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 6 - KA- 0 0 7 0 4 - S CT LEON D. TAGGART
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 04/ 12/ 2006 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. RO BE RT P . CH AM BE RL I N COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: DES OTO COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: DAV I D CLAY VAN DERBURG 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 : D E S H U N T E R R E L L M A R T IN DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: J OHN W
. CH AM P I ON CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 06/ 07/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. CAR LS ON , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. L eon D . T aggar tw e ntt o tr i a l i n D e Sot o County Ci r c ui tC our ton a m ul t i
- count ind ictm en t cha rgin g h im w ith h o u se b u rglary , rap e, kidn ap p ing an d arm ed rob b ery . T h e jury f ound T aggartnotgui l ty of hous e bur gl ary; how ever , the j ury f ound T aggartgui l ty of

r ape, ki dnappi ng and arm ed robber y. A tthe conc l us i on of the s epar at e s ent enci ng phas e of t he tr i al , the s ame j ury r eturned s ent ence s of l i f e i m pri sonm entas t o eac h of the thr ee c api t al of f ens es , w her eupon the tr i al j udge s ent ence d T aggartt o s erve thes e l i f e s ent ence s

### 2

cons ecut i vel y. A f

t era den i al of

pos t - tr i al m ot i ons , T aggartappea l ed t o us . Fi ndi ng no
re v e rs ib le e rr o r, w e a ff

ir m . F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶2. W e gi ve her e onl y a br i ef r eci t at i on of the f act s f or a f ul l under s t andi ng of thi s cas e; how ever , dur i ng the s ubs equ ent di s cus s i on of the i s s ues bef

or e us , m or e f

act s w i l l be
r evea l ed. Suf

f i ce i tt o s t at e her e thaton Sept ember6, 2005, a man know n t o the vi ct i m as “D al e B axt er ” appe ar ed i n the vi ct i m ’ s bedr oom s hort l y aft er 6: 00 a. m . T he vi ct i m , w ho l i ved i n Sout haven ne arthe i nt ers ect i on of N ai l R oad and U
. S. H i ghw ay 51, w oul d l at er lea rn th a t “ D a le B a x ter ” w a s a n a lias s o m e tim e s u se d b y L e o n D . T a g g a rt; the re fo re , w e w ill refer to the d efe n d an t by h is true n am e. A cc o rdin g to the v ict im ’s testi m o n y a t tri al, T ag g art bound the vi ct i m w i th ductt ape a nd f or ci bl y r aped he ratkni f e- poi nt , w i th the vi ct i m ’ s ni ece sle e p in g in a n e a rb y b e d ro o m . T a g g a rt u se d the k n ife to c u t o ff th e v ictim ’s p a jam a s a n d in t he pr oces s of

the i ni t i a l s trug gl e , the vi c t i m w a s c ut . A l tho ug h s he i ni t i a l l y r e s i s t ed T aggart ’ s act s , the vi ct i m cea s ed herr es i s t ance a f t erTaggart ’ s thr eat s of

vi ol ence upon he r and herni ece . A tthe t i m e of thes e cr i m es , the vi ct i m ’ s hus band w as i n L oui s i ana pe r f or m i ng
s ubcontr act i ng w or k i n the w ake of H urr i cane K atr i na, w hi ch had occ urr ed onl y ei ghtdays
ear l i er . A tal l rel evantt i m es dur i ng the vi ct i m ’ s or deal , T aggarthad the kni f e i n hi s hand. A f t erT aggartr aped the vi ct i m , he t ol d herthatthey w ere goi ng t o W i nona, “w her e the
w oods getthi ck, ” s o the t w o of them l ef ti n t he vi ct i m ’ s caragai ns therw i l l , w i th herdr i vi ng. A tT aggart ’ s i ns truct i ons , t he vi ct i m drove t o an A T M ata B ancorp Sout h br anch on Churc h R oad and w i thdr ew $55, l eavi ng a $. 32 bal ance i n heracc ount . T he A T M r ece i pti ndi cat ed

### 3

that the m o n ey w as w ith d raw n at 6:5 8 a.m . on S ep tem b er 6 , 2 0 0 5 . T h e v ict im g av e T ag g art th e $ 5 5 c a s h b e c a u s e h e h a d a k n if e “ s tu c k in m y s id e .” ¶ 3
. F r o m C h u r c h Ro a d , T a g g a r ta n d th e v i c t i m th e n p r o c e e d e d s o u th o n I n t e r s t a t e 5 5 . As th e y a p p ro a c h e d th e H e rn a n d o e x it, T a g g a rt in q u ire d o f th e v ictim if sh e w a s fa m ili a r w ith H e rn a n d o , an d sh e lied b y re sp o n d in g “ n o .” F o llo w in g T a g g a rt’s d ire c tio n s, th e v ictim exi t ed atH ernando and dr ove t o M cD onal d’ s , w hi ch w as l ocat ed on C om m er ce Str eetnear I nt er s t at e 55. T he vi ct i m had hers eatbel tof f and pr ocee ded t o dr i ve t ow ard t he dr i vet hr ou gh wi nd ow atM c D on a l d’ s , b utthe n s he “ gu nn e d i t , o pe ne d the d oo ra nd tuc ke d a nd
r ol l ed and c ame up s cr eami ng, ”ca us i ng the ca rt o c r as h i nt o a ne arby dumpst er . T aggartt hen q u ick ly e x ited th e v e h icle a n d h e a d e d e a st to w a rd In ter sta te 5 5 . A p p ro x im a tely fo rty mi n u t e s l a t e r , two He r n a n d o p o l i c e me n a p p r e h e n d e d T a g g a r twh i l e h e wa s wa l k i n g d o wn C o m m e rc e S tre e t ab o u t a q u a rte r o f a m ile fr o m M c D o n a ld ’s n e a r th e n o rth b o u n d ra m p to I nt er s t at e 55. ¶4. I n due cour s e, t he D eSot o C ounty g r and j ury han ded dow n a four
- counti ndi ctm ent char gi ng T aggartw i th bur gl ary of a dw el l i ng (Count1), for ci bl e r ape ( C ount2) , ki dnappi ng ( C ount3) , a nd arm ed r obbery ( C ount4)
. A ttr i al , the St at e ca l l ed s i x w i tnes s es i n i t s cas e- i nch ief: T h e v ict im ; S e rg e a n t D o n n a B arton , a S o u thav en p o li ce o ffi ce r; D etec ti v e E d w ard J ames, the s eni or cr i m e s cene i nves t i gat or , w ho had r ece i ved tr ai ni ng r egar di ng the A u tom ated F ing erp ri n t I d en ti fi ca ti o n S y stem (A F IS ), inclu d ing lat en t pri n ts; D etec ti v e Je ff Scruggs , al s o a Sout haven pol i ce of f i cer ; D et ect i ve R us s el l Perry, a H ernando pol i ceman; and, D r . R oy W . “B o” Scal es , an exper ti n D N A and for ens i c anal ys i s f r om B r andon. A f

t er

### Th e trial court also g rantedthe S tate’s orete nusmotion t o am end Count 1 of the 1 

### indi ctme nt, whic h charge d Taggart with thecrim e of

burgl ar y of a dwel ling . . . “ with the int ent to c omm it

som e c ri methe re in. ” The am endm ent se t out that Ta ggart wa s c harged withthe crime of burglaryof a dw elling
. . . “withthe intent to commit the crime of rap e.” As already n oted , Tag gart w as in due co urse acquittedas to C ount 1 of th e ind ictment. 4 th e S tate re ste d , T a g g a rt, th ro u g h c o u n se l, m o v e d fo r a d ire c ted v e rd ict o f a c q u itt a l o n a ll f ourcount s , and the tr i al courtdeni ed the mot i on. 1 ¶5 . In the d efe n d an t’ s ca se-in-c h ief, tw o w itn esse s w ere ca ll ed : Jerry R ee d , the v ict im ’s nei ghborw ho l i ved acros s the s tr eet ; and Taggar t . C ontr ary t o the vi ct i m ’ s t es t i m ony t hat
s he w as f

or ci bl y r aped a tkni f

e- poi ntw hi l e bound w i th ductt ape, T agg artt es t i f i ed thathe and the vi ct i m engage d i n cons ens ual s ex i ni t i at ed by the vi ct i m , and t hatthe vi ct i m “w ant ed t o m ake i tspec i al , and she w as i nt o, l i ke, bondage, you know
. ” Taggar tal s o cl ai m ed thathe
nevercompl et ed the s ex ac tthatday bec aus e the vi ct i m acc i dent al l y cuther s el f w i t h the k n ife w h ile d o in g “ th is b o n d a g e th in g .” A d d iti o n a lly , T a g g a rt s tate d th a t h e a n d th e v ictim had pr evi ous l y had cons ens ual s ex on s ever al occa s i ons beca us e the vi ct i m w as havi ng
m ar i t al pr obl ems w i th herhus band. T aggartal s o t es t i fi ed thatthe vi ct i m ’ s m ot i ve f or f abr i cat i ng the r ape, ki dnappi ng and ar m ed r obbery, al l of w hi ch he de ni ed, w as thatt he vi ct i m “w as ups etbe caus e s he w ant ed herhus band [ ] t o come back, and he w as w af f l i ng on h e r b e c a u s e h e d id n ’t re a lly w a n t to c o m e b a c k to h e r.” ¶6. A f

t erthe St at e’ s br i ef

r ebutt al , the tr i al j udge’ s r eadi ng of the i ns truct i ons t o the j ur y, and cl os i ng ar gum ent s f r om couns el , the j ury r et i r ed t o del i ber at e and i n due cour s e r etur ned
v erd ict s o f gu il ty as to rap e, kidn ap p ing an d arm ed rob b ery ; ho w ev er, th e jury fou n d T ag g art

### Th e juryverd ict of n ot g uiltyas to C ount 1 , ho use burglary , is no t in con sistent w ith 2 

### theverdic ts of gui lt

y on theothe r c ounts , s inc e ther e wa s s uff ic ie nt t es timony bef

orethejur y that T a gg art , who l i ve d i n ac ampe r b e hind thev i c t i m ’ s h ou s e , h a d a c c e s s t o the vic ti m’ s ho me withthe v ictim’s con sent. 5 notgu i l ty of

the c r i me o f

b ur gl a r y of

a d w e l l i ng . The tr i a l j ud ge the n pr oc e e de d t o t he

2
s ent enci ng pha s e of

the tr i al be f

or e the s ame j ury. A f t erthe pr es ent at i on of

add i t i onal evi dence , the tr i al j udge’ s r eadi ng of addi t i onal i ns truct i ons t o the j ury, and cl os i ng arg u m en ts f

rom co u n sel, the ju ry o n ce ag ain re ti red to d eli b era te, w h ere u p o n the ju ry
r eturned s ent ence s of

l i f e i m pr i s onm enton C ount s 2, 3, and 4 ( r ape, ki dnappi ng and arm ed
r obbery)
. C ons i s t entw i th the act i on of the j ury, t he t r i al j udge i m pos ed thr ee l i f e s ent ence s upon T aggart , or der i ng thes e s ent ence s t o run cons ecut i vel y. T aggartther eaf t erf i l ed a
m o tio n fo r a n e w trial a n d a se p a ra te m o tio n f o r a ju d g m e n t n o tw ith sta n d in g th e v e rd ict. A fte r th e trial ju d g e ’s d e n ial o f th e se p o st-tria l m o tio n s, T a g g a rt p e rfe c ted th is a p p e a l. DI S CU S S I ON ¶7. T aggart , thr ough couns el , as s i gns tw o err or s f or us t o cons i der : ( 1) W hether the tr i al
courterr ed i n denyi ng hi s m ot i on f ora di r ect ed ver di ctatthe cl os e of the St at e’ s cas e- i nchi ef , as w el l as h i s propo s ed j ury i ns truct i on D
- 1, w hi ch w as a per empt ory i ns truct i on di r ect i ng the j ury t o f

i nd T aggar tnotgui l ty on al l f ourcount s of

the i ndi ctm ent ; and ( 2)
w hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n al l ow i ng T aggart ’ s pr i orT exas convi ct i on i nt o evi dence d u ri n g th e s e n te n c in g p h a s e o f t h e tr ia l. W e re s ta te th e s e is s u e s fo r c la ri ty in d is c u s s io n .

### 6

I . W HET HER T HE T RI AL COURT ER RE D I N DE NYI NG TA G G A R T’ S PO ST T R I A L M O TIO N S A. Mo ti o n f

o rJ . N. O. V. ¶8. W e ar e mi ndf

ul of the f actt hati n hi s m ot i on forj udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ct ( J . N . O
. V . ) , T aggartnotonl y at t acke d t he l egal suf f i ci ency of

the over al l evi dence adduce d attr i al , he al s o a s s ert ed tr i al c our te rr ori n de nyi ng hi s mot i on f ora di r ect ed ver di ctm ade a t the cl os e of

t he St at e’ s cas e- i n- chi ef , and i n denyi ng hi s pr opos ed j ury i ns truct i on D
- 1, w hi ch
s t at ed “[ t ] he C our ti ns truct s the j ury t o f i nd the D ef

endantnotgui l ty on al l co unt s . ” O ur
cases are l egi on on thi s i s s ue. T he appr opr i at e i nqui ry on appea l i n cons i der i ng the tr i al
c o u rt’s d e n ial o f a J.N .O .V . m o tio n is “ w h e th e r th e e v id e n c e sh o w s `b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doub ttha t[ the d e f

e nd a nt ] c omm i t t e d the a c tc ha r ge d, a nd tha th e d i d s o unders uch ci r cumst ance s thatevery el ementof the of f ens e exi s t ed; and w her e the evi dence f ai l s t o m eet thi s t es ti ti s i ns uf

f i ci entt o s uppor ta convi ct i on. ’ ” B u sh v. S ta te , 89 5 S o. 2d 83 6, 84 3 (M i ss. 2005) ( quot i ng Ca rrv. S ta te , 2 0 8 S o . 2 d 8 8 6 , 8 8 9 (M is s . 1 9 6 8 )) . S ta te d d if fe re n tly , [ w ] e must , w i th res pectt o eac h el ementof the of f ens e, cons i deral l of

the evi dence - notj us tt he evi dence w hi ch support s t he cas e f ort he pr os ecut i on - in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e v e rd ict. T h e c re d ib le e v id e n c e w h ich is cons i s t entw i th t he gu i l t[of the ac cus ed] m us tbe ac cept ed as true. T he pr os ecut i on m us tbe gi ven the bene f i tof al l favorabl e i nf

er ence s thatm ay r eas onabl y be dr aw n f

r om the evide nce. M att er s r egar di ng the w ei ghtand cr edi bi l i ty t o be ac cor ded the evi dence ar e r es ol ved b y t he j ury. W e may rever se only w here, w i th res pect t o on e or m ore of the elem ents of the o ff

ense charge d, the evi dence s o cons i der ed i s s uch thatr eas onabl e and f ai r - m i nded ju ro rs c o u ld o n ly fi n d th e a c c u s e d n o t g u ilty
. W e tz v . S ta te , 503 So. 2d 803, 8 0 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted).

### 7

G leeton v. State, 716 So. 2d 1083, 1087 ( M i s s . 1998) ( quot i ng Fra n k lin v . S ta te , 676 So. 2d 287, 288 ( M i s s . 1996) )
. O urst andar d of r evi ew f

orthe tr i al court ’ s deni al of di r ect ed
v erd ict s an d p e re m p tory instruction s is th e sa m e a s tha t f o r th e tri al co u rt ’s de n ial o f a J . N . O
. V . “‘ [ A ] l l e vi dence i ntr oduced by the St at e i s t o be a cce pt ed as true, t ogetherw i th any
r eas onabl e i nf

er ence s thatcan be dr aw n f r om thatevi dence
. ’ ” W

a ll v. S ta te , 718 So. 2d 1107, 1111 ( M i s s . 1998) ( quot i ng B ro w n v. S ta te , 5 5 6 S o . 2 d 3 3 8 , 3 4 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 )). ¶9. A cc o rdin g to the app ropri at el y given j ury i nst ruct i on s, (1) i n order t o fi nd T agg art g u ilty o f r a p e , th e ju ry h a d to fin d th a t o n o r a b o u t S e p tem b e r 6 , 2 0 0 5 , T a g g a rt h a d fo rc ib le
s exual i nt er cour s e ( “peni s of the mal e i s i ns ert ed i nt o the vagi na of the f emal e”) w i th t he vi ct i m ; ( 2) i n orde rt o f

i nd T aggartgui l ty of

ki dnappi ng, the j ury had t o f i nd thaton orabout Sept ember6, 2005, T aggartf or ci bl y s ei zed and conf

i ned the vi ct i m “w i th i nt entt o caus e her t o be s ecr et l y conf

i ned, orw i th i nt entt o caus e hert o be i m pr i s oned aga i ns therw i l l ; ” and ( 3) in o rde r t o fi n d T ag g art gu il ty o f arm ed rob b ery (ro b b ery u sing a d ea d ly w ea p o n ), the ju ry had t o f i nd t haton oraboutSept ember6, 2005, T aggartf el oni ous l y t ook $55 cas h f r om the p re se n c e o r p e rso n o f th e v ictim , b e in g th e p e rso n a l p ro p e rty o f th e v ictim , ag a in st h e r w ill by putt i ng the vi ct i m i n f earof i m m edi at e i nj ury by the exhi bi t i on of a de adl y w eapon ( the k n ife ), an d th a t th e v ictim p a rte d p o ss e ss io n w ith h e r c a sh m o n e y o n ly b e c a u se o f b e in g in fe a r o f im m e d iate in

ju ry to h e r p e rso n b e in g in flicte d b y T a g g a rt. In e a c h “ e lem e n t” i ns truct i on, t he j ury al s o w as i nf or m ed thati f

the St at e f

ai l ed t o pr ove any one orm or e of t he el ement s of

the of f ens e char ged, be yond a r eas onabl e doubt , the j ury mustf i nd T aggartnot gui l ty of thatpart i cul arcr i m i nal of f ens e.

### 8

¶1 0
. W ith ou r app rop ri ate stand ard of rev iew i n m in d a s w e c o n sid e r th e trial jud g e’s d e n i a l o f T a g g a r t ’ s m o t i o n f

o ra d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t , p e r e mp t o ry i n s tru c t i o n a n d J . N. O. V. , we tur n t o the r e c or d b e f

or e us i n t od a y’ s c a s e . I n r e vi e w i ng the e vi de nc e , a s w e l l a s t he
re a so n a b le in fe re n c e s w h ich m ig h t b e d ra w n fro m th e e v id e n c e , in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le t o the pr os ecut i on, w e not e her e ce r t ai n f act s : T aggartbound the vi ct i m and f or ci bl y r aped her , us i ng the exhi bi t i on of the kni f e and thr eatof

b od i l y harm t o herand herni ece i f s he
r es i s t ed; D N A t es t i ng f

r om the r ape ki ts how ed the pr es ence of s emen, butno s perm , i n t he vi ct i m ’ s vagi na, butD r . Scal es t es t i f i ed thatthe abs ence of s perm i n t he s emen w as

“ c o n sist en t w ith th e m ale d o n o r no t rea ch ing ejacu lat ion ” (th e v ict im t esti fi ed th at sh e d id
n o t t h ink T agg arthad ej aculat ed insi de o f her“[ b] ecause itw as only sem i -f i rm and j ust b ec au se h e d idn ’tloo k li k e h e h ad h ad an o rga sm . ”); b y co n stan tl y ex h ibit ing the k n if e T aggartf or ced the vi ct i m t o geti n hercarw i th hi m t o dr i ve t o W i nona, “ w her e the w oods getthi ck; ” the tw o of

them l ef ti n t he vi ct i m ’ s caragai ns therw i l l , w i th herdr i vi ng; and the
v ict im m ad e a n A T M w ith d raw al of $ 5 5 an d g av e T ag g art the c ash be ca u se h e h ad a k n if e “s tuck i n my si de. ” Thus, ba s ed on the s t atus of the r ecor d i n thi s cas e, and cons i der i ng t he appl i cabl e l aw , w e f

i nd thatthe tr i al j udge comm i t t ed no err ori n denyi ng T aggart ’ s m ot i on for J.N
. O
. V . , ag ain a ck n o w ledg ing that co n tai n ed w ith in T a g g a rt’ s J.N . O
. V . m o ti o n w ere
a ss e rtio n s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n fo r a d ir e c ted v e rd ict a n d h is
s ubm i t t ed per empt ory “notgui l ty” i ns truct i on. B . Mo tio n fo r a N

e w T ria l. ¶11. A s w e r ece nt l y s t at ed i n J o n e s v . S ta te , 9 1 8 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 3 5 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ):

### 9

"Thatas a mat t erof

l aw the mot i on f

orj udgm entnot w i ths t andi ng the ver di ct m us tb e overrul ed and de ni ed i n no w ay af f ect s and l i t t l e i nf

or m s the tr i al ju d g e re g a rd in g h is d is p o s itio n o f t h e m o tio n fo r a n e w tr ia l." Jes co , [ Inc. v. W hitehead], 4 5 1 S o . 2 d [7 0 6 ] at 7 1 4 [(M iss . 1 9 8 4 )](R o b e rtso n , J., sp e c ially concurr i ng)
. A s w i th a j
. n. o. v. m ot i on, our l aw i s w el l
- s ett l ed conc erni ng our re v iew o f th e trial c o u rt' s d e n ial o f a m o tio n fo r a n e w trial: A m o ti o n for a n ew tr ial , h o w ev er, f all s w ith in a low er stan d ard of r evi ew than does thatf ora j ud gm entnotw i ths t andi ng the v e rd ict. I d. at127. A m oti on f

ora new tr i al s i m pl y chal l enges th e w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e . I d . T h is C o u rt h a s e x p lain e d th a t it w i l l r ever s e the tr i al court ' s deni al of a mot i on f

ora new tr i al o n ly if , b y d o in g s o , th e c o u rt a b u s e d its d is c re tio n . I d . ( quot i ng G lee to n v. S ta te , 716 So. 2d a t1088)
. " W e w i l l notor dera new tr i al unl ess con vi nced thatthe ver di cti s s o contr ary t o the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence that , t o al l ow i tt o s t and, w ou l d b e t o sancti on an u nco nsci on able i njust i ce. " I d . ( quot i ng G ro se c lo se v. S ta te , 4 4 0 S o . 2 d 2 9 7 , 3 0 0 (M iss . 1 9 8 3 )). T h is C o u rt h a s a lso e x p lain e d th a t fa c tu a l d isp u tes a re p ro p e rly re s o lv e d b y a ju ry a n d d o n o t m a n d a te a n e w tr ia l. McN eal v. S ta te , 6 1 7 S o . 2 d 9 9 9 , 1 0 0 9 ( M is s . 1 9 9 3 ). Ho llo w a y v. S ta te , 8 0 9 S o . 2 d 5 9 8 , 6 0 5 -06 (¶¶ 2 1 -22 ) (M iss. 2 0 0 0 ). G in n v. S ta te , 8 6 0 S o . 2 d 6 7 5 , 6 8 5 (M is s . 2 0 0 3 ). See a l so B u sh v. S ta te , 895 S o . 2 d 8 3 6 , 8 4 4 (M is s . 2 0 0 5 ), a n d U R C C C 1 0 .0 5 . I d. at1235. ¶12. A s horr endous as the ac t s i nfl i ct ed up on the vi ct i m by T aggartar e, thi s cas e i s no d iffe re n t th a n th e n u m e ro u s ju ry trials c o n d u c ted d a ily in th is s tate a n d in ea c h sta te o f th is nat i on – thi s cas e, l i ke al l other s , co nt ai ns conf l i ct i ng t es t i m ony. T hi s i s unques t i onabl y a
cas e of “s he s ai d – he s ai d. ” “She” s ai d” s he w as f or ci bl y r aped, ki dnapped and r obbed by “hi m ” atkni f

e- poi nt . “H e s ai d” he w as engagi ng i n cons ens ual r ough s ex w i th “her ” and that
n o n e o f th ese ac ts of ra p e, kidn ap p ing an d arm ed rob b ery o cc u rred , b u t i n stead they w ere fa b ric a tio n s b y “ h e r” b e c a u se o f “ h e r” u n h a p p y m a rrie d life. T h e c o ld h a rd fa c ts a re th a t th is

### 10

w as a “cl assi c j ury case. ” T he jury h ad b efor e i tthis confl i ct i ng t est i m on y o f the w i tnesses,
a s w e ll as th e e x h ib its a n d th e ju ry in stru c tio n s, a n d it w a s th e r e s p o n s ib ility o f th e ju ry to
m ake f i ndi ngs of

f actand then appl y the l aw as gi ven by t he t r i al j udge t o the f act s t o r eac h a p rop er v erd ictas to ea ch o f th e fo u r co u n ts of the in d ictm en t. W ith this i n m ind , w e a re
c o n v in c e d th a t th e g u ilty v e rd icts o f th e ju ry c o n c e rn in g th e c o u n ts c h a rg in g T a g g a rt w ith
r ape, ki dnappi ng and arm ed r obbery ar e beyond the author i ty of thi s C our tt o di s turb. St at ed di f f er ent l y, w e ar e i n no w ay con vince d thatthe j ury ver di ct s w er e s o contr ary t o t he
o v e rw h e lm ing w eigh t o f th e ev iden ce th at t o all o w th ese ve rdicts t o st an d w o u ld be to
sa n c tio n a n u n c o n sc io n a b le in ju stic e . T h e re fo re , the trial c o u rt d id n o t co m m it err o r in d e n y in g T a g g a rt’s m o tio n fo r a n e w trial. ¶13. I n s um , w e f

i nd thatthe t ri al co urtd i d no terrin den ying T aggart ’ s m ot i on f or J.N .O .V . an d h is s e p a ra te m o tio n fo r a n e w tria l. T h e re fo re , th is f irst iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I I . W HET HER T HE T RI AL COURT ER RE D B Y AL LOW I NG I NT O E VI DE NC E DU RI NG T HE S E NT E NC I NG P HA S E T HE DE F EN DANT ’ S P RI OR TE XAS CONVI CT I ON. ¶ 1 4
. A fte r ju ry d e lib e ra tio n s in th e first p h a se o f th e tri a l, th e jur y fo u n d T a g g a rt n o t g u ilty of hous e b ur gl a r y, b utg ui l ty of f or c i bl e r a pe , k i dn a pp i ng , a nd a r med r ob be ry. A f t ert he concl us i on of

the gui l t/ i nnocenc e phas e, the tr i al judge then pr ocee ded t o the s ent enci ng p h a se b e fo re th e s a m e ju ry . A s is c u sto m a ry , the p ro se c u to r re q u e ste d th e trial ju d g e to perm i tthe St at e t o incorporat e al l evi dence adduce d i n the f i r s tphas e of

the tr i al i nt o t he
r ecord d uri ng the s ent enci ng phas e, s o as t o perm i tthe j ury t o cons i derthi s pr i orevi dence i n arr i vi ng atthe appr opr i at e puni s hm ent . W i thoutobj ect i on fr om def ens e couns el , t he tr i al

### 11

jud g e g ran ted th e S tat e’s req u est, m ea n ing tha t at the sen tenc ing p h ase , the jury h ad b efo re it, in tera lia , the d e taile d tes tim o n y o f th e v ictim a s to th e a c tio n s o f th e d e fe n d a n t. ¶15. H ow ever , overT aggart ’ s obj ect i on, the tr i al j udge al s o al l ow ed the St at e t o i ntr oduce i nt o evi dence Tag ga rt ’ s 19 86 Texas convi ct i on and s ent ence , r evea l i ng thaton M ay 19, 1986, he w as con vi ct ed and s ent ence d f ors econd de gr ee r obbery i n the 252 D i s tr i ctC our tof nd J ef f er s on C ounty, T exas . A tthe t i m e thi s document ary evi dence w as of f er ed by the St at e, the r ecor d r evea l s thatthe f ol l ow i ng occurr ed: B Y T H E C O U R T : A n y o b je c tio n , [d e fe n s e c o u n s e l]? B Y [ D E FE N SE C O U N SE L ] : Y es , s i r , M ay w e appr oach? B Y T H E C O U R T : Y es, si r. ( C O U N S E L A P P R O A C H E D T H E B E N C H F O R A C O N F E R E N C E ; S A ME N O T R E P O R T E D .) BY THE C OURT: F i r s t , f o rth e j u ry , y o u ’ l l n o t i c e th a twe we r e s h u f f l i n g s o me pap ers and up here t al king atthe ben ch. T he p art i es, [ prosecutor ] and [ defense couns el ] , ha ve agr eed thatthe onl y thi ng t o be s ubm i t t ed i s the actual j udgm ent – the ac tual convi ct i on of M r . T aggarti n the pr i orcas e. I n r egar d t o t hat , [ def

ens e couns el ] , otherthan that , any f ur therobj ect i on? B Y [ D E FE N SE C O U N SE L ] : Y ourH onor , j us tf orthe r ecor d, w e w oul d obj ect t o the document s as bei ng hear s ay. B Y T H E C O U R T : O kay. [ Pr os ecut or ] , any r es pons e? B Y [PR O SE C U T O R ] : Y ourH onor , they ar e ce r t i f i ed underthe s eal of

the C l erk of the C our tof

J ef f er s on Count y, Texas , and underourrul es , they meet al l the ap pli cable burdens. B Y T H E C O U R T : I n conf or m i ty w i th the agr eementm ade a tthe benc h r egar di ng the w i thdr aw al of the otherdocument s , the C our tw i l l overrul e the

### 12

obj ect i on as t o thi s pr i orc onvi ct i on, and i tw i l l be admi t t ed f orthe s ent enci ng phas e of thi s hear i ng. ¶16. O ther than the i ncorpor at i on of the evi dence f r om the gui l t/ i nnocenc e phas e i nt o t he
r ecor d f orthe s ent enci ng phase , and docum ent ary evi dence of the Texas r obbery convi ct i on, the onl y add i t i on al evi dence of f er ed by the St at e dur i ng the s ent enci ng phas e w as br i ef t est i m ony fr om t he vi ct i m as t o how thes e cr i m es had af f ect ed herl i f

e and a pl ea f

r om t he
v ictim to th e ju ry to “ [j] u st p lea se se n d h im a w a y a s lo n g a s y o u p o ss ib ly c a n .” T h e v ictim
w as notcr os s - exami ned by def ens e couns el , nordi d T aggartoff erany addi t i onal evi dence
. A f t erthe tr i al j udge r ead the s ent enci ng i ns truct i ons t o the j ury, an d t he j ury hea r d t he cl os i ng ar gum ent s of

the att orneys , the j ury r et i r ed t o del i ber at e, r eturni ng l i f e s ent ence s as t o f or ci bl e r ape, ki dnappi ng and arm ed r obbery. T he tr i al j udge t her eaf t erent er ed a sent encing o rder , consi st ent w i th the j ury verdi ct , s entenci ng T agg artt o thr ee l i fe s entences, and the tr i al j udge al s o or der ed thes e s ent ence s t o be s erved cons ecut i vel y. ¶17. A s w i th al l evi dent i ary i s s ues , our s t andar d f or r evi ew i ng a tr i al j udge’ s admi s s i on or
e x c lu s io n o f e v id e n c e is o n e o f a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . S h a w v . S ta te , 915 So. 2d 442, 445 ( M i s s . 2005)
. “A tr i al j udge enj oys a gr eatdeal of di scr et i on as t o the r el evanc y and
a d m iss ib ili ty o f e v id e n c e . U n les s th e ju d g e a b u se s th is d isc re tio n so as to b e p re ju d icia l to the ac cus ed, the C our tw i l l notr ever s e thi s rul i ng. ” I d. at445 ( quot i ng J

e ffe rs o n v. S ta te , 8 1 8 S o . 2 d 1 0 9 9 , 1 1 0 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 )). ¶ 1 8
. D o c u m e n ta ry p ro o f o f T a g g a rt ’s p ri o r T e x a s c o n v ic ti o n c o n s is ts o f E x h ib it 3 9 , a thr ee- page doc um entcer t i f i ed acc or di ng t o t he A ct s of C ongr es s . P age one of thi s document

### 13

reveal s that Lo l i t a R am os, the C l erk of the D i stri ct C o urt s f or Jef fer son C ou nty, T exas,
cert i f i ed thatthe att ache d document s w er e “a true and corr ectcopy” on fi l e i n caus e number 4 6 6 4 8 sty led “ T h e S tate o f T e x a s v s. L e o n D w a y n e T a g g a rt.” R a m o s s ig n e d th is c e rtifica te underthe s eal of

the D i s tr i ctC our t . J udge Layne W al kerof the 252 D i s tr i ctC our tof

nd J ef f er s on C ount y, T exas , cert i f i ed thatR amos w as the C l erk of the C our tatthe t i m e of her att es t at i on. R amos a l s o c ert i f i ed thatJ udge W al ker , atthe t i m e of m aki ng hi s cert i f

i cat i on,
w as the j udge of

the 252 D i s tr i ctC our tof J ef f er s on C ou nty, T exas . T he att ache d nd document at i on r evea l ed thaton M ay 19, 1986, T aggartoff er ed a gui l ty pl ea t o the cha r ge of
sec o n d d eg ree rob b ery an d , u p o n ac ce p tanc e o f th e g u il ty p lea, th e c o u rtsen tenc ed T ag g art t o s erve a t erm of

f i f t een ye ar s i m pr i s onm enti n the cus t ody of the Texas D epart m entof C orr ect i on s. ¶19. T o s uppor thi s argum ent t hat t his cert i fi ed do cument at i on conce rni ng hi s T exas convi ct i on w as hear s ay, T aggartci t es butone ca s e – Fick lin v. S ta te , 75 8 S o. 2d 45 7 (M i ss. C t . A pp. 2000)
. T aggartsi m ply st at es thati n Fick lin , the tr i al court“al l ow ed a c ert i f i ed
c o p y o f a c o m p u ter -g e n e ra ted re c o rd fro m th e M iss iss ip p i D e p a rtm e n t o f C o rre c tio n s in to
ev iden ce . T h e C o u rt[of A p p ea ls] h eld th at ce rt ified c o m p u ter printou ts of D efe n d an t’ s i nm at e f i l es f r om the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orrec t i ons of

f er [ ed] t o s how thathe w as
a n h a b itu a l o ff

e n d e r, w e re h e a rs a y e v id e n c e .” ¶20. I n Fick lin , the def endant w as f

ound gui l ty of

a ggr avat ed as s aul t , a nd the tr i al j udge
s ent ence d the def

endantt o l i f

e i m pr i s onm entw i thoutpar ol e as a habi tual of f enderpur s uant t o M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 19- 83 ( R ev. 2000)
. D ur i ng the s ent enci ng he ar i ng bef or e the tr i al

### 14

j udge, the def

endantobj ect ed t o t he St at e’ s of f er i ng i nt o evi dence the comput er - gener at ed,
cert i f i ed r ecor ds f

r om the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons i n an ef

f or tt o pr ove the d efe n d an t w as a h ab itu al offen d er. O v er the d e fe n d an t’ s o b jecti o n s tha t th e re co rds w ere hear s ay and thatthe r ecor ds w er e i ncapa bl e of bei ng cert i f

i ed as s el f

- authent i cat i ng d o c u m e n ts, th e tri a l j u d g e allo w e d the se d o c u m e n ts in to ev id e n c e co n c e rn in g h is h a b itu a lo ffe n d e r sta tu s. In a th o ro u g h d isc u ss io n o n th is iss u e , the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo u n d th a t,
w h il e the d o cu m en ts w ere h ea rsay , they w ere ad m issi b le pu rsua n t t o M iss. R . E v id. 80 3 (8). Fick lin , 758 So. 2d at461- 62. I n r eac hi ng thi s c oncl us i on on an “i s s ue of f i r s ti m pr es s i on i n thi s St at e, ” the C our tof A ppeal s ci t ed U

nited States v. R

yan , 96 9 F . 2d 23 8 , 24 0 (7 C ir
. th 1 9 9 2 ); Hughes v. U

nited States , 953 F. 2d 531, 540 ( 9 C i r . 1992) ; and U nited States v. th Y oung B r ot

hers, I nc. 7 2 8 F . 2d 68 2 , 69 3 -94 (5 C ir
. 19 8 4 ), as w ell as th e fe d era l cou n terpa rt th to M is s is s ip p i’ s R u le 8 0 3 (8 ). I d. at462. I n ci t i ng and di s cus s i ng M i s s . R . E vi d. 902(4) , t he C o u rto f A p p ea ls co n clud ed that thes e ce rt if ied, co m p u ter-gen era ted d o cu m en ts w ere p ro p e rl y a llo w e d b y th e tr ia l ju d g e . I d. ¶21. M i s s . R . E vi d. 803 s et s out var i ous hear s ay exce pt i ons , w her e the avai l abi l i ty of t he d e c lar a n t is im m a ter ial: P u b l i c R ecord s an d R ep orts. R e c o rd s, re p o rts, sta tem e n ts, o r d a ta compi l at i ons , i n any f

or m , of publ i c of

f i ces oragenc i es , s ett i ng f or th ( A ) the a c tiv iti e s o f th e o ffic e o r a g e n c y , o r (B ) m a tters o b se rv e d p u rs u a n t to d u ty i m pos ed by l aw as t o w hi ch mat t er s ther e w as a dut y t o r eport , excl udi ng, how ever , i n c r i m i nal c as es mat t er s obs erved by pol i ce of f i cer s a nd otherl aw enf or cementper s onnel , or( C ) i n ci vi l act i ons and pr ocee di ngs and agai ns tthe s t at e i n cr i m i nal cas es , f actual f i ndi ngs r es ul t i ng f

r om an i nves t i gat i on m ade pur s uantt o author i ty gr ant ed by l aw , unl es s t he sour ces of i nf or m at i on or other ci rcum st ances i nd i cat e l ack o f trustw orthiness
.

### Parag raph s (1), (2), and (3) of Ru le 902 relate to (1) do mestic p ub li c d ocuments 3 

### un der seal; (2 ) d omestic public do cuments n ot un der seal; an d (3) foreig n public d ocuments. Wh ile Tag gart has made no Rule 90 2(4 ) arg ument h ere, w e b riefly d iscuss th e rule 4 

### since we are inth e en d ado ptin g the Co urt of Ap peals’ reaso nin g inFicklin , whi ch involve d bo th Rule 8 03 (8) an d Rule 9 02 (4) issu es. 15 M iss . R . E v id . 8 0 3 (8 ). M iss . R . E v id . 9 0 2 p ro v id e s th a t:

“ [e]x trin sic e v id e n c e o f a u th e n ticity a s a c o n d iti o n p re c e d e n t to a d m iss ib ili ty i s notr equi r ed w i th r es pectt o . . . ( 4)
. . . [ a] c opy of a n of f i ci al recor d or r eportorentr y t her ei n, orof a documenta uthor i zed by l aw t o be r ecor ded or filed a n d a c tu a lly re c o rd e d o r file d in a p u b lic o ffic e , in c lu d in g d a ta compi l at i ons i n any f

or m , cert i f

i ed as c orr ectby the cus t odi an orotherper s on author i zed t o make the cert i f i cat i on, by cert i f

i cat e compl yi ng w i th par agr aph (1 ), (2 ), or (3 ) o f th is ru le[ ] o r co m p ly in g w ith an y A c t of C o n g re s s o r r u le 3 p re s c ri b e d b y th e S u p re m e C o u rt p u rs u a n t to s ta tu to ry a u th o ri ty .” 4 ¶2 2. I n D oo li e v. S tate, 8 56 So
. 2 d 66 9, 6 72
- 73 ( M i s s . Ct
. App. 2 003) , t he C our t of A ppeal s f

ound t hatt he tr i al c our tdi d noterri n a f el ony D U I tr i al i n admi t t i ng the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m ent of

P ub l i c S afety’s pri ntouto f the defend ant’ s dri ving record p ursuantto M i ss. R . E v id. 80 3 (8). ¶23. T hi s Courtc ons i der ed the appl i cabi l i ty of M i s s . R . E vi d. 902( 4) i n Cox v. S ta te , 586 So. 2d 761 ( M i s s . 1991)
. I n Cox , the d efe n d an t w as co n v ict ed o f arso n an d sen tenc ed to li fe
w i thoutpar ol e as a ha bi tual of f ender
. I n a s epar at e s ent enci ng he ar i ng be f or e the tr i al j udge, the St at e of

f er ed document at i on conce rni ng a pr i orM i s s i s s i pp i c onvi ct i on and a pr i orFl or i da
con vict i on t o prove the defend ant’ s hab i tual off end er st atus. T he d efendan tdid not contes t the admi s s i bi l i ty of

the document at i on conce rni ng the M i s s i s s i ppi a rmed r ob be ry c onvi ct i on; but , the def

endantdi d c ont es tthe admi s s i bi l i ty of the document at i on conce rni ng the Fl or i da

### 16

bur gl ary convi ct i on. T he docum entat i on w hi ch the St at e of f er ed t o pr ove thi s s econd convi ct i on cons i s t ed of ( 1) a not ar i zed s t at ementby the B ureau of I nves t i gat i on of

t he M emphi s , T ennes s ee Pol i ce D epart m entdet ai l i ng the def endant ’ s arr es tand convi ct i on
r ecor d f r om the Feder al B ur eau of I nves t i gat i on; ( 2) a not ar i zed s t a t e mentf r om a c orr ect i onal
r ecor ds supervi s orof the Fl or i da D epart m entof C orr ect i ons as s ert i ng thatthe def endanthad been s ent ence d f

orbur gl ary and det ai ned by the FD O C f orl es s than a ye arw hen he e s cape d; and ( 3) a s i gned cove rl ett erf r om the S up er i nt endentof the Fl or i da D epart m entof C o rrecti o n s w ith en clos ed un ce rt if ied d o cu m en ts, i n clud ing co p ies of th e d e fen d an t’ s
comm i t m entpaper s , j udgm entof convi ct i on, fi ngerpr i nt s and phot ogr aphs , w i th s om e of t he document s c ont ai ni ng the s eal of the cl erk of

the court , butw i th none of the document s bei ng
c e rt if ie d a c c o rd in g to th e A c ts o f C o n g re s s . I d. a t 7 6 5 . T h is C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th is document at i on w as nots uf f i ci ent t o prove thi s s econd c onvi ct i on f r om Fl or i da; ther ef

or e,
w hi l e the ar s on convi ct i on w as af f i r m ed, on the otherha nd, the habi tual of f enders ent ence
w as vacat ed and t he cas e w as re m anded f orr es ent enci ng underthe appr opr i at e ar s on s t atut e. I d. at768. ¶24. I n T aggart ’ s cas e, the document at i on of hi s 1986 T exas convi ct i on and s ent ence f or
s econd de gr ee r obbery w as pr oper l y cert i f i ed and a uthent i cat ed ac cor di ng t o the A ct s of Co n g r e s s ; th e r e f

o r e , o u rc a s e t o d a y i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m Cox . R eturni ng t o the C our tof A ppeal s ’ deci s i on i n Fick lin , w e a g re e w ith th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls’ re a so n in g o n th e R u le 803( 8) i s s ue, a nd a dopti t s r eas oni ng i n t oday’ s cas e. Fick lin , 7 58 S o. 2 d at4 61 -62. T hu s,
as t o T aggart ’ s he a r s a y o bj e c t i on t o the ce r t i f i ed document s conce rni ng the Texas convi ct i on,

### For ki dnapping, the s ent enc ing j udge ha s the authori ty t o im posea pe nit entiary 5 

### se nte nceof not

le ss than one year, nor morethan thirty years ; f or rapeunder

se ction 97- 3- 17 t he tr i a l j ud ge p r op e r l y ov e r rul e d Tag ga r t ’ s o bj e c t i on . W hi l e the d oc umen t a t i on w as no doubthear s ay, thi s evi dence w as pr oper l y admi t t ed by the t r i al j udge pur s uantt o the hea r s ay
ex ce p ti o n u n d er M iss. R . E v id. 80 3 (8). ¶25. Pr act i cal l y al l o f our cases co ncer ni ng the us e of pr i orconvi ct i ons at s ent enci ng hear i ngs addr es s thi s cr i t i cal i s s ue i n the cont extof s ent enci ng hear i ngs bef or e the tr i al j udge,
s i t t i ng w i thouta j ury. H ow ever , i n t oday’ s cas e, t he se nt enci ng phase of Taggart ’ s tr i al w as conduct ed bef

or e the s ame j ury thatal r eady ha d f ound T aggartgui l ty of

the capi t al of

f ens es of r ape, ki dnappi ng, and arm ed r obbery. W e thus t ake thi s opportuni ty t o addr es s thi s i s s ue i n the cont extof

s ent enci ng hear i ngs conduct ed bef or e t he j ury i n thos e i ns t ance s w her e the
s t atut e pr ovi des f

orthe s ent ence t o be cons i der ed by the j ury. ¶26
. O ther tha n the d ea th p en alt y statutory sentenci ng schem e i n cap i t al m urder cases, ther e ar e thr ee i ns t ance s i n w hi ch a j ury i n M i s s i s s i ppi m ay i m pos e the s ent ence upon f i ndi ng a def endantgui l ty of

a f el ony c r i m i nal of

f ens e. T hos e i ns t ance s a r e w her e the j ury has f ound the d efendan tgu i l ty o f ki dn app i ng (M i ss. C od e A nn . § 9 7-3-53 (R ev . 20 06 )) , rape ( M i ss. C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 65( 4) ( a) ( R ev. 2006) ) , and/ orarm ed r obbery (M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 79 ( R ev. 2006) )
. T aggartw as i ndi ct ed f oral l thr ee of

thes e capi t al of

f ens es . Pur s uantt o eac h
o f th e se th re e sta tu tes , the ju ry m a y im p o se a life s e n ten c e u p o n th e d e fe n d a n t; h o w e v e r, if the j ury i s unabl e t o agr ee on a l i f e s ent ence , i tthen f

al l s t o the r es pons i bi l i ty of the tr i al j ud ge, si t t i ng w i tho ut a j ury, t o im po se the sentence w i thin the st atuto ry param et ers . 5

### 65(4) (a), these nte ncing judgehas thea uthorit y t o i mpos e a pe nit entiary s ent enc e “ for any te rm as the court, in its disc re ti on, may dete rm ine ;”and, for arm ed robbe ry, these nte ncing judgehas theauthori ty t o imposea pe nit entiary s ent enc e f or any te rm

not l es s than thre e years. 18 A ccordi ng t o the r ecord i n today’s case, the tr i al j ud ge ap propri at el y bif urcat ed this tri al so that the jury ini t i al l y w ou l d recei ve ev i den ce on l y o n the i ssue of guil t/ i nn ocen ce. T hu s, dur i ng the f

i r s tphas e of

the tr i al , the jur y w as noti nf or m ed of

T aggart ’ s pr i orT exas convi ct i on. ¶ 2 7 . W hi l e Taggar t ’ s T exas r obber y convi ct i on w as i nadmi s s i bl e dur i ng t he gui l t/ i nnocenc e phas e of the tr i al ; on the otherhand, the i ntr oduct i on of t he pr i orT exas
ro b b e ry c o n v ictio n d u rin g th e se n ten c in g p h a se w a s n o t er ro r a n d in d e e d w a s q u ite appr opr i at e. ¶ 2 8
. UR CC C 1 0
. 0 4 s e t s o u t th e p r o c e d u r e f o r b i f u r c a t e d tr i a l s i n c r i mi n a l c a s e s , a n d we q u o t e th i s ru l e h e r e , v e rb a t i m: Rul e 1 0 . 0 4 BI FURCA TED TRI ALS A
. In an y ca se w h e re the sta te s e e k s to im p o se th e d e a th p e n a lty , the trial s h a ll be conducted i n acc or dance w i th §§ 99- 19- 101 and 99- 19- 103, of the M i ssi ssi pp i C od e of 197 2 as am end ed an d ap pli cable courtdecis i on s. B. In al l cases not inv o lving t he d eat h p enalty, w herei n the j ury m ay im po se l i f e s ent ence , the courtm ay conducta bi f ur cat ed tr i al
. I f

the def endanti s f

ound gui l ty of an of f ens e f orw hi ch l i f

e i m pr i s onm entm ay be i m pos ed, a s ent enci ng tr ial sh all b e h eld b efo re the sam e jury , if p o ssible, or b efo re the co u rtif jury w a iv e r is a llo w e d b y th e c o u rt. A t th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g :

### 19

1. T he s t at e m ay i ntr oduce evi dence of a ggr avat i on of

the of f ens e of w hi ch the def endanthas been a dj udged gui l ty. 2. T he def

endantm ay i ntr oduce a ny evi dence of ext enuat i on orm i t i gat i on. 3. T he s t a t e may i ntr od uc e e vi de nc e i n r e bu t t a l o f the e vi de nc e o f

t he d e fe n d a n t. 4 . A re c o rd sh a ll b e m a d e o f th e ab o v e p ro c e e d in g an d sh a ll b e m a in tain e d in th e o ffic e o f th e c ler k o f th e trial c o u rt a s a p a rt o f th e re c o rd in th a t co u rt. C. U pon convi ct i on, oraf t era pl ea of

gu i l ty, i n cas es w her e the courthas sent encing au tho ri ty, there m ay b e a heari ng befor e the t ri al j ud ge as fol l ow s: 1. A pr es ent ence i nves t i gat i on may be conduct ed and a r eportther eof s hal l be m ade as r equi r ed f

orcas es w her e the courthas di s cr et i on i n i m pos i t i on of s ent ence . C ont ent s of

thi s r eports hal l be di s cl os ed onl y t o the part i es . A copy of s ai d r eports hal l be de l i ver ed t o both the pr os ecut orand the def endantorthe d efe n se a tt o rne y w ith in a re aso n ab le t im e p ri o r t o sen tenc ing so as to affo rd a r eas onabl e opportuni ty f orver i f i cat i on of

the mat eri al
. Pr i ort o the s ent enci ng pr ocee di ng eac h party i s r equi r ed t o not i f y the oppos i ng party and the courtof

any partof

the r eportw hi ch the party i nt ends t o cont r overtby t he pr oduct i on of

evi dence
. 2. T he s t at e m ay i ntr oduce evi dence of aggr avat i on of the of f ens e of w hi ch the def endanthas been a dj udged gui l ty. 3. T he def

endantm ay i ntr oduce e vi den ce to contr adi ctors uppl ementany in fo rm a tio n c o n ta in e d in th e p re s e n te n c e in v e s tig a tio n re p o rt . 4 . T h e d e fe n d a n t m a y in tr o d u c e a n y e v id e n c e o f e x te n u a tio n o r m itig a tio n . 5. The s t a t e may i ntr od uc e e vi de nc e i n r e bu tt a l o f the e vi de nc e of

t he d e fe n d a n t. 6 . A re c o rd sh a ll b e m a d e o f th e a b o v e p ro c e e d in g s a n d sh a ll b e m a in tain e d in th e o ffic e o f th e c ler k o f th e trial c o u rt a s a p a rt o f th e re c o rd in th a t co u rt. ¶ 2 9
. W e n o te th a t p u rsu a n t to U R C C C 1 0 .0 4 (B )(1 ), th e S tate m a y in tro d u c e fo r th e b e n e fit of the s ent enci ng j ury “evi dence of aggr avat i on o f

the of f ens e of w hi ch the def

endanthas b e e n a d ju d g e d g u ilty .” W e a lso fin d g u id a n c e in S u m m e ra ll v. S ta te , 73 4 S o. 2d 24 2 (M i ss. A pp. 1999)
. I n S u m m e ra ll , the d e fe n d a n t ap p e a led h is c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e fo r th e sa le of coca i ne. O n appeal , t he C our tof A ppeal s af f i r m ed Sum m er al l ’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence . O ne of t he i s s ues S um m er al l ra i s ed on appeal w as t hatthe tr i al j udge had r ece i ved i m pr oper

### 20

evi dence atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng. A una ni m ous C our tof A ppeal s ( tw o j udges of t en not part i ci pat i ng) , s t at ed: ¶ 2 0 . In h is la st a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r, S u m ra ll a rg u e s th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in a d m iss io n o f e v id e n c e d u rin g th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g . S p e c ifica lly , h e o b jec ts to th e tes tim o n y o f A g e n t K irk m a n w h ic h in fo rm e d th e c o u rt o f c o m p lain ts f r om the comm uni ty thatSum r al l ha d been s el l i ng drugs , the pr e- buy oper at i on to in v e stig a te th e co m p lain ts, kn o w n as inte l bu y s, an d fo u r m o re fe lo n y sa le c a se s a g a in st h im
. S u m ra ll fa iled to g iv e a n y leg a l cita tio n to su p p o rt h is c laim thatthe tr i al c our tr ece i ved i m pr opere vi dence dur i ng the s ent enci ng hear i ng. F ail u re to c it e to leg al au tho ri ty b ars an y c o n side rati o n o f the a ssign ed erro r. Mc Cla in v. S ta te , 625 So. 2d 774, 781 ( M i s s . 1993) ( ci t i ng B ro w n v. S ta te , 5 3 4 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 9 , 1 0 2 3 (M iss . 1 9 8 8 ); S h ive v. S ta te , 507 So. 2d 898, 900 (M iss . 1 9 8 7 ); P a te v . S ta te , 4 1 9 S o . 2 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 )). ¶ 2 1 . N o tw ith s ta n d in g th is p ro c e d u ra l b a r, th is iss u e h a s n o m e rit . R ul e 10. 04 ( C ) ( 2) and ( 3) of

the U ni f

or m C i r cui tand C ounty C our tR ules sta tes in pert i nen tpa rt : ( b) T he St at e may i ntr oduce e vi dence of aggr avat i on of

t he of f ens e t o w hi ch the def endanthas been c onvi ct ed orpl eade d gui l ty. (c) T h e d efe n d an t m ay intr o d u ce in ev iden ce an y ev iden ce h e d ee m s n ec essa ry t o contr adi ctorsup plementany i nf or m at i on cont ai ned i n the pr es ent ence in v e stig a tio n re p o rt. T her ef or e, "[ t ] he tr i al j udge her e, s i t t i ng w i thouta j ury, had br oad di s cr et i on in the thing s h e w as a b le t o co n side r. H e m ay ap p rop ri ately co n d u ct an inq u iry br oad i n s cope, l ar gel y unl i m i t ed as t o the ki nd of i nf or m at i on he may con si der, or the source f rom w hich i tm ay co m e. " E v a n s v . S ta te , 547 So. 2d 38, 41 ( M i s s . 1989) ( ci t i ng U n itedS ta tes v. B a rn e tt , 5 8 7 F . 2 d 2 5 2 (5th C ir
. 1 9 7 9 )). "T h e im p o sitio n o f a s e n ten c e is w ith in th e d isc re tio n o f th e tria l co u rt, and thi s Courtw i l l notr evi ew the s ent ence , i f i ti s w i thi n the l i m i t s pr es cr i bed by st atute. " R e

y n o ld s v . S ta te , 585 So. 2d 753, 756 (M i s s . 1991) ( ci t i ng R eed v. S ta te , 5 3 6 S o . 2 d 1 3 3 6 , 1 3 3 9 (M is s . 1 9 8 8 )) , B o y in g to n v. S ta te , 389 So. 2d 485 ( M i s s . 1980) )
. " I n i m pos i ng s ent ence , the tr i al courtm ay t ake i nt o acc ount l ar gers oc i e t a l c on c e r ns , a s l on g a s the s e nt e nc e i s pa r t i c ul a r i z e d t o the defend ant. " R eynolds , 585 So. 2d at756 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed). W e f i nd the tr i al j udge di d notabus e hi s di s cr et i on her e.

### Purs uant to Mis s. CodeAnn. § 1-3- 4 (Re v. 2005) , the t er m “ ca pit alca se ” or

“c api ta l 6 

### offen se,” wh en usedin o ur statutes, den otes a crimin al offen se wh ich is “p un ishab le bydeath or i mpris onme nt f

or l if e in thest at e pe nit entiary. ” Onthe othe r hand, the t er m “ ca pit al murd er” den otes a crimin al offen se wh ich is p un ishab le bydeathor life imp risonment. In Su mm erall, the C ourt of App eals reliedon , inter a lia , Eva ns v. Sta te , 547 So. 2d 7 

### 3 8 , 4 1 ( M iss. 19 89 ). See a lso Reyn old s v. Sta te , 58 5 S o. 2d

75 3, 75 6 ( Mi s s . 1991). Su mm erall, 734 So. 2d at 246. 21 S u m m e ra ll , 734 So. 2d at246- 47 ( M i s s . A pp. 1999)
. ( E m phas i s added)
. A l though S u m m e ra ll i nvol ved a s ent enci ng by the court , s i t t i ng w i thouta j ury i n a non- capi t al cas e, 6 pur s uantto U R C C C 10. 04( C ) , w e f i nd S u m m e ra ll

to b e d ire c tly o n p o in t. U n d e r b o th U R C C C 1 0
. 0 4 (B ) (sen tenc ing b y the ju ry) a n d U R C C C 1 0
. 0 4 (C ) (sen tenc ing b y the jud g e),
w e f i nd thi s i de nt i c a l p r ov i s i on : “ The s t a t e may i ntr od uc e e vi de nc e o f a gg r a va t i on of

t he of f ens e of w hi ch the def

endanthas been a dj udged gui l ty. ” Thus, i f , as s t at ed i n S u m m e ra ll , 7 admi s s i on of

evi dence of

ot hercr i m es w as pr operunderU R C C C 10. 04( C ) (2) b efor e t he
s ent enci ng j udge, i tne c es s ar i l y f ol l ow s thatadmi s s i on of evi dence of

othercr i m es ( i ncl udi ng convi ct i on s) w ou l d li kew i se be prop er unde r U R C C C 10. 04( B ) ( 1) bef or e the s ent enci ng j ury. A f t eral l , the sent encing j ury s ho ul d h a ve a va i l a bl e t o i tthe s a me i nf ormat i on a s t he
s ent enci ng j udge , in o rde r t o arrive a t the a p p rop ri ate p u n ishm en t. C ertainly, w h il e T ag g art’s 1986 T exas convi ct i on f orr obbery w oul d be t otal l y i rr el evantdur i ng the gui l t/ i nnocenc e phas e of the tr i al , s uch i nf

or m at i on of

pr i orcr i m i nal act i vi ty on the partof T aggartw oul d be
w hol l y r el evanti n ai di ng the j ury t o r eac h i t s deci s i on as t o w hetherT aggarts ho ul d be
se n ten c e d to life im p riso n m e n t.

### 22

¶30. U R C C C 10. 04(B ) set s ou t the or der of pr oof
. Fi r s t , the pr os ecut i on m ay i ntr oduce

“ e v id e n c e o f a g g ra v a tio n o f th e o ffe n se ” fo r w h ich th e d e fe n d a n t h a s b e e n c o n v icte d . N e x t, the def endanthas the opportuni ty t o then i ntr oduce “ any evi dence of ext enuat i on or
m i t i gat i on. ” Fi nal l y, i f

the pr os ecut i on s o c hoos es , i t“may i ntr oduce e vi dence i n r ebutt al of th e e v id e n c e o f t h e d e fe n d a n t.” ¶31. W e al s o t ake thi s opportuni ty t o make a f ew a ddi t i onal obs ervat i ons about s ent enci ng i n gener al
. T her e ar e atl eas tf ourgener al l y r ecogni zed f act or s thatany s ent enci ng j udge
s houl d cons i deri n the exe r ci s e of di s cr et i onary s ent enci ng of any def endantw ho s t ands bef or e t he co urtfori m po si t i on of sent ence: ( 1) R ehab i l i t at i on ; (2) R et ri bu t i on ; (3) S epara t i on f r om s oci ety; and, ( 4) D et err ence , both gener al and s peci f i c. T he j udge, i n exer ci s i ng i ndi vi dual i zed s ent enci ng, and cons i der i ng al l i nf or m at i on t hat t he j udge may have on the part i cul ardef

endant , shou l d co nsi der w hat s entence w i l l hopef ul l y have ar ehabi l i t at i ve ef f ect on the def

endant
. T he j udge, i n exer ci s i ng i ndi vi dual i zed s ent enci ng, shoul d cons i derw hat sent ence w i l l ho peful l y h ave a ret ri bu t i ve eff ecton the d efe n d an t – i n o ther w ords,
r ecogni zi ng thats oci ety’ s l aw - abi di ng ci t i zens have a r i ghtt o expec tf r om thei rj udges that
once a def

endant i s convi ct ed of

a cr i m e, thatdef

endantw i l l “pay” f

orthatcr i m e, w hat
s ent ence w i l l appr opr i at el y puni s h thatdef endantf orhi s /hercr i m e. T he j udge, i n exer ci s i ng ind ividu ali ze d sen tenc ing , sh o u ld co n side r w h ethe r th e n ature o f th e c ri m e, th e d efe n d an t’ s backgr ound, i ncl udi ng the def endant ’ s pri orcr i m i nal hi s t ory, and ot herr el evanti nf or m at i on
r equi r es thatthe def

endant be puni s hed by w ay of s epar at i on f

r om s oci ety thr ough a p e n iten tiary se n ten c e . F in a lly , the ju d g e , in e x e rc isin g in d iv id u a lize d se n ten c in g , sh o u ld

### 23

c o n sid e r w h a t se n ten c e w ill h o p e fu lly h a v e b o th a g e n e ra l a n d s p e c ific d e ter re n t e ffe c t – in otherw or ds , a s ent ence thatw i l l gener al l y det ers oci ety as a w hol e f r om engagi ng i n cr i m i nal act i vi ty, and w i l l s peci f

i cal l y det erthe part i cul arde f endantf r om engagi ng i n f

utur e cr i m i nal
ac ti v ity . A g ain, w e find that the s en tenc ing jury sh o u ld b e ab le to c o n side r th e sa m e fa ctors
a s th e se n ten c in g ju d g e , an d th e ju ry sh o u ld b e a llo w e d to re c e iv e th a t in fo rm a tio n v ia appr opr i at el y admi t t ed evi dence i n or dert o a i d the j ury i n f ul f i l l i ng i t s s t atut or i l y m andat ed sent encing d uti es. ¶32. O thercas es ar e al s o i ns truct i ve. I n H o d g e s v . S ta te , 9 1 2 S o . 2 d 7 3 0 (M iss
. 2 0 0 5 ), Qu i n t e z W r e n Ho d g e s h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f c a p i t a l mu r d e ra n d s e n t e n c e d t o d e a t h
. On appea l , H odges r ai s ed r oughl y ei ght een i s s ues , i ncl udi ng an at t ack on w hathe bel i eved t o be i nadmi s s i bl e pr ej udi ci al evi dence of f er ed dur i ng the s ent enci ng pha s e. H odges ’ s s i s t erhad tes tified o n d ire c t ex a m in a tio n th a t h e r b ro th e r w a s a n o rm a l ch ild w h o n e v e r g o t in to tr oubl e. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, the pr os ecut i on i nqui r ed w hethers he w as aw ar e of her b ro th e r’s sc h o o l b u rg lar y a n d a s e p a ra te b u rg lar y a n d se x u a l as sa u lt. H o d g e s a rg u e d th a t th is evi dence of pr i orbad ac t s and cr i m es w as i nadmi s s i bl e as bei ng i rr el evantt o pr ove any of th e sta tu to ry a g g ra v a tin g fa c to rs . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 19- 101( 5) ( R ev. 2000)
. E ven t ho ugh Hod

ges i nvol ved the pr os ecut i on’ s r ebutt al of the def

endant ’ s evi dence of ext enuat i on orm i t i gat i on, w e f i nd the Hod

ges d isc u ss io n re lev a n t: ¶4 0
. H o d g e s also arg u es th at th e a d m issi o n o f th ese p ri o r ba d ac ts w ere pr ohi bi t ed, s i nce they w er e notr el evantt o any of the s t atut ory aggr avat i ng f act or s enumer at ed i n M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 19- 101( 5). H odges al l eges that the S t at e i s on l y al l ow ed t o off er evidence t hat i s rel evan tt o the statuto ry aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s . H ow ever , M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99
- 19- 101( 1)

### 24

pr ovi des t hatatt he se nt enci ng hear i ng "evi dence m ay be pr es ent ed as t o any m a tte r t h a t th e c o u rt d e e m s re le v a n t to s e n te n c e , and sh all inclu d e m att ers r el at i ng t o a ny of

the aggr avat i ng orm i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s . " Thi s C our thas s t at ed thatthe s t atut e " does notl i m i tthe evi dence thatcan be pr es ent ed atthe sent encing ph ase t o ev i den ce rel evan tt o the agg ravat i ng ci rcum st ances. " W est v. S ta te , 820 So. 2d 668, 670 ( M i s s . 2001). A s di s cus s ed above, t hes e pr i orbad ac ts w ere intr o d u ce d w h en the d efe n se o p en ed the d o o r t o H o d g es' ch ara cter. Si nce § 99- 19- 101( 1) a llo w s a n y e v id e n c e th a t th e c o u rt d e e m s re lev a n t to s ent ence and beca us e thes e ac t s w er e r el evantt o r ebutthe di r ectt es t i m ony of H od ges' char act er , thi s as s i gnm entof err ori s w i thoutm er i t . T hi s C our thas al so hel d that " the S t at e i s al l ow ed to r ebu tm i t i gati ng evidence thr ou gh cross exam i nati on , i ntr od ucti on of r ebu t t al evidence o r by argum ent. " W iley v. S ta te , 750 So. 2d 1193, 1202 ( M i s s . 2000) ( quot i ng Tu rn e r v . S ta te , 732 So. 2d 937 at950)
. A s s t at ed pr evi ous l y, thes e pr i orbad ac t s w er e admi s s i bl e as p ro p e r re b u ttal e v id e n c e . T h e re fo re , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I d . at756. ( E m phas i s added)
. I n Hodges , thi s C ourtu neq uivoca l l y s t at ed thatdur i ng t he
s ent enci ng phas e of

a capi t al m ur dertr i al , the St at e w as notl i m i t ed t o pr es ent i ng r el evant
e v i d e n c e wh i c h we n to n l y t o r e b u t t a l o f th e d e f e n d a n t ’ s mi t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e . I n s t e a d , we
e x p re ss ly sta ted th a t any ev i dence w hi ch the t r i al cour tdeem ed t o be re l evantt o sent ence w as
a d m iss ib le a t th e s e n te n c in g p h a se . E v e n th o u g h th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g s in d e a th p e n a lty
c a se s a re g u id e d b y sta tu te, a s o p p o se d to u n if o rm r u le, w e c a n lo g ica lly d e d u c e th a t if, in thos e ca s es w her e the s ent enci ng j ury i s c ons i der i ng w hethert o i m pos e the dea th penal t y, t he jud g e h as d iscreti o n to allow the s en tenc ing jury to co n side r “a n y ev iden c e th at th e c o u rt deems r el evantt o s ent ence , ” then ce r t ai nl y the tr i al j udge s houl d notbe hamstrung i n nondeath penal ty cas es con cer ni ng the admi s s i bi l i ty of r el evantevi dence – s uch as a pr i or
c o n v ictio n – w h ich w o u ld a p p ro p ria tely g u id e th e se n ten c in g ju ry in c o n sid e rin g w h e th e r to i m pos e l i f

e i m pr i s onm entupon a def endantconvi ct ed of

ki dnappi ng, rape and/ orarm ed
r obbery.

### 25

¶33. I n A l

m endar ez- T

or r es v. U

nited States , 523 U . S. 224, 118 S. C t . 1219, 140 L
. E d. 2d 350 ( 1998) , the U
. S. Supr eme C our tw as conf r ont ed w i th an appe al i nvol vi ng a deport ed
a lien w h o im p e rm iss ib ly re tu rn e d to th e U n ited S tat e s a n d c o m m itt e d a c rim e . P rio r to h is depor t at i on, the al i en had comm i t t ed cr i m es . O ne of the i s s ues be f

or e the C our tw as w hether the di s tr i ctj udge had i m pos ed an e xces s i ve s ent ence upon t he def endantby i nt erpr et i ng the appl i cabl e s t atut e as a uthor i zi ng e nhance d puni s hm entdue t o pr i orconvi ct i ons , as oppos ed to e s ta b lis h in g a s e p a ra te c ri m e fo r w h ic h th e d e fe n d a n t m u s t b e s p e c if ic a lly in d ic te d . W e f i n d th e f o l l o wi n g l a n g u a g e f

r o m A l m endar ez- T

or r es i ns truct i ve: Atth e o u t s e t , we n o t e th a tth e r e l e v a n ts t a tu t o ry s u b j e c tma t t e ri s r e c i d i v i s m. T h a t su b je c t m a tte r -- p rio r c o m m iss io n o f a se rio u s c rim e -- is a s ty p ica l a s e n te n c in g fa c to r a s o n e m ig h t im a g in e . S e e , e. g. , U S S G § § 4 A 1 .1 , 4 A 1 .2 (N o v . 1 9 9 7 ) (r eq u ir ing sen tenc ing jud g e to c o n side r an o ffen d er' s p ri o r reco rd in e v e ry c a se ); 2 8 U .S .C . § 9 9 4 (h ) (in stru c tin g C o m m iss io n to w rite G ui del i nes thati ncr eas e s ent ence s dr amat i cal l y fors er i ous r eci di vi s t s ) ; 18 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (e ) (A rm e d C a re e r C rim in a l A c t of 1 9 8 4 ) (im p o sin g sig n ifica n tly hi ghers ent ence f

orf el on- i n- pos s es s i on vi ol at i on by ser i ous r eci di vi s t s ) ; 21 U . S. C
. §§ 841( b) ( 1) ( A )
- ( D ) ( s ame f ordrug di s tr i but i on) ; U ni t ed Stat es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on, 1996 So urcebook of Feder al Sent enci ng St at i s t i cs 35, 49 ( f oryearendi ng Sept
. 30, 1996, 20. 3% of al l f eder al cas es i nvol ved o ffen d ers w ith su b stan ti al crim inal rec o rds (c ri m inal h isto ry c a teg o ri es IV -V I); 4 4
. 2 % o f dru g ca ses in v o lved o ffen d ers w ith p ri o r co n v ict ion s). 523 U
. S. at230, 118 S. C t . at1224, 140 L
. E d. 2d at359. L at eri n A l m endar ez- T

or r es , t he C our thad thi s t o s ay: Fi r s t , the s ent enci ng f

act ora ti s s ue her e - - r eci di vi s m - - i s a tr adi t i onal , i f not th e m o s ttr a d i t i o n a l , b a s i s f o ra s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t 's i n c r e a s i n g a n o f f e n d e r 's s e n te n c e . S e e , e. g. , P arke v. R aley , 50 6 U. S. 20 , 26, 121 L. Ed. 2d 39 1, 11 3 S. C t . 517 ( 1992) ( R eci di vi s m l aw s "ha ve a l ong tr adi t i on i n thi s country that da t e s ba c k t o c ol on i a l t i mes " an d c urr e nt l y a r e i n e f f e c ti n a l l 50 St a t e s ) ; U . S. D ept . of J us t i ce, O f

f i ce of Just i ce Pr ogr ams, St atut es R equi r i ng the U s e of C ri m inal H ist o ry R ec o rd In form ati o n 1 7 -41 (Jun e 1 9 9 1 ) (50 -st ate su rve y );

### 26

U SSG §§ 4A 1. 1, 4A 1. 2 ( N ov. 1997) ( requi ri ng s ent enci ng courtt o cons i der d efe n d an t' s p ri o r reco rd in ev ery ca se). 523 U
. S. at243, 118 S. C t . at1230- 31, 140 L
. E d. 2d at368. ¶34. A s the U
. S
. S up rem e C ou rtacknow l edged, r eci di vi s m has been r ecogni zed s i nce

“ c o lo n ial tim e s,” a s o n e o f th e m o st im p o rta n t fac to rs – if n o t th e m o st im p o rta n t fa c to r – in
c on s i de r i ng whethe ra c r i mi na l o f f e nd e r ’ s s e nt e nc e s ho ul d be e nh a nc e d ori nc r eas ed upon bei ng convi ct ed yetagai n f orcr i m i nal act i vi ty. I tw oul d thus def y l ogi c t o deny the
s e n t e n c i n g j u r y th e b e n e f i to f th i s c r i t i c a l i n f

o r ma t i o n c o n c e rn i n g a c r i mi n a l ’ s r e c i d i v i s m. ¶35. I n s um , w e f

i nd that T aggart ’ s 1986 T exas r obbery con vict i on w as r el evant f ort he
s e n te n c in g ju ry , c o n s is te n t w ith U R C C C 1 0 .0 4 (B )( 1 ), a n d o u r c a s e la w . See a l so M i s s . R. E v id . 4 0 1 , 4 0 3
. It n e c e ss a rily fo llo w s th a t th e trial c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in
a d m itt in g th is e v id e n c e d u rin g th e s e n ten c in g p h a se o f T a g g a rt’s tria l. T h e re fo re , w e fin d th is iss u e to b e w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶36. Forthe r eas ons s t at ed, the D eSot o C ounty C i r cui tC our tj udgm entof convi ct i on f

or
r ape, ki dnappi ng and arm ed r obbery and Taggar t ’ s sepa r at e s ent ence s of l i f e i m pr i s onm ent t o run cons ecut i vel y ar e af f i r m ed. ¶ 3 7 . CO UN T 2: CO NV I CT I O N O F FO RC I BLE RA PE A ND SENTE NC E O F LI FE I M P RI S ON M E NT I N T HE CU S T OD Y OF 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 . COUNT 3 : CONV I CT I ON OF KI DNAP P I NG AND SENTE NC E O F LI FE I M PRI SON M EN T I N T H E C USTO DY O F TH E M I SS I SS I PPI DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RR E CT I ON S , AF F I RMED . CO UN T 4 : C ON VI CT I ON OF RO BBE RY USI N G A DE AD LY W EA PO N A ND SENTE NC E O F LI FE I M P RI S ON M E NT I N T HE CU S T OD Y OF TH E 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 . S EN TE NCE S S HALL RUN CONS EC UT I VE LY .

### 27

S M I T H , C .J ., W A L L E R , P .J ., E A S L E Y , D I C K I N S O N A N D R A N D O L P H , J J ., CO NCU R. GR AV ES, J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY. DI AZ , P. J . , DI S S ENTS W I T HOU T S E P AR AT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. LA M AR , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .