I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - KA- 0 0 2 0 9 - S CT YAS M I NE HU GH

ESa / k / a YAS M I N H UGH

ES
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 07/ 2006 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N
. C
. E
. M O R G A N , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W I NST ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: J AM ES T. M c CA FF ERTY 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 : DE I RD RE M c CR OR Y DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: DOUG E VANS NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 03/ 27/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
B E F O R E W A L L E R , P . J. , C A R L SO N A N D L A M A R , JJ. W ALLER, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. O n N o v em b er 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 , Y asm in H u g h es w as tri ed an d co n v ict ed in th e C ir cu it C o u rt of W i ns t on County on o ne c ou nto f a r med r ob be ry, f

orwhi c h he was s e nt e nc e d t o s er ve thi r ty year s , and tw o count s of aggr avat ed as s ault , forw hi ch he w as s ent ence d t o s erve tw e n ty y e a rs e a c h , w ith th e s e n te n c e s to ru n c o n c u rr e n tly . W e a ff ir m . FACTS ¶2. O n the eve ni ng of M ay 2, 2006, J ack “ B ubba” W arner , J r . ( W arner ) , hi s w i f e Pat , and hi s s event een- year - ol d s on Cody w er e atthei rhome i n Loui s vi l l e, M i s s i s s i ppi
. A r ound10: 00Phone r ecor ds l at ers how ed thatW ebs t erc al l ed the r es i dence of T al m adge Edw ar ds 1 a t 1 0 :0 7 p .m . H u g h e s w a s s ta y in g a t E d w a rd s ’s h o m e a t th e tim e . T h e b rid g e p re v io u sly lo c a ted n e a r W a rn e r’s h o m e h a d b e e n re p lac e d w ith a c u lv e rt. 2 T he tr i al j udge not ed thatW ebs t er ’ s s t ory a boutbe i ng outof ga s w as “obvi ous l y” 3 untrue bec aus e he a nd H ughes f l ed i n the vehi cl e. I n hi s s t at ementt o the pol i ce, H ughes conf i r m ed thatW ebs t ert ook hi m hom e af t ert hey r eturned t o the truck. T he home atw hi ch H ug hes w as st aying a t t h e ti m e w as l ocated abo ut 11. 3 to 12.3 m i l es f rom the W arner s’ re s id e n c e . H u g h e s c o u ld n o t r e m e m b e r w h e th e r h e h a d h is h o o d u p o r d o w n . 4 

### 2 p. m . , W arnerhe ar d a knoc k a tthei rc arpor tdoor
. W arnerope ned the doort o f i nd tw o young
m al es , each dr es s ed i n bl ack s w eat s hi r t s and pant s . T hes e young m en w er e l at eri dent i f i ed
a s A d ri o n W e b s te r a n d Y a s m in H u g h e s . ¶3. W ebs t er , w ho w as s t andi ng cl os es tt o the door , s ai d thathe and H ughes had run out
o f g a s a n d a sk e d to u se W a rn e r’s p h o n e . W a rn e r ste p p e d b a c k in to th e h o u se , g ra b b e d h is
cor dl es s phone, and handed the phone t o W ebs t er . W ebs t erm ade a phone ca l l and t ol d t he per s on thathe had run outof gas . W arnert hen as ked W ebs t erhow fa rdow n t he r oad they 1
w ere an d sp ec if

icall y ask ed if

they w ere p ast the b ri d g e. W eb ster resp o n d ed that they w ere 2 d o w n a ro u n d th e b ri d g e . ¶4. I n f

act , W ebs t er and H ughes had not run out of gas and thei r vehi cl e w as notar ound 3 ei thera br i dge orcul vert . R ather , they had pa r ked theirtruck dow n a s m al l di r tr oad,
a p p ro x im a te ly 1 5 0 to 2 0 0 y a rd s fr o m W a rn e r’ s h o m e . ¶5. A s W ebs t er r eturned the phone t o W arner , H ughes, w ho w as st andi ng i n the bac k, pul l ed a hood ove rhi s head. Feel i ng thats om ethi ng w as a boutt o go w r ong, W arnerof f er ed 4A s par tof the i rc on ve r s a t i on r e ga r di ng “ w a ys t o mak e mone y, ” H ug he s and 5 W e b s te r m e n tio n e d b a rb e r s c h o o l, a s w e ll. 

### 3 the tw o m en a ga l l on ortw o of gas t hathe keptunderhi s carpor t . W ebs t erre f us ed t he of

f er and s ai d “[ t ] hey ar e br i ngi ng us s om e gas . ” ¶6. W hen W arnerturned to g o b ac k into the ho use, W ebst er s ho tW arnerthree t i m es. W arner ’ s w i f

e, Pat , hear d the guns hot s a nd r an t o the carpor tdoor
. Patw as s hota ttw i ce, one bul l ethi t t i ng heri n t he l eg and the otherhi t t i ng the do or fr am e. Seei ng thathi s w i f e had been s hot , W arnerr an t ow ar d W ebs t er . W arnerw as t hen shoti n the gr oi n. W ebs t erand H ughes r an outof

the ca rpor tand t ow ar d the bac k of W arner ’ s hom e. Patw as t aken t o t he L oui s vi l l e hos pi t al and l at err el eas ed, w hi l e W arnerw as tr ans port ed t o the U ni ver s i ty of M is s is s ip p i M e d ic a l C e n te r i n J a c k s o n . ¶7. T he ens ui ng i nves t i gat i on s how ed thatW ebs t er ’ s phone ca l l had gone t o an ans w er i ng
m achi ne atthe home of

T al m adge Edw ar ds , H ughes ’ s uncl e w i th w hom H ughes w as s t ayi ng atthe t i m e. O n M ay 5, 2006, O ff i cer G reg C l ark of

the Loui s vi l l e Pol i ce D epart m entand A gentC l ay B ai n w i th the M i s s i s s i ppi B ur eau of Inve s t i gat i on i nt ervi ew ed H ughes
. H ughes
w ai ved hi s r i ght s and gave a s t at ement . I ni t i al l y, H ughes deni ed any i nvol vementi n the crim e a n d said h e h ad sp en t th e e v en ing in q u esti o n aro u n d E d w ard s’s h o m e. H o w ev er, H u g h e s g a v e a se c o n d , sig n e d sta tem e n t in w h ich h e sta ted th e fo llo w in g : [W e b s te r] p ic k e d m e u p fr o m m y h o u s e a n d w e w e n t r id in g a ro u n d to w n . W e g o t i nto a con versat i on abou tm on ey and w ays t o m ake m on ey. W e w ere t al ki ng abouthus l t i ng [ s i c] , r obbi ng and eve n r i ghtw ays t o m ake money. 5 [W eb ster] ask ed to use m y ph o n e an d I t o ld h im I did n t [ sic] h av e it
. [W eb ster] pul l ed ove ra nd t ol d me t o wal k u p t o s omeo ne [ s i c ] ho us e w i th h i m so he coul d us e the phone. A m an ans w er[ s i c] the do or and l et[ W ebs t er ] us e the phone. W hen [ W ebs t er ] gave t he phone back I turned aw ay and s t art ed w al ki ng t ow ar d the truck w hen I hear d gun s hot s . I r an and di dnt[ s i c] l ookA “ lic k ” ty p ic a lly m e a n s to ro b s o m e b o d y o r t o s te a l s o m e th in g . 6 W e b ste r w a s a lso in d icte d , b u t p lea d e d g u ilty to tw o c o u n ts o f a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt, 7 a n d th e a rm e d ro b b e ry c h a rg e w a s d ro p p e d
. 

### 4 back. W hen w e gotback t o t he carhe w as aski ng m e w hy di d I run and then s ai d f or geti tl et s [ s i c] j us tgetaw ay bef or e the pol i ce c om e. A f t erthathe t ook m e h o m e . H ughes al s o t ol d O f

f i cerC l ark t hataf

t er he and W ebs t err eturned t o the truck, W ebs t er lo o k e d a t h im a n d s a id , “ W h y d id y o u ru n ? T h a t w a s o u r l ic k .” 6 ¶ 8
. On S e p t e mb e r2 6 , 2 0 0 6 , Hu g h e s wa s i n d i c t e d o n o n e c o u n to f a r me d r o b b e ry a n d two count s of aggr avat ed as s aul t . O n N ovember27, 2006, H ughes w as tr i ed and c onvi ct ed on 7 al l thr ee c ount s . H ughes w as s ent ence d t o thi rty years on t he arm ed r obbery char ge and tw enty year s eac h on the aggr avat ed as s aul tchar ges , w i th the s ent ences t o be served
c o n c u rr e n tly
. ¶9
. O n ap p ea l, H u g h es raises the foll o w ing assig n m en ts o f e rror: (I) w h ethe r H u g h e s’s convi ct i on w as base d on i ns uf f i ci entevi dence orw as contr ary t o the overw hel m i ng w ei ght
o f th e e v id e n c e ; (II) w h e th e r th e ju ry w a s re q u ire d to a c c e p t a r e a so n a b le h y p o th e sis consi st entw i th H ughes ’ s i nnocenc e; ( I I I ) w hetherthe s t at e pr oved the el ement s of arm ed
r obbery; ( I V ) w hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n gi vi ng a s uppl ement al i ns truct i on t o the j ur y; (V ) w h ethe r pro sec u tori al m isco n d u ct r eq u ir es rev ersa l; an d (V I) w h ethe r H u g h es’s
c o n v ic tio n s h o u ld b e re v e rs e d d u e to o th e r e rr o rs o r c u m u la tiv e e rr o r. DI S CU S S I ON I. W het her H ugh es’ s con vict i on w as b ased on i n suff i ci en t evi d en ce or w as cont rary to th e o v e r w h e lm in g w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e . A . S u ff

ic ie n c y o f t h e e v id e n c e .

### 5

¶10
. W hen revi ew i ng a chal l eng e t o the suff i ci ency of the evidence, this C ou rtw i l l rever se and r enderonl y i f

the f act s a nd i nf

er ence s “ ‘ poi nti n f

avorof the def endanton any el ement of the o f f e ns e wi th s uf

f i c i e ntf or c e tha tr e a s on a bl e men c ou l d no th a ve f ou nd b e yond a
r eas onabl e doubtthatthe def endantw as gui l ty, ’
. . . . ” B ro w n v. Sta te , 965 So. 2d 1023, 1030 ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng B u sh v. S ta te , 895 So. 2d 836, 843 ( M i s s . 2005) )
. The evi dence
w i l l be dee m ed s uf

f i ci enti f “‘ havi ng i n m i nd the beyond a r eas onabl e doubtbur den of pr oof
s t andar d, r eas onabl e f

ai r - m i nded m en i n the exe r ci s e of i m part i al j udgm entm i ghtr eac h di f f er ent concl us i ons on every el ementof the of f ens e, ’
. . . . ” Br o wn , 965 So. 2d at1030 ( quot i ng B u sh , 895 So. 2d at843)
. T he r el evantques t i on i s w hether“‘ any r at i onal tr i erof fac t coul d h ave fou nd the essenti al el em ents of the cri m e bey on d a reasonab l e do ub t . ’” Br o wn , 965 So. 2d at1030 ( quot i ng B u sh , 8 9 5 S o . 2 d a t 8 4 3 ). ¶ 1 1
. T h is C o u rt c o n s id e rs th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e s ta te . B u sh , 895 S o . 2 d a t 8 4 3 . T h e sta te r e c e iv e s th e b e n e fit o f all fa v o ra b le in fe re n c e s th a t m a y re a so n a b ly b e d ra w n fr o m th e e v id e n c e . W ilso n v. S ta te , 936 So. 2d 357, 363 (M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng H a w th o rn e v. S ta te , 8 3 5 S o . 2 d 1 4 , 2 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 )). ¶12. H ughes ar gues thatther e w as i ns uf f i ci entevi dence t o prove t hathe ai ded and abett ed the cr i m es of

a r m ed r obbery ora ggr avat ed as s aul t . H ughes s ubm i t s thatther e i s no evi dence t o show t hathe had pri orknow l edge of W ebs t er ’ s cr i m i nal i nt ent , thathe part i ci pat ed i n the cri m es i n an y w ay , o r tha t he otherw i se ai ded and abett ed the com m i ssi on of the cri m es. H u g h e s a ss e rts th a t h e w a s m e re ly p re se n t at th e sc e n e an d n e v e r co m m u n ica ted an in ten t to
a id o r e n c o u ra g e W e b s te r’ s a c tio n s .

### 6

¶13. H ughes poi nt s t o t he t es t i m ony of O f f i cerG r eg C l ark, w ho st at ed t hatt her e w as no evi dence of

a ny pl an t o r ob the W arner s , orthatH ughes knew aboutW ebs t er ’ s gun. H ughes al s o cont ends thatW ebs t er ’ s s t at ement , “W hy di d you run? Thatw as ourl i ck, ” occ ur r ed af t erthe f actand pr ovi des no evi dence thatH ughes knew bef or ehand thatW ebs t erhad a gun
o r w a s g o in g to a s s a u lt a n y o n e . ¶ 1 4
. O n e w h o a id s a n d a b e ts a n o th e r in th e c o m m iss io n o f a c rim e is g u ilty a s a p rin c ip a l. R u b e n ste in v. S ta te , 941 So. 2d 735, 773 n. 18 ( M i s s . 2006) ( quot i ng K in gv. S ta te , 857 So. 2d 7 02 , 739 ( M i s s . 2003) )
. T o ai d and abe tthe comm i s s i on of a f el ony, one must“‘ do
s om et hi ng t ha tw i l l i nc i t e , e nc ou r a ge , ora s s i s tthe a c tua l pe rpe tr a t ori n the c omm i s s i on of the cr i m e . . . . [ or ] part i ci pat e[ ] i n the des i gn of the f el ony. ’ ” V

a u g h n v. S ta te , 712 So. 2d 721, 724 ( M i s s . 1998) ( quot i ng Ma lo n e v. S ta te , 4 8 6 S o . 2 d 3 6 0 , 3 6 3 -6 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 )). C ri m in a l la w d o e s n o t r e c o g n iz e g u ilt b y a s s o c ia ti o n . D a v is v . S ta te , 586 So. 2d 817, 821 ( M i s s . 1991) ( ci t i ng P ry o r v. S ta te , 239 So. 2d 911, 912 ( M i s s . 1970) )
. M er e pr es ence , even
w ith th e in ten t o f a ss istin g in th e c rim e , is in su ffic ien t “ u n les s th e in ten tio n to a ss ist w a s in
s om e w ay comm uni cat ed t o [ the pr i nci pal ]
. ” Cra w fo rdv. S ta te , 13 3 M iss. 1 4 7 , 1 5 1 (19 2 3 ). Fur therm or e, “[ p] r oof

thatone ha s s t ood by atthe comm i s s i on of a c r i m e w i thoutt aki ng any
s t eps t o pr eventi tdoes notal one i ndi cat e such part i ci pat i on orcombi nat i on i n the w r ong done as t o show cr i m i nal l i abi l i ty, al though he appr ove of t he ac t . ” H

a rp e r v . S ta te , 83 M i ss. 402, 415, 35 So. 572, 573 ( 1903) ( quot i ng McC lai n on C r i m i nalLaw , c h . 1 5 , s e c . 1 9 4 ). ¶15. H ughes di s cus s es pri m ar i l y t w o cas es i n s uppor tof hi s ar gum ent . I n U

. S. v. Jam es , 528 F. 2d 999 ( 5th C i r . 1976), F B I agent s and m ember s of the Ja cks on pol i ce f or ce e ngaged i n a s hoot
- outw i th mem ber s of the R epubl i c of

N ew A f r i ca [ R N A ] , l eavi ng on e Ja cks on

### 7

p o lic e o ff

ic e r d e a d a n d w o u n d in g a n o th e r o ff ic e r a n d a n F B I a g e n t. Jam es , 528 F. 2d at 1 0 0 4
. T h e F if

th C ir cu itrev erse d the c o n v ict ion o f A n n L o ck h art, the w if e o f th e R N A ’s vi ce- pr e s i de nt , f

i nd i ng tha tthe r e w a s i ns uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e “ t o s ho w tha ts he ha d a ny know l edge of

the cons pi r acy orpart i ci pat i on i n i t . ” Id
. at1013. L ockhartw as a r es i dentof W i s cons i n and had pl anned onl y a br i ef s t ay atthe R N A headqua r t er s i n J acks on, M is s is s ip p i. Id
. E ven though L ockharthad pur chased gr ocer i es and pr epar ed meal s f or R N A m em b ers, th e F if

th C ir cu itstat ed that “[m ] ere p rese n ce a t th e sc en e o f a c ri m e o r m ere
as s oci at i on w i th the m ember s of a c ons pi r acy i s notenough t o pr ove part i ci pat i on i n i t . ” Id
. ¶1 6. I n C o c h r a n v. S ta te , 191 M i s s . 273 , 2 So. 2d 82 2 ( 19 41 ) , C oc hr a n w a s arr e s t ed f or p o s s e s s io n o f b e e r a n d s lo t m a c h in e s i n s id e a d a n c e h a ll. Cochr an , 2 S o . 2 d a t 8 2 2 . T h is C ou r th e l d tha tthe a r r e s twas u na utho r i z e d be c a us e Coc hr a n w a s n ota n e mpl oy e e of t he d a n c e h a ll, b u t w a s m e re ly “ s ta y in g ” in th e a re a . Id
. a t8 2 3
. Th i s Co u r te x p l a i n e d th a t“ s o me degr ee of

part i ci pat i on i n the cr i m i nal actm us tbe show n i n orde rt o est abl i s h any cr i m i nal l i abi l i ty. ” Id
. ( quot i ng H ar per , 8 3 M is s . a t 4 1 5 , 3 5 S o . a t 5 7 3 ). ¶17. W e f

i nd the subj ectcas e di s t i ngui s habl e f r om both Jam es and Cochr an b ec au se th ere i s s uf f i ci entevi dence of

H ughes ’ s pa r t i ci pat i on i n the cr i m e. W ebs t erand H ughes had bee n
r i di ng ar ound t al ki ng aboutw ays t o m ake m oney, w hi ch i ncl uded “r obbi ng. ” A f t erparki ng thei rtruck on a s m al l di r tr oad l at e atni ght , H ughes a ccompani ed W ebs t ers om e 150 t o 200 y a rd s to th e W a rn e rs ’ h o m e . ¶1 8
. H u g h es c o n ten d s th a t a fter W eb ster retu rne d the p h o n e to W arn er, he w alke d o ff, bel i evi ng thatW ebs t er“had f i ni s hed hi s bus i nes s . ” I n a w r i t t en s t at ementm ade l at ert hat ni ght , W arners ai d thatH ughes pul l ed a hood ove rhi s head a nd w al ked of f bef ore a ny

### 8

s hoot i ng occurr ed. H ow ever , W arnerexpl ai ned attri al thati tl ooked as i f both m en had turned t o w al k a w ay. C ons i der i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the s t at e, and gi vi ng the s t at e the bene f i tof al l r eas onabl e i nf

er ence s , w e f

i nd thatH ughes knew w hatw as
a b o u t to tr a n s p ir e a n d a c te d , a lo n g w ith W e b s te r, a s if h e w e re w a lk in g a w a y . ¶19. H ughes comm uni cat ed hi s i nt ent t o as s i s t W ebs t er i n t he com m i ss i on of the cr i m es b y a c c o m p a n y in g W e b ste r so m e 1 5 0 to 2 0 0 y a rd s to W a rn e r’s h o m e , a n d a c tin g , alo n g w ith W e b s te r, a s if

h e w e re le a v in g ju s t b e fo re W e b s te r b e g a n s h o o tin g . ¶20
. F i nall y, aft er W ebst er and H ug hes retu rne d to their truck, W ebst er as ked H ug hes, “W hy di d you run? Thatw as ourl i ck. ” W hi l e thi s s t at ementw as m ade a f t erthe s hoot i ngs had occ urr ed, a j ur orcou l d reas onabl y i nf erthata “l i ck” orr obbery had bee n thei rm utual in te n t b e fo re h a n d
. ¶21. T her ef

or e, w e f i nd that a r at i onal j ur or coul d have f ound beyond a r eas onabl e doubt th a t H u g h e s a id e d a n d a b e tte d th e c ri m e s o f a rm e d ro b b e ry a n d a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt. B . W e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e . ¶2 2
. W h en rev iew ing a ch all en g e to the w eigh t o f th e e v id en ce , this C o u rt w il l ov erturn
a ju ry v e rd ict “ o n ly w h e n itis so co n tra ry to th e ev id e n c e p re se n ted tha t t o let it sta n d w o u ld
s anct i on an uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ” W il s on , 936 So. 2d a t363 ( ci t i ng B u sh , 895 So. 2d
a t 8 4 5 ). A n e w trial s h o u ld b e g ra n ted o n th e b a s is o f th e w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e “ o n ly in
e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s , w h e n th e e v id e n c e w e ig h s h e a v ily a g a in s t th e ju ry ’s v e rd ic t.” W il s on , 936 So. 2d at363 ( ci t i ng B u sh , 8 9 5 S o . 2 d a t 8 4 5 ). ¶ 2 3
. T h is C o u rt c o n s id e rs th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r a b le t o t h e v e rd ic t. B u sh , 895 So. 2d at844 ( ci t i ng He rr in gv. S ta te , 6 9 1 S o . 2 d 9 4 8 , 9 5 7 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 )). T h e sta te“ A n ad m iss io n is a sta tem e n t by the ac c u se d , d ire c t or im p lied , o f fa c ts p e rtin e n t to 8 the i s s ue, and t endi ng, i n connect i on w i th ot herfa ct s , t o prove hi s gui l t . ” R e e d v. S ta te , 229 M i s s . 440, 446, 91 So. 2d 269, 272 ( 1956) ( ci t i ng P rin g le v . S ta te , 108 M i s s . 802, 67 So. 455 ( 1914) )
. A n admi s s i on cons t i tut es di r ectevi dence of a cr i m e so thata ci r cumst ant i al e v id e n c e in s tru c tio n is n o t r e q u ir e d
. Ma c kv. S ta te , 4 8 1 S o . 2 d 7 9 3 , 7 9 5 (M is s . 1 9 8 5 ). 

### 9 r ece i ves the bene f

i tof al l fa vor abl e i nf

er ence s thatm ay r eas onabl y be dr aw n f r om t he
e v id e n c e . W

il s on , 936 So. 2d at363 ( ci t i ng H awthorne , 8 3 5 S o . 2 d a t 2 2 ). ¶24. B as ed upon the f act s pr evi ous l y di s cus s ed, w e f i nd t hatH ughes ’ s gui l ty ver di cti s not
s o contr ary t o the evi dence a s t o c ons t i tut e an “uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ” Fur therm or e, t he evi dence does notw ei gh heavi l y agai ns tthe j ury’ s ver di ct . A ccordi ngl y, w e f i nd t hat H u g h e s ’s c o n v ic tio n w a s n o t a g a in s t th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e . II. W h eth er th e ju ry w a s re q u ired to a cc ep t a r ea so n a b le h y p o th esis co n sist en t w it h H ughes’ s i nnocence. ¶25. H ughes submi t s t hatt her e r emai ns a re as onabl e hypot hes i s thathe di d notcomm i t the
c rim e s, a n d th a t th e ju ry w a s re q u ire d to a c c e p t a r e a so n a b le h y p o th e sis c o n sis ten t w ith h is in n o c e n c e . ¶2 6
. A ju ry is instructed to ex clud e ev ery o ther rea so n ab le h y p o thes is than th a t o f g u ilt
w h e n a c a s e is b a s e d e n tir e ly u p o n c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . J o n e s v. S ta te , 797 So. 2d 922, 927 ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng Hen derso n v. S ta te , 4 5 3 S o . 2 d 7 0 8 , 7 1 0 (M is s . 1 9 8 4 )) . A ci r cumst ant i al evi dence instruc t i on i s r equi r ed “onl y w hen the pr os ecut i on can pr oduce nei theran eyew i tnes s nor a conf es s i on/ s t at ementby the def endant
. ” R u b e n ste in , 941 So. 2d at785 ( quot i ng L a dn e r v . S ta te , 584 So. 2d 743, 750 ( M i s s . 1991))
. In the s ubj ectcas e, t he
s t at e pr oduced both an eye w i tnes s , W arner , a s w el l a s a n a dm i s s i on by H ughes
. T her ef or e, 8
w e fi n d th is is s u e to b e w ith o u t m e ri t.N ot abl y, the arm ed r obbery char ge aga i ns tW ebs t erw as dr opped af t erhe pl eade d 9 g u ilty to tw o c o u n ts o f a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt. 

### 10 I I I . W het her t he s t at e proved t he el em ent s of arm ed robbery. ¶27. H ughes ar gues that hi s arm ed- r obbery convi ct i on cannot s t and beca us e ther e w as no t aki ng o r at t empt ed t aki ng of any pr operty as r equi r ed underthe arm ed- r obbery s t atut e. 9 H ughes i s corr ectt hatnothi ng w as evert aken ordemanded f r om the W arner s pr i ort o oraf t er th e s h o o tin g s . ¶ 2 8
. M iss iss ip p i C o d e A n n o tate d S e c tio n 9 7 -3 -7 9 , sta tes , in p e rtin e n t p a rt, th a t: E very pe r s on w ho s hal l f el oni ous l y take orat t em ptt o take f

r om the per s on or f r om the pr es ence the per s onal pr operty of anotherand aga i ns thi s w i l l by v io len c e to h is p e rso n o r b y p u tti n g su c h p e rso n in fe a r o f im m e d iate in ju ry to h is p e rs o n b y th e e x h ib itio n o f a d e a d ly w e a p o n s h a ll b e g u ilty o f r o b b e ry . .

. . M i s s . Co d e An n . § 9 7
- 3
- 7 9 ( Re v . 2 0 0 6 ) ( Em p h a s i s a d d e d )
. An a t t e mp tt o c o mmi ta c r i me
cons i s t s of

thr ee e l ement s : “( 1) an i nt entt o comm i ta par t i cul arcr i m e; ( 2) a di r ecti nef f ectual actdone t ow ar d i t s c om m i s s i on; a nd ( 3) the f ai l ur e t o c ons um m at e i t s comm i s s i on. ” Spa nn
v. S ta te , 771 So. 2d 883, 891 ( M i s s . 2000) ( ci t i ng G re e n w o o d v. S ta te , 744 So. 2d 767, 769 (M is s . 1 9 9 9 ))
. A . I nt e nt t o r ob. ¶ 2 9
. In te n t to ro b c a n b e s h o w n fr o m th e fa c ts s u rr o u n d in g th e c ri m e . W a lk e r v. S ta te , 913 So. 2d 198, 224 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng L y n c h v . S ta te , 87 7 S o . 2d 12 5 4 , 12 6 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 )). In ten t to c o m m it a c rim e is a q u e stio n o f fa c t to b e d e ter m in e d b y a ju ry b a se d o n th e fa c ts p re s e n te d in th e c a s e . W al ker , 913 S o. 2d at224 ( quot i ng K n ox v. S ta te , 805 So. 2d 527, 531 (M is s . 2 0 0 2 ))
.

### 11

¶30. W e f

i nd thati nt entt o r ob can be i nferred fr om the f act s of thi s cas e. H ughes and W ebs t erhad been r i di ng ar ound di s cus s i ng w ays t o m ake m oney, w hi ch i ncl uded the s ubj ect of r obbi ng. L at e atni ght , W ebs t erand H ughes parked thei rvehi cl e on a s m al l di r tr oad and
w alke d ab o u t 15 0 to 2 0 0 y ard s to the W arn ers’ h o m e. W eb ster t o ld W a rn e r a fa lse story aboutbei ng outof

ga s . U pon r eturni ng t o thei rtruck, W ebs t eras ked H ughes , “W hy di d you
run? Thatw as ourl i ck. ” ¶31. I nt entt o r ob al s o can be i nf err ed f r om the s us pi ci ous act i vi ty w i tnes s ed by a nei ghbor j us tbef or e the cr i m es occurr ed. B arbar a W arner , w ho l i ved tw o hous es dow n f r om the W arn ers, t esti fi ed that sh o rt ly b efo re 1 0 :00 p . m . o n M ay 2 , 2 0 0 6 , a red “o ld style b o x y , sh o rt
w heel bas e truck” pul l ed i nt o herdr i vew ay and s atf orabouttw o orthr ee m i nu t es. T he vehi cl e des cr i bed by B arbar a i s cons i s t entw i th the vehi cl e dr i ven by W ebs t eron the ni ght i n ques t i on. B arbar a’ s hom e w as w el l l i tout s i de w i th fi ve “l ar ge ni ghtl i ght s ” and s he had thr ee dogs i n he rya r d. B arbar a coul d s ee the heads of tw o pe opl e i n the truck. A f t ers i t t i ng i n herdr i vew ay a s hor tt i m e, the t ruck pul l ed outof B arbar a’ s dr i vew ay and he aded t ow ar ds th e W a rn e rs ’ h o m e . B . O v e r t a c t. ¶32. A n overtacti s one that“w i l l appar ent l y r es ul t , i n the usual and n at ural cour s e of event s i f nothi nder ed by extr aneous c aus es , i n the comm i s s i on of the cr i m e i t s el f

, and an a ct appar ent l y adapt ed t o pr oduce the i nt ended r es ul ti s s uf f i ci entt o cons t i tut e the overtact
es s ent i al t o an att empt . ” G r eenw ood , 744 So. 2d at769 ( ci t i ng B u c k lew v. S ta te , 206 So. 2d 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 (M is s . 1 9 6 8 ))
.

### 12

¶33. W e f

i nd thatas s aul tw i th a deadl y w eapon w as t he actchos en t o carry outthe r obbery. I n the norm al cour s e of event s
— W ar nerw as i ncapa ci t at ed and/ orH ughes di d notrun— a
ro b b e ry w o u ld h a v e re s u lte d
. C . F ai l ure t o cons um m at e t he cri m e. ¶ 3 4
. P ro p e rt y n e e d n o t b e ta k e n fo r a ro b b e ry to o c c u r. Spa nn , 77 1 S o . 2 d at 8 9 1 -92
. In G r eenw ood , thi s C our taf f i r m ed a r obbery convi ct i on even t hough not hi ng w as evert aken
o r d e m a n d e d
. G reenw ood , 744 So. 2d at769- 70. G r eenw ood t ol d a co- i ndi ct ee thathe pl anned t o r ob a cer t ai n per s on and sai d t hathe pl anned t o knock on thi s per s on’ s door a nd p o in t a g u n to th e p e rs o n ’s h e a d
. Id
. at 770
. Y etG r eenw ood f ai l ed t o carry outhi s i ni t i al p la n a n d a s k e d fo r g a s in s te a d
. Id . A fte r th e v ictim a ss u m e d th a t G re e n w o o d a n d h is
co m p an ion s h ad left, sh o ts w ere fir ed a n d a c o n cre te blo ck w as th row n thro u g h the v ict im ’s p la te -g la s s , s lid in g d o o r. Id
. at769. H ow ever , G r eenw oo d and h i s cohort s f l ed w hen the
v ic tim re tr ie v e d h is h u n tin g ri fl e a n d r e tu rn e d g u n fi re . Id
. T hi s C our thel d thatthe j ury w as f r ee t o i nf

erthatthe onl y r eas on no r obbery w as consu m m at ed w as beca us e the i nt ended
v ic tim h a d re tu rn e d g u n fi re . Id . a t 7 7 0
. ¶35
. H ug hes ci t es A n de rs o n v. S ta te , 1 6 8 M iss. 4 2 4 , 1 5 1 S o . 5 5 8 (19 3 4 ) for su p p o rt . In A nders on , tw o m en w en t t o the back do or of a s t ore and asked for a pack of ci garet t es. A nders on , 151 So. at558. A f t erone of

the st or e’ s ow ner s r eturned w i th the ci gar ett es , the d e fe n d a n ts p ro c e e d e d to s h o o t a ll th re e m e n w h o w e re a t th e s to re . Id
. at559. A ft ert he
s h o o tin g s , b o th d e fe n d a n ts s im p ly le ft
. Id
. T hi s C our thel d thatthe evi dence w as i ns uf f i ci entt o s uppor t“f

el oni ous i nt entt o t ake pe r s onal pr operty. ” Id
. T o i nf erany f ur ther i nt entw oul d have be en “the mer es ts pecul at i on. ” Id
.

### 13

¶36. W e f

i nd A nders on di s t i ngui s habl e bec aus e f el oni ous i nt enti s notm er el y s pecul at i ve i n thi s c a s e . A j ur orr e a s on a bl y c ou l d i nf e rtha tW e bs t e ra nd Hughe s i nt e nd e d t o r ob t he W a rn e rs, b u t ab a n d o n e d th e ir p lan w h e n W a rn e r d id n o t g o d o w n a fte r b e in g sh o t m u lti p le tim e s . ¶ 3 7
. F o r th e a fo re m e n tio n e d re a so n s, w e fin d th a t th e sta te p ro v e d th e e ss e n tial e lem e n ts
o f a rm e d ro b b e ry . I V . W het her t he t ri al cou rt err ed i n gi vi ng a s upp l em ent al i nst ruct i on t o t he j ury. ¶38. A ppr oxi m at el y t hir t y m i nu t es i nt o j ury del i ber at i ons , the j ury s ent the tr i al j udge a
w r i t t en not e w hi ch as ked, “I s Y as m i n bei ng char ged w i th arm ed oratt empt ed r obbery?” The tr i al j udge i ni t i al l y sai d t hathe w oul d t el l the j ury thatthey w oul d s i m pl y have t o r ef ert o the i ns truct i ons al r eady gi ven t o them. H ughes r ai s ed no obj ect i on and si m pl y as ked thatno
s i ngl e i ns truct i on be s i ngl ed out
. T he st at e, how ever , s aw no harm i n the tr i al courtr ef err i ng the j ury t o J ury I ns truct i on N o. 2, w hi ch cont ai ned t he el ement s of the cr i m es char ged. T he tr i al j udge expr es s ed r es ervat i ons aboutr ef err i ng t o any s peci f

i c j ury i ns truct i on outof
c o n c e rn fo r r e v e rs ib le e rr o r o n a p p e a l. ¶39. A f

t er f ur ther di s cus s i on betw een couns el f or both part i es and the tr i al j udge, the tr i al j udge pr opos ed the f

ol l ow i ng re s pons e: “Y ou m us tconsi deral l t he i ns truct i ons I have gi ven y o u . T h e e lem e n ts o f th e o ffe n se a re d e fin e d in In stru c tio n S -2 .” B o th p a rties in d ica ted th e ir
s at i s f act i on w i th the tr i al j udge’ s r es pons e. Y et , as the tr i al j udge r ead hi s r es pons e al oud a
s econd t i m e, H ughes ’ s couns el not i ced the expl i ci tre f er ence t o I ns truct i on S- 2 and obj ect ed. H ughes ’ s couns el s ubm i t t ed thata pr operre s pons e w oul d be “[ t ] he el ement s of the cr i m es char ged ar e cont ai ned i n t he i ns truct i ons . ”

### 14

¶40. O ver H ughes ’ s obj ect i on, the tr i al j udge gave hi s pr opos ed r es pons e, w hi ch r ef err ed the j ury t o I ns truct i on S- 2. T he tr i al j udge expl ai ned: “.
. . I don’ tthi nk that[ the pr opos ed
r es pons e] s i ngl es outany i ns truct i on t o t he pr ej udi ce of the D ef endanti n l i ghtof

the f actt hat the o n ly o ther tw o instruction s w e h av e a re a n a cc esso ry instruction a n d the failure to testi fy i ns truct i on. ” The r es pons e w hi ch the j ury r ece i ved s t at ed: “Y ou m us tconsi der al l of t he i ns truct i ons the C our tha s gi ven t o you. T he el ement s of the cr i m es char ged ar e cont ai ned i n I ns truct i on # 2. ” ¶41. A tr i al courthas author i ty t o gi ve s uppl ement al i ns truct i ons t o a j ury and t he deci s i on to d o s o is re v ie w e d u n d e r a n a b u s e - o f
- d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd
. Mick e ll v. S ta te , 735 So. 2d 1 0 3 1 , 1 0 3 3 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ); see al so P a y to n v. S ta te , 897 So. 2d 921, 956 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng U n ifo rm R u les o f C irc u it a n d C o u n ty C o u rt P ra c tice R u le 3 .1 0 ); W rig h t v. S ta te , 512 So. 2d 6 7 9 , 6 8 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ) (th e law d o es n o t req u ir e a tr ial jud g e to b ec o m e m u te on ce the ju ry
re tir e s , p a rt ic u la rl y w h e n th e ju ry a p p e a rs to b e a t a lo s s a s to h o w to p ro c e e d ). ¶ 4 2
. O n c e th e trial c o u rt re c e iv e s a q u e stio n fro m th e ju ry , th e ju d g e ’s first re sp o n sib ili ty is to d e te rm in e w h e th e r a n y fu rt h e r i n s tru c tio n is n e c e s s a r y . P ayton , 897 So. 2d at955 ( quot i ng G irto n v. S ta te , 4 4 6 S o . 2 d 5 7 0 , 5 7 2 (M iss . 1 9 8 4 )). N o fu rth e r in stru c tio n sh o u ld be gi ven unl es s nece s s ary “f orcl ar i ty ort o coveran omi s s i on. ” P ayton , 897 So. 2d at955 ( quot i ng G ir ton , 446 So. 2d at572)
. T he tr i al j udge m us tthen be cert ai n thathe under s t ands p re c is e ly w h a t is m e a n t b y th e ju ry ’s in q u ir y . G ir ton , 4 4 6 S o . 2 d a t 5 7 3
. ¶43. T hi s Courti s “ part i cul ar l y s ens i t i ve t o the dangerthata supp l em ental i nst ruct i on
m i ghtcaus e a j ury t o s i ngl e outand f ocus upon t he poi ntther e pr es ent ed and gi ve i tundue i m por t ance . ” W

r i ght , 512 So. 2d at681. W hethera si ngl e i ns truct i on has been s i ngl ed out

### 15

th ro u g h su p p lem e n tal in stru c tio n s o fte n tu rn s o n th e m a n n e r in w h ich th e in stru c tio n is p re s e n te d
. S h a w v. S ta te , 540 So. 2d 26, 30 ( M i s s . 1989)
. T her e i s r ever s i bl e err orw hen the rep eti ti o n “g ives su ch u n d u e p rom inen ce to so m e p ri n ciple o r ph ase o f th e c ase as is cal cul at ed t o i m pr es s i tundul y on the j ur or s ’ m i nds , orr es ul t s i n an unf ai rs t at ementof

l aw i n r el at i on t o acc us ed’ s r i ght s . ” H a y n e s v . S ta te , 451 So. 2d 227, 231 ( M i s s . 1984) ( quot i ng 2 3 A C .J .S ., C ri m in a l L a w , N o . 1 3 0 4 ). ¶ 4 4
. H u g h e s a rg u e s th a t th e tr ia l ju d g e im p e rm is s ib ly c a lle d a tte n tio n to a sp e c ific i ns truct i on and f

ai l ed t o as cert ai n exac t l y w hatthe j ury w as as ki ng. H ughes as s ert s thatby emphasi zi ng the “elem ents of the cr i m e” i n J ury I ns truct i on N o. 2, the tr i al j udge dr ew
a tte n tio n fr o m J u ry In s tru c tio n s N o . 3 a n d N o . 4
. ¶45. J ury I ns truct i on N o. 2 s etf or t h t he el em ents o f t he cri m es of arm ed r obbery and aggr avat ed as s aul t . J ury I ns truct i on N o. 3 s t at ed thatH ughes m ay be he l d r es pons i bl e f or the act s a nd c onductof otherpe r s ons i f

he de l i ber at el y a nd vol unt ar i l y pa r t i ci pated i n the
comm i s s i on of

the cr i m es . J ury I ns truct i on N o. 3 f ur there xpl ai ned thatthe s t at e m us tpr ove b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b tth a te v e ry e l e me n to f th e o f f e n s e h a d b e e n c o mmi t t e d b y s o me per s on and t hatH ughes vol unt ar i l y part i ci pat ed i n the cr i m e. J ury I ns truct i on N o. 4 s t at ed thatt he st at e has t he bur den of proof beyond a r eas onabl e doubtand thatthe j ury m us tnot h o ld a n y th in g a g a in s t H u g h e s b a s e d o n th e fa c t th a t h e d id n o t te s tif y . ¶46. H ughes anal ogi zes thi s cas e t o H aynes , i n w hi ch t his C ou rt held t he s uppl ement al in s tru c tio n to b e e rr o r. H aynes , 451 So. 2d at231. Y et , i n H aynes , the tr i al j udge r es ponded t o the j ury’ s quest i on by notonl y cal l i ng t he j ury’ s at t ent i on t o t w o spec i f i c i ns truct i ons , but in v itin g th e ira tte n tio n to a s p e c if ic p o rt io n o f o n e o f t h e in s tru c tio n s . Id
. at229- 30.

### 16

A ddi t i onal l y, t he s uppl em ent al i ns truct i on i n H aynes l i kel y had ac centuat ed an a l r eady
e rr o n e o u s in s tru c tio n . Id . a t 2 3 1
. ¶47. W e fi nd that the j ury’ s ques t i on r equi r ed no add i t i on al i nqui ry f r om the t r i al j udge. Fur therm or e, the tr i al j udge’ s s uppl ement al i ns truct i on di d notpl ace undue pr om i nence on any one pr i nci pl e orphas e of the cas e so as t o caus e pr ej udi ce t o H ughes
. J ury I ns truct i on N o . 2 co n tai n ed the e lem en ts of a llthe cr i m es f orw hi ch H ughes w as char ged. A ddi t i onal l y, th e tria l ju d g e in s tru c te d th e ju ry to c o n s id e r a ll th e in s tru c tio n s g iv e n to th e m . See W r i ght , 512 So. 2d at681 ( the pr obl em nor m al l y a s s oci at ed w i th s uppl ement al j ury i ns truct i ons w as adequa t el y addr es s ed by addi t i on a l l a ng ua ge i ns truc t i ng the j ury t o c on s i de rthe s up pl ement al in s tru c tio n a lo n g w ith th e iro th e r i n s tru c tio n s ). ¶4 8. A ccor di ngl y, w e f i nd tha t the tr i a l j ud ge di d no t a bu s e hi s di s c r e t i on i n gi vi ng t he
s u p p le m e n ta l in s tru c tio n . V . W h e th e r p r o s e c u to r ia l m is c o n d u c t r e q u ir e s r e v e r s a l. ¶4 9. G ener al l y, t he f ai l ur e t o obj ectt o t he pr os e c ut i on ’ s s t a t e ment s dur i ng cl os i ng
a rg u m e n ts o p e ra te s a s a p ro c e d u ra l b a r. R o s s v . S ta te , 954 So. 2d 968, 1001 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng S p ice r v . Sta te , 921 So. 2d 292, 309 ( M i s s . 2006) )
. B eca us e H ughes fa i l ed t o obj ect t o the pr os ecut i on ’s st at ement s dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent s , thi s i s s ue i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed
o n a p p e a l. ¶5 0. Pr ocedur al barnotw i ths t a nd i ng , the p r os e c ut i on ’ s r e f e r e nc e t o othe rl ocal ar m ed
r obber i es w hi ch i nvol ved a s i m i l arpa t t ern of be havi orw as f

ori l l us tr at i ve purpos es , and w as
n o t in te n d e d to in c ite th e p a s s io n s a n d p re ju d ic e s o f t h e ju ry . See B re w e r v . S ta te , 704 So.

### 17

2d 70 , 71 -73 (M i ss. 19 97 ). T he prosecuti on al so r epeatedl y used t he w ord “t hey ” beca use th e s ta te ’s th e o ry o f t h e c a s e w a s th a t H u g h e s a n d W e b s te r a c te d in c o n c e rt . ¶51. H ug hes argu es fur t her thatthe pr os ecut i on vi ol at ed hi s cons t i tut i onal due- pr oces s
r i ght s by m i s r epr es ent i ng H ughes as the s hoot er . T he al l eged m i sr epres ent at i on i s s etout b e lo w : W h y d id [H u g h es] hide h is he ad ? H e w as h o p ing th at [ the W arn ers] co u ldn ’t i dent i f y them. H e w as hopi ng [ the W arner s ] w oul dn’ tknow w ho di d i t . I f [ the W arner s ] didn’ tgetki l l ed, they w oul dn’ tbe abl e t o i dent i f y [ H ughes and W ebs t er] , and l ucki l y, [ the W arner s ] di dn’ tgetki l l ed. O f cours e, w hen you ar e s hoot i ng s om ebody f ourt i m es , w hatar e you i nt endi ng? W e do notf

i nd thatthi s s t at ementw as i nt ended t o i m pl i cat e H ughes as the gunman. T he cont extof

the pr os ecut or ’ s ar gum enti s thatH ughes knew thats er i ous bodi l y i nj ury w as in te n d e d , a n d th e re fo re , h e tr ie d to c o n c e a l h is id e n tity
. ¶52. Fi nal l y, H ughes ar gues that the pr os ecut or m i s r epr es ent ed H ughes ’ s s t at ementabout hi s and W ebs t er’ s conver s at i on ear l i erthatni ght
. T he pr os ecut oras s ert ed thatH ughes admi t t ed “r i ghtbef

or e w e w entt her e, one of the thi ngs w e w er e t al ki ng aboutw as r obbi ng
s om ebody. ” H ughes cont ends thatr obbery w as a gene r al t opi c of hi s and W ebs t er ’ s br oader
c o n v e rsa tio n a n d th a t th e y n e v e r ta lk e d a b o u t ro b b in g a n y o n e in p a rticu lar . W e fin d th a t if
r obbery w as bei ng di s cus s ed as a w ay t o m ake money, a r eas onabl e i nf er ence can be m ade th a t s o m e p e rs o n o r e n tity w a s to b e ta rg e te d
. ¶53. T he tr i al j udge i ns truct ed the j ury t hatar gum ent s , st at ement s , and re m arks of couns el
ar e notevi dence
. W hen a j ury i s i ns truct ed t hatcom m ent s m ade by couns el ar e notevi dence , re v e rs a l is n o t r e q u ir e d
. B u rn s v . S ta te , 729 So. 2d 203, 229 ( M i s s . 1998) ( ci t i ng O r m ondA r m ed r obbery carr i es a maxi m um penal ty of l i f e underM i ssi ssi ppi C ode 10 A nnot at ed Sect i on 97-3- 79 (Rev. 2006). A ggr avat ed as s aul tcarr i es a maxi m um penal ty of one yea ri n t he county j ai l ortw enty ye ar s i n the s t at e peni t ent i ary underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 97-3- 7( 2) ( b) (Rev. 2006). T hus , H ughes ’ s s ent ence of thi r ty year s on t he a rm e d ro b b e ry c h a rg e , an d tw e n ty y e a rs e a c h o n th e ag g ra v a ted a ss a u lt ch a rg e s, a re w ith in th e s ta tu to ry lim ita tio n s . 

### 18 v. S ta te , 599 So. 2d 951, 961 ( M i s s . 1992) )
. Foral l the r eas ons di s cus s ed above , w e f i nd no p ro s e c u to ri a l m is c o n d u c t to re q u ir e re v e rs a l. I V . H ughe s ’ s s e nt e nc e i s unco ns t i t ut i ona l bec aus e i t puni s he d H ughe s f or e xe r c i s i ng hi s ri ght t o t ri al and w as di s proport i onat e t o hi s rol e i n t he cri m e. ¶54. E rr or s r el at ed t o i m pr oper s ent enci ng ar e pr ocedur al l y barr ed i f no obj ect i on i s m ade
a t tr ia l. Ho bg o o d

v. S ta te , 926 So. 2d 847, 857 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng Cox v. S ta te , 793 So. 2d 5 9 1 , 5 9 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 )). B e c a u se n o o b jec tio n w a s ra ise d at tria l, th is iss u e is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d o n a p p e a l. ¶ 5 5
. P ro c e d u ra l b a r n o tw ith sta n d in g , th is C o u rt w ill n o t o rd in a rily re v iew a se n ten c e if it i s w i thin the st atutory li m i t s. He rs ick v. S ta te , 904 So. 2d 116, 128 ( M i s s . 2004) ( quot i ng 10 K in gv. S ta te , 8 5 7 S o . 2 d 7 0 2 , 7 3 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 )); J o h n so n v. S ta te , 6 66 So
. 2 d 78 4, 797 (M iss . 1 9 9 5 ); R e

y n o ld s v . S ta te , 5 8 5 S o . 2 d 7 5 3 , 7 5 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ). H o w ev er, a tri al co u rt
m ay n o t im p o se a h ea v ier sen tenc e b ec au se th e d efe n d an t exe rcised h is r igh t t o a tri al by jury th a n th a t w h ic h th e d e fe n d a n t w a s o ff e re d in th e p le a b a rg a in in g p ro c e s s . Johnson , 666 So. 2d at797 ( ci t i ng T

e m p le v . S ta te , 498 So. 2d 379, 381 ( M i s s . 1986))
. A s ent ence m us tbe b a s e d o n ly o n le g itim a te fa c to rs . Id
. ( ci t i ng Fe rm o v. S ta te , 3 70 S o. 2 d 9 30 , 93 2-33 (M i ss. 1 9 7 9 ))
.

### 19

¶ 5 6
. H u g h e s c laim s th a t h is se n ten c e u n c o n stitu tio n a lly p u n ish e d h im fo r e x e rc isin g h is
r i ghtt o t r i al
. H ughes poi nt s t o t he f ol l ow i ng com m ent s m ade by t he tr i al j udge dur i ng t he
se n ten c in g p h a se o f th e trial:

T her e has been a notherr eques tf orl eni ency, of

m er cy i n thi s cas e. Y ou k n o w , w h e n y o u a re o ffe re d le n ien c y a n d m e rc y , so m e tim e s y o u h a v e g o t to pi ck i tup. A nd M r . H ughes w as of f er ed a s ent ence of

t en yea r s on aggr avat ed as s aul t , w hi ch w oul d have be en w i th the pos s i bi l i ty of par ol e. T he mosthe w oul d have ha d to s erve w oul d have pr obabl y been 85 pe r centof that
. T hat i s ei ghtand a ha l f

year s , and af

t erdi s cus s i ons w i th hi s f athera nd everybody, th e o th e rp e o p l e i n v o l v e d i n th i s th i n g , h e d e c i d e d h e d i d n ' twa n tth a t . He w ant ed t o t ake hi s chanc es and go t o tr i al
. A nd of cour s e, w hen he di d, the j ury f ound t hathe w as j us tas cul pabl e as M r . W ebs t er . A nd by doi ng that , by t aking t hat gam ble, he, un l i ke M r. W ebst er, i s no w conv i ct ed of three charges. W el l , notonl y di d he getthatof f erof l eni ency, he gotone ext ended one t o hi m t hathe di dn’ teven a s k f or . T he s t at e and the vi ct i m s i n thi s cas e agr eed for this m att er to n o t g o t o th e jury on sen tenc ing on the a rm ed rob b ery an d left it u p to m e . A g a in , h a d it g o n e to th a t ju ry , m y o b se rv a tio n is th a t h e w o u ld have be en, they w oul d ha ve s ent ence d hi m t o l i f e w i thoutpa r ol e. A nd s o he i s notgoi ng t o getthat , and s o he has r ece i ved l eni ency on tw o occa s i ons , one of w hi ch he pi cked up and one he di dn' task f orand got
. So i t ' s a bad s i tuat i on foreveryb od y involved in this
. B u t on e o f the thi ng s peop l e i n thi s coun try ar e enti t l ed to, they are e n tit led to b e a t th e ir h o u se a n d b e lef t alo n e . T h e y a re e n tit led to fo lk s n o t to c o me t o t h e i rh o u s e i n th e mi d d l e of t h e ni g h ta n d s h o o tth e m a n d r o b th e m, and w hen peopl e do thatt o otherpeopl e, t hen they have t o getw hatthey d e s e rv e . M r . H ughes , you w er en’ tthe s hoot er . I ’ m goi ng t o gi ve y ou some, s om e sl i ghtbenef

i tfort hatbutnotm uch. T he j ury f ound thatyou s houl d get as m u ch as th e o ther, as M r. W eb ster. T h ere fore , on the arm ed robb ery, I s entence yo u to thirty (30) years w i th the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m ento f C orr ect i ons . O n the tw o aggr avat ed assaul tcharges, I s entence you t o tw enty ( 20 ) years each an d o rderthat tho se s ent ence s run concurr entw i th the arm ed r obbery char ge.

### 20

¶57. W e f

i nd that H ughes w as not gi ven a heavi er s ent ence beca us e he exer ci s ed hi s r i ght t o tr i al
. T he tr i al j ud ge’s com m ents pert ai ning t o H ug hes’s p lea neg oti at i on s ar e best des cr i bed as the tri al court ’ s di s pos i t i on of H ughes ’ s pos t - convi ct i on r eques tf orl eni ency. In se n tenc ing H u g h es, th e tri al jud g e’s co n ce rn w as th e n ature o f th e o ffen se a n d H u g h es’s
r ol e i n the cr i m e. A ddi t i onal l y, ther e i s no i ndi cat i on in t he re cor d thatthe tr i al j udge w as
m a d e a w a re o f H u g h e s ’s f o rm e r p le a n e g o tia tio n s u n til th e s e n te n c in g p h a s e o f th e tr ia l. See E dw a rds v . S ta te , 800 So. 2d 454, 471 ( M i s s . 2001) ( no err ori n i m pos i ng a gr eat ers ent ence than thatof

f er ed i n the pl ea ba r gai ni ng pr oces s w here the tr i al j udge r emai ned al oof or
u n a w a re o f f

o rm e r p le a n e g o tia tio n s u n til th e s e n te n c in g p h a s e o f t h e tr ia l)
. ¶5 8. Fur t her m or e, an ai derand a be t t e ri s c on s i der ed t o be as gui l t y as t he actual p e rp e tr a to r. R u b e n ste in , 941 So. 2d at773 n. 18 ( ci t i ng King , 8 57 So
. 2 d a t7 39 )
. I n l i ght of t he viol entnatur e of thes e cr i m es , w e f

i nd no s uppor tf

oran i nf

er ence of

gr oss d ispro p o rt io n a lity , p arti cu larl y co n side ri n g that arm ed rob b ery ca rri es a p o tential li fe
s e n te n c e . Min g o v. S ta te , 944 So. 2d 18, 34 (M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng N ich o ls v . S ta te , 826 So. 2d 1 2 8 8 , 1 2 9 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ) (T h is C o u rt e m p lo y s th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t p ro p o rtio n a lity anal ys i s “onl y w hen a thr es hol d c om par i s on of the cr i m e comm i t t ed t o the s ent ence i m pos ed le a d s to a n in fe re n c e o f ‘ g ro s s d is p ro p o rt io n a lity .’” ). V . W het her H ughes’ s convi ct i on shoul d be rever sed due t o ot her er rors or cum ul at i ve er ror. A . Jury I nst ruct i on N o. 3.

### 21

¶5 9
. H u g h es a rgu es th at Jury Instruc ti o n N o . 3 w as in co m p let e a n d li k ely c o n fuse d the jury beca us e i tf

ai l ed t o i nf

or m the j ury thati nt entt o ai d m us tbe comm uni cat ed t o the pr i nci pal in o rd e r f

o r a id e r a n d a b e tte r t o b e fo u n d g u ilty
. ¶ 6 0
. B e c a u s e H u g h e s f a ile d to r a is e a n o bje c tio n to I n s tr u c tio n N o . 3 , this iss u e is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d
. See R u b e n ste in v. S ta te , 941 So. 2d 735, 793 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 684 So. 2d 1179, 1203 ( M i s s . 1996) )
. Pr ocedur al barnotw i ths t andi ng, t he gr avamen of

H ughes’s is s ue w i th I ns truct i on N o. 3 i s thatthe j ury bel i eved mer e pr es ence
w as enough. H ow ever , J ury I ns truct i on N o. 3 expr es s l y s t at ed thatnei therm er e pr es ence nor know l edge thata cr i m e w as bei ng comm i t t ed w as suf f i ci entt o es t abl i s h thatH ughes ai ded
a n d a b e tte d th e c ri m e s . A c c o rd in g ly , th is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. B . F a ilu r e to g r a n t H u g h e s ’s m o ti o n to q u a s h th e v e n ir e . ¶6 1. H ughes a r gu e s tha tthe tr i a l c ou r te rr e d i n f a i l i ng t o gr a nth i s mot i on t o quas h t he veni r e bas ed on the f

actthatboth the W arner s and the shoot i ngs w er e w el l know n w i thi n the
c o m m u n ity o f W in s to n C o u n ty . ¶62. T hi r ty- f

i ve of the f i f ty pa nel mem ber s ha d he ar d s om ethi ng a boutthe ca s e, thr ee of
w hom admi t t ed bei ng i m pact ed by w hatthey had he ar d. T w el ve of the f i f ty actual l y knew th e W a rn e rs. In o v e rru lin g H u g h e s’s m o tio n to q u a sh , the trial ju d g e sta ted :

. . . [ O ] utof

al l thos e exc us ed f

orcaus e, ther e are o nly about thr ee of them w er e [ s i c] af

f ect ed atal l by w hatw as s t at ed i n the comm uni ty, and af t er ext ens i ve voi rdi r e, the peop l e t hathad a r el at i ons hi p w i th the W arner s or k n e w p e o p le in th is c a se s a id th a t th e y c o u ld listen to th e e v id e n c e a n d b e fa ir a n d im p a rtial in th is c a se a n d th a t th e y d id , a ll a c k n o w led g e d th a t th e y w o u ld noteven f

eel embar r as s ed orhave t o expl ai n thei rdeci s i on t o anybody af t er c o n s id e ra tio n o f t h e c a s e .

### 22

¶6 3
. T h e d e c isio n to qu ash th e v en ir e rests i n th e so u n d discreti o n o f th e trial c o u rt. K o lb e rg v. S ta te , 829 So. 2d 29, 83 ( M i s s . 2002) ( ci t i ng E v a n s v . S ta te , 725 So. 2d 613, 649 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ))
. “ T h e li n c h p in is w h e th e r th e v e n ire m e m b e rs s tate d th a t th e y c o u ld b e fa ir and i m part i al j ur or s i f

c hos en. ” Ho w e ll v. S ta te , 860 So. 2d 704, 720 ( M i s s . 2003) ( quot i ng S im o n v. S ta te , 6 8 8 S o . 2 d 7 9 1 , 8 0 3 (M is s . 1 9 9 7 ))
. ¶64
. T he ven i re m em bers w ere qu est i on ed abo ut theirexpo sure t o p ub l i ci ty ab ou tthe case and thei rr el at i ons hi p w i th, orknow l edge of , the W arner s . I m panel ed j ury m ember s w ho had
s u c h e x p o s u re o r k n o w le d g e in d ic a te d th a t t h e y c o u ld b e f a ira n d im p a rt ia l. See Sim on , 688 S o . 2 d a t 8 0 4 . A c c o rd in g ly , w e fin d th a t th e tria l j u d g e d id n o t ab u se h is d isc re tio n in d e n y in g H u g h e s ’s m o tio n to q u a s h
. C . C um ul at i ve err or. ¶ 6 5
. W e fi n d th a t th e a s s ig n e d e rr o rs in th e re c o rd b e fo re u s a re in d iv id u a lly h a rm le s s . See B y ro m v. S ta te , 863 So. 2d 836 , 8 47 (M i s s . 2003)
. W e f ur therf i nd that , w hen cons i der ed
c u m u lativ e ly , th e eff

e c t of all as sig n e d err o rs d id n o t d e p riv e H u g h e s o f a fu n d a m e n tally fa ir
a n d im p a rt ia l tr ia l. Id
.

### 23 CO NC L US I ON ¶6 6
. B e c a u se w e fi n d H u g h es’s assig n m en ts o f erro r to b e w ith o u t m erit , w e affirm h is
con vict i on and sent ences. ¶ 6 7
. CO UN T I : C ONVI CT I ON OF ARM ED ROBB ER Y AND S EN TE NC E OF THI RT Y ( 3 0 ) YE ARS I N T HE CUS TODY OF T HE M I S S I S S I PP I DE P ART M EN T OF CO RRECTI ON S , AFF I RM ED. CO UNT I I : CO NVI CTI ON OF AG GR AVA TED AS S AU L T AN D S E NT E NC E OF TW EN TY ( 2 0 ) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F 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 . C O U N T III : C O N V I C T I O N O F A G G R A V A T E D A SSA U L T A N D SE N T E N C E O F T W E N T Y ( 20) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CORRE CT I ONS , AF F I RM ED . THE S EN TE NCE S I M P OS ED I N COUNT I I AND I N COUNT I I I ARE TO RU N CONCUR RE NT TO E ACH OTHE R AND B OTH ARE T O R U N C O N C U R R E N T T O T H E S E N T E N C E IM P O S E D IN C O U N T I. SM I TH , C. J . , DI AZ, P. J . , EA SLEY, CA RL SON , DI CK I NSO N, RA ND O LPH AND L AM AR, J J . , CONCUR. GRAVE S , J . , CONCURS I N RE S UL T ONL Y.