I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 0 - CT - 0 1 5 7 1 - S CT CHRI SHARRELL a

/ k / a CHRI S TOP HER H ARR ELL
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 : 08/ 05/ 2010 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. W . SW AN YER GER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F S TATE PUB LI C D EFENDER BY : G EO RG E T. H O LM ES AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L B Y : J O H N R . H E N R Y , J R . DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : RO BERT SHU LER SM I TH NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY DI S P OSI TI ON: AFF I RM ED I N PART ; REVE RS ED I N PART A N D R E M A N D E D - 01/ 16/ 2014 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. CO LEM AN, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . A H in d s C o u n ty ju ry c o n v icte d C h ri s to p h e r H a rr e ll o f t w o c ri m e s : c a p ita l m u rd e r w ith th e u n d e rly in g fe lo n y o f ro b b e ry a n d fe lo n in p o ss e ss io n o f a fir e a rm . T h e H in d s C o u n ty C i r cui tC our ts ent ence d H arr el l t o l i f e w i thoutthe pos s i bi l i ty of pa r ol e pur s uantt o the f

or m er a n d te n y e a rs , to ru n c o n c u rr e n tly w ith th e lif e s e n te n c e , fo r t h e la tte r.

### 2

¶2. T he C our tof

A ppeal s af

f i r m ed bot h convi ct i ons , and w e gr ant ed H arr el l ’ s pet i t i on f or a w r i tof cert i or ar i . H arr el l r ai s ed f ouri s s ues on di r ecta ppeal , butt oday w e addr es s tw o: ( 1)
w hetherthe ci r cui tcourterr ed i n noti ns truct i ng the j ury on the el ement s of the under l yi ng f el ony of r obbery a nd (2) w hetherthe ci r cui tcourterr ed i n gr ant i ng the St at e’ s r eques t ed f l i ghti ns t ruct i on . W e hol d thatthe f ai l ur e t o i ns tructthe j ury as t o the el ement s of the char ged cr i m e depr i ved H arr el l of due pr ocess i n t he form of hi s r i ghtt o a j ury tr i al as guar ant eed by the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons tut i on, a nd thatthe ci r cui tc our tdi d note rri n gr ant i ng t he f l i ghti ns truct i on. A ccor di ngl y, w e af f i r m the tr i al c our ta nd the C our tof A ppeal s a s t o t he convi ct i on of

f el on i n pos s es s i on of

a f i r earm i n pa r tbutr ever s e the capi t al m urder convi ct i on, and r emand the cas e t o t he C i r cui tC our tof H i nds C ounty fora new tr i al i n t he
m u rd e r in d ictm e n t. FACTS ¶3. O n the af

t ernoon of

A pr i l 6, 2008, Fr ank D ami co dr opped of f Ler oy M cG ow an and hi s s i s t eratthe V . A . H os pi t al i n J acks on, M i s s i s s i ppi , i n H i nds C ounty. M cG ow an had l ent D ami co hi s bl ue M er cury G r and M ar qui s s edan. D ami co w as s uppos ed t o pi ck them up a f ew hour s l at er , butw hen he di d notr eturn, they ca l l ed the pol i ce. O n A pr i l 9, 2008, the bl ue M er cury w as di s cover ed behi nd a chur ch i n H ol m es C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi . O n A pr i l 15, 2008, D ami co’ s body w as di s cover ed i n a di t ch a f ew m i l es f

r om the chur ch. ¶ 4 . A c c o rd in g to th e re c o rd b e lo w , in v e stig a to rs d e ter m in e d tha t H a rre ll, w h o liv e d w ith hi s mot heri n H ol m es C ounty, had es cape d t o J acks on i n M ar ch 2008 t o avoi d arr es tf oran aggr avat ed as s aul t . W hi l e i n J acks on, H arr el l s t ayed w i th D ami co’s gi r l f r i end, R i t a Faye L andrum . L andrum t es t i f i ed thatH arr el l had a gun. She t es t i f i ed thatD ami co had vi s i t ed on

### 3

the af t ernoon of

A pr i l 6 , an d H arr el l had as ked hert o as k D ami co f ora r i de t o the Exxon
s ta tio n . D a m ic o a g re e d a n d le ft w ith H a rr e ll. L a n d ru m n e v e r s a w e ith e r o f t h e m a g a in . ¶5. H arr el l ’ s m other , M artha Engel m ann, t es t i f i ed t hat H arr el l h ad cal l ed on A pr i l 8, 2 0 0 8 , an d an n o u n ce d that h e w as c o m ing ho m e. S h e im m ed iat ely c all ed th e p o li ce , w h o w ere l ooki ng f orH arr el l . H arr el l w as a r r es t ed thatni ghti n hi s be dr oom . A ni ne mi l l i m et erpi s t ol and the keys t o the bl ue M er cury w er e bes i de hi m . T he pol i ce f ound the bl ue M er cury i n a chur ch parki ng l otabouta quart erm i l e f r om E ngel m ann’ s hous e. T he l i ni ng i n the trunk had been r emoved. ¶6 . C o n stru c ti o n w o rke rs disco v ere d D am ico’s b o d y i n a dit ch on a sec lud e d ro a d in H ol m es C ounty on A pr i l 15, 2008. T he pathol ogi s t , D r . St ephen H ayne, det ermi ned that D ami co had di ed f

r om a s i ngl e guns hotw ound t o the head thathad f r actur ed the j aw bone. T h e fa ta l b u lle t h a d p a s s e d th ro u g h th e b o d y a n d w a s n o t r e c o v e re d . ¶7 . H a rr e l l g a ve s e ve r a l s t a t e ment s t o the a utho r i t i e s , whi c h ar e r el evantt o t he f l i ght in stru c tio n iss u e . O n A p ril 9 , 2 0 0 8 , b e fo re th e d isc o v e ry o f D a m ico ’s b o d y , h e sa id th a t a
m an n am ed S ho rty h ad g i ven him the car. O n A pri l 10, H arr el l s ai d he had been at “Frank’s” hous e and thatD ami co had gi ven hi m a ri de t o m eeta man nam ed Shor ty. H arr el l cl ai m ed thatShor ty and D ami co l ef ti n D ami co’ s car , and S hor ty re turned al one. T hen, S hor ty gave H arr el l the ca r . O n M ay 8, H arr el l sai d t hathe and D ami co had m etShor ty ata mot el , then D ami co and Shorty had l ef tt ogether . Shor ty re turned w i th D ami co’ s body i n t he trunk and
as ked H arr el l w her e he coul d dum p the body. H arr el l and Shor ty dr ove t o H ol m es C ounty. T hey w er e f

ol l ow ed by an SU V d ri ven by an unknow n per s on. T hey dr ove t o the chur ch
nearH arr el l ’ s m other ’ s hous e, w her e they i ns truct ed the SU V dr i vert o w ai tw hi l e they

### 4

di s po s e d of

the b od y. A tthe d i t c h, Sh orty r e move d the b od y f r om the trun k. Then t hey dr ove t o the chur ch nea rH arr el l ’ s m other ’ s ho use, w here Shor ty gave H arr el l the bl ue M e r c u ry a n d l e f

ti n th e S UV. ¶8. O n J une 19, 2008, H arr el l gave a s t at ementt o the M i s s i s s i ppi B ur eau of I nves t i gat i on cl ai m i ng that he had d ri v en D am i co to see S ho rty so thatD am i co co uld purchase drug s. H arr el l s ai d thatthey had metShor ty i n the parki ng l otof a chur ch i n J acks on. A ccor di ng t o H arr el l , D ami co and Shorty had begun t o ar gue, and Shor ty had s hotD ami co. T hen, t hey d ro v e to H o lm e s C o u n ty , w h e re S h o rty re m o v e d th e b o d y . H a rre ll sa id th a t th e y d ro v e to th e c h u r c h , wh e r e S h o r ty g a v e h i m th e c a ra n d l e f ti n th e S UV. ¶9. I n H arr el l ’ s f

i nal i nt ervi ew on J une 26, 2008, he s ai d thatD ami co had notgone t o buy drugs f r om Shor ty, butt hathe had aske d D ami co f ora r i de t o m eetShor ty. H arr el l s ai d that th e y h a d m e t S h o rty a n d th e m a n w ith th e S U V a t a c h u rc h in Ja c k so n , n o t a m o tel. S h o rty beca m e angry and f

ear f ul thatD ami co w as a pol i ce of f i cera nd s hothi m . H arr el l hel ped put th e b o d y i n th e tru n k , a n d th e y d r o v e t o Ho l me s Co u n ty , tr a i l e d b y th e S UV. W h i l e th e S UV
w ai t ed atthe chur ch, H arr el l and Shor t y w ent t o t he sec l uded r oad and r emoved t he body. Ha rr e l l s a i d t h a t , u p o n t h e i rr e tu r n t o t h e c h u r c h , S h o r ty g a v e h i m th e c a ra n d l e f ti n th e S UV. ¶ 1 0 . A n in m a te, H e n ry P e ter s, te stifie d th a t h e h a d b e e n h o u se d w ith H a rre ll at th e R a n k in C ounty C orr ect i onal Faci l i ty i n A pri l 2 00 8. Pet er s t es t i f i ed thathe w as a w r i tw r i t erw ho
as s i s t ed otheri nm at es w i th l egal i ssues . Pet er s s ai d thatH arr el l had appr oache d hi m f or advi ce on a j ur i s di ct i onal mat t er . A ccor di ng t o Pet er s , H arr el l ha d w ant ed the capi t al m ur der tr ied in th e juri sd ict ion w h ere ith ad o cc u rred , w h ich w as H ind s C o u n ty. H arrell told P eters thathe had s hotD ami co “i n the mout h, ” and thatthe bul l ethad exi t ed the w ound. A gai n,

### 5

acc or di ng t o Pet er s , H arr el l f ur therconf

es s ed thath e t hen had putD ami co’ s body i n the tru n k a n d h a d d r i v e n t o Ho l me s Co u n ty . Ha rr e l l e x p l a i n e d th a th e wa s try i n g t o b l a me s om eone e l s e f

orthe cr i m e. ¶11. A t t he tri al , H arr el l ’ s pr i m ary def ens e t o capi t al m ur der w as that D ami co had bee n ki l l ed i n H ol m es Count y, notH i nds Count y. T he j ury f ound hi m gui l ty of

capi t al m ur derand pos s es s i on of

a f i r earm by a convi ct ed f el on. DI S CU S S I ON I . T HE F AI L UR E T O I NS T RU CT A J UR Y AS T O AL L E L E M E NT S OF T H E C R IM E C H A R G E D C O N S T IT U T E S R E V E R S IB L E E R R O R . ¶12. H arr el l ar gues thathi s f undament al r i ghtt o due pr oces s w as vi ol at ed bec aus e the tr i al
c o u rt fa iled to in stru c t th e ju ry o n th e e lem e n ts o f th e u n d e rly in g fe lo n y o f r o b b e ry . H a rre ll
w as convi ct ed of

capi t al m ur derw i th the under l ying f el ony of r obbery underM i s s i s s i ppi C od e S ect i on 97 -3- 19 (2) (e) . T hat s ect i on provides: T h e k ill in g o f a h u m a n b e in g w ith o u t th e a u th o rity o f la w b y a n y m e a n s o r in a n y m a n n e r sh a ll b e c a p ital m u rd e r in th e fo llo w in g c a se s: W hen done w i th orw i thoutany des i gn t o ef f ectdeath, by any per s on engage d i n the comm i s s i on of

the cr i m e orr ape, bur gl ary, ki dnappi ng, ar s on, r obbery, s exual batt ery, unnatural int er cour s e w i th any chi l d underthe age of tw el ve ( 12) , ornoncons ens ual unnatur al i nt er cour s e w i th m anki nd, ori n any att empt to c o m m it s u c h fe lo n ie s . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 19( 2) ( e) ( R ev. 2006) . M i s s i s s i ppi Code Sect i on 97- 3- 73, def i ni ng t he cr i me of

r ob be r y, pr ov i de s : “ Eve ry p e r s on w ho s ha l l f e l on i ou s l y t a ke the pe r s ona l p ro p e rty o f a n o th e r, in h is p re se n c e o r fro m h is p e rso n a n d a g a in st h is w ill , b y v io len c e to hi s per s on orby put t i ng s uch per s on i n f earof s om e i m m edi at e i nj ury t o hi s per s on, s hal l be g u il ty o f rob b ery . ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-7 3 (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e e lem en ts of rob b ery

### We note th at the cap ital-murd er instru ctioninco rrectly statedthat th e killin g h ad to 1 

### hav e b een do ne withmalice. T here is n o malice requirement for cap ital murd er. See Miss. Co de Ann . § 9 7-3 -19 (2)(e) (R ev. 2 00 6); Stev enso n v. S tate , 73 3 S o. 2 d 1 77 , 18 6 (M iss. 1998). Howeve r, bec aus e the e rror f avor ed Har

re llby inc re as ing theStat e’ s burden of proof , no reversib le error o ccurred . 6 in c lu d e “ (1 ) fe lo n io u s in ten t, (2 ) fo rc e o r p u tti n g in fe a r a s a m e a n s o f e ffe c tu a tin g th e in ten t, and ( 3) by thatm eans t aki ng and ca rryi ng aw ay the pr operty of anotherf

r om hi s per s on or i n hi s pr es ence . ” G o

ff v . S ta te , 1 4 S o . 3 d 6 2 5 , 6 4 7 (M is s . 2 0 0 9 ). ¶1 3 . T h e tri al co u rtg av e the foll o w ing elem en ts i n stru cti o n o n ca p it al m u rde r:

T he D e f e nd a nt , Chr i s t op he rH a rr e l l , ha s be e n c ha r ge d i n the i nd i ct m ent w ith the o ffen se o f C ap it al M u rde r i n C o u n t O n e. T h e c o u rtinstructs the jury th a t if y o u fin d fro m the ev 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 th a t: 1 . T h e D e fe n d a n t, C h risto p h e r H a rre ll; 2. O n o r about A pri l 6, 20 08 i n the Fir stJu d ici al D istri ct of H i nd s C ount y, M i s s i s s i ppi 3. D i d purpos el y, know i ngl y and f el oni ous l y di d [ s i c] m ur derone Fr ank D ami co, a human bei ng 4 . w ith d e lib e ra te d e sig n o r w h ile in th e c o m m iss io n o f a n a c t em in e n tly d a n g e r o u s e v i n c i n g a d e p r a v e d h e a r t , wi th o u ta u th o r i ty o f l a w; 1 5. and no ti n n ecessary sel f def ense 6 . a t a ti m e w h en h e [si c] th e sa id C h ri stop h er H arrell w as th en an d there engage d i n the comm i s s i on of the cr i m e of

robb ery of

the s ai d Fr ank D ami co th e n y o u s h a ll f

in d th e d e fe n d a n t, g u ilty o f C a p ita l M u rd e r i n C o u n t O n e . T he tr i al cou rtdid not gi ve a sep arat e i nst ruct i on provi ding the el em ents of robbery. T hu s, w hi l e the jur y w as i ns truct ed thati tcoul d f i nd H arr el l gui l ty of

capi t al m ur deri f

i tf ound

### 7

beyond a r eas onabl e doubt thatH arr el l had ki l l ed D ami co w hi l e enga ged i n the cr i m e of
r obbery, the j ury w as noti ns truct ed on w hatact s cons t i tut ed “r obbery. ” ¶14. H arr el l di d notbri ng t he om i s s i on t o the att ent i on of the tr i al courtby obj ect i ng t o the St at e’ s i ns truct i on ors ubm i t t i ng an i ns truct i on on the el ement s of r obbery. N onethel es s , t he i s s ue i s notpr ocedur al l y barr ed. T he C our thas r ej ect ed the appl i cat i on of a pr ocedur al bar
w hen t he t r i a l c ou r tf

a i l s t o i ns truc tthe j ury on the e l e ment s o f the u nd e r l yi ng f

e l on y i n a c a p ita l- m u rd e r t ri a l. K

o lb e rg v. S ta te , 8 2 9 S o . 2 d 2 9 , 4 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ); S h a ffe r v . S ta te , 740 S o . 2 d 2 7 3 , 2 8 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 ); Hu n terv. S ta te , 684 So. 2d 625, 636 ( M i s s . 1996) . I ti s t he tr i al cour t ’ s r es pons i bi l i ty t o as s ur e thatthe j ury i s “f ul l y and pr oper l y i ns truct ed on al l i s s ues of l aw r el evantt o the ca s e. ” K o lb e rg v. S ta te , 829 S o. 2d 29, 46 ( M i s s . 2002) . “Ther e i s no d o u b t th at th e tri al co u rti s ult im ately resp o n sible for rend ering pro p er g u idan ce to the jury vi a appr opr i at el y gi ven j ury i ns truct i ons , even s ua s pont e. ” I d. at45. W e al s o ha ve hel d that the St at e i s r es pons i bl e f ormaki ng s ur e the j ury i s i ns truct ed on the es s ent i al e l ement s of t he
c ri m e . Hu n terv. S ta te , 6 8 4 S o . 2 d 6 2 5 , 6 3 5 (M iss. 19 9 6 ) ( stat ing th at “[ i] t is ru d im en tary thatthe j ury m us tbe i ns truct ed r egar di ng the el ement s of the cr i m e w i th w hi ch the def endant is c h a rg e d . . . ev e n th o u g h th e d e fe n d a n t d id n o t p re se n t an a c c e p tab le in stru c tio n , the S tate
w as o b li g ated to d o so ”). ¶15. W e now arr i ve ats om et hing o f a crossr oads. I n K olberg , w e r eaf

f i r m ed that the f ai l ure of the tr i al courtt o i ns tructa j ury as t o the el ement s of the under l yi ng f

el ony cons t i tut es err or , butf

orthe f i r s tt i m e w e hel d the err ort o be s ubj ectt o harm l es s err or a n a ly s is . K

olberg , 829 So. 2d at50- 51 ( ¶ 40) . W e t ake the opportuni ty pr es ent ed by the i ns t antcas e t o r evi s i touropi ni on i n K olberg .

### 8

¶16. A r t i cl e I I I , Sect i on 2, C l aus e 3 of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on m andat es a j ury tr i al fo r a ll crim e s e x c e p t as m a y re su lt i n im p e a c h m e n t. U .S . C o n st. a rt. III, § 2 . T h e S ix th A m endmentt o t he C ons t i tut i on of the U ni t ed St at es pr ovi des , “I n a llcri m i nal pr osecuti on s, th e a c c u s e d s h a ll e n

jo y th e ri g h t to a s p e e d y a n d p u b lic tr ia l, by a n im pa rt i al j ury o f th e S tate
a n d d i s tr i c twh e r e i n th e c r i me s h a l l h a v e b e e n c o mm i t t e d . . . . ” U. S . Co n s t . a me n d . VI ( emphasi s added) . Sect i on 31 of the C ons t i tut i on of

the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi st at es i n even s tr ongerl anguage , “T he r i ghtof tr i al by j ury sh a ll re m a in in v io la te . . . . ” M iss . C o n st. a rt. 3 , § 3 1 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶17. I n N

ederv. U nited States , 527 U . S. 1 ( 1999) , the Supr eme C our t of the U ni t ed St at es hel d i tt o be harm l es s err orw hen the def endantw as f

ound gui l ty of

t ax cr i m es des pi t e the factthat the j ury w as no tinstruct ed on o ne el em ent of the o ff ense – the m at eri al i ty o f f al se sta tem e n ts m a d e b y th e d e fe n d a n t. I d. at6-7, 10 . Just i ce S cal i a dis sent ed, as w e dis cuss b e lo w . I d. at30. T he N

ederC our ts poke author i t at i vel y r egar di ng the r i ghtt o a j ury t r i al
as pr ovi ded i n the f

eder al C ons t i tut i on. H ow ever , M i s s i s s i ppi has i t s ow n const i tut i on, w her ei n the r i ghtt o a tr i al by j ury al s o i s pr ot ect ed, and vi a l anguage s tr ongerthan thatf ound in its fe d e ra l c o u n te rp a rt . ¶ 1 8 . T h e i d e a t h a ta n a c c u s e d ’ s r i g h tt o a tr i a l b y j u ry i s l e s s th a n ab s o l u t e i s r e l a t i v e l y n e w. Pr i ort o the 1999 N

ederd e c isio n , th e F ifth C irc u it C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h e ld , “ W h e n th e ju ry is notgi ven an oppor tuni ty t o deci de a r el evantf actual ques t i on, i ti s nots uf f i ci ent‘ t o ur ge that the r ecor d cont ai ns evi dence thatw oul d s uppor ta f i ndi ng of gui l teven unde ra corr ectvi ew of the l aw . ’ ” U

n itedS ta tes v. Mc Cla in , 545 F. 2d 988, 1003 ( 5th C i r . 1977) ( quot i ng U ni ted States v. Casale CarL eas ing Inc. , 3 8 5 F .2 d 7 0 7 , 7 1 2 (2 d C ir. 1 9 6 7 )); s ee al s o U nited States

### 9

v. P e lu llo , 14 F. 3d 881, 890 ( 3d Ci r . 1994) ( hol di ng c ol l at er al e s t oppel c oul d notbe use d againsta cr i m i nal def endantbeca us e i tpr event ed the j ury f r om det erm i ni ng gui l tor in n o c e n c e a s to e a c h e lem e n t o f th e c rim e c h a rg e d ); U n itedS ta tes v. G o e tz , 746 F. 2d 705, 7 0 8 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 8 4 ) (“ T h e ru le is firm ly e sta b lish e d th a t th e tria l j u d g e c a n n o t d ire c t a
v e rd ict in fav o r o f th e g o v e rn m e n t fo r all o r ev e n o n e ele m e n t o f a c rim e .”). In fa c t, pr io r to N eder , the U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt itse lf c o n s iste n tly h e ld th a t, w h e n e n g a g in g in h arm less erro r an alys is, an ap p ell ate c o u rtm ay p rese rve , b u t no t sup p lem en t, a jury ’s fi n d ing s, an d that in the co n text o f a crim inal c ase the co u rtm ay n o t, if ask ed , h o ld tha t a j u ry w o u ld h a v e fo u n d s o m e th in g it d id n o t f in d . P o p e v. Illin o is , 481 U . S. 497, 509- 510 ( 1987) ( St evens , J. , di s s ent i ng) ( ci t i ng J a c kso n v. V

irg in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 2 0 n .1 4 , (1 9 7 9 ); U ni ted B h d. of Car penters & Joinders of

A m . v. U

nited States , 3 3 0 U . S . 3 9 5 , 4 0 8 -40 9 (19 4 7 ); B ollenbach v. U

nited States , 32 6 U. S. 60 7, 61 5 ( 19 46 ) ) . Tak i ng the s tr on g hi s t or i cal pr ece dentthatdi r ect s agai ns tthe N ederand K

olbergC our t s al l ow i ng j udges – r athert han j ur i e s – t o d e t e r mi ne gu i l tun de rthe rub r i c of ha r ml e s s e rr ort og e the rw i th the s t r onger w or di ng of

Sect i on 31 of

M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s cons t i tut i on, w e now hol d thatthe K olbergC o u rt ’s h o l d i n g v i o l a t e s o u rs t a t e c o n s t i tu t i o n a n d s h o u l d b e o v e rru l e d t o th e e x t e n tth a ti ta l l o ws appel l at e court s t o e ngage i n ha r m l es s e rr ora nal ys i s w hen tr i al c our t s f ai l t o i ns tructj ur i es as t o el ement s of

the cr i m e cha r ged. ¶19. T he K

olbergcas e w as si m i l art o t he i ns t antcas e. I n K olberg , the def

endanthad been
c o n v icte d o f c a p ital m u rd e r w ith th e u n d e rly in g fe lo n y o f c h ild a b u se ; K olberg , 829 So. 2d at45 ( ¶ 22) ; her e, H arr el l s t ands convi ct ed of capi t al m ur derw i th the under l yi ng f el ony of
r obb e ry. I n bo th c a s e s , the tr i a l c ou r tf a i l e d t o i ns truc tthe j ury on the e l e ment s of t he

### 10

under l yi ng f

el ony, and i n bot h cas es , the def ens e f ai l ed t o l odge a c ont empora neous o b je c tio n . K

olberg , 829 So. 2d at45 ( ¶¶ 22, 23) . I n r eac hi ng i t s hol di ng on the i ns t anti s s ue, the K olbergC o u rt d is c u s se d th re e c a se s it d e e m e d c ritica l: B a llen g e r v . S ta te , 761 So. 2d 2 1 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 ); S h a

ffe r v . S ta te , 740 S o. 2d 273 ( M i s s . 1998) ; and Hu n terv. S ta te , 684 S o . 2 d 6 2 5 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ). T h e th re e c a s e s le a d in e x o ra b ly to th e c o n c lu sio n th a t, pr io r to K olberg , the f

ai l ur e t o i ns tructa j ury as t o an el ementof the cha r ged cr i m e l ed t o an autom at i c revers al and precl ud ed an y sortof harm l ess erroranalysi s. ¶2 0. I n Hu n ter v . S ta te , t he def endants t oo d c on vi c t e d of c api t al m ur derw i t h t he
u n d e rl y in g fe lo n y o f r o b b e ry . Hunter , 684 So. 2d at628. A s i n the ca s e s ub j udi ce a n d in K olberg , the tr i al courtf

ai l ed t o i ns tructthe j ury on the el ement s of the under l yi ng of

f ens e. I d. T he def

endant , H unt er , pr opos ed a j ury i ns truct i on on the el ement s of r obbery, butt he tr ia l c o u rt re fu s e d th e in s tru c tio n . I d. at634. W e af

f i r m ed t he r ef

us al of H unt er ’ s pr opos ed in s tru c tio n , d e s c r ib in g i t a s lo n g a n d c o n fu s in g . I d. H ow ever , no otheri ns truct i on on t he el ement s of

r obbery w as s ubs t i tut ed f ori t , and the courtneveri ns truct ed the j ury on t he
e le m e n ts o f r o b b e ry . I

d. A ccor di ngl y, the HunterC our tconsi der ed w hethert he abs ence of
a n y in s tru c tio n o n th e e le m e n ts o f t h e u n d e rl y in g o ff e n s e w a s e rr o r. I

d. a t635. The Hunter C o u rt h e ld th a t, a fte r th e tri a l co u rt re fu se d th e d e fe n d a n t’s in stru c tio n , the S tate h a d a d u ty to m a k e s u re th e c o u rt p ro p e rl y in s tru c te d th e ju ry . Hunter , 6 8 4 S o . 2 d at 62 8 . In su p p o rt o f its h o ld in g , th e C o u rt w ro te, “ A lo g ica l c o ro llary o f th is p rin c ip le is th a t, be c a u se th e S tate ha s t o prove each e l em ent of the cr i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , then the St at e al s o has t o ens ure t hatthe j ury i s pr oper l y i ns truct ed w i th r egar d t o the el ement s of the cr i m e. ” I

d. at635 ( emphasi s a dded) . L at er , the C our tw r ot e, “ Fai l ur e t o s ubm i tt o the j ury the es s ent i al

### 11

el ement s of the cr i m e i s ‘ f undament al ’ err or . ” I

d. a t636. “W her e the j ury had i ncorr ector i ncompl et e i nst ruct i on s r egar di ng the l aw , ourr evi ew t as k i s ni gh unt o i m pos s i bl e and
r ever s al i s gener al l y r equi r ed. ” I d . at636 ( quot i ng He n de rs o n v. S ta te , 660 S o. 2d 220, 222 (M is s . 1 9 9 5 )) . ¶ 21. S h a

ffe r v . S ta te , 740 S o. 2d 273 (M i s s . 1998) , i nvol ved a c onvi ct i on f ors i m pl e m ur der in w h ich th e c o u rt’s ju ry in stru c tio n o m itt e d th e e lem e n t o f “ e v in c in g a d e p ra v e d h e a rt,
r egar dl es s of

hum an l i f

e. ” Shaff

er , 7 4 0 S o . 2 d a t 2 7 3 , 2 8 2 (¶ ¶ 1 , 3 1 ). T h e d e fe n d a n t, S h a ff e r, f a ile d to o b

je c t to th e in s tru c tio n a t tr ia l. I d. a t 2 8 2 (¶ 3 1 ). T h e C o u rt w ro te th a t a “convi ct i on i s unenf

or cea bl e w her e the j ury does notf i nd eac h el ementof

the of f ens e beyond
a r eas onabl e doubt . W her e the j ury i s note ven i ns truct ed on one of the vi t al e l ement s of

the of f ens e, the convi ct i on m us tnots ur vi ve the s crut i ny of thi s C our t . ” I

d. at2 82 (¶ 32) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); see al so D o b y v. S ta te , 5 5 7 S o . 2 d 5 3 3 , 5 4 0 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ); S tee le v . S ta te , 544 S o. 2d 802, 808-09 ( M i s s . 1989). “I ns truct i ng t he j ury on every el ementof the cha r ged
c rim e is s o b a sic to o u r sy ste m o f ju stic e th a t it sh o u ld b e e n fo rc e d b y re v e rsa l i n every ca se w h e re in a d e q u a te in s tru c tio n s a re g iv e n , re g a rd les s o f a fa ilu re to o b

jec t orm aki ng a di f f er entobj ect i on attr i al . ” Shaff er , 7 4 0 S o . 2 d at 28 2 (¶ 3 1 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶2 2. W e c ement ed t he pr e- Kolbergrul e, thatthe fai l ure of a j ury t o f

i nd a cr i m i nal d e fe n d a n t g u ilty o n e a c h e lem e n t o f th e c h a rg e d c rim e le d to m a n d a to ry re v e rsa l, i n B al lenger , w h ic h c a m e b e fo re th e C o u rt o n a m o tio n fo r p o s t- c o n v ic tio n re lie f. B al lenger , 761 So. 2d at214 ( ¶ 2) . A j ury con vict ed B al l engerof capi t al m ur derw i th the under l yi ng c ri m e o f r o b b e ry . I

d. a t 2 1 4 (¶ 1 ). T h e trial c o u rt fa iled to in stru c t th e ju ry o n th e e lem e n ts
o f r o b b e ry . I

d. at216 ( ¶ 12) . A l though w e af f i r m ed on B al l enger ’ s di r ectappea l , hol di ng

### 12

th a t B a lle n g e r h a d fa ile d to p re s e rv e th e is s u e a n d , a s a r e s u lt, it w a s p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d , id. , B al l enger ’ s di r ectappeal pre dat ed ourhol di ngs i n Hunterand Shaff er . B a llen g e r v . S ta te , 6 6 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 4 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 5 ). U p o n c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e la ter -file d p e tit io n fo r p o stc o n v ictio n relie f, th e C o u rt n o ted th a t Hu n ter and Shaff err e q u ir e d a u to m a tic re v e rs a l. I d.
a t 2 1 9 (¶ 2 1 ). ¶23. Pur s uant t o Hunter , Shaff er , and B al

lenger , pr i ort o K

olberg , w hen a pe r s on s t ood
c o n v i c t e d wi th o u ta j u r y h a v i n g f o u n d h i m g u i l ty o f

e a c h e l e me n to f

th e c h a r g e d c r i me beyond a r eas onabl e doubtbeca us e the j ury di d notr ece i ve i ns truct i on on eac h el ement , t he
err ori n f ai l i ng t o i ns tructw as f

undament al and r equi r ed aut om at i c r ever s al . T he K olberg C o u rt, w ith o u t d isc u ss io n o f th e rig h t to a ju ry trial g u a ra n te e d b y S e c tio n 3 1 o f o u r sta te cons t i tut i on, ef

f ect i vel y overrul ed Hunter , Shaff er , and B al

lenger . W e n o w q u e s t i o n two as pect s of

the K olbergopi ni on. Fi r s t , i tmi s t akenl y r el i ed on ourdeci s i on i n Co n ley v. S ta te , 79 0 S o. 2d 773 , 793 ( M i ss. 200 1), t o reach the con cl usi on that M i ssi ssi pp i al l ow ed h arm l ess err oranal ys i s w hen a tr i al courtpr ovi ded i ncompl et e i ns truct i ons t o a j ury. Second, i tf ai l ed t o ful l y cons i derSect i on 31, i ncl udi ng, as di s cus s ed bel ow , w hen i tchos e t o r el y upon N eder . ¶24. I n Conley , a j ury convi ct ed t he def endant of capi t al m ur der ; he re cei ved a se nt ence o f l if e w ith o u t p a ro le . Conley , 7 9 0 S o . 2 d at 77 9 (¶ 1 ). T h e tri al co u rtd en ied C o n ley’s
re q u e s t f o r a le s s e r- in c lu d e d -o ff

e n s e in s tru c tio n fo r m a n s la u g h te r. I d. at792 ( ¶ 68) . I ns t ead, the tr i al courti ns truct ed the j ury w i th a mansl aught eri ns truct i on pr ovi ded by the St at e, and t he i ns truc t i on g i ve n t o the j ury f a i l e d t o pr op e r l y de f

i ne c ul pa bl e n e gl i ge nc e , whi ch i s an e le m e n t o f m a n s la u g h te r. I d. a t792- 793 ( ¶¶ 69- 70) . T he Conley C our thel d thatthe err or

### 13

w as harm l es s and “di d notcontr i but e t o the ver di ctas the j ury unani m ous l y agr eed t hat C onl ey murde r ed [ the vi ct i m ] w hi l e engage d i n the cr i m e of ki dnappi ng. ” I

d. at 79 3 (¶ 7 2 ). ¶25. T he di f

f er ence betw een w hathappene d i n Conley o n o n e h a n d a n d w h a t h a p p e n e d in K olbergon the otheri s of vit al i m por t ance . I n Conley – a c a se u p o n w h ich w e so h e a v ily rel i ed i n K

olberg–the j ury ha d i n f a c tf ou nd Conl e y gu i l ty of

e a c h a nd e ve ry e l e mentof
c a p ita l m u rd e r, in c lu d in g th e u n d e rl y in g c ri m e o f k id n a p p in g . Conley , 7 9 0 S o . 2 d at 79 4 (¶ 76) . U nl i ke t oday’ s cas e and K olberg , the C our tr eac hed i t s deci s i on w i thoutthe nee d t o f i nd the def endantgui l ty of el ement s of a cr i m e upon w hi ch the j ury neverdel i ber at ed and ne ver r ender ed a de ci s i on. T he obj ect i onabl e j ury i ns truct i on pert ai ned t o a l es s er - i ncl uded of f ens e, notthe cr i m e of

w hi ch the def

endantw as c onvi ct ed. The Conley d e c isio n jiv e s w e ll
w ith th e p r in c ip le th a t a p p e lla te c o u rt s m a y u s e h a rm le s s e rr o r t o p re s e rv e , butnot
s uppl em ent , a ju ry ’s fi n d in g s . See P o p e v. Illin o is , 48 1 U . S . 49 7, 50 9-510 (1987 ) ( S t even s, J ., d is s e n tin g ). H o w e v e r, K olberg , p erm itti n g ap p ell ate c o u rts to su p p lem en t a j u ry’s f i n d i n g s a s t o e l e me n t s u p o n wh i c h t h e j u ry r e c e i v e d n o i n s tru c t i o n b u twe r e a tth e s a me t i me e ss e n tial to th e v e rd ict re a c h e d , d o e s n o t. ¶2 6. The s e c on d po i nto f c on c e r n w i t h ouropi ni on i n Kolbergis th a t w e re a c h e d its hol di ng w i thouta s i ngl e ci t at i on t o, and no di s cus s i on w hat s oeverof , Sect i on 31 of

the C ons t i tut i on of

the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi . A gai n, Sect i on 31 pr ovi des , “ “ T he r i ghtof tr i al by j ury sh a ll re m a in in v io la te . . . . ” M i s s . C ons t . ar t . 3, § 31 (e m phas i s added) . O ne f i nds our op i nions r eplet e w i th ad m on i shm ents that the w ord “shall ” m eans m and at ory, an d that i t s use n e g a te s d is c re tio n . See Y o u n gv. Sm ith , 6 7 S o . 3 d 7 3 2 , 7 3 9 (¶¶ 1 3 -14 ) (M iss. 2 0 1 1 ); Madis on H

M A , I nc. v. St . D om ini c-Jacks on Mem ’l Hos p. , 35 So. 3d 1209, 1214 (¶14)

### 14

(M iss . 2 0 1 0 ); H

il l B ro s. Co n st. & E n g ’g C o . , In c. v. M issi ssipp i T ra n sp . Co m m ’n , 909 So. 2 d 5 8 , 6 6 (¶ 3 4 ) (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ); I vy v. H ar r ington , 6 4 4 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 8 , 1 2 2 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ). A c c or di ng l y, Se c t i on 3 1 gi ve s u s n o di s c r e t i on , a nd i n M i s s i s s i pp i , the r i gh tt o a j ur y t r i al
m us tr emai n i nvi ol at e. ¶2 7. B l ack’ s L aw D i ct i onar y def i nes i nvi ol at e, “[ f

] r ee f r om vi ol at i on; no t br ok e n, i nf r i nged, ori m pai r ed. ” B lack’s Law D i ct i onar y 904 ( 9th ed. 2009). W ebs t er ’ s def i ni t i on i s “1. f r ee fr om v i ol at i on, i nj ury, des ecr at i on, oroutr age. 2. undi s turbed; unt ouched. 3. unbr oken. 4. noti nf

r i nged. ” R andom H

ous e W ebs t er ’s U

nabr i dged D i ct i onar

y 1004 ( 2nd ed. 2001) . W e do notknow w hy the f r amer s of

M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s c ons t i tut i on, havi ng the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on as a model , c hos e the s tr ongerw or di ng of Sec t i on 31 overthe l anguage chos en by the f

r amer s of

ourf eder al cons t i tut i on, butthey di d. W e can reac h no ot her
c o n c lu sio n th a n th e fo llo w in g : a d e c isio n o f th e M iss iss ip p i S u p re m e C o u rt re n d e rin g it har m l e s s f

ora p e r s on i n M i s s i s s i pp i t o be c on vi c t e d of a c r i me wi th the Court , r at hert han the j ury, deci di ng the s uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence agai ns tt he per s on i m pai r s , i nf r i nges upon, vi ol at es , and r ender s br oken the r i ghtt o a j ury tr i al . T he K olbergC our t ’ s r el i ance on N eder i s m i s pl ace d beca us e the U ni t ed St at es Sup r eme C our ti n N ederr el i ed on the l es s s tr i ngent lang u ag e o f th e U n it ed S tat es C o n sti tuti o n ’s tw o p ron o u n ce m en ts r eg ard ing the m an d atory natur e of a j ury tr i al , nei therof

w hi ch putthe ma t t eras s tr ongl y as does the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on. ¶28. C ert ai nl y, “ther e i s no s uch thi ng as a di r ect ed ver di ctf orthe pr os ecut i on i n a cr i m i nal
cas e. ” Fa irc h ild

v. S ta te , 4 5 9 S o . 2 d 7 9 3 , 8 0 0 -0 1 (M iss . 1 9 8 4 )). T h e res u lt re a c h e d in K olbergef f ect i vel y does aw ay w i th the pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tdi r ect ed ver di ct s i n f avorof the

### 15

p rose cu ti o n . E n g ag ing in h arm less erro r an alys is he re w o u ld m ea n d eterm ining H a rrell ’s gui l tw i thouta j ury everd eci ding w hetherhe comm i t t ed a s i ngl e el ementof the cr i m e of
r obbery. W hatw oul d happen i f the j ury i n a c r i m i nal tr i al had notbeen i ns truct ed as t o any el ementof

the cr i m e and r ender ed a c onvi ct i on? W oul d w e then w ei gh the evi dence i n a h a rm les s e rro r a n a ly sis ? H o w m a n y , o r w h a t pe rc e n tag e , o f th e e lem e n ts o f a c rim e n e e d to be omi t t ed bef

or e w e i nvoke the pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tdi r ect ed ver di ct s f or the pr os ecut i on? A l l ow i ng harm l es s err oranal ys i s as t o uni ns truct ed el ement s of the cha r ged cr i m e opens t he doort o harm l es s e r r ora nal ys i s s houl d a tr i al courtone day e rrand gr anta di r ect ed ver di ct f orthe pr os ecut i on. ¶29. T o borr ow f

r om Jus t i ce Scal i a, w hen w e as t he Supre m e C our tof M i s s i s s i ppi m ake p r o n o u n c e me n t s a b o u tt h e r i g h tt o a tr i a l b y j u ry , we a r e “ o p e r a t i n g u p o n th e s p i n a l c o l u mn of A m er i can de m ocr acy. ” N eder , 5 2 7 U .S . at 30 (S ca li a, J. , d issen ti n g ). Ju sti ce S ca li a’s dis sentcon t i nu es as f

oll ow s: W i l l i am B l acks t one, the Fr amer s ’ a cce pt ed author i ty on E ngl i s h l aw and the E ngl i s h C ons t i tut i on, des cr i bed the r i ghtt o tr i al by j ury i n cr i m i nal p ro s e c u tio n s a s “ th e g r a n d b u lw a rk o f [ th e E n g lis h m a n ’s ] lib e rt ie s . . . . s ecur ed t o hi m by the gr eatchart er . ” 4 W . B l ackst one, C om m ent ar i es *349. O ne of the i ndi ctm ent s of

t he D ecl ar at i on of

I ndepende nce a gai ns tK i ng G eor ge I I I w as thathe had “ s ubj ect [ ed] us t o a J ur i s di ct i on f or ei gn t o our C ons t i tut i on, and unac know l edged by ourL aw s ” i n appr ovi ng l egi s l at i on “ [f ]o r d e p r iv in g u s , in m a n y C a s e s , o f t h e B e n e fi ts o f T ri a l b y J u ry .” A l exande rH ami l t on w r ot e that“[ t ] he f r i ends a nd a dver s ar i es of the pl an of

the convent i on, i f

they agr ee i n nothi ng el s e, concuratl eas ti n the val ue they s et u p o n the tri al by jury : O r i f th ere is an y d if feren ce b etw ee n them , itco n sists i n thi s , the f

or m err egar d i tas a val uabl e s af eguar d t o l i berty, the l att er r epr es enti ta s the very pal l adi um of f r ee gove rnm ent . ” The Feder al i s tN o. 83, p. 426 ( M . B el of

f ed. 1987) . T he r i ghtt o tr i al by j ury i n cr i m i nal cas es w as the onl y g ua r a nt e e c omm on t o the 12 s t a t e c on s t i tut i on s tha tpr e da t e d the C on st i tuti on al C on ven t i on , and i thas app eared i n the con st i tuti on of eve ry St at e t o ent erthe U ni on ther eaf t er . A l s chul er& D ei s s , A B r i ef H i s t ory of

the

### 16

C r i m i nal J ury i n the U ni t ed St at es , 61 U . C hi . L . R ev. 867, 870, 875, n. 44 ( 1994) . B y compar i s on, the r i ghtt o couns el

— depr i vat i on of w hi ch w e have a lso h e ld to b e stru c tu ra l erro r— is a Jo h n n y -c o m e -la tely : D e fe n se c o u n se l d id notbecome a r egul arf

i xtur e of the cr i m i nal tr i al unt i l the mi d- 1800’ s . See W . B ea n ey , R igh t t o C o u n sel i n A m erican C o u rt s 2 2 6 (19 5 5 ). I d. at30- 31. ¶30. So i m por t anti s t he r i ghtt o a j ury tr i al t o ourdemocr at i c f or m of governm ent ; s o cl ear i s th e ma n d a t e f

r o m S e c t i o n 3 1 o f

th e Co n s t i tu t i o n o f

th e S t a t e o f

M i s s i s s i p p i ; th a twe overrul e Ko lbergto the ex tent that itp rov ides h arm less erro r an alys is w h en the tri al co u rt fa ils t o i n stru ct a j u ry as t o elem en ts o f a ch arg ed cri m e. W e h o ld th at i t is alw a y s a n d in
every cas e r ever s i bl e err orf orthe court s of

M i s s i s s i ppi t o de ny an ac cus ed the r i ghtt o have
a ju ry d e c id e g u ilt a s to e a c h a n d e v e ry e le m e n t. I I . W HE T HE R THE TRI AL C OUR T E RR ONE OUS L Y GR ANT E D T HE S T AT E ’ S RE QUE S T F OR A F L I GHT I NS T RU CT I ON. ¶31. O verH arr el l ’ s obj ect i on, t he t r i al cour tgra nt ed t he f l i ghti ns truct i on r eques t ed by the St at e. T he i ns truct i on s t at ed: T he C our ti ns truct s the J ury thatf l i ghtis a ci rcumst ance f r om w hi ch i n the abs ence of

a r eas onabl e expl anat i on ther ef or , gui l ty know l edge a nd f earm ay b e in fe rre d . 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 doubtthatthe def

endant , C hr i s t opherH arr el l di d f l ee or go i nt o hi di ng af

t er ki l l i ng Fr ank D ami co, then t he f l i ghtof C hr i s t opherH arr el l i s t o be cons i der ed in co n n e c tio n w ith all o th e r ev id e n c e in th is c a se . Y o u w ill d e ter m in e fro m a ll th e fa c ts w h e th e r th e fli g h t w a s fro m a c o n sc io u s se n se o f g u ilto r w h e th e r it w as caus ed by otherthi ngs , and gi ve i ts uch w ei ghtas you t hi nk i ti s ent i t l ed to in d e te rm in in g th e g u ilt o r i n n o c e n c e o f C h ri s to p h e r H a rr e ll. H a rr e ll a rg u e s th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt e rr e d in g ra n tin g a fl ig h t in s tru c tio n . ¶32 . T h e C o u rth as h eld t hat a d efe n d an t’ s fl igh t i s ad m issi b le as e v iden ce o f a c o n s c io u s n e s s o f g u ilt. S ta tes v. S ta te , 88 So. 3d 749, 7 57 (M i s s . 2012) . H ow ever , t he

### 17

admi s s i on o f

e vi de nc e a nd i ns truc t i on o f the j ury on f

l i gh ti s p e r mi t t e d on l y w he n ( 1) t he f l i ghti s unexpl ai ned, and (2) t he ci r cumst ance of f l i ghthas cons i der abl e pr obat i ve val ue of g u ilt o r g u ilty k n o w le d g e . I d. a t 7 5 8 ; A u stin v. S ta te , 7 4 8 S o . 2 d 1 8 6 , 1 9 4 (M is s . 2 0 0 1 ). Fl i ghtm us tbe “hi gh l y probat i ve” t o the f act s of the ca s e t o w arr anta f l i ghti ns truct i on. F u se lierv. S ta te , 702 So. 2d 388, 390 ( M i s s . 1997). Forexampl e, i n States , evi dence of t he def endant ’ s tr i p t o M i ami af t ert he cr i m e w as i nadmi s s i bl e beca us e evi dence show ed he w ent t o M i ami t o s ee hi s gi r l f r i end; t hus , hi s fl i ghtw as expl ai ned and notes peci al l y pr obat i ve of h is g u ilt o f t h e c ri m e . States , 88 So. 3d at758. I n S h u m p e rt v . S ta te , 935 So. 2d 962, 970 ( M i s s . 2006) , a f

l i ghti ns truct i on w as pr operbeca us e nothi ng s how ed the def endant ’ s f

l i ght f r om the cr i m e s cene t o a nea rby l aundr om atw as f orany r eas on otherthan cons ci ous nes s of g u ilt . ¶33 . W e turn t o w hether H arr el l ’s fl i gh t w as “un exp l ai ned . ” H arr el l argues that, becau se the evi dence s how ed thathe w entt o H ol m es C ounty t o di s pos e of D ami co’ s body, hi s f

l i ght
w as expl ai ned and the f l i ghti ns truct i on w as i m proper. T he C our tof A ppeal s i nj ect ed conf us i on i nt o the i s s ue by fi ndi ng t hatH arr el l ’ s fl i ghtw as “notunexpl ai ned. ” T hati s , the C ou rtof A pp eal s found that H arr el l ’s f l i gh tw as explai ned

by hi s di s pos al of

the body. B ut i f , as the C our tof

A ppeal s hel d, H arr el l ’ s f l i ghtw as expl ai ned, then i ts houl d have he l d t he instruction w as im p rop er. ¶34. R es ol ut i on of

the i s s ue r equi r es exami nat i on of t he t erm “unexpl ai ned” i n the cont ext of fl i ghtevi dence . I ti s onl y w hen the def endantf l ed f ors om e r eas on i ndepende ntof t he
cr i m e thatthe f

l i ghti s cons i der ed t o be “expl ai ned. ” A u stin , 784 So. 2d at194 ( s t at i ng that “e v iden ce o f fl igh t i s ina d m issi b le w h en ind ep en d en t r ea so n s e x istto ex p lai n the fli g h t”).

### 18

E v id e n c e th a t th e d e fe n d a n t fled fo r a n in d e p e n d e n t re a s o n is n o t p ro b a tiv e o f g u ilta n d is
u n d u ly p re

ju d ic ia l to th e d e fe n s e . States , 8 8 S o . 3 d a t 75 8 . F li g h t i s “u n ex p lai n ed ” if th ere is n o e x p la n a tio n fo r it o th e r th a n th e d e fe n d a n t’ s g u ilt o r g u ilty k n o w le d g e . A u stin , 784 So. 2d at194. T hus , “[ e] vi dence of fl i ghtm ay be i ntr oduced, even w her e no f l i ghti ns truct i on is s o u g h t, as lo n g a s s u c h e v id e n c e is n o t p ro b a tiv e o f ‘th in g s o th e r th a n g u ilto r g u ilty know l edge of

the cr i m e cha r ged. ’ ” I

d. ( quot i ng Ma c kv. S ta te , 650 So . 2d 12 89 , 13 09 (M i ss. 1 9 9 5 )). ¶ 3 5 . A p p ly in g th e a b o v e ten e ts, H a rre ll’s flig h t fro m Ja c k so n to d is p o s e o f th e b o d y in H olm es C ou nty w as un exp l ai ned b y any thing o ther than g uil tor guil ty k no w l edg e. B ecause H ar r el l ’ s d e pa r tur e f

r om the j ur i s di c t i on f

orthe p urpo s e o f

d i s po s i ng o f

the b ody w as p ro b a tiv e o f g u ilty k n o w led g e , itw a s n o t an ind e p e n d e n t ex p lan a tio n fo r h is flig h t, an d h is flig h t w a s “ u n e x p lain e d .” F u rth e r, th e e v id e n c e su rro u n d in g H a rre ll’s flig h t w a s h ig h ly pr obat i ve of

gui l torgui l ty know l edge; H arr el l f l ed t o H ol m es C ounty t o di s pos e of the body and hi de athi s m other ’ s hous e. T her ef or e, w e fi nd no er r ori n the gr antof a f l i ght i ns truct i on. CO NC L US I ON ¶36. W e hol d the tr i al co urt ’s fai l ure t o i nst ructthe j ury as t o t he el ement s of the under l yi ng f

el ony of r obbery cons t i tut ed r ever s i bl e err or . W e ther ef or e r ever s e i n par tt he jud g m en ts of b o th the circu itco u rtan d the C o u rto f A p p ea ls as to H arrell ’s c ap it al m u rde rc o n v ictio n a n d re m a n d th e c a se to th e H in d s C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt fo r re trial o n th a t co u rt. W e af f i r m the j udgm ent s of bot h the C our tof A ppeal s and the tr i al courtof convi ct i on of pos s es s i on of

a f i r earm by a f

el on.

### 19

¶ 3 7 . AF F I RM ED I N P ART ; RE VE RS ED I N P ART ; AND RE M ANDE D. COUNT I : CO NV I CT I O N O F C API TA L M UR DE R, W H I LE I N TH E C O M M I SS I O N O F A RO B B E RY , RE VE RS E D A ND RE M AN DE D. CO UN T I I : CO NV I CT I ON OF P O SSE S S IO N O F A F I R E A R M B Y A F E L O N A N D SE N T E N C E O F T E N ( 10) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CORRE CT I ONS , AF F I RM ED . D I C K I N S O N A N D R A N D O L P H , P .J J ., K I T C H E N S A N D K I N G , J J ., CONCUR. LA M AR, J . , CONCURS I N P ART AND I N RE S UL T W I THOUT S EPARATE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON . CH AND LER, J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W R I T T E N O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y W A L L E R , C . J. , A N D P I E R C E , J. CH AN DL E R, J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶ 3 8 . T h e m a

jo ri ty h o ld s th a t a p p ly in g h a rm les s-e rro r a n a ly sis in th is c a se w o u ld v io late H a rr e ll’ s rig h t to a ju ry trial u n d e r A rticle 3 , S e c tio n 3 1 o f o u r sta te c o n stitu tio n . W ith
re sp e c t, I d isa g re e . “[C ]on stitu tio n a l er ro rs a lo n e d o n o t en tit le a d e fe n d a n t to a u to m a tic
re ver s al . ” G o

fo rth v. S ta te , 70 So. 3d 174, 187 ( M i s s . 2011) . M os tcons t i tut i onal err or s, in c lu d in g v io la tio n s o f o u r s ta te c o n s titu tio n , a re s u b je c t to re v ie w f

o r h a rm le s s e rr o r. I

d. T hi s C our tcorr ect l y hel d i n K o lb e rg v . S ta te , 8 2 9 S o . 2 d 2 9 , 5 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ), th a t, ev e n if the tr i al courtf

ai l s t o i ns tructt he j ury on the el ement s of the under l yi ng f el ony i n a ca pi t al
m u rd e r c a se , the e rro r m a y b e d e e m e d h a rm le s s if th e C o u rt c a n sa y b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubtthatthe ver di ctw ou l d hav e been the s ame had the j ury been pr oper l y i ns truct ed. H a rre ll’s ju ry w a s in stru c ted th a t, t o c o n v ict, it h a d to fin d th a t H a rre ll k ill e d D a m ico w h ile engage d i n the comm i s s i on of a r obbery. A l though the el ement s of r obbery w er e omi t t ed, t he fa c ts s o o v e rw h e lm in g ly p o in ted to H a rre ll’s g u iltth a t n o ra tio n a l ju ry , e v e n if p ro p e rly i ns truct ed, coul d have ac qui t t ed H arr el l of capi t al m ur der . G i ven the overw hel m i ng evi dence of H arr el l ’s guil tof capit al m urder, I w ou l d fi nd that the i nst ruct i on al error w as h arm l ess b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t.

### 20

¶39. “[ A ] n otherw i s e val i d c onvi ct i on s houl d notbe s etas i de i f the r evi ew i ng courtm ay c on f i de nt l y s a y, o n the whol e r e c or d, tha tthe c on s t i tut i on a l e rr orwas h a r ml e s s beyond a
r eas onabl e doubt . ” Sm ith v. S ta te , 986 So. 2d 290, 300 ( M i s s . 2008) ( quot i ng D el aw ar e v. V a n A rs da ll , 475 U . S. 673, 681, 106 S. C t . 1431, 89 L . E d. 2d 674 ( 1986) ) . T hi s C our thas
n o t h e sita ted to a p p ly h a rm les s-e rro r a n a ly sis to an arr a y o f trial er ro rs, in c lu d in g e rro rs in ju ry in s tru c tio n s a n d c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n s . See , e. g. , A v e ry v. S ta te , 119 So. 3d 317, 320 (M iss . 2 0 1 3 ) (fa ilu re to se q u e ste r a w itn e ss ); Y o u n gv. S ta te , 99 So. 3d 159, 163 ( M i s s . 2012) (d e n ial o f im p e a c h m e n t o f h o stile w itn e ss ); C o n n e rs v . Sta te , 92 S o. 3d 67 6, 68 4 (M i ss. 2 0 1 2 ) (C o n fro n tatio n -C lau se v io latio n ); S ta tes v. S ta te , 88 So. 3d 749, 758 ( err oneous f l i ght in stru c tio n ); W

h ite v . S ta te , 4 8 S o . 3 d 4 5 4 , 4 5 8 (M iss. 2 0 1 0 ) (ad m issi o n o f he arsa y ); P itc h fo rdv. S ta te , 4 5 S o . 3 d 2 1 6 , 2 3 5 (M iss . 2 0 1 0 ) (p ro se c u to ria l m isc o n d u c t); W al ton v. S ta te , 998 So. 2d 971, 976 ( M i s s . 2008) ( admi s s i on of s t at ement s t aken i n viol at i on of Mir anda v. Ari

z ona , 384 U . S. 436, 86 S. C t . 1602, 16 L . E d. 2d 694 ( 1966) ) . A nd w e have
n o t de cli n ed to ap p ly h arm less-error an alys is t o v iolati o n s o f the d efe n d an t’ s righ t t o a jury tr i al . R ather , i n B ro w n v. S ta te , 995 So. 2 d 69 8, 704 ( M i s s . 2008) , thi s C our tappl i ed harm l es s - err oranal ys i s w hen the def endantw as deni ed the ri ghtt o a j ury tr i al by the tr i al
c o u rt ’s fa ilu re to s u b m it a s e n te n c in g e n h a n c e m e n t to th e ju ry . ¶40. I n N

ederv. U nited States , 5 2 7 U . S . 1 , 1 5 , 1 1 9 S . C t. 1 8 2 7 , 1 4 4 L . E d . 2 d 3 5 (19 9 9 ), the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tdet erm i ned that , w hen a j ury i ns truct i on om i t s an el ement of the of f ens e, the err ori s s ubj ectt o harm l es s - err orr evi ew . T he C our ts t at ed thaton l y a lim ite d c la s s o f c a s e s
– th o s e in v o lv in g “ s tru c tu ra l e rr o rs ”

– d e m a n d a u to m a tic re v e rs a l. I d. at 8, 119 S. C t . 1827. T he C our thel d t hat , unl i ke t he “compl et e depr i vat i on of couns el ortr i al

### Under Neder , a total failure to in struct th e jury onthe elements of th e crime wo uld 2 

### vitiateallthe jur

y’s findings and would not be s ubje ct

to harm le ss -e rror analysi s. Ther ef ore , the majo rity’s fear th at this C ourt wo ulddeem su ch anerror h armless is un found ed. 21 bef or e a bi as ed j udge, ” the om i s s i on of an el ementof

the of f ens e f r om a j ury i ns truct i on “does notnece s s ar i l y r endera cr i m i nal tr i al funda m ent al l y unfa i ror an unr el i abl e vehi cl e f or det erm i ni ng gui l tori nnocenc e. ” I d. at9, 119 S. C t . 1827 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . T her ef or e, w h e n a ju ry ins tru c tio n o m its an ele m e n t of the o ffe n se , the e rro r d o e s n o t d e m a n d a u to m a tic
re v e rs a l, b u t m a y b e re v ie w e d fo r h a rm le s s e rr o r. I d. at15, 119 S. C t . 1827. ¶41. I n i t s di s cus s i on, the Supr eme C our t r eas oned that “i m pr oper l y om i t t i ng an el ement f r om the j ury can ‘ eas i l y be ana l ogi zed t o i m pr oper l y i ns truct i ng the j ury on an el ementof the of f ens e, an err orw hi ch i s s ubj ectt o harm l es s - err oranal ys i s . ’ ” The C our tr ecogni zed that “[i ] n b o th ca ses– m isde scripti o n s an d om issi o n s– the e rron eo u s instruc ti o n p rec lud es th e jury fr om m aki ng a f

i ndi ng on the ac tual el ementof the of f ens e. ” I d. a t10 , 11 9 S. Ct . 1827 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . T he C our tdi s t i ngui s hed the omi s s i on of an el ementf

r om an err ort hat “vit i at es al l the j ury’s f

i nd i ng s, ” w hich i s not s ubj ectt o h arm l ess- err or anal ysi s. I d. at11, 2 1 1 9 S . C t. 1 8 2 7 . B u t th e C o u rth eld th at “th e a b se n c e o f a ‘co m p let e v erd ict ’ on ev ery el ementof

the of f ens e es t abl i s hes no m or e than thatan i m pr operi ns truct i on on an el ement of the of f ens e vi ol at es the Si xth A m endment ’ s j ury tr i al gua r ant ee, ” and s t at ed t hat, “[ t ] he i ssue here, ho w ever, i s not w hethera j ury i nst ruc ti o n that om i t s an el em ent of the o ff ense w as err or. . . butw hetherthaterr ori s s ubj ectt o harm l es s - err oranal ys i s . ” I d. a t12 , 11 9 S. C t . 1827. B as ed on i t s pri orappl i cat i on of harm l es s - err oranal ys i s i n cas es w her e the j ur y had

### 22

notr ender ed a c om pl et e ver di cton every el ementof t he of f ens e, the C our tans w er ed that ques t i on i n t he af

f i r m at i ve. I

d. at13, 119 S. C t . 1827. ¶42. I n K

olberg , thi s C our tadopt ed N eder ’ s r eas oni ng and hel d that the f ai l ur e t o i ns truct th e ju ry o n th e e le m e n ts o f t h e u n d e rl y in g fe lo n y is s u b je c t to h a rm le s s -e rr o r r e v ie w . K olberg
v. S ta te , 829 So. 2d 29, 50 ( M i s s . 2002) . K ol ber g w as convi ct ed of capi t al m ur derw i t h t he
u n d e rly in g fe lo n y o f c h ild a b u se . K o lb e rg ' s ju ry w a s n o t in stru c ted o n th e e lem e n ts o f c h ild
a b u s e . I d. at45. T he C our tacknow l edged that , i n pr i orcas es , w e had he l d thatthi s err orw as au tom ati ca ll y rev ersible. B u t i n li g h t of N eder ’ s a ppl i cat i on of

harm l es s - err oranal ys i s t o a cas e i n w hi ch the j ury i ns truct i ons ha d om i tt ed an e l ementof the cha r ged cr i m e, w e hel d that
o m issi o n o f an elem en t do es n o t ren d er th e tr ial fu n d am en tal ly u n fair and d o es n o t r eq u ir e a u to m a tic re v e rs a l. K

olberg , 8 2 9 S o . 2 d a t5 0 . Af t e rc a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

th e i s s u e , we sta ted th a t:

[ W ] e appl y a harm l es s err or anal ys i s i n thi s cas e w her e the tr i al courtf ai l ed t o i ns tructthe j ury on the under l yi ng f el ony i n thi s capi t al m ur derpr os ecut i on. H ow ever , — w e i m pl or e the t r i al cour t s t o be al ertt o t he need t o ass ur e thatthe ju ry is a d e q u a tely in stru c ted o n th e u n d e rly in g fe lo n y in a c a p ital m u rd e r tria l. W e al s o acknow l edge thatourdeci s i ons i n m any ca s es ar e “f act - dr i ven” ther eby me aning t hat , even i n appl yi ng a “ha r m l es s err oranal ys i s , ” had the f act s i n thi s cas e bee n di f f er ent , the r es ul th ere c ert ai nl y coul d have be en di f f er ent . W e make thi s s t at ementas a ca veati n f utur e capi t al m ur der pr os ecut i ons undert he pr ovi s i ons of M i s s . Code A nn. § 97- 3- 19( 2) ( e)
- ( f ) , that sh o u ld th e trial c o u rt fa il t o ins tru c t th e jur y o n th e u n d e rly in g fe lo n y , ev e n in appl yi ng a “ha r m l es s err oranal ys i s , ” t hi s C our tm ay s t i l l be compel l ed, bas ed on the f act s and/ orthe part i cul arunder l yi ng f el ony, t o f

i nd s uch f

ai l ur e t o be rev ersible e rror. K olberg , 8 2 9 S o . 2 d a t 5 0 -5 1 . ¶43. T he C ou rti n K olbergf ou nd tha tthe i ns truc t i on a l er r orw as har m l es s beyond a re a so n a b le d o u b t. I

d. at51. K ol ber g’ s j ury had b een i ns truct ed thatK ol ber g w as gui l ty of

### The e le me nts of c hil d abusein Mi ss is sippi CodeSec ti on 97-5- 39(2) wer e r evi se d 3 

### ef fe ctiveJuly 1, 2013. Mis s. Code Ann. § 97-5- 39(2) (Supp. 2013). 23 c a p ital m u rd e r if h e k ille d th e c h ild v ictim w h e n e n g a g e d in th e c rim e o f fe lo n io u s c h ild
a b u s e . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 19( 2) ( f ) (Rev. 2006). B utt he j ury w as noti ns truct ed on the el ement s of

f el oni ous chi l d abuse , w hi ch r equi r ed “a n i nt ent i onal w hi ppi ng, s tr i ki ng or o th e rw ise a b u sin g o r m u tila tin g o f a n y c h ild ‘in su c h a m a n n e r a s to c a u se se rio u s b o d ily h arm . ’” K

olberg , 829 So. 2d at49; M i s s . Code A nn. § 97- 5- 39( 2) ( R ev. 2006) . T he evi dence 3
w as thatthe chi l d vi ct i m had bee n di s cover ed w i th m as s i ve head tr auma af t erhavi ng been in K o lb e rg ’s s o le c u s to d y . K olberg , 829 So. 2d at51. T he C our tf ound thatther e w as no w ay thatthe omi s s i on of

thes e el ement s had af f ect ed the out come of

the ca s e, beca us e no r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d have f ound otherthan thatK ol ber g had i nf l i ct ed the i nj ur i es “i n s uch
a manneras t o caus e ser i ous bodi l y harm . ” I d. T her ef

or e, the C our thel d thati tw as cl ear b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t th a t th e in s tru c tio n a l e rr o r d id n o t c o n tr ib u te to th e v e rd ic t. I d. ¶44. W hi l e the C our ti n K olberg did no t exp res sl y perf orm a st at e con st i tuti on al analysi s, obvi ous l y w e cons i der ed the s t at e r i ghtt o be coe xt ens i ve w i th the f eder al r i ghtconce r ni ng thi s i s s ue. T hi s C our tneverhas hel d thatvi ol at i ons of ours t at e cons t i tut i on ar e i m m une f r om r evi ew f orharm l es s err or. I ns t ead w e have hel d thatm os tcons t i tut i onal err or s , i ncl udi ng s ta te c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o rs , m a y b e d e e m e d h a rm le s s . G o fo rth , 70 So. 3d at18 6. C ert ai nl y, th e o m iss io n o f th e e lem e n ts o f ro b b e ry fro m th e ju ry in stru c tio n s v io late d H a rre ll’s rig h t to a j ury tr i al gua r ant eed by A r t i cl e 3, Sect i on 31 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on. B utnot hi ng i n ours t at e cons t i tut i on pr event s thi s Courtf r om de t erm i ni ng that , be caus e the err ordi d not

### 24

contr i but e t o t he ver di ctbeyond a r eas onabl e doubt , the cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on w as h a rm le s s . ¶45. C ert ai nl y, w hen the jur y recei ves n o i nst ruct i on o n t he un derl ying fel ony i n a capi t al
- m ur dercas e, t he err ori s a gra ve one, becaus e t he j ury has notfound e very el ement o f th e c rim e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. See S h a ff e r v . S ta te , 74 0 S o. 2d 27 3, 28 2 (M i ss. 1 9 9 8 ). A co u rtsh o u ld n o t l igh tl y u n d ertak e the task o f ha rm less-error a n alys is w h en the ju ry d id n o t r e c e iv e in s tru c tio n o n th e e le m e n ts o f t h e u n d e rl y in g fe lo n y . See K olberg , 829 So. 2d at50- 51. N onethel es s , the err ors houl d be s ubj ectt o harm l es s - err oranal ys i s . T he U ni t ed St at es S up rem e C our ti n N ederexpl ai ned that“w her e an omi t t ed el ementi s s uppor t ed by
un c on tr ov e r t e d e vi de nc e , [ the h a r ml e s s - e rr or ] app r oa c h r e a c he s a n a pp r op r i a t e bal ance betw een ‘ s oci ety’ s i nt er es ti n puni s hi ng the gui l ty [ and] the met hod by w hi ch decis i ons of gui l tar e t o be made. ’ ” N eder , 527 U . S. at 18, 119 S. C t . at1838 ( quot i ng Connecti cut v. Johnson , 460 U . S. 73, 86, 103 S. C t . 9 69, 74 L . E d. 2d 823 ( 1983) ) . “The harm l es s - err or doctr i ne . . . ‘ r ecogni zes the pr i nci pl e thatthe centr al purpos e of a cr i m i nal tr i al i s t o deci de the f actual ques t i on of

the def endant ’ s gui l tori nnocenc e, . . . and pr om ote s publ i c r es pect f orthe cr i m i nal pr oces s by f ocus i ng on the under l yi ng f ai rnes s of

the tr i al . ’ ” N

eder , 527 U . S. at18, 119 S. C t . at1838 ( quot i ng D e la w a re v. V a n A rs da ll , 4 7 5 U .S . 6 7 3 , 6 8 1 , 1 0 6 S . C t. 1 4 3 1 , 8 9 L . E d . 2 d 6 7 4 (1 9 8 6 )) . ¶46. T he t es tf

orharm l es s err ori s w hether“i tappea r s ‘ beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthat the
err orcom pl ai ned of

di d notcont r i but e t o the ver di ctobt ai ned. ’ ” N eder , 527 U . S. at15, 119 S. C t . at1837 (quot i ng Ch a p m a n v. Ca lifo rn ia , 386 U . S. 18, 24, 87 S. C t . 824, 17 L . E d. 2d 705 ( 1967) ) . C ontr ary t o t he maj or i ty' s r epr es ent at i on, i n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe err orw as

### 25

har m l es s , w e do no ta c ta s a s e c on d j ury, bu tr a the r“ a s k[ ] w he the rthe r e c or d c ont ai ns e v id e n c e th a t c o u ld r a tio n a lly le a d to a c o n tr a ry f in d in g w ith r e s p e c t to th e o m itte d e le m e n t.” N eder , 527 U . S. at19, 119 S. C t . at1839. Such evi dence m i ghtbe thatthe def endant cont es t ed the omi tt ed el em ent and p res ented suff i ci ent evi den ce t o sup porta contr ary f i ndi ng. I d. at19, 119 S. C t . at1838. “I f , atthe end of

thatexami nati on , the courtcannotconcl ude beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe j ury ver di ctw oul d have been the sa m e abs entthe err or

. . . i ts houl d notf

i nd the err orharm l es s . ” I d. B uti f i ti s “cl earbeyond a r eas onabl e doubtt hat
a r at i onal j ury w oul d have f ound t he def

endantgui l ty abs entthe err or , ” then the err orw as h a r m le s s . I

d. “[ W ] her e a r evi ew i ng courtconcl udes beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe
om i t t ed el ementw as uncont es t ed and s uppor t ed by overw hel m i ng evi dence , s uch thatt he ju ry v e rd ict w o u ld h a v e b e e n th e sa m e a b se n t th e err o r, th e err o n e o u s in stru c tio n is p ro p e rly f ound t o be harm l es s . ” I d. at17, 119 S. C t . at1837. ¶4 7 . I no w rev iew the o m itted e lem e n ts o f r o b b e ry a n d d e term ine w h ethe r th e rec o rd “cont ai ns evi dence thatcoul d r at i onal l y l ead t o a c ontr ary f i ndi ng w i th r es pectt o the omi t t ed el ement , ” orw hether“t he omi t t ed el ementw as uncont es t ed and s uppor t ed by overw hel m i ng evi dence . ” N

eder , 527 U . S. at19, 119 S. C t . at1839. M i s s i s s i pp i C ode Sect i on 97- 3- 73, def i ni ng the cr i m e of

r obbery, pr ov i des: “E very per s on w ho s hal l f el oni ous l y t ake the per s onal pr operty of

another , i n hi s pres ence orf r om hi s per s on and aga i ns thi s w i l l , by
v io len c e to h is p e rso n o r b y p u tti n g su c h p e rso n in fe a r o f so m e im m e d iate in ju ry to h is p e rso n , sh a ll b e g u ilty o f ro b b e ry .” M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3 -7 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e e lem e n ts of r obbery i ncl ude “( 1) fe l oni ous i nt ent , (2) for ce orput t i ng i n f earas a means of

ef f ectuat i ng th e inte n t, a n d (3 ) b y th a t m e a n s ta k in g a n d c a rry in g a w a y th e p ro p e rty o f a n o th e r fro m h is

### 26

per s on ori n hi s pr es ence . ” G o ff v . S ta te , 1 4 S o . 3 d 6 2 5 , 6 4 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 9 ). T h e k il li n g o f a hum an bei ng i s capi t al m ur derif d on e “w i th orw i thoutany des i gn t o ef f ectdeath by any p e rs o n e n g a g e d i n th e c o m m is s io n o f t h e c ri m e o f . . . r o b b e ry . . . .” M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-1 9 (e) (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶48 . T he record con t ai ns ov erw hel m i ng evi dence thatH arr el l ki l l ed D ami co w hi l e engage d i n the comm i s s i on of

a r obbery. D ami co w as l as ts een a l i ve w hen he l ef tw i th H arr el l i n t he blue M ercury. L at er, the b l ue M ercury w as f ou nd i n H arr el l ’s possess i on ; he h ad the key s, an d the c ar w as w ith in w alkin g d ist an ce o f H arrell ’s l o ca ti o n . H arrell c o n fesse d to H en ry Pet er s thathe had ki l l ed D ami co, had p ut hi s body i n the trunk, and had dr i ven t o H ol m es C o u n ty . H a rre ll’s d e sc rip tio n o f th e k ill in g w a s c o n sis ten t w ith th e a u to p sy re su lts. H a rre ll gave s ever al conf

l i ct i ng s t at ement s t o the pol i ce i n w hi ch he adm i t t ed he w as pr es entdur i ng th e c rim e . In e a c h o f th e se sta tem e n ts, H a rre ll state d th a t S h o rty k ill e d D a m ico a n d g a v e h im the b lue M erc u ry. T h ere w as o v erw h elm ing ev iden ce that H arrell to o k th e b lue M erc u ry f r om D ami co w i th f

el oni ous i nt entand by vi ol ence , ki l l i ng hi m i n t he pr oces s , and thatthe
e lem e n ts o f ro b b e ry w e re m e t. ¶4 9 . T h e rec o rd is d ev o id o f ev iden ce that w o u ld rati o n all y su p p o rt a co n tr ary fi n d ing . In fac t, H arrell d id n o t con testthe e lem en t of rob b ery ; his de fen se larg ely re sted u p o n the th eo ry thathe had ki l l ed and r obbed D ami co i n H ol m es C ounty, n ot H i nd s C ounty. I ti s cl ear beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthata r at i onal j ury w oul d have f ound H arr el l gu i l ty of

capi t al
m urder had i tbeen i ns truct ed on the el ement s of r obbery. I can s ay conf i dent l y thatthe
o m is s io n o f t h e e le m e n ts o f r o b b e ry w a s h a rm le s s b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t.

### 27

¶50 . W h i l e i ti s vit al f or tri al court s t o assur e the j ury is p rop erly instruc ted o n ev ery e lem e n t o f th e u n d e rly in g fe lo n y in a ca p ital-m u rd e r ca se , su c h err o rs s h o u ld b e su b jec t to h a rm les s-e rro r a n a ly sis , b e c a u se th e y d o n o t n e c e ss a rily m e a n th a t a tria l w a s fu n d a m e n tally
u n fa ir . N eder , 52 7 U . S . at9, 11 9 S . C t . 18 27 . B ecause the error h ere p l ai nly w as harm l ess b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , a n e w tr i a l i s a wa s t e o f t i me a n d j u d i c i a l r e s o u r c e s . “ ‘ [ A] def endanti s ent i t l ed t o a f

ai rtr i al butnota pe r f

ectone , ’ f

orther e ar e no per f

ecttr i al s . ” A very v. S ta te , 119 So. 3d 317 ( M i s s . 2013) ( quot i ng Bro wn v. U . S. , 411 U . S. 223 , 23 1- 23 2, 93 S. C t . 1565, 3 6 L . E d. 2d 208 ( 1973) ) . W hi l e H arr el l ’ s tr i al w as notper f ect , i tw as not fu n d a m e n tally u n fa ir. I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶ 5 1 . W AL LE R, C. J . , AND P I ER CE , J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.