts houl d have been br oughtt o the C our t ’ s att ent i on i n a m annerthatw oul d have enab l ed t he C our tt o deal w i th that , r atherthan b ro u g h t u p a t th is p o in t. ¶6. W i l l i e H arr i son, the bail i ff , w as i n the separat e room w i th R oll i ns du ri ng the m i no rs ’ t es t i m ony. A tthe tr i al j udge’ s r eques t , H arr i s on t es t i f i ed as t o w hathe obs erved dur i ng the
m i nor s ’ t es t i m ony. H arr i s on s t at ed thatR ol l i ns i n f actobs erved no vi s ual fe ed; how ever , t he audi o f eed w or ked pr oper l y. T he tr i al j udge w enton the r ecor d agai n: T H E C O U R T : A l l r i ght
. T hank you. T h e C o u rt w ill d e n y th e m o tio n f o r m is tria l, an d I fin d th e o b jec tio n is unt i m el y. A gai n, the t i m e t o have r ai s ed thatw ou l d have be en w hi l e i tw as goi ng on, w hi l e the C our tcoul d addr es s i t . T her e w as a cl earaudi o f eed a nd there w as c o m m u n icati o n an d freq u e n t con su lt ati o n b etw ee n d efe n d an t’ s couns el and hi s cl i entdur i ng thatt es t i m ony. M R
. B U R G H A R D : A nd, f orthe r ecor d, D ef

ens e couns el w i l l s t i pul at e that ther e w as cl ear c om m uni cat i on, ther e w as f r ee f l ow goi ng back a nd f

or th. C ouns el and def

endantdi d notobs erve any vi s ual f eed i n the r oom tha tw as u n im p e d e d fro m c o m m u n ica tio n w ith h is c lien t. T H E C O U R T : A nd I thi nk [ H arr i s on’ s ] t es t i m ony s t at es c l ear l y thatther e w as no vi s ual f

eed. B utI thi nk the capabi l i ty w e maybe thoughtexi s t ed. ¶7. A f

t erj ury i nst ruct i on s and closi ng ar gum ent s , the j ury began de l i ber at i ons . A f t er del i ber at i ng f

orappr oxi m at el y one hourand thi r ty- f i ve m i nut es , the j ury s enta not e t o J udge T ayl or , w ho t hen had a con fe r ence w i th the att orneys and the def endant
. T he f

ol l ow i ng di s cus s i on occurr ed:

### 7

T H E C O U R T : Fo r th e re co rd, I w il l, o f co u rse, i n clud e this d o cu m en t as p art of the r ecor d. I w i l l al s o r ead i nt o the r ecor d the r ece i ved comm uni cat i on f r om the j ury appr ox i m at el y one hourand thi r ty m i nut es af t erthe j ury began deli berat i on s. A nd the n ote s ays t his : D earJ udge, W e know the pr ohi bi t i on you t ol d us up f r ontabout nothavi ng acc es s t o the tr ans cr i pt . W e ar e as ki ng f ora r e- rul i ng on thatpor t i on of

the t es t i m ony onl y. D ue t o the l ous y vi deo a n d a u d i o o f

th e two c h i l d r e n ’ s i n - c o u r tt e s t i mo n y , c o u l d we pl eas e have acc es s t o the r ecor ded t es t i m ony onl y? The Jury. A nd, f orthe r ecor d, of

cour s e, w e do nothave a t ape, i tw as a l i ve f eed f r om cham bers of the chil dren w ho w ere t est i fyi ng t o the cou rtroom . A nd there i s, of cour s e, no tr ans cr i ptavai l abl e f orthem t o r evi ew thatora ny otherpor t i on o f i t atthis po int. W h ich ra ises the o b v io u s c o n ce rn a b o u t th e jury ’s compl ai nt s aboutthe audi o and vi deo qual i ty of the tr ans m i t t ed t es t i m ony. C ouns el , m y thoughti s t o send them a not e thats ays the br oadca s t ed t es t i m ony w as a l i ve f

e e d o nl y. The r e i s no t a pe . The c ou r tr e po r t e r ’ s no t e s c a nn otbe i m m edi at el y tr ans cr i bed. M S. J O N E S: T hati s f

i ne. M R . B U R G H A R D : W e b e liev e th a t’s w h a t is a p p ro p ria te a t th is p o in t.

. . . . M R
. B U R G H A R D : T h e c o n ce rn th at I’m left w ith at th is po int i s . . . . It s ounds l i ke the gi s tof

i ti s w hatthey’ r e s ayi ng i s t hey w er e notabl e t o hearthe ent i r e t es t i m ony of

the tw o chi l dr en.

. . . . T H E C O U R T : A nd i n a compl ex ca s e, j ur or s ar e f ai r l y qui ck t o f

ocus on the pi vot al t es t i m ony. In any s or tof ca s e ( s i c)
. A nd I thi nk partof w hathappens i n a j ury r oom – thi s i s , of c our s e, r ank s pecul at i on beca us e I have ne verbeen i n o ne – b uti s the y f oc us on a pi vo t a l po r t i on of tha tt e s t i mony. A nd, obvi ous l y, j ur or s ’ opi ni ons, rec ol l ect i ons of thatm ay di f

f er , r egar dl es s of w h ethe r i t w as tran sm itted b y v ideo o r w h atev er.

### 8

A nd then i t ’ s l i ke, s how us s om ethi ng, gi ve us s om ethi ng, you know , r es ol ve ourj ury ques t i on, w hi ch i s thei rj ob t o r es ol ve. So, I m ean, i t ’ s notuncomm on th a t th e ju ro rs w a n t to g o b a c k a n d r e v isit so m e th in g , d id n ’t c o m p lete ly under s t and s om ethi ng. B utI thi nk partof thati s the nat ural f

unct i on of

the j ury. ¶8. U pon conf

err i ng w i t h his cli ent , couns el f orR ol l i ns m ade no obj ect i on. T he tr i al j udge’ s w r i t t en r es pons e w as sentt o the j ury, w hi ch i n due cour s e unani m ous l y f ound R ol l i ns gui l ty on al l co unt s of the i ndi ctm ent . T he tr i al j udge hel d a s ent enci ng hear i ng on N o v em b er 1 5 , 2 0 0 6 , at th e co n clus ion of w h ich the tri al j u d g e sen tenc ed R o ll ins t o serv e li fe im p riso n m e n t as to c o u n t o n e , fifte e n y e a rs a s to c o u n t tw o , a n d 3 6 4 d a y s e a c h a s to c o u n ts thr ee a nd f

our , w i th al l count s runni ng conse cut i vel y. O n D ece m ber15, 2006, R ol l i ns f i l ed a mot i on f

ora new tr i al , w hi ch the tr i al courtdeni ed by orde rent er ed on Ja nuary 22, 2007. R o lli n s tim e ly p e rfe c ted h is a p p e a l to th is C o u rt. DI S CU S S I ON ¶9. E ven though R ol l i ns r ai s ed f ouri s s ues i n hi s mot i on f ora ne w tr i al , he a s s i gns but one iss u e fo r u s to c o n s id e r o n a p p e a l. R o lli n s a ss e rts th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is
m ot i on f

ora new tr i al i nas m uch as he w as deni ed hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtof
c o n fr o n ta tio n d u e to th e v id e o /a u d io e q u ip m e n t f a ilu re d u ri n g th e m in o rs ’ t e s tim o n y . W e
r es t at e the i s s ue f

orthe s ake of

t oday’ s di s cus s i on. W HE T HE R T HE TR I AL CO UR T E RR E D I N D E NY I NG T HE DE F EN DANT ’ S M OTI ON F OR A M I S TR I AL AND M OTI ON F OR A NEW TRI AL. ¶10. “Thi s C our thas hel d t hat‘ [ w ] hethert o gr anta mot i on f orm i s tr i al i s w i thi n the s ound di s cr et i on of

the tr i al court . ’ ” Ca rp e n terv. S ta te , 910 So. 2d 528, 533 ( M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng

### Roll ins fi le d his appe alexpr es sly purs uant to thetri alcourt ’s denia l of hi s m oti on for 5 

### a newtrial , an dh e st at es as his issu e onapp eal in h is brief th at “the trial co urt erredin denying appe ll ant ’s Moti on for New Tria l. ” However , Roll ins als o mentions in his bri ef that he ap peals th e trial court’s den ial of h is motio n fo r a mistrial. 9 P u lp h u s v . S ta te , 7 8 2 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 2 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ) (co ll ec ti n g au tho ri ti es)). “Fur therm or e, ‘ the s t andar d of r evi ew f

ordeni al of

a mot i on f

orm i s tr i al i s abus e of di s cr et i on. ’ ” I

d . T he st and ard of

r eview f or deni al of a m oti on f

or a new tri al al so i s abuse
o f d is c re tio n . W

ith e rs v. S ta te , 907 So. 2d 342, 352 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng Flo w e rs v. S ta te , 6 0 1 S o . 2 d 8 2 8 , 8 3 3 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ); R o b in so n v. S ta te , 5 6 6 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 0 , 1 2 4 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 )). ¶11. R ol l i ns ar gues t hatt he t r i al cour tabuse d i t s di s cr et i on i n fa i l i ng t o gra nthi s m ot i on f ora mi s tr i al and mot i on f ora new tr i al beca us e he w as deni ed hi s r i ghtt o conf r ontt he 5

w i tnes s es agai ns thi m i n vi ol at i on of hi s f eder al and s t at e cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , i nas m uch as he w as unabl e t o vi ew the w i tnes s es on the vi deo sc r een a nd the j ur or s compl ai ned thatt hey coul d nothearthe w i tnes s es ’ t es t i m ony. R ol l i ns furtherar gues t hathi s counse l ’ s obj ect i on
w as t i m el y becau se his cou nsel did not kno w that R oll i ns cou l d n ot vi ew the screen bec ause the equi pm entw as turned of f dur i ng the br eaks w hen R ol l i ns an d his counse l conf err ed. R o lli n s a rg u e s in h is b rie f to th is C o u rt: T he def endantw as deni ed any cons tituti onal abilit y t o c onf r ontthe w i tnes s es agai ns thi m . A t ot al i ty of the pr obl ems i ncl udes no vi deo feed forthe De f e n d a n ta n d r e p e a t e d a u d i o pr o b l e ms f o rth e De f

e n d a n ta n d th e J u ry . By any r eas onabl e s t andar d, the D ef endantw as deni ed any abilit y t o be con fr on t ed b y h i s w i tnesses. ( E m phas i s added)
. Fur ther , R ol l i ns ar gues t hatthes e t echni cal pr obl ems amount ed t o “a cl earvi ol at i on of

the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on w ithout exce pti on . ” (E m p h asis ad d ed ).

### 10

Fi nal l y, R ol l i ns ar gues t hatthe mi nor s ’ t es t i m ony w as in vi ol at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vidence 6 17 (d) , w hich st at es: C l os ed ci r cui tt el evi s i on t es t i m ony m ay be t aken by any met hod not i ncons i s t entw i th the C onf r ont at i on C l aus es of

t he C ons t i tut i on of

the U ni t ed St at es and of

the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi , the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e, the M i ssi ssipp i U nif

orm C ri m i nal R ules of C i rcui tC ou rtP ract i ce, and these rul es . I n the ca s e of

a cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on, af t era det erm i nat i on thatthe d e fe n d a n t’s p re se n c e w o u ld c a u se a su b sta n tial lik e lih o o d o f se rio u s tra u m a tic emot i onal orm ent al di s tr es s t o the chi l d, the tr i al courtm ay exc l ude the d e fe n d a n t fro m th e ro o m w h e re th e tes tim o n y is ta k e n . In a n y su c h c a se in w hi ch the d ef

endanti s s o excl uded, arr angement s m us tbe made f orthe def ens e att orney t o be i n cont i nual cont actw i th the def endantby any appr opr i at e pr i vat e el ectr oni c ort el ephoni c met hod t hr oughoutthe ques t i oni ng. T he def

endant , the courtand t he j ury m us tbe abl e t o obs erve the demeanorof

the chi l d w i tnes s atal l t i m es dur i ng the ques t i oni ng. ¶1 2. Fi r s tof

al l , R ol l i ns wai ve d hi s r i gh tt o c l a i m err ori n the j ury’ s i nabi l i t y t o hear por t i ons of

the t es t i m ony, a s hi s c ouns el , af t erconf err i ng w i th R ol l i ns , s peci f i cal l y decl i ned to o b je c t. S p ice r v . S ta te , 921 S o. 2d 292, 309 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 684 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 9 , 1 2 0 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 )). H o w ev er, pro ce d u ral ba r no tw ith stan d ing , the re co rd
r evea l s thatt he tr i al j ud ge’s cou rtadmi ni s tr at orw as i n the courtr oom w i th the j ury dur i ng the close d -circuit test im o n y of th e m ino r children , an d th at th e co u rtad m inistra to r w a s to im m e d iate ly in fo rm th e trial ju d g e if te c h n ica l d iffic u lti e s a ro se s o th a t th e p ro b lem s c o u ld be r emedi ed and que s t i ons and r es pons es coul d be r epea t ed. ¶13. O n the i s s ue of

ut i l i zi ng c l os ed- ci r cui tt es t i m ony of m i norchi l dr en, the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thel d i n Ma ry la n d v. Cra ig , 497 U
. S. 836, 110 S. C t . 3157, 111 L
. E d. 2d 666 ( 1990) , thatthe us e of

cl os ed- ci r cui tt el evi s i on w i th the t es t i m ony of m i norw i tnes s es i s not i n conf l i ctw i th the C onf

r ont at i on C l aus e.

### 11

T he C onf

r ont at i on C l aus e of

the Si xth A m endment , m ade appl i cabl e t o the St at es thr ough the Four t eenth A m endment , pr ovi des : “I n al l cr i m i nal pr os ecut i ons , the ac cus ed s hal l enj oy the r i ght
. . . t o be conf r ont ed w i th the w itn e s s e s a g a in s t h im .”

. . . . W e have neverhel d, how ever , thatthe C onfr ont at i on C l aus e guar ant ees cr i m i nal def

endant s the abs ol ut e r i gh tt o a f a c e - t o- f a c e mee t i ng wi th t he w itn e ss e s a g a in st th e m a t trial.

. . . . T he ce ntr al conce r n of

the C onf r ont at i on C l aus e i s t o ens ur e the r el i abi l i ty of the evi dence agai ns ta cr i m i nal def endantby s ubj ect i ng i tt o r i gor ous t es t i ng in th e c o n tex t o f a n a d v e rsa ry p ro c e e d in g b e fo re th e trier o f fa c t.

. . . . [ W ] e have neveri ns i s t ed on an a ctual fa ce- t o- f ace encount erattr i al i n every in sta n c e in w h ich tes tim o n y is a d m itt e d a g a in st a d e fe n d a n t.

. . . . In sum , ou r pr ecede nts est abli sh t hat “the C on fr on t at i on C l ause ref l ect s a pr ef er ence fo r a fa c e -to -fa c e c o n fro n tatio n a t trial,” ( e m p h a sis a d d e d ; fo o tn o te om i t t ed) , a pr ef

er ence that“mustocca s i onal l y gi ve w ay t o consi der at i ons of p u b lic p o lic y a n d th e n e c e s s itie s o f t h e c a s e .”

. . . . T h u s, th o u g h w e re a ffirm th e im p o rta n c e o f fa c e -to -fa c e c o n fro n tatio n w ith w i tnes s es appea r i ng attr i al , w e ca nnots ay thats uch conf r ont at i on i s an in d isp e n sa b le e lem e n t o f th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t’s g u a ra n tee o f th e rig h t to con fr on ton e’s accusers. I d. at84 4-50 (ci t at i on s om i t t ed). T he U nit ed S t at es Su prem e C ou rtw en t on to di scuss M aryl and’ s s t atut e ati s s ue: W e f i nd i ts i gni f

i cant , how ever , thatM aryl and’ s pr ocedur e pr es erves al l of the otherel ement s of

the conf r ont at i on r i ght : T he chi l d w i tnes s m us tbe com pet ent t o t es t i f y a nd mustt es t i f

y unde roa th; the def

endantr et ai ns f

ul l opportuni ty f

or cont empora neous cr os s - exami nat i on; and the judge , j ury an d d ef end an tare ab l e t o vi ew (albeit

b y video m on i t or) the de m ean or ( an d b od y) of the w i tness as he o r she t est i

f i es.

### 12

I d. at851 ( emphasi s a dded)
. T hus , Rol l i ns a r gues thathe had an a bs ol ut e r i ghtt o vi ew the demeanorof

the mi norw i tnes s es , and si nce he di d nothave thatoppor tuni ty, he w as
un con st i tuti on al l y d enied a fai r tri al
. H ow ever, i n o rdert o recei ve a new tri al , R oll i ns m ust
s h o w th a tth e d e n i a l o f

h i s r i g h tt o v i e w t h e d e me a n o ro f th e mi n o rwi tn e s s e s p r e j u d i c e d h i m. R ol l i ns does notar gue thathe w as pr ej udi ced i n a ny w ay; i ns t ead, R ol l i ns i ncorr ect l y ar gues thathi s r i ghti s “w i thoutexce pt i on. ” “A s s ert i ons of err orw i thoutpr ej udi ce do nottr i gger
r ever s al
. ” J

o n e s v . S ta te , 912 So. 2d 973, 977 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng N ich o lso n e

x re l. G o llo tt
v. S ta te , 6 7 2 S o . 2 d 7 4 4 , 7 5 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 )). ¶14. A ccor di ngl y, s i nce Rol l i ns does notar gue thathe w as pr ej udi ced ordemonstr at e how h e w a s p re

ju d ice d , this a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 1 5
. F o r th e re a so n s sta ted , th e jud g m e n t o f co n v ictio n an d se n ten c e e n ter e d b y th e C irc u it C o u rt o f L in c o ln C o u n ty is a ff ir m e d
. ¶ 1 6
. CO UN T I : CO NV I CT I ON O F S E X U A L B A T T E RY AN D S E NT E NC E OF LI F E I M P RI S ONM EN T I N T HE 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 , AF F I RM E D. CO UN T I I : CO NV I CT I ON OF T OU CH I NG A C H IL D F O R L U S T F U L P U R P O S E S A N D S E N T E N C E O F F IF T E E N (15 ) Y E A R S IN TH E C U STO D Y O F T H E M I SSI SSI PPI DE PA R TM EN T O F C O R R EC TIO N S, AF F I RMED . CO UN T S I I I & I V: CO NV I CT I ON OF CO NT RI BU TI NG T O T HE DE LI NQUE NCY OF A M I NOR AND S EN TE NCE OF THRE E HUN DRE D S I XT YFO UR ( 3 6 4 ) D A Y S, EA CH CO UN T, I N T H E C USTO DY O F TH E M I SS I SS I PPI DE PARTM EN T OF CORRE CT I ONS , AF F I RM ED . S EN TE NCE S S HALL RUN CONS EC UT I VE LY . S M I TH , C. J . , W AL L E R A ND DI AZ , P . J J . , E AS L E Y, DI CK I NS ON, RAN DO LPH AND LA M AR, J J . , CO NC UR . G RAV ES , J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY .