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 1 4 5 0 - S CT CHANCELL OR CHRI S TM AS
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 11/ 2007 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. BO BBY BU RT D ELAU GH TER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T : D O N A L D W . B O Y K IN 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 : L A DONN A C . HOL L AND DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: E L E ANOR F AYE P E T E RS ON 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 - 04/ 02/ 2009 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. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . C h an ce ll o r C h ri stm as an d three o thers w ere ind ict ed for o n e co u n t o f arm ed rob b ery p u rsua n t t o M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 9 7 -3-7 9 (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ) an d o n e c o u n t of h o u se b u rglary pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97- 17- 23 ( R ev. 2006) . T he St at e al s o soughtan e n h a n c e d p e n a l ty p u r s u a n tt o M i s s i s s i p p i Co d e S e c t i o n 9 9
- 1 9
- 3 5 1 ( Re v . 2 0 0 7 ) , a s th e v i c t i m, M ar gi e Sel l er s , w as overthe age of s i xty- f i ve yea r s atthe t i m e the of f ens es occurr ed. C hr i s t m as w as tr i ed al one, a nd the j ury f ound hi m gui l ty on both c ount s a nd a l s o f ound t hat he des erved an e nhanced penal ty on both convi ct i ons . C hr i s t m as w as s ent ence d t o s erve

### Echol s, who was fourte en at t he tim e of

the seoff ens es , pl ed gui lt

y, and re ce ive d a 1 

### senten ce of tw entyyears, w ith fo urteenyears su spen dedandsix y ears to serv e, in exch ang e for testimo nyagain st Christmas. 2 ni nety year s f

orthe arm ed r obbery, t o be s erved cons ecut i vel y t o t he f i f ty- years ent ence he
r e c e i v e d f

o rh o u s e b u r g l a r y . He n o w a p p e a l s t h e s e c o n v i c t i o n s . F i n d i n g n o e rr o r , we a f f i r m. I s s ues ¶2. C hr i st m as app eal s t he fol l ow i ng is sues : ( 1) w hetherthe courterr ed by al l ow i ng i dent i f i cat i on t es t i m ony f

ol l ow i ng a cons t i tut i onal l y i m perm i s s i bl e phot ogr aphi c l i neup; ( 2)
w hetherthe courterr ed by l i m i t i ng cr os s - exam i nati on o f a St at e w i tnes s ; ( 3) w hethert he
courterr ed by al l ow i ng the St at e t o conductan i m pr operr edi r ectexami nat i on; ( 4) w hether the j ury s houl d have be en i ns truct ed as t o cons truct i ve br eaki ng; ( 5) w hetherther e w as s uf f i ci entev i de nc e t o s up po r tthe ve r di c t ; ( 6) w he the rthe tr i a l c ou r te rr e d b y d e ny i ng t he def endant ’ s pe r empt ory i ns truct i ons ; a nd ( 7) w hetherthe tr i al courterr ed by denyi ng a j ur or chal l enge f

orcaus e. F a cts ¶3. R aymond E chol s , one of C hr i s t m as ’ s co- def endant s , t es t i f

i ed that on the m orni ng of J ul y 25, 2006, he, Jos eph H arr i s , T r avi s T hur m an, and C hr i s t m as w er e dr i vi ng a s t ol en bl ack A val anche i n and ar ound Edw ar ds , M i s s i s s i ppi . E chol s s t at ed thatC hr i s t m as w as dr i vi ng 1 butw as notpr es entw hen the vehi cl e w as s t ol en. E chol s t es t i f i ed thes e young men obse r ved

“ a n o ld w h ite w o m a n a t h e r m a ilb o x ,” a n d C h ristm a s in iti a ted a p la n to b re a k in to th is

### 3

w om an’ s hous e. A ccor di ng t o E chol s , C hr i s t m as exi t ed t he vehi cl e, appr oache d the hous e, an d k n o ck ed o n the d o o r. ¶4. M ar gi e Sel l er s t es t i f i ed that s he ans w er ed the do or t o a cl ean- cut , young, A f r i canA m e ric a n m a n w h o a sk e d w h e th e r h e c o u ld g o fish in g in th e p o n d n e a r h e r h o m e . S h e to ld hi m i tw as notherpond and he w oul d have t o as k the ow ner ’ s perm i s s i on. She s t at ed t hat the man atherdoorcame f r om a bl ack truck, w i th the w i ndow s t i nt ed, a nd s he coul d s ee “ the fo rm s o f t w o o th e rs in th e tru c k .” ¶5. T he m en then l eft , drove a short dis t ance up the road, and returned t o M s. S ell ers’s ho use. E cho l s t est i fi ed t he m en had no i ntent i on of go i ng f i shi ng , but planned t o rob S el l ers . W hen they r eturned t o he rhous e, Echol s t es t i f i ed thatonl y Chri s t m as a nd H arr i s w entt o the d o o r. H o w ev er, M s. S ell ers testi fi ed that w h en sh e o p en ed h er d o o r a s ec o n d ti m e, th ere w er e thr ee men. M s . Sel l er s s t at ed s he s aw eac h of thei rf ace s , “butas f

aras t aki ng a good l o o k . . . I d i d n o t . ” Ac c o r d i n g t o Se l l e r s , o n e o f th e me n t o l d h e rth a tth e o wn e r s o f th e h o me w i th the pond w er e notathom e, s o s he st epped out s i de herdooront o the por ch t o poi ntthe
m en t o anotherhom e. M s . Sel l er s t es t i f i ed thatw hen s he turned t o go back i ns i de herhom e, one of the men gr abbed me f

r om be hi nd, puta gun t o my head and s hoved m e on i n the hous e, and he w as pus hi ng m e. A nd he s ai d, “w her e’ s the money? w her e’ s the m o n e y ? I’ll k ill y o u .” A n d th e o th e r ca m e ru n n in g th ro u g h a n d w e n t d o w n to o n e e n d o f th e tra iler w h ile h e w a s p u sh in g m e to w a rd th e o th e r e n d . I to ld hi m – I s ai d, “w hatm on ey I have i s i n m y pur s e on the couc h. A nd j us tt ake it a n d le a v e .”

### 4

¶6. M s . Sel l er s t es t i f i ed s he w as then s hoved by the m an ont o the f l oor i n a cl os et . She st at ed thath e told h er to stay there and then ran out of the room . O nce the m en lef t , M s. Sel l er s cal l ed 911. ¶7. A ccor di ng t o E chol s , C hr i s t m as w as the per s on w ho gr abbed M s . Sel l er s and putt he g u n to h e r h e a d . E c h o ls s a id th a t C h ristm a s p u sh e d th e v ictim in to th e h o u s e , a n d H a rris f ol l ow ed. E chol s t es t i f

i ed thatw hen C hr i s t m as and H arr i s came outof the hous e, H arr i s w as carryi ng a w hi t e pur s e. ¶8. M eanw hi l e, the H i nds C ounty Sher i ff’s D epart m ent w as tr acki ng the s t ol en bl ack A val anche thr ough t he vehi cl e’ s gl obal pos i t i oni ng s ys t em. D eputy Sher i f f A ndr ew M cK i nl ey t es t i f

i ed thatw hi l e he w as o n patr ol , he r ece i ved a c al l aboutthe l ocat i on of t he
s t ol en ca r . M cK i nl ey t es t i f i ed thata r ound the s ame the t i m e he f i r s tobs erved the A val anche , he l earned thatther e had be en a hous e bur gl ary i n E dw ar ds and t hat ano t heruni tw as r es pondi ng t o t hatbur gl ary. ¶9. M cK i nl ey t es t i f

i ed that he and “other uni t s ” m ade cont act w i th the A val anche , and a
c h a s e e n su e d fo r “ m a y b e a m ile, a m ile a n d h a lf.” H e sta ted th a t af ter th e sto len v e h icle
a lm o st c ra sh e d in to a p a rk e d ca r, i t sto p p e d an d fo u r m a les ex ited the v e h icle . A c c o rd in g to M cK i nl ey, tw o of

the mal es r an t o the r i ghtand tw o r an t o the l ef t . Echol s t es t i f

i ed thathe and C hr i s t m as w er e the tw o m en w ho r an t o the l ef t , and thatH arr i s and Thurman r an t o t he ri g h t. M c K in le y p u rs u e d th e m e n ru n n in g to th e le ft , b u t d id n o t a p p re h e n d e ith e r. ¶10. M cK i nl ey r eturned t o the vehi cl e, w her e otherof f i cer s w er e s t at i oned. A m an w ho liv e d in th e n e ig h b o rh o o d a p p ro a c h e d th e o ffic e rs, c laim in g tha t so m e o n e h a d c ra w led in to

### 5

a s p a c e u n d e rh i s h o u s e . T h e o f f i c e r s we n tt o th e h o u s e a n d f o u n d Ha rr i s h i d i n g i n th e c r a wl
s p a c e . ¶11. T err el l W hi t e w as al s o arr es t ed atthe s cene . W hi t e f i tthe des cr i pt i on of

one of the
m ales w h o h ad fl ed the c ar, an d w h en the d ep u ti es a p p roa ch ed h im , W h ite ran . H o w ev er, acc or di ng t o D eputy Sher i f f M cK i nl ey, W hi t e r an bec aus e he w as carryi ng nar cot i cs , not becau se he w as i nv olved i n the r ob bery of M s. S el l ers . ¶12. H i nds C ount y Sher i f f’ s D eputy M ac J ames t es t i f i ed t hathe w as cal l ed t o the l ocat i on of the A valanche to process the v ehicl e forfi n g erpri nts . Jam es t est i fi ed thathe foun d M s. Sel l er s ’ s coi n pur s e, as w el l as heri ns ur ance car d, i n the pas s enger - s i de f l oorboar d of

t he A val anche . J ames f

ur thert es t i f

i ed thathe f

ound tw o N i ke t enni s s hoes nearthe vehi cl e, alth o u g h the tw o sh o es w ere n o t f o u n d tog ethe r. O n e s h o e w a s fo u n d n ea r th e fro n t of a h o u se , an d th e o th e r sh o e w a s fo u n d in th e b a c k y a rd . Ja m e s o p in e d the y w e re in se p a ra te lo c a tio n s b e c a u s e “ s o m e b o d y w a s p o s s ib ly ru n n in g – ru n n in g o u t o f t h e irs h o e s .” ¶13. T he j ury al s o hear d t es t i m ony f r om Q ui ncy R os s . Ross s har ed a hom e w i th hi s m ot her and s t epf ather , hi s si bli ng s , and C hr i s t m as . R os s t es t i f i ed thatC hr i s t m as came hom e the
m orni ng of

J ul y 25, 2006, w i thouthi s s hoes and thatC hr i s t m as t ol d hi m he had l os thi s s hoes in a c h a se w ith p o lic e . R o s s s ta te d th a t C h ristm a s to ld h im h e h a d ro b b e d a n o ld w h ite
w o m a n in E d w a rd s, an d tha t C h ristm a s h a d p u t a g u n to th e w o m a n ’s h e a d , fo rc e d h e r in to a cl os et , and as ked herw her e herm oney w as . H ow ever , R os s l at erdenied t hatC hr i s t m as s ai d he w as the on e w ho he l d the gu n a nd f or c e d the w oman i nt o the c l os e t . Ros s f urt her t es t i f i ed thathe had know n C hri st m as t o carry a “l i t t l e thi r ty- ei ghts peci al ” and that

### 6

C hr i s t m a s was c a r r yi ng a g un the d a y of thi s i nc i de nt . Ros s s t a t e d tha tChr i s t mas s ai d he di s pos ed of

the gun af

t erthe i nci dent . N o gun w as everr ecove r ed by the author i t i es . A f ew w eeks aft er the robb ery, R oss and h i s m othercal l ed t he po l i ce t o rel ay the i nform at i on R oss had recei ved fr om C hri stm as. ¶14. A f

t erC hr i s t m as w as t aken i nt o cust od y, W esl ey R eeves , an i nves t i gat orw i th the H i nds C ounty Sher i f

f’ s O f f i ce, t ook a s t at ementf

r om hi m . R eeve s t es t i f

i ed thatC hr i s t m as admi t t ed bei ng pr es entdur i ng the r obbery a nd thathe acc ur at el y des cr i bed the col orof t he pu rs e, the co l or and m od el of t he car, the vict i m ’s h ou se, an d the vict i m ’s car. R eeves als o st at ed thatC hri stm as descri bed the vict i m as “an o l d w hit e l ady , ” and that the g un w as a

“ th ir ty -t w o o r t h ir ty -e ig h t c a lib e r” re v o lv e r. ¶ 1 5 . In v e stig a to r R e e v e s w a s a lso p re se n t w h e n M s. S e llers g a v e a sta tem e n t t o th e d e p u ty s her i f f s the day a f

t erthe r obbery. M s . Sel l er s w as s how n a phot ogr aphi c l i neup, dur i ng w hich she i den t i fi ed T err el l W hit e “as being the person w ho att acked and grabb ed m e. ” M s. Sel l er s t es t i f

i ed thats he w as conf

us ed bec aus e on the eve ni ng of the i nci dent , she s aw W hi t e’ s phot ogr aph on the new s . R eeve s t es t i f i ed ther e w er e di s t i ncts i m i l ar i t i es betw een the p ic tu re s o f W h ite a n d C h ri s tm a s . ¶ 1 6 . In h e r sta tem e n t, M s. S e llers sta ted th a t th e p e rso n w h o c a m e to h e r d o o r w a s “ tall, pr obabl y m y hei ghtorm aybe not , you know , notm uch t al l er . ” She then t es t i f i ed thatt he per s on w ho came t o herd oo r t he fi rs tt i m e w as “very young” and “ s m al l eri n hei ght ” than the otherdef

endant s . A l s o dur i ng hert es t i m ony, Sel l er s s ai d thats he w as notsur e w hi ch per s on actual l y gra bbed herand di d notknow w hetherheratt acke rw as t al l erthan s he. T he

### 7

evi dence attr i al re veal ed t hatE chol s w as t he younges tand the s m al l es tof the def endant s and th a t C h ristm a s w a s th e talle st. ¶17 . A ft er the prosecuti on rest ed, C hri stm as m ov ed fora dir ect ed verdi ct , w i tho ut success. T he def endantel ect ed nott o t es t i f y, and ca l l ed no w i tnes s es . T he crux of the def ens e w as thatC hr i s t m as w as pres ent atthe t i m e of the r obbery, buts t ayed i n the truck and di d not p a rticip a te. H is c o u n se l ar g u e d th a t th e testi m o n ial in c o n sis ten c y a b o u t th e n u m b e r o f p e o p le
w ho appr oache d Sel l er s and t hei rhei ght s support ed t hi s def ens e. C hr i s t m as al s o cont ended th a t th e re w a s in su ffic ien t ev id e n c e to p ro v e th e re w a s a n a c tu a l b re a k in g to g a in e n try to S ell ers’s h o m e tha t w o u ld m ee t the re q u isi te st an d ard for h o u se b u rglary as g iven in the jury i nst ruct i on s. ¶18. A ft er del i berat i on, the j ury f ound Chri s t m as gui l ty of a rm ed robb ery and ho use b u rg la ry w ith p e n a lty e n h a n c e m e n t o n a c c o u n t o f M s . S e lle rs ’s a d v a n c e d a g e . A N A L Y S IS I . Phot og r aphi c Li ne up. ¶19. For ty- thr ee days a f t erthe r obbery, Reev es and a no t her dep uty sher i f f ques t i oned E chol s aboutthe i nci dentatM s . Sel l er s ’ s hom e. E chol s t ol d t he deput i es thata man nam ed T err el l w as t he per s on w ho had for ced the vi ct i m i nt o t he cl os etw i th a gun. E chol s s t at ed thatthe day of t he i ncide ntw as the f i r s tt i m e he ha d m etthatm an and thatH arr i s , another
co- def endant , had ca l l ed the man T err el l . I nves t i gat orR eeve s t es t i f i ed thatw hen Ech ol s ke pt re fe rr in g to T e rre ll as “ th e tall o n e ,” R e e v e s b e liev e d E c h o ls w a s a c tu a lly re fe rrin g to

### 8

C hr i s t m as . R eeve s t es t i f i ed thathe then s how ed Echol s one phot ogr aph of C hr i s t m as , and E c h o ls id e n tif

ie d h im a s th e m a n w ith th e g u n . ¶2 0 . B efo re E ch o ls w as c a lled to tes tify a t trial, C h ristm a s m o v e d to h a v e E ch o ls’ s id e n tifica tio n tes tim o n y su p p re ss e d . C h ristm a s a rg u e d tha t h e sh o u ld h a v e b e e n a llo w e d to have l egal couns el pr es entw hi l e Echol s w as s how n the phot ogr aph, and thatthe s i ngl e i m age w as i m perm i s s i bl y s ugges t i ve. T he tr i al c our the l d thatChri s t m as w as note nt i t l ed t o couns el d u ri n g a p h o tog rap h ic l ineu p an d , ev en if the li n eu p w as im p erm issi b ly su g g esti v e, E ch o ls’ s i dent i f i cat i on w as nonethel es s r el i abl e. A . R ig h t to C o u n se l. ¶21. R egar di ng the r i ght t o couns el , thi s C our t has hel d, “[ a] n acc us ed does not enj oy t he
r i ghtt o couns el dur i ng a phot ogr aphi c l i neup. ” W ils o n v. S ta te, 574 So. 2d 1324, 1326 (M is s . 1 9 9 0 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). W il s on al s o held, “o nl y an ac tual conf r ont at i on w i t h the defend antata l i neup i s the cr i t i cal s t age w hi ch r equi r es the r i ghtt o couns el . ” I d . at1326. M or eover , the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas hel d t hat“the Si xth A m endmentdoes not gr antthe r i ghtt o couns el atphot ogr aphi c di s pl ays conduct ed by the G overnm ent f or the purpos e of

a l l ow i ng a w i tnes s t o a t t empt a n i dent i f i cat i on of

the of f ender . ” U

nited States v. A sh , 413 U . S. 300, 321, 93 S. C t . 2568, 2579, 37 L . E d. 2d 619, 633 ( 1973) . A ccor di ngl y, C hr i s t m as ’ s as s ert i on thathi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtw as vi ol at ed by hav i ng no couns el p re s e n t a t a p h o to g ra p h ic lin e u p is w ith o u t m e ri t. B. R e l i abi l i t y o f

I de nt i f i c at i on.

### 9

¶2 2. A s fort he r el i abi l i t y of Echol s ’ s i dent i f i cat i on, w e f

i r s te xa mi ne w he the r t he p h o to g ra p h ic li n e u p w a s im p e rm iss ib ly su g g e stiv e . “[T ]he p ra c tice o f sh o w in g su sp e c ts s i ngl y to per s ons f

orthe purpos e of

i dent i f i cat i on, and notas partof a l i neup, has been
w i del y condemned. ” R o c h e v. S ta te , 913 So. 2d 306, 310- 11 ( M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng Fos ter v. Ca lifo rn ia , 3 9 4 U .S . 4 4 0 , 4 4 3 , 8 9 S . C t. 1 1 2 7 , 2 2 L . E d . 2 d 4 0 2 (1 9 6 9 )) . See al s o Herrer a v. Collins , 9 0 4 F .2 d 9 4 4 , 9 4 7 n .1 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ) (“ [T ]he sh o w in g o f a sin g le p h o to g ra p h is
an in h e re n tly s u g g e s tiv e m e th o d o f i d e n tif ic a tio n .” ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d )) . ¶2 3 . F u rth e rm o re , E ch o ls ind icated t o th e p o li ce th at C h ristm a s’s n a m e w a s a c tu a lly T err el l . N ot abl y, a man nam ed Ter r el l W hi t e w as a ppr ehende d a f t ere xi t i ng the s t ol en bl ack A v alan ch e a n d fl ee ing the s c e n e , a n d th e v ict im init ial ly ide n ti fi ed W h it e a s h er a tt ac k er. T here w as al so t est i m on y thatT err el l W hit e res em bled C hri stm as. ¶24. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas obs erved t hatt he “da nger[ of m i s i dent i f i cat i on]
w i l l be i ncr eas ed i f

t he pol i ce di s pl ay t o the w i tnes s onl y the p i ctur e of a s i ngl e i ndi vi dual
w ho gener al l y r es embl es the per s on he s aw . ” Sim m ons v. U nited States , 390 U . S. 377, 383, 88 S. C t . 967, 971, 19 L . Ed. 2d 1247, 1253 ( 1968) . T her ef or e w e conc l ude thatthe i ni t i al id e n tifica tio n o f C h ristm a s, b y m e a n s o f a sin g le p h o to g ra p h , w a s “ im p e rm iss ib ly
s u g g e s tiv e .” ¶25. O nce i ti s det erm i ned t hatt he i dent i f i cat i on pr ocedur e w as i m perm i s s i bl y s ugges t i ve, th e C o u rt m u s t d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h e i d e n tif ic a tio n w a s n o n e th e le s s re lia b le . N eil v. B ig g e rs, 4 0 9 U .S . 1 8 8 , 1 9 9 -2 0 0 , 9 3 S . C t. 3 7 5 , 3 4 L . E d . 2 d 4 0 1 , 4 1 1 (1 9 7 2 ). B i gg ers se ts

### 10

f or th the t es tf

ordet erm i ni ng w hetheri dent i f i cat i on t es t i m ony i s r el i abl e des pi t e the
s ubs t ant i al l i kel i hood of m i s i dent i f

i cat i on. T he f

i ve B i gg ers f act or s ar e “the opportuni ty of the w i tnes s t o vi ew the cr i m i nal atthe t i m e of the cr i m e, the w i tnes s ’ degr ee of att ent i on, t he
acc ur acy of

the w i tnes s ’ pr i orde s cr i pt i on of the cr i m i nal , the l evel of cert ai nty demonstr at ed by the w i tnes s att he conf r ont at i on, and the l ength of t i m e betw een the cr i m e and the conf r ont at i on. ” Roche , 913 So. 2d at311 ( quot i ng B i gg ers , 4 0 9 U . S . at 19 9 -20 0 ). ¶26. T he tr i al j udge cons i der ed f our of the f

act or s and f

ound that they w ei ghed i n f avorof
a d m itt in g th e id e n tifica tio n te stim o n y . W h e n a trial c o u rt d e ter m in e s th a t su c h tes tim o n y is
r el i able underthe B i

gg ers t es t , thi s C our tw i l l notr ever s e unl es s ther e i s a l ack of “s ubs t ant i al cr edi bl e evi dence support i ng t he t r i al j udge’ s f i ndi ngs . ” H

a n se n v. S ta te , 592 So. 2d 114, 138 ( M i s s . 1991) ( quot i ng N ich o lso n v. S ta te , 52 3 S o . 2d 6 8 , 7 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 )). ¶2 7. F i r s t , t he t r i al j udge f ound t hatt he 43- day l ap s e be tw e e n the c r i me a nd t he id e n tifica tio n w e ig h e d in fa v o r o f th e d e fe n d a n t. T h e n , h e d e ter m in e d th a t E c h o ls h a d a m p le
o p p o rtu n ity to v iew th e a c c u se d a n d th a t he w a s su ffic ien tly atte n tiv e b e c a u se , ac c o rd in g to E cho l s’ s t est i m on y, he w as i n close proxi m i ty to the d efendan tforrough ly three ho urs. F in a lly , the trial ju d g e d e ter m in e d th a t E c h o ls’s p rio r d e sc rip tio n th a t C h ristm a s w a s “ th e tall
o n e ” w a s a c c u ra te a n d w e ig h e d in fa v o r o f t h e S ta te . ¶2 8 . W e find that there w as “ su b stan ti al c re d ib le e v id e n ce ” to s u p p o rtthe tri al co u rt ’s
o rd e r d e n y in g C h ri s tm a s ’s m o ti o n t o s u p p re s s th e id e n tif ic a tio n . I

d . B ase d o n E ch o ls’ s t es t i m ony, he w as w i thi n onl y a f ew f eet o f t he def

endantf ora s i gni f

i cantper i od of

t i m e.

### 11

T hes e f act s s uppor tthe tr i al court ’ s f i ndi ng thatE chol s had am ple oppor tuni ty t o vi ew t he d e f e n d a n t . W h i l e t h e r e wa s n o t e s t i mo n y d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o Ec h o l s ’ s d e g r e e o f a t t e n t i o n , we cannots ay thatthe tr i al j udge err ed i n cons i der i ng the f or egoi ng f

act s t o f i nd thatE chol s w as s uf f i ci ent l y a t t ent i ve. A ddi t i onal l y, a l though the j udge di d nota ddr es s the l evel of cert ai nt y, the tes t i m on y d oes i nd i cat e t hat Ech ols did not hesi t at e w hen i den t i fyi ng C hri stm as. ¶29. W e di s agr ee, how ever , w i th the tr i al j udge’ s det erm i nat i on that E chol s ’ s des cr i pt i on w a s a c c u ra te. E v e n th o u g h C h ri s tm a s w a s ta ll, th is v e ry lim ited d e sc rip tio n is u n d e n iab ly
v a g u e . C om

par e B i gg ers , 409 U . S. at200 ( “[ T he vi ct i m ’ s ] des cr i pt i on t o t he pol i ce, w hi ch i ncl uded the as s ai l ant ' s appr oxi m at e age , hei ght , w ei ght , compl exi on, s ki n t extur e, bui l d, and
v o ice, m igh t no t hav e sa ti sfi ed P rou st bu t w as m o re tha n o rdin aril y tho rou g h . ”). N everthel es s , i n l i ghtof the otherf

act or s , the tr i al judge di d noterri n al l ow i ng t he i dent i f i cat i on t es t i m ony des pi t e the s ug ge s t i ve na tur e of the s i ngl e phot ogr aph. A ccor di ngl y, th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I I . D eput y Sheri f

f R eeve s ’ s T es t i m ony. ¶30. “The r el evanc y and admi s s i bi l i ty of evi dence ar e l ar gel y w i thi n the di s cr et i on of t he tr i al courtand thi s C our ts houl d onl y r ever s e w her e i ti s cl eart hat di scr et i on has been abus ed. ” S im m o n s v . S ta te , 805 So. 2d 452, 487- 488 ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng B urns v. State, 729 So. 2d 203, 218 ( M i ss. 1 99 8) ) . “I f the tr i al courtappl i ed an i m pr operl egal s t andar d,
res ult i ng in pr ej udi ce t o the ac cus ed, then a r ever s al i s w arr ant ed. ” Fo rdv. S ta te , 97 5 So. 2d 859, 865 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng P e terso n v. S ta te , 6 7 1 S o . 2 d 6 4 7 , 6 5 6 (M is s . 1 9 9 6 )) .

### 12

A . C ross- exa m i n ati on of D ep u ty Sh eri ff R eeves. ¶31. C hri st m as argues t hat the tr i al court err ed by not al l ow i ng hi s att orney t o ques t i on R eeve s abouthi s s t at ement s t o l aw enf orcem entauthor i t i es . D ur i ng di r ectexami nat i on, R eeve s w as as ked w hetherC hr i s t m as had adm i t t ed bei ng pr es entdur i ng the r obbery, and R eeve s r es ponded “he di d. ” O n cr os s - exami nat i on, def ens e couns el as ked R eeve s w hether C hr i s t m as had s t at ed thathe part i ci pat ed i n t he cr i m es agai ns tM s . Sel l er s . B ef or e R eeve s coul d ans w er , the St at e obj ect ed, c i t i ng hear s ay. T he tr i al courts us t ai ned the obj ect i on, and def ens e couns el di d notr ephr as e the ques t i on ora t t empt t o pr of f erthe expe ct ed t es t i m ony. ¶32. Iti s w el l recogn i zed that“a t r i al c our tw i l l notbe r ever s ed f or l i m i t i ng cross e x a m in a tio n w h e re ‘n o p ro ffe r w a s m a d e o f th e tes tim o n y n o r w a s a sta tem e n t d icta ted in to the r ecor d t o i ndi cat e w hatw as propos ed t o be show n by the exa m i nat i on. ’ ” B lo c k e r v . S ta te , 809 So. 2d 640, 646 ( M i s s . 2002) ( quot i ng Mc G e e v. S ta te , 36 5 S o. 2d 3 0 2 , 30 4 (M i ss. 1 9 7 8 )). B e c a u se th e d e fe n se atto rn e y faile d to p ro ffe r th e o ffic e r’s e x p e c ted tes tim o n y , this C o u rt c a n n o t as su m e th a t th e e v iden ce w o u ld h a v e su p p o rte d C h ristm a s’s d e fe n se . T h u s, th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. B . R ed i rect E xa m i n ati on of D ep u ty Sh eri ff R eeves. ¶33. C hr i s t m as al s o ar gues thatthe t r i al cour ter r ed by re f us i ng t o l i m i tthe St at e’ s r edi r ect exami nati on of Reeves . D ur i ng r edi r ect , R eeve s t es t i f i ed t o var i ous s t at ement s m ade by C hr i s t m as thatw er e not broug htouton di r ectorcr os s - exami nat i on. R eeve s t es t i f i ed that C hr i s t m as des cr i bed the vi ct i m as “a n ol d w hi t e l ady, ” thathe “kne w abouta bl ack

### 13

A val anche , ” thathe ac cur at el y des cr i bed the s t ol en pur s e as w hi t e, and thathe des cr i bed the gun as a “thi r ty- tw o orthi r ty- ei ght ” ca l i berr evol ver . E ventual l y, the def ens e l aw yer o b jec ted to th is lin e o f q u e stio n in g : P ros ecut or: A nd di d you ask [ C hr i s t m as ] i f – he admi t t ed he r an – he r an out– D ef ens e A t t orney: I’ m g o in g to o b je c t. I t is im p ro p e r r e d ir e c t. C o u rt: W hy? D ef ens e A t t orney: W e ll, fo r o n e , h e ’s n o t c lar ify in g a n y th in g th a t I w ent i nto on cross. C o u rt: I n M i s s i s s i ppi , you’ r e notl i m i t ed on w hat ’ s cal l ed in to c ro s s . . . . D ef ens e A t t orney: M y a r gum ent i s that he i s goi ng i nt o new gr ound her e, and thathe’ s notgoi ng i nt o gr ound thatw as t o cl ar i f y anythi ng thatmay have be en – come up a s a re s u lt o f m y c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n . . . . C o u rt: O k a y . A lrig h t. T h a t is n o t th e ru le in M iss iss ip p i. It ’s o v e rr u le d . ¶3 4. A f

t ert hi s excha ng e , the pr os e c ut ora ba nd on e d the qu e s t i on bu te l i c i t e d a ddi t i onal t es t i m ony thatC hr i s t m as acc ur at el y des cr i bed the vi ct i m ’ s hous e and herc ar . L at eri n t he red ir ec t exa m ination , R ee v es w as a sk ed b y co u n sel fo r the S tat e, “[a] n d the d efe n d an t didn ’t deny running o ut of hi s s hoes t o getaw ay f r om the pol i ce? ” D eputy Sher i f f R eeve s r es ponded, “N o, he di d not . ”

### 14

¶35. W hi l e a tr i al judge enjoys br oad di s cr et i on i n al l ow i ng orexcl udi ng t es t i m ony on r edi r ectexami nat i on, w e f i nd thati n thi s i ns t ance the tr i al cour ter r ed i n rul i ng t hatr edi r ect e x a m in a tio n is n o t li m ited to m a tters first b ro u g h t ou t i n cro ss -e x a m in a tio n . T h e a p p lica b le
rul e f orr edi r ectexami nat i on i n M i s s i s s i pp i i s qui t e cl ear : “The sc ope of r edi r ect ex am ination , w h il e la rg e ly w ith in the d iscreti o n o f th e tri al co u rt , is l im it ed to m att ers br oughtoutdur i ng cr os s - exami nat i on. ” Co n ley v. S ta te , 790 So. 2d 773, 786 ( M i s s . 2001) ( quot i ng B lu e v. S ta te , 6 7 4 S o . 2 d 1 1 8 4 , 1 2 1 2 (M is s . 1 9 9 6 )) . See al s o W e st v . S ta te , 463 So. 2d 1048, 1055 ( M i s s . 1985) ( “The gener al rul e i s thatr edi r ecti s l i m i t ed t o m att er s br ought outon cr os s - exami nat i on. ”) ( ci t i ng Cole v. Tullos , 2 2 8 M is s . 8 1 5 , 9 0 S o . 2 d 3 2 (1 9 5 6 )) . ¶36. H ow ever , C hri st m as’ s att orney di d notobj ectt o the exa m i nat i on unt i l m os tof the i m pr opert es t i m ony had bee n pr es ent ed. T hi s C our tha s he l d that“[ t ] o pr es erve an i s s ue f or appea l , a cont empora neous obj ect i on m us tbe made. ” W a lk e r v . S ta te , 913 So. 2d 198, 238 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e r e f

o r e , a l th o u g h th e tr i a l j u d g e e rr e d i n a l l o wi n g u n f e t t e r e d r e d i r e c t , we ca n n o t f ind that this co n sti tutes rev ersible e rror. III . Ju ry In st ru cti on s. ¶3 7. C hr i s t m as ar gu e s tha tthe j ury s ho ul d ha ve b e e n i ns truct ed on t he def i ni t i on of “cons truct i ve br eaki ng. ” W hen i ns truct i ng the j ury as t o t he el ement s of hous e bur gl ary, t he trial c o u rt g a v e th e fo llo w in g in stru c tio n s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt: Instruc ti o n S -1: [ I ] f

you unani m ous l y f

i nd f r om the evi dence i n thi s cas e, bey on d a reasonab l e do ub t , that the d efendan t , C han cel l or C hri stm as,

### 15

in d iv id u a lly o r w h ile a id in g a n d a b e ttin g o r a c tin g in c o n c e rt w ith a n o th e r . .

. di d: 1. w i l l f ul l y, unl aw f

ul l y, a nd f

el oni ous l y br eak a nd ent erthe dw el l i ng hous e of M a rg ie S e llers ; 2. w i th t he i nt entt o com m i ta cr i m e ther ei n, t o- w i t : arm ed r obbery, as def i ned in o th e r i n s tru c tio n s o f t h e C o u rt . . . . In stru ction S -2: T he cour ti ns truct s t he j ury t hatt he w or ds “br eak, ” “br oke” and/ or“br eaki ng” as us ed i n thes e i ns truct i ons r ef ert o an y un aut hor i zed a ct of f or ce, r egar dl es s of

how s l i ght , neces s ary t o be us ed i n e nt er i ng a bui l di ng, s u c h a s tu rn in g a k n o b o r o p e n in g o r p u s h in g a d o o r o r w in d o w . ¶ 3 8 . W h e n d e sc rib in g h o w th e d e fe n d a n ts e n ter e d h e r h o m e , M s. S e llers tes tified sh e d id
n o t give the d efe n d an ts pe rm issi o n to en ter th e h o u se, an d “[w ] h en I o p en ed the d o o r, that’s
w hen he gr abbed m e f

r om be hi nd, puta gun t o my head, s hoved m e on i n the hous e, and he
w a s p u s h in g m e .” ¶3 9 . C h ri stm as su b m it s tha t th e e n try m e th o d d o e s n o t c o m p o rt w ith th e tr ial co u rt ’s i ns truct i ons r egar di ng “br eaki ng. ” C hr i s t m as ar gues the j ury s houl d have be en i ns truct ed resp ec ti n g co n stru cti v e b rea k ing o r th at th e tri al ju d g e sh o u ld h av e issu ed C h ri stm as’s pr of f er ed per empt ory i ns truct i on w hi ch r ead, “The cour ti ns truct s t he j ury t o f i nd t he D efe nd ant, C han cel l or C hristm as, no t gu il ty o f C o u n t I I, h o u se b u rglary . ” T h e S tat e c o u n ters thatthe el ement s of

br eaki ng and ent eri ng w er e met , as “pl aci ng a gun t o s om eone’ s head
a n d sh o v in g th e m in to th e fr o n t d o o r o f th e ir h o m e is c e rta in ly a n a c t o f fo rc e e m p lo y e d to ef f ectentr ance . ”

### 16

¶40. I n Sm ith v. S ta te, this C o u rtqu o ted w ith ap p rov al th e N o rth C aro li n a S u p rem e C o u rt i n r ef i ni ng ourdef

i ni t i ons of

actual and cons truct i ve br eaki ng: I n S ta te v . J

o lly , 297 N . C . 121, 254 S. E . 2d 1 ( 1979) , the def endantw as convi ct ed of f

i rs td egr ee bur gl ary and arm ed r obbery and appe al ed t o the Supr eme C our tof

N or th C ar ol i na. T he courtdef i ned br eaki ng as “ . . . any ac t orf or ce, how ever , s l i ght , ‘ empl oy ed t o ef f ectan entr ance thr ough any us ual o r un u su al plac e o f i n g ress, w h ethe r op en , p artl y o p en , o r close d . ’” T h e c o u rt not ed thata br eaki ng coul d be ac tual orcons truct i ve and de f i ned a c ons truct i ve br eaki ng as one w hi ch occ ur s w hen entr ance i s obt ai ned i n cons equenc e of v io le n c e c o m m e n c e d o r th re a ten e d b y d e fe n d a n t. T h e e v id e n c e in Jo lly s how ed the def

endantgai ned entry i nt o the vi ct i m ' s mot el r oom by pus hi ng the vi ct i m i nt o the r oom as he ope ned the door , cons t i tut i ng a cons truct i ve b re a k in g . Sm ith v. S ta te , 4 9 9 S o . 2 d 7 5 0 , 7 5 2 -75 3 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 ). B y h o lding a g u n to M s. S ell ers’s head a nd f

or ci ng heri nt o the home, C hr i s t m as m etM i s s i s s i ppi ’ s es t abl i s hed s t andar d f or cons truct i ve br eaki ng, w hi ch thi s C our thas hel d s at i s f i es the “br eaki ng” el ementof bur gl ary. See T e m p le to n v. S ta te, 725 So. 2d 764, 766 ( M i s s . 1998) . W hi l e the j ury w as noti s s ued an i ns truct i on on the s peci f i c def i ni t i on of “c ons truct i ve br eaki ng, ” i tw as i s s ued an i ns truct i on on the cons t i tuentel ement s of burgl ary. T hi s C ourthas hel d that“i ns truct i ons i n a cr i m i nal
cas e w hi ch f

ol l ow the l anguage of

a pert i nents t atut e ar e s uf f i ci ent . ” R u b e n s te in v . S ta te, 941 S o . 2 d 7 3 5 , 7 7 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). W e fin d th a t th e ju ry re c e iv e d a d e q u a te in s tru c tio n s re g a rd in g th is o ff e n s e . I V . Suff i ci ency of

t he E vi dence. ¶4 1. C hr i s t m as ar gues t hatt he t r i a l c ou r te rr e d i n d e ny i ng hi s mot i on f ora j udgm ent notw i ths t andi ng t he ver di ct . A m ot i on f ora j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ctchal l enges

### 17

th e s u ff ic ie n c y o f t h e e v id e n c e . B u sh v. S ta te , 895 So. 2d 836, 843 ( M i s s . 2005) . W hen
r evi ew i ng a ca s e f

ors uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence , “t he r el evantques t i on i s w hether , af t er vi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfa vor abl e t o t he pr os ecut i on, any r at i onal tr i erof f act c o u ld h a v e f

o u n d th e e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts o f t h e c ri m e b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t.” I d. ( quot i ng J

a c kso n v. V

irg in ia , 4 4 3 U . S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 5 , 9 9 S . C t. 2 7 8 1 , 6 1 L . E d . 2 d 5 6 0 (19 7 9 )). ¶4 2 . C h ri stm a s a ss e rts th a t th e c o n flict b e tw e e n E c h o ls’s te stim o n y an d M s. S ell ers’s t es t i m ony w as suf

f i ci entf orthe tr i al j udge t o gr anthi s m ot i on f orj udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng th e v e rd ict. C h ristm a s re itera tes th e tes tim o n y o f S e llers to th e e ffe c t th a t h e r a ttac k e r c o u ld have be en herhei ghtand notm uch t al l er , compar i ng i tt o E chol s ’ s t es t i m ony thatC hr i s t m as is th e talles t of

the d e fe n d a n ts. C h ristm a s a lso p o in ts to M s. S e llers ’s id e n tifica tio n o f T e rre ll W h it e a s h er a tt ac k er. A d d it ion all y , C h ri stm as a sserts th at th e o n ly p o rt ion o f E ch o ls’ s t es t i m ony thatw as corr obor at ed w as C hr i s t m as ’ s admi s s i on t o D eputy Sher i f f R eeve s t hat h e w a s p re s e n t a t th e s c e n e o f t h e ro b b e ry . ¶43. W hi l e i t i s corr ect that M s . Sel l er s and E chol s of f er ed conf

l i ct i ng t es t i m ony, i t i s not up t o thi s C our tt o r es ol ve s uch a c onf l i ct . T hati s the j ury’ s f unct i on. J ur or s ar e perm i t t ed, an d i nd eed have the duty t o r es ol ve the conf l i ct s i n the t es t i m ony they hea r . A ny confl i ct s i n the t es t i m ony of w i tnes s es i s the p rov ince o f th e jury . W h o th e jury be li ev es an d w h at co n clus ion s itrea ch es a re s ol el y f ori t s det erm i nat i on. A s the r evi ew i ng court , w e ca nnotand nee d not d eterm ine w ith ex ac ti tud e w h ich w itn ess(e s) or w h at t esti m o n y the ju ry bel i eved ordi s bel i eved i n arr i vi ng ati t s ver di ct . I ti s en ou gh t hatthe conf l i ct i ng evi dence pr es ent ed a f actual di s put e f

orj ury r es ol ut i on. S tep h e n s v . S ta te , 9 1 1 S o . 2 d 4 2 4 , 4 3 6 (M is s . 2 0 0 5 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ).

### 18

¶ 4 4 . A lo n g w ith th e tes tim o n y o f M s. S e llers a n d E c h o ls, th e ju ry a lso w a s p re se n ted w ith the tes t i m on y o f m ult i ple s heri ff’s dep uti es, forensi c an al yst s, an d w i th that of Q uincy R oss, w h o sta ted th a t C h ristm a s a d m itt e d to h im h is in v o lv e m e n t i n the crim e s. A fte r h e a rin g a ll th e e v id e n c e a n d b e in g a d e q u a tely in stru c ted o n th e a p p lica b le la w , the ju ry re n d e re d its deci s i on i n due cour s e. W e f i nd t hat“any r at i onal tr i erof f actcoul d have f

ound the es s ent i al
e le m e n ts o f t h e c ri m e [s ] b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t.” Bush, 895 So. 2d at843. V . P erem p tory Instructi on s. ¶4 5. C hr i s t mas a r gu e s tha tthe tr i a l c ou r te rr e d i n “ de ny i ng h i s per empt or y i ns t ruct i on conce rni ng count s I and I I . ” C hr i s t m as pr esent s no ar gum enti n s uppor tof thi s as s ert i on. “I f an appe l l antf

ai l s t o s uppor ther[ orhi s] al l egat i on of err orw i th ar gum entorauthor i ty, thi s C our tneed notcons i derthe i s s ue. ” P ierre v . S tate , 6 07 S o. 2d 43, 48 ( M i s s . 1992) (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). V I . Juror C hal l enge. ¶46 . F i nall y, C hri stm as argues that the tri al cou rt err ed by den ying his chall eng e forcause agai ns tj ur orShaun C hunn bas ed on comm ent s s he made dur i ng voi rdi r e exa m i nat i on. T he St at e count er s thatw e nee d notaddr es s the mer i t s of thi s c l ai m be caus e C hunn di d nots i ton the jury an d C hri stm as had n ot exhau st ed all of hi s perem ptory ch al l eng es. ¶47. T he St at e i s corr ecton t hi s poi nt . T hi s C our thas hel d, S o long as t he jury thatsi t s i s i m part i al , the factthat the d efendan thad t o u se a per empt ory chal l enge t o achi eve thatre s ul tdoes notm ean thatthe def endant w a s d e n ie d h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . R o s s v. Ok la h o ma , 487 U . S. 81, 88, 108

### 19

S. C t . 2273, 2278, 101 L . Ed. 2d 80, 90 ( 1988) . T hi s C our thas expl ai ned that a pr er equi s i t e t o pr es ent at i on of a cl ai m of

a deni al of

c ons t i tut i onal r i ght s due t o de ni a l o f

a c ha l l e ng e f

orc a us e i s a s ho w i ng tha tthe d e f e nd a nthad exhaus t ed al l of

hi s per empt ory chal l enges and thatthe i ncompet entj ur orw as fo rc e d b y th e tr ia l c o u rt ' s e rr o n e o u s ru lin g to s it o n th e ju ry . Ch iso lm v. S ta te , 5 2 9 S o . 2 d 6 3 5 , 6 3 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). Me tteta l v. S ta te , 615 So. 2d 600, 603 ( M i s s . 1993) . I n thi s c as e, Chri s tm as onl y us ed el even of hi s tw el ve ava i l abl e per empt ory s tr i kes . T her ef or e, w e do notr eac h the ques t i on of
w hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n denyi ng hi s chal l enge f orcaus e. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 4 8 . W e fi n d n o re v e rs ib le e rr o r a n d a ff ir m C h ri s tm a s ’s c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s . ¶ 4 9 . CO UN T I : CO NV I CT I ON OF AR M E D ROB BE RY AN D S E NT E NC E OF NI NE T Y ( 9 0 ) YE AR S I N T HE CU S TODY OF THE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M E NT OF C O R R EC TIO N S, A FFIRM ED . C O U N T II : C O N V I C TIO N O F H O U SE B UR GL AR Y A ND S E NT E NC E OF F I F T Y ( 5 0 ) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y OF T HE M ISS ISS IP P I D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T IO N S , A F F IR M E D . S E N T E N C E IN COUNT I I TO B E S ER VE D CONS EC UT I VE LY TO T HE S EN TE NCE I N COUNT I. W AL L E R, C. J . , C A R L S ON A N D GR A V E S , P . J J . , D I C KI N S ON , R A N D OL P H, LA M AR, CHANDL ER , AND P I ER CE J J . , CONCUR.