I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - KA- 0 1 8 9 9 - S CT J ERM AI NE NEAL
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 18/ 2007 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. AN DR EW C. BA KER C O U R T F R O M W H IC H A P P E A L E D : T A L L A H A T C H IE C O U N T Y C IR C U IT COURT A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T : J A ME S A . WI L L I A MS AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : L ADONN A C . HOL L AND DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: J OHN W . CH AM P I ON NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 06/ 04/ 2009 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. CH AND LER, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. J erm ai ne N eal w as c onvi ct ed of the m ur derof

hi s gi r l f r i end, L akes hi a C l evel and. T he C i r cui tC our tof

T al l ahat chi e C ount y s ent ence d N eal t o l i f e i n t he cus t ody of

the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof

C orr ect i ons . N eal appea l s . H e m akes t he f ol l ow i ng t en as s i gnm ent s of err or f orourdet erm i nat i on: I . W hetherthe j ury i ns truct i ons f ai l ed t o tr ack the ma t eri al ele m ent s of the in d ictm e n t. I I . W hetherthe voi rdi r e pr oces s pr ej udi ced the j ury agai ns tN eal and deni ed h im a fa ir trial.

### Th e children’s n ames hav e beenchan gedto p rotect th eir identities. 1 

### 2 I I I . W hetherN eal w as ent i t l ed t o a cha nge of venue. I V . W hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n notconduct i ng an exa m i nat i on of a j ur or w ho l ef tthe courtr oom w i thoutperm i s s i on. V . W hetherhear s ay t es t i m ony deni ed N eal hi s r i ghtt o conf r ont at i on. V I. W h e th e r N e a l re c e iv e d in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l. V II. W h e th e r th e re w a s a v a lid c o n v ictio n d e sp ite th e trial c o u rt’s f a ilu re to sta te th a t th e c o u rt a c c e p ted th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict. V I I I . W hetherN eal w as ent i t l ed t o l es s er - of f ens e j ury i ns truct i on s on t he cr i m es of

heat
- of
- pas s i on m ans l aught erand des ecr at i on of a human corps e. IX . W h e th e r c u m u lativ e e rro r re q u ire s re v e rsa l. X . W hetherthe evi dence w as s uf f i ci entt o s uppor tthe ver di cta nd w hetherthe ver di ctw as agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence . FACTS ¶ 2 . O n A u g u st 2 1 , 2 0 0 6 , Je rm a in e N e a l a n d L a k e sh ia C lev e lan d w e re liv in g to g e th e r in S c o b e y , M is s is s ip p i. T w o o f C le v e la n d ’s c h ild re n a ls o liv e d in th e h o m e a t th is tim e : A .B ., w h o w as a p p rox im ately e igh t m o n ths o ld, an d C . D . , ag e n ine. A . B . su p p o sed ly w as N ea l’ s 1
s o n , b u tNe a l r e c e n t l y h a d b e c o me s u s p i c i o u s o f wh e th e rh e r e a l l y wa s A. B. ’ s f a th e r . C. D. h ad a differen t b iolog ical fathe r. O n th is p arti cu lar d ay , M ary L o erk er, the c o u p le’s
n e ig h b o r, p ick e d u p C .D . fro m th e b u s s to p a fte r sc h o o l. W h e n C .D . atte m p ted to g e t in to h is h o u s e , th e w in d o w s a n d d o o rs w e re lo c k e d , w h ich , ac c o rd in g to C .D ., w a s a b n o rm a l. C . D . w entt o L oerker ’ s r es i dence and eve ntual l y f el l as l eep.

### 3

¶3. Shor t l y af

t er1 a. m . on the m orni ng o f A ug ust2 2, 2 00 6, N eal began poundi ng on L o e rk e r’s d o o r, cla im in g th a t “h is b a b y ” w a s d e a d . L o e rk e r c a lled the p o lice . T a llah a tch ie C o u n ty S h e ri ff ’s D e p u ty R o d z in sk y W e e k ly re sp o n d e d to th e d isp a tch . U p o n D e p u ty W e e k ly ’s a rriv a l, N ea l ap p ro a c h e d W e e k ly ’s c a r c a rry in g A .B . H e in fo rm e d D e p u ty W e e k ly thatthe baby’ s m otherw as dead i n thei r hou se. A tthi s poi nt , D eputy W eekl y handcuf f ed N eal and pl ace d hi m i n hi s patr ol car . D eputy W eekl y ent er ed the hom e. H e w i t ness ed a lar g e a m o u n t o f b lo o d o n the m a ste r b e d , a b lo o d trail l e a d in g fro m the m a ste r b e d ro o m to th e b a th ro o m , a n d C lev e lan d ’s d e c a p itate d , n a k e d b o d y flo a tin g in th e b a th tu b . D e p u ty W eekly con t act ed S heri ff W i l l i am B rew er and Invest i gatorB randon H od ges. ¶ 4 . I n v e s t i g a t o rHo d g e s t e s t i f i e d th a twh e n h e a rr i v e d o n th e s c e n e , h e e n t e r e d th e h o me and no t i c e d the b l oo d- s t a i ne d be d, the b l oo d tr a i l t o the b a thr oo m, a b l ue c omf ort e ri n t he bathr oom , and a bott l e of bl eac h nearthe bathtub. H e obs erved thats om eone ha d w r i t t en the
w or ds , “B i t ch t ake c ar e of m y s on” and “Lam e” i n m arkeron the bathr oom w al l . I nves t i gat or H odges r eques t ed as s i s t ance f r om I nves t i gat orW al t erD avi s of the M i s s i s s i ppi B ur eau of I nves t i gat i on. W hen I nves t i gat orD avi s arr i ved, H odges and D avi s goti nt o the bac k s eatof the p at rol car w i th N eal , read N eal his Mir anda ri gh t s, ob t ai ned N eal ’s w ai ver of hi s r i gh t s, a n d re c e iv e d N e a l’ s w ri tte n c o n s e n t to s e a rc h th e re s id e n c e . Se e Mir anda v. Ari z ona , 384 U . S . 4 3 6 , 8 6 S . C t. 1 6 0 2 , 1 6 L . E d . 2 d 6 9 4 (19 6 6 ). ¶5 . T he of

f i c e r s q ue s t i on e d N e a l i n t he patr ol carf oraboutt w ent y m i nut es . N eal
comm uni cat ed thathe had w or ked t he t hr ee- t o- el even p. m . shi f tt hatni ght . H e sa i d thatw hen h e re tu rn e d h o m e , h e fo u n d C lev e lan d ’s b o d y in its p re se n t co n d iti o n , w ith th e b a b y still i n

### 4

hi s cr i b j us tas N eal had l ef thi m bef or e goi ng t o w or k. A f

t erthe i nt ervi ew , Sher i f f B r ew er tr ans por t ed N eal t o t he pol i ce depart m entf orf urtherque s t i oni ng; the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m ent of H um an Servi ces w as contact ed to r et ri eve the tw o ch i l dren. O ff i cers subsequ entl y o btai ned N e a l’s c lo c k -in sh e e t fro m w o rk , w h ich in d ica ted th a t N e a l h a d c lo c k e d in te n m in u te s la te o n the d a te th e m u rd e r o c c u rre d . N e a l’s su p e rv iso r in d ica ted tha t th is w a s h ig h ly u n u su a l, beca us e N eal w as al w ays atw or k ear l y. ¶ 6 . A t th e jail, N e a l g a v e h is p e rm iss io n f o r o ff ic e rs to c o lle c t h is c lo th in g , fin g e rn a il
c lip p in g s, a n d a D N A sw a b . In v e stig a to r H o d g e s n o tice d th a t w h ile N e a l h a d n o b lo o d o n h is out ercl othi ng, ther e w as a bl ood s t ai n on hi s underw ear . T hataf t ernoon, of

f i cer s agai n gave N eal his Mir anda ri g h ts , o b ta in e d N e a l’ s w a iv e r o f h is ri g h ts , a n d q u e s tio n e d h im . See id. A tf i r s t , N eal w as a damantthathe w as noti nvol ved i n the murde r . H ow ever , l at erthatday, he t ol d the of

f i cer s thati f

they w oul d l ethi m us e a pay phone, he w oul d t el l them w her e he putC l evel and’ s head. A ft er usi ng the pay phone , N eal i nf or m ed the of

f i cer s thathe had di s pos ed of

C l evel and’ s head i n G r enada L ake; he agr eed t o s how them t he exa ctl ocat i on. ¶ 7 . D e sp ite N e a l’s in d ica tio n th a t h e w o u ld c o o p e ra te w ith the inv e stig a tio n , h e p ro v e d to b e e v asiv e a b o u t th e loc ati o n o f C leve land ’s he ad , an d itw as n ev er fo u n d . Init ial ly, offi ce rs tr ans por t ed N eal t o a dam atG r enada L ake w her e N eal s ai d he had thr ow n C l evel and’ s head in th e w a ter . B u t w h e n th e in v e stig a to rs to ld N e a l th a t itw o u ld h a v e b e e n im p o ss ib le f o r h im to h a v e th ro w n th e h e a d th a t fa r, N e a l ch a n g e d h is s to ry a n d sa id th a t h e th re w it o ff th e m a in
s pi l l w ay. A f

t erf ai l i ng t o l ocat e C l evel and’ s head ne arthe s pi l l w ay, i nv est i gat or s obt ai ned

### 5

vi deo s ur vei l l ance t apes of the s pi l l w ay f

r om the t i m e i n ques t i on. T he t apes d i d nots how thatN eal had bee n ther e. ¶ 8 . O n th e r id e b a c k to th e s h e riff’s d e p a rtm e n t fro m th e sp ill w a y , In v e stig a to r D a v is ques t i oned N eal f

ur thera nd t ook not es . I nves t i gat orD avi s as ked N eal w hy C l evel and di d not
s truggl e w hi l e s he w as bei ng decapi t at ed. In r es pons e, N eal as ked t o s ee the pad on w hi ch I nves t i gat orD avi s had bee n w r i t i ng. N eal w r ot e on the pad thathe had s hotC l evel and tw i ce in the h ea d b efo re d ec ap it ati n g h er. ¶9. T he n ext af

t ernoon , Invest i gator s D avis a n d H o d g es ag ain g av e N eal his Mir anda
r i ght s , obt ai ned N eal ’ s w ai verof hi s ri gh t s, and per f

or m ed anotheri nt ervi ew , w hi ch w as v id e o ta p e d . See id. D ur i ng thi s i nt ervi ew , N eal t ol d the of f i cer s thathe a nd C l evel and had gone t o B at es vi l l e thatm orni ng. W hen they r eturned home, they l ay dow n f ora nap. N eal
s ai d thatw hi l e C l evel and w as as l eep, he s hothertw i ce, then he r etr i eved a kni f e f r om t he ki t chen a nd cu to ff

h erhead. N eal s ai d thathe putC l evel and’ s decapi t at ed body i ns i de a
c o m fo rte r, d ra g g e d it t o the b a th ro o m , filled the b a th tu b w ith w a ter , p u t C lev e lan d ’s b o d y in to the bathtub, and pour ed bl eac h on i tt o re m ove hi s fi ngerpr i nt s . N eal s t at ed thathe r etr i eved C l evel and’ s head f

r om the bed a nd pl aced iti nt o a bag a l ong w i th the kni f e. I tw as att hat poi ntt hathe w r ot e on t he bathr oom w al l . T hen N eal depart ed; he thr ew the bag c ont ai ni ng C l evel and’ s head i nt o G r enada L ake, di s pos ed of the gun ata cons truct i on s i t e, and cont i nued on t o hi s j ob. ¶10 . W hen asked w hat pr om pted hi m t o m urder C l eveland, N eal respon ded that “i tw as j ust a l otof pr es s ur e. ” N eal s t at ed thatal though he and C l evel and had notbeen a r gui ng on the day

### 6

of the murde r , he had be gun t o sus pectt hatC l evel and w as bei ng unfa i thf ul and t hatt he baby, A . B . , w as nothi s s on. N eal conf es s ed thathe had a t t empt ed t o conce al hi s gui l tof the murde r by s endi ng t extm es s ages f r om C l evel and’ s cel l phone t o C l evel and’ s f r i end’ s cel l phone and f r om hi s ow n cel l phone t o C l evel and’ s cel l phone. Subse quent l y, the pol i ce s ear ched f ort he i t ems N eal dis po sed of , i ncl udi ng dr aggi ng the s pi l l w ay and e m pl oyi ng a di ve t eam. B ut des pi t e se ar chi ng every l ocat i on N eal i dent i f i ed, nei therC l evel and’ s head, t he kni f e, nort he gun w er e eve rr ecove r ed. N o s hel l cas i ngs w er e l ocat ed atthe cr i m e s cene . A N A L Y S IS I . W H ET H ER TH E JU R Y I N STR U C TIO N S FA I LE D TO A D D R ESS EVERY M ATERI AL ELEM ENT I N THE I NDI CTM ENT. ¶ 1 1 . N e a l c laim s th a t a ju ry in stru c tio n o n m u rd e r c o n stru c tiv e ly a m e n d e d th e in d ictm e n t. N eal w as char ged and convi ct ed underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97- 3- 19( 1) ( a) , w hi ch s t at es th a t th e k ill in g o f a h u m a n b e in g w ill b e c o n s id e re d m u rd e r “ [w ]he n d o n e w ith d e lib e ra te d e s ig n to e ff

e c t th e d e a th o f t h e p e rs o n k ille d , o r o f a n y h u m a n b e in g .” M is s . C o d e A n n . § 97- 3- 19( 1) ( a) ( R ev. 2006) . N eal ’ s i ndi ctm entchar ged thatN eal “on oraboutthe 22nd day
o f A u g u st . . . 2 0 0 6 . . . d id w ill fu lly , u n law fu lly , an d fe lo n io u sly d e c a p itate L a k e sh ia C lev e lan d , a h u m a n b e in g ; Je rm a in e N e a l a c ted w ith th e d e lib e ra te d e sig n to e ffe c t th e d e a thB e c a u se d e c a p itatio n is a c e rta in ly d e a d ly a c t w h e n d o n e w ith d e lib e ra te d e sig n to 2 ef f ectthe dea th of

a human bei ng, the i ndi ctm entadequa t el y al l eged thatN eal had ki l l ed C leve land . M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-1 9 (1)(a) (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). W e not e thati n an i ndi ctm entf orhom i ci de, “i ts hal l notbe neces s ary t o setf or t h the 3 m anneri n w hi ch orthe means by w hi ch t he death of the dec eas ed w as caus ed, buti ts hal l be s uf f i ci entt o char ge i n a n i ndi ctm entf orm ur der , thatthe def

endantdi d f

el oni ous l y, w i l l f

ul l y, and of hi s m al i ce af

or ethought , ki l l and m ur dert he dece as ed. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 7- 37 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ). 

### 7 of L akes hi a C l evel and, i n di r ectviol at i on of Sect i on 97- 3- 19( 1) ( a) . ” T he j ury w as 2 3 i ns truct ed thati tcoul d f i nd N eal gui l ty of

murde ri f

i tf ound be yond a r eas onabl e doubtthat N ea l had k il led C leve land w ith the d eli b era te de sign t o effect he r dea th, an d n o t i n n ec essa ry se lf-d e fe n se . T h u s, th e m u rd e r in stru c tio n a llo w e d th e ju ry to re tu rn a v e rd ict o f g u iltif it bel i eved thatN eal had ki l l ed C l evel and i n s om e mannerotherthan by dec api t at i on. ¶12. N eal al s o ar gues thatthe St at e’ s evi dence s how ed thathe ki l l ed C l evel and by s hoot i ng heri n the hea d; ther ef

or e, the evi dence w as i ns uf f i ci entt o enabl e a r at i onal j ury to f i nd beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthathe had ki l l ed C l evel and by deca pit at i on as char ged i n the i ndi ctm ent . I n s upportof thi s c ont ent i on, N eal a ver s thatthe r eportof C l evel and’ s aut ops y, w h ich w as n o t r eq u ested t o be ad m itted into ev iden ce by eith er pa rty , st ates tha t C leve land ’s d e c a p itatio n w a s p o st-m o rte m . E ss e n tially , N e a l co n ten d s th a t th e m u rd e r in stru c tio n sh o u ld have be en r edr af

t ed t o r equi r e a j ury f

i ndi ng thathe had ki l l ed C l evel and by dec api t at i on, and thati f the r edr af

t i ng had b een accom pl i s hed, the evi dence w oul d have e nt i t l ed hi m t o a d ir e c te d v e rd ic t o f a c q u itta l.

### 8

¶13. W e f

i nd that thi s i s s ue i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed; al t ernat i vel y, w e f i nd that the murde r i ns truct i on w as notf

at al l y def

ect i ve f orperm i t t i ng the j ury t o fi nd thatN eal had ki l l ed C l evel and by any method. “Thi s C our thas hel d o n nu m erous occas i ons thatan of f ended p a rt y ' s fa ilu re to o b

je c t to ju ry in s tru c tio n s a t t ri a l p ro c e d u ra lly b a rs th e is s u e o n a p p e a l.” Sm ith v . S ta te , 835 So. 2d 927, 939 ( M i s s . 2002) ( ci t i ng W a lk e r v . S ta te , 729 So. 2d 197, 202 ( M i s s . 1998) ) . N eal di d notobj ectcont empora neous l y t o the gr ant i ng of the j ury i ns truct i on, and he r ai s es t hi s i s s ue f ort he f i r s tt i m e on appe al . N eal ’ s i ndi ctm ental l eged e very es s ent i al el ementof

m ur der ; hi s fa i l ur e t o obj ectt o t he j ury i ns truct i on as c ons truct i vel y amendi ng t he in d ictm e n t w a iv e s th is iss u e o n a p p e a l. R u b e n s te in v. S ta te , 94 1 S o. 2d 73 5, 77 4 (M i ss. 2 0 0 6 ); s ee McD o w e ll v. S ta te , 9 8 4 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 1 2 -10 1 3 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶14 . N otw i thst and i ng the p rocedu ral bar, this is sue is w i tho ut m eri t . “T he m aj or purpo se o f a n in d ictm e n t is to f

u rn ish th e a c c u se d su c h a d e sc rip tio n o f th e c h a rg e s a g a in st h im a s w ill enabl e hi m t o adequat el y pre par e hi s def ens e. ” W

ill ia m s v . S ta te , 44 5 S o. 2d 79 8, 80 4 (M i ss. 1984) ( i nt ernal c i t at i ons omi t t ed) . "[ A ] s a ge ner al rul e, a n i ndi ctm entw hi ch tracks the la n g u a g e o f a c ri m in a l s ta tu te is s u ff ic ie n t to in fo rm th e d e fe n d a n t o f t h e c h a rg e a g a in s t h im ." J o rda n v. S ta te , 995 So. 2d 94, 109 ( M i s s . 2008) ( quot i ng S tev e n s v . S ta te , 808 So. 2d 908, 919 ( M i s s . 2002) ) . I n contr as t , the m ai n “ purpos e of j ury i ns truct i ons i s t o t el l the j ury w hat f act s they have t o f

i nd and w ho has the bur den of pr ovi ng ordi s pr ovi ng thos e f act s . ” H a rr is
v. S ta te , 8 6 1 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 1 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ). ¶15. I n D u

p la n tis v. S ta te , 708 So. 2d 1327, 1343 ( M i s s . 1998) , D upl ant i s w as i ndi ct ed f or f el ony m ur derw hi l e engage d i n the comm i s s i on of a r obbery underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on

### 9

97- 3- 19( 2) ( 3) . D upl ant i s ’ s i ndi ctm entchar ged thathe had ki l l ed the vi ct i m w i th m al i ce a fo re th o u g h t. D u

p la n tis , 708 So. 2d at1343. H ow ever , the f el ony- m ur derst atut e under
w hi ch D upl ant i s w as i ndi ct ed pr es cr i bes t hatthe ki l l i ng have be en done “ w i th orw i thoutany d esig n to effec t th e d ea th.” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-1 9 (2)(e) (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). T w o jury i ns truct i ons tr acke d the l anguage of the f el ony- m ur ders t atut e, thus perm i t t i ng the j ury t o f i nd D u p la n tis g u ilty w ith o u t a fi n d in g th a t h e h a d k ille d w ith m a lic e a fo re th o u g h t. D u p la n tis , 708 So. 2d a t1 34 3. O n a pp e a l , Dupl a nt i s a r gu e d tha tthe j ury i ns truc t i on s “ c on s truc t i ve l y a nd
uncons t i tut i onal l y amended the i ndi ctm entbeca us e they br oaden[ ed] the el ement s of t he
o ff e n s e , th e re b y a llo w in g h im to b e c o n v ic te d o n a g ro u n d n o t a lle g e d b y t h e g r a n d j u ry . ” I d. ¶ 1 6 . T h is C o u rt reje c te d D u p la n tis ’s a rg u m e n t. I d. at13 44 . W e s t a t e d tha ti t w as pe rmi s s i bl e t o a l l e ge de l i be r a t e des i gn i n a f el ony- m ur deri ndi ctm entand thatj ury i ns truct i ons s h o u ld tr a c k th e in d ic tm e n t. I d. a t1343- 44. H ow ever , be caus e i nt entt o ki l l i s notan el ement of f el ony m ur deri n the cour s e of a r obbery, w e hel d thatthe j ury i nstruct i on om i t t i ng t he in d ictm e n t’s in ten t-to -k ill lan g u a g e w a s n o t fata lly d e fe c tiv e . Id. at1344. W e s t at ed,

“ [a]lth o u g h th e in stru c tio n s m a y n o t ac c u ra tely fo llo w th e in d ictm e n t, th e y d o a c c u ra tely f ol l ow the r equi s i t e el ement s of the cr i m e. ” I

d. ¶17. A s i n D u

p la n tis , the m ur deri ns truct i on a ti s s ue i n thi s appea l w as notf at al l y def

ect i ve. N eal ’ s i ndi ctm entchar ged thatN ea l ha d d e c a pi t a t e d Cl e ve l a ndw i th d e l i be r a t e de s i gn t o ef f ect herdeath a nd i n vi ol at i on of s ect i on 97- 3- 19( 1) ( a) . A l though the murde ri ns truct i on di d not
res t ri ctthe j ury t o a f

i ndi ng thatN eal had ki l l ed C l evel and by the met hod al l eged i n t he

### 10

i ndi ctm ent , i tacc ur at el y f ol l ow ed the r equi s i t e el ement s of mur derpr es cr i bed by Sect i on 97- 3 -1 9 (1 )( a ). T h e re fo re , th e m u rd e r in s tru c tio n w a s n o t f a ta lly d e fe c tiv e . D u

p la n tis , 708 So. 2 d a t 1 3 4 4 . T h is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. I I . W HET HER THE VOI R D I RE P ROCE S S P RE J UDI CE D T HE J URY A G A I N S T N E A L A N D D E N I E D H I M A F A I R J U R Y T R I A L . ¶18. N eal ar gues that thr ee err or s occurr ed dur i ng the voi r di r e pr oces s that deni ed hi m t he
r i ghtt o a f

ai rand i m part i al j ury. A
. W hetherN eal w as prej udi ced by “i m pl i ci tcom m uni cat i on” f r om the tr i alcour tt o the ve ni r e. ¶19. T he tr i al court as ked the m ember s of the veni r e t o i ndi cat e i f they had had any type of
con t actor r el at i on sh i p w i th N eal t hat w ou l d p recl ud e t hem fr om being fai r- m i nd ed jur ors. N ine v en ir e p erso n s ind icated that they co u ld n o t be fa iran d im p arti al. T h e trial co u rt i nf or m ed ea ch of

the ni ne thathe ors he w oul d notbe r equi r ed t o ans w erany f ur ther q u esti o n s. A ft er v o ird ir e, all nine w ere ex clud ed fr o m the ju ry. N ea l argu es th at th e jud g e’s i ns truct i on of

eac h of

the ni ne veni r e per s ons nott o ans w erany f ur therques t i ons “comm uni cat ed i m pl i ci t l y t o the otherpa nel mem ber s i f they w ant ed t o s t ay on the j ury, t hey
s h o u ld b e c a u tio u s in g iv in g a n y re s p o n s e th a t m ig h t in d ic a te p re -j u d g m e n t.” ¶2 0 . T h e trial ju d g e h as a d u ty t o en su re “tha t a co m p eten t, fai r and i m p a rtial ju ry is empanel ed. ” T

ig h e v . Cro sth w a it , 665 So. 2d 1337, 1339 ( M i s s . 1995) . M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 13- 5- 79 s t at es thata j ur or“s hal l be exc l uded . . . i f the courtbe of

the opi ni on thathe
cann ot try the case im part i al l y, and the ex cl usi on shal l no tbe assi gn able f o r error. ” M i ss. C ode A nn. § 13- 5- 79 ( R ev. 20 02 ). T his C ourtw i l l pr es um e thatthe voi rdi r e pr oces s us ed

### 11

attr i al w as “ s uf

f i ci entt o ens ur e a f

ai rand i m part i al j ury. ” R o ss v. S ta te , 954 So. 2d 968, 988 ( M i s s . 2007) . A def

endantm us t“p res entevi dence i ndi cat i ng thatthe j ury w as notf ai rand i m part i al and s how thatpr ej udi ce r es ul t ed f r om the ci r cui tc our t ' s ha ndl i ng of the voi rdi r e” in o rd e r t o re b u t th a t p re s u m p tio n . Id . ( ci t i ng Ma n n in gv . S ta te , 735 So . 2d 32 3, 336 (M i ss. 1 9 9 9 )). “ A trial c o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t th e ju ry is im p a rtial w ill n o t b e o v e rtu rn e d b y th is C o u r ta b s e n ta n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . T h i s C o u r tw i l l tr e a tw i th d e f e r e n c e a v e n i r e p e r s o n 's
as s ert i ons of

i m part i al i ty. ” Id . ( ci t i ng Ho lla n d v. S ta te , 7 0 5 S o . 2 d 3 0 7 , 3 3 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 )). ¶21 . B ecause N eal did no t obj ect t o the tri al cou rt ’s st at em ent du ri ng the vo i r dir e process, th is is s u e is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . See Mo o d y v. S ta te , 8 4 1 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 7 , 1 0 7 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ). A l t ernat i vel y, thi s i s s ue i s w i thoutm er i t . N eal ci t es no author i ty f orhi s pr opos i t i on thatthe tr i al j udge’ s act i ons w er e i nappr opr i at e, nordoes he ci t e any e vi dence i n the r ecor d t hat ind icates the jury w as p rejud iced ag ains t him . Ind ee d , the re co rd ev ince s th at th e tr ial co u rt appr opr i at el y st ruck al l ni ne veni r e per s ons due t o thei rexpl i ci ti nabi l i ty t o f unct i on as i m part i al m ember s of

the j ury. B
. W hetherJur orA r dis L ee Jones s hould have be en ex cus ed fro m th e ju ry b e c a u se o f h is p o o r e

y e sig h t. ¶22. A f

t erthe oath w as admi ni s t er ed t o the j ur or s butbef or e the tr i al began, J ur orA r di s L ee J ones i nf or m ed the j udge t hathi s eyes i ghtw as poor and thati thad af f ect ed hi s abi l i ty t o r ead. T h e fo llo w in g e x c h a n g e o c c u rre d : T h e C o u rt: G e n tlem a n , I d o n ’t k n o w w h a t to d o b u t to su b stitu te a n a ltern a te juro r. I ask ed the w h o le pa n el th is m o rnin g if they co u ld rea d or w ri te. I did n ’t as k any of

them i f they coul dn’ ts ee w el l enough t o r ead.

### 12

M r. B arn ett[cou n sel for N ea l] : O f co u rse, Y o u r H o n o r, the in stru cti o n s are g o i n g t o b e r e a d t o h i m. T he C our t : T hey w i l l be. M r . B arnett : B y the C our t , a nd I don’ tknow w hate l s e he m i ghtne ed t o r ead thatm ay come i nt o evi dence butI bel i eve he s ai d – can you s ee me? Ju ro r A rd is L e e Jo n e s: Y e s s ir, I h a v e re a l b a d e y e sig h t. M r . B arnett : I hope thathe mi ghtcoul d – T he C our t : L et ’ s j us tki nd of s ee how t he evi dence fl ow s . I don’ tknow w hat th e e v i d e n c e i s g o i n g t o b e o th e rth a n th e i n s tru c t i o n s o f l a w. M r . Ch a mp i o n [ p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o rn e y ] : Yo u rh o n o r , we a r e g o i n g t o h a v e s o me p h o to g ra p h s. W e a re g o in g to h a v e tw o v id e o tap e s th a t ar e p re tty im p o rta n t. I don’ tknow i f

he’ l l be abl e t o – the j ur orcan a ns w eri f w hetherornothe can s ee w el l enough. T he C ou rt : L et ’s st artito ut this w ay. L et ’s leth i m try and I am go i ng t o ask you ats om e poi nti n t i m e i f you ar e se ei ng everythi ng t hatyou need t o s ee l i ke thes e vi deos . W e have gottw o al t ernat e j ur or s . Y ou know , i f you can’ ts ee, w e’ l l – I ’ l l excus e you. ¶23. A f

t er the phot ogr aphi c evi dence had been pr es ent ed, the tr i al j udge as ked J ur orJ ones if h e co u ld se e the p h o tog rap h s. Ju ror Jo n es a n sw ere d in the affirm ati v e. Im m ed iat ely b efo re g iv in g th e ju ry in stru c tio n s, th e trial ju d g e a g a in a sk e d Ju ro r Jo n e s if h e h a d b e e n a b le to fu lly
se e a ll ev id e n c e p re se n ted th ro u g h o u t th e trial. Ju ro r Jo n e s in d ica ted th a t h e h a d b e e n a b le to se e it. ¶24. N eal ar gues thath e w as prej ud i ced by the i nclusi on o f Jur or J ones on the j ur y, r eas oni ng that“once the j ur ori s i nt o the evi dence , i ncl udi ng hear i ng the vi deo conf es s i on .

. . h e wi l l s a y h e h a d n o tr o u b l e s e e i n g . ” Ho we v e r , th e e x c e rp to f th e tr a n s c r i p ta b o v e s h o ws

### Juror Dungan began thetria l a s an alte rnatejuror, but l at er wa s subs ti tut ed for

a j uror 4 

### wh o w as excu sed b ecause o f her emo tion al reactionto th is case. 13 thatN eal ’ s at t orney di d notre ques tt he subs t i tut i on of an al t ernat e j ur oror obj ecti n any w ay to Ju ro r Jo n e s’s p re se n c e o n th e jur y . B e c a u se N e a l did n o t o b jec t, th is iss u e is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . See Moody , 8 4 1 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 7 5 . A lt ern ati v ely, w e n o te th at no thing in the rec o rd
s ubs t ant i at es N eal ’ s w hol l y s pecul at i ve ar gum entthatJ ur orJ ones m i s r epr es ent ed hi s vi s ual
a b ili ties to th e trial c o u rt.

C
. W hether du ri ng voi rdi r e the par t i es w er e al l ow ed to def i ne r eas on ab l e dou bt

, a nd whe the ra j ur orwas f

ou nd to be c on

f us e d, yet w as nots tr i cke n. ¶ 2 5 . N e x t, N e a l cla im s th a t co m m e n ts b y th e p ro se c u to r a n d b y h is o w n c o u n se l im p ro p e rly def i ned r eas onabl e doubt , and thatthe tr i al courts houl d have s tr i cken J ur orN orr i s D ungan, w ho w as conf

us ed by thes e comm ent s . N eal t akes i s s ue w i th t he f ol l ow i ng comm ent s by t he 4 St at e: Q : N ow , i n M i s s i s s i ppi , w e d o no tg i ve def i ni t i ons of

r eas onabl e doubtand w hatI l i ke t o t el l peopl e, r eas onabl e doubti s w hatyou hearfr om the evi dence , w hatl aw i s gi ven t o you by J udge B aker , and yourcomm on s ens e. Y ou t ake thos e thr ee t hi ngs and you putthem al l t ogetherand you ca n r eac h a dec i s i on on a cas e. O kay? T hat ’ s w hatI def i ne r eas onabl e doubtas . B utJ udge B aker is n o t g o in g to tell y o u th is is th e law in M iss iss ip p i o n rea so n a b le d o u b t. Itis s om ethi ng thatyou, eac h, i ndi vi dual l y, m us tdeci de on yourow n. T her e ar e s om e peopl e t hatsay, “M r . C hampi on, I w antt o m ake you pr ove your cas e beyond a l l doubt . ” I s t her e anybody i n here t hat’ s goi ng t o m ake me do thatbeca us e i f

you do, you ar e hol di ng m e t o a hi ghers t andar d than the l aw r equi r es . B eyond a r eas onabl e doubti s the l egal s t andar d. I s ther e anybody th a t’s g o in g to m a k e m e p ro v e m y c a se b e y o n d a ll d o u b t?

### 14

J ur orD ungan i ndi cat ed thathe w oul d hol d t he St at e t o a “be yond- al l
- doubt ” s t andar d. W hen anotherveni r e per s on as ked w hatr eas onabl e doubtw as , the pr os ecut ors t at ed: W hati s m y def

i ni t i on? M y def

i ni t i on r eal l y does n’ tm att erunf or tunat el y. I bet m i ne and M r . Barnett ’ s de f i ni t i on i s di f

f er ent . I ti s j us ts om ethi ng thatyou have gott o deci de i n your ow n m i nd once you hearthe evi dence . A nd I w i s h I can – I s om et i m es hes i t at e aboutas ki ng thi s ques t i on beca us e typi cal l y s om ebody i s goi ng t o as k m e w hati s t he defi ni t i on of beyond a r eas onabl e doubtas o p p o se d to b e y o n d a ll d o u b t an d I re a lly c a n ’t g iv e it t o y o u . I alw a y s lik e to s ay, w el l , w hen you ar e f i nal l y convi nced one w ay ort he ot heri s the bes tw ay I c a n d e sc rib e it. D efe n se c o u n sel t o ld the jury p o o l th at “I’ve alw ay s tho u g h t a reaso n ab le do u b t, the w o rd ‘re a so n a b le’ is re a so n a b le. It i s a b le to b e a rriv e d a t th ro u g h re a so n . T h a t is a d o u b t th a t is
a b le to b e a rr iv e d a t th ro u g h re a s o n in g .” ¶26. N eal r ef

er ence s the f

ol l ow i ng e xchange a s e vi dence thatthe tr i al courtr ecogni zed that J ur orD ungan w as conf

us ed aboutt he r eas onabl e- doubtst andar d, yetre f us ed t o str i ke hi m f

or caus e: T h e C o u rt: I m a rk e d o n N o . 1 8 5 [D u n g a n ] ab o u t all y o u r d o u b t an d re a so n a b le doubt , J ohn [ C hampi on] . I ne verknow w hen the j ur orr eal l y under s t ands the f i ne l i nes thata l aw yerdoes . A r e you goi ng t o as k thathe be di s m i s s ed? M r . C hampi on: Pr obabl y not . T o be hones tw i th you, i f I need t o getri d of him , I’ l l use on e of m y st ri kes. T h e C o u rt: B e c a u se I w a s g o in g to g iv e M r. B a rn e tt a ch a n c e to r e h a b ilita te h im if y o u w e re g o in g to strik e h im b e c a u se o fte n tim e s I th in k a ju ro r g e ts c o n fu se d o n th a t re a so n a b le d o u b t. M r. B a rn e tt: I th o u g h t Jo h n w o u ld a llo w h im to sta y o n the ju ry ju st s o it w o u ld b e e v e n , y o u k n o w . Ju st s p o rt s m a n s h ip , y o u k n o w . I m e a n , d u rin g th e trial, J o h n c o u l d tr y t o r e h a b i l i t a t e h i m.

### 15

¶27. N eal ’ s f

ai l ur e t o obj ectt o the pr os ecut or ’ s c om m ent s dur i ng voi rdi r e r ender s thi s i s s ue p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d . K

in gv. S ta te , 6 1 5 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 2 , 1 2 0 5 (M iss . 1 9 9 3 ). A ltern a tiv e ly , this i s s ue i s w i thoutm er i t . T hi s C our tr epea t edl y has hel d thatthe gene r al di s cus s i on of the
c o n c e p t o f r e a s o n a b le d o u b t b y c o u n s e l d u ri n g v o ird ir e is n o t o b je c tio n a b le . See K

ennedy
v . S ta te , 7 66 So. 2d 64, 65 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2000) ( ci t i ng T h o rn e v. S ta te , 34 8 So . 2d 1011, 1013- 15 ( M i s s . 1977) ) . Fur therm or e, thi s C our thas f ound s i m i l arc om m ent s t o thos e ati s s ue i n thi s cas e “t o be unobj ect i onabl e s o l ong as re as onabl e doubti s notdef i ned w hen t he tr i al
courti ns truct s the j ury. ” S im o n v. S ta te , 8 5 7 S o . 2 d 6 6 8 , 69 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ). T h e jury i ns truct i on s i n thi s cas e pr oper l y om i t t ed any de f i ni t i on of

r eas onabl e doubt . T her e i s no ind icati o n th at th e p rese n ce of Juro r D u n g an p rejud iced N ea l; in fac t, itap p ea rs th at N ea l’ s couns el f avor ed J ur orD ungan’ s pr es ence on the j ury. N ordoes i tappea rf r om the r ecor d that N eal ’ s j ury w as anythi ng butthe i m part i al and f ai rj ury t hatthi s C our tpr es um es w as pr oduced by the v oirdir e process. I I I . W HETH ER THE TRI AL CO UR T ERRED BY FAI LI NG TO CH ANG E THE VENUE O F THE TRI AL. ¶ 2 8 . N e a l co n ten d s th a t h e w a s “ d e n ied a fa ir trial b e c a u se th e ju d g e a n d th e ju ry p o o l all knew s uf

f i ci enti nf or m at i on aboutt he highl y publ i ci zed a nd natur al l y att ent i on- gr abbi ng d e c a p itatio n m u rd e r.” H e a rg u e s th a t h e w a s e n tit led to a c h a n g e o f v e n u e . A s th e S tate p o in ts o u t, N e a l n e v e r m o v e d fo r a ch a n g e o f v e n u e , n o r d id h e ev e n m in im a lly co m p ly w ith th e sta tu to ry r e q u ire m e n ts. “ [A ]n a p p lica tio n fo r c h a n g e o f v e n u e m u st c o n fo rm stric tly to the s t a tut e. ” B a ldw in v. S ta te , 732 So. 2d 236, 241 ( M i s s . 1999) . T he governi ng s t atut e,

### 16

M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 99- 15- 35, r equir es thatthe pr i s onerm ake a s w orn, w r i t t en appl i cat i on s uppor t ed by the af f i davi t s of atl eas ttw o cr edi bl e per s ons att es t i ng t o t he f actt hat the p ri soner w i l l be u nab l e t o recei ve a fai r and i m part i al tri al i n the co un ty w here the o ff ense i s char ged bec aus e of

pr etr i al publ i ci ty or i l l w i l l t ow ar d t he def endantby the gene r al publ i c. M i s s . Co d e An n . § 9 9
- 1 5 - 3 5 ( Re v . 2 0 0 7 ) . “ [ T] h e d e f e n d a n ti s r e q u i r e d t o ma k e s o me s h o w in g b y te s tim o n y o f l o c a l c itiz e n s th a t h e c a n n o t r e c e iv e a f a irtr ia l in th e c o m m u n ity .” Ir v in gv. S ta te , 498 So. 2d 305, 320 ( M i s s . 1986). B eca us e N eal neverappl i ed f ora change
o f v e n u e in th e trial c o u rt, h e is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d fro m ra isin g th is a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l. W ilso n v. S ta te , 7 9 7 S o . 2 d 2 7 7 , 2 8 4 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 1 ). I V. W HET HER THE T RI AL COUR T E RRE D I N NOT CONDUCT I NG AN E XA M I NA T I ON F OR I M P RO P E R I NF L UE NC E W HE N A J UR OR LE F T T HE COUR TR OOM W I THOUT P ER M I S S I ON. ¶29 . D ur i ng the S t at e’s exam i nati on of I nv est i gatorD avis , a j ur orl ef tthe courtr oom w i thout p e rm iss io n . T h e fo llo w in g ex c e rp t i s th e o n ly m e n tio n o f th e in c id e n t fo u n d in th e re c o rd : A : [ by D avi s , i n re s pons e t o a quest i on fr om t he St at e] Y es , s i r , that ’ s the r i ght f o r m. (Juro r l eft co u rtroo m ). B a ilif f: S h e d id n ’t h o ld h e r h a n d u p , J u d g e . T he C our t : G o l ook f

orherand s ee w hat ’ s w r ong. (B ri ef rec ess). B y M r . C hampi on: ( cont i nui ng)

### 17

T he St at e then cont i nued i t s exami nat i on of D avi s . N eal di d notobj ector r eques ta hear i ng t o as cert ai n w hetherornotthe j ur orhad bee n i m pr oper l y i nf l uence d. O n appeal , N eal ar gues t h a tth e tr i a l j u d g e e r r e d b y f a i l i n g t o i n q u i r e wh e th e rth e j u r o rh a d b e e n s u b j e c t e d t o s o me in a p p ro p ria te p re ss u re w h ile o u tsid e o f th e b a ili ff’s c o n tro l. ¶ 3 0 . “ Th i s Co u r t . . . ‘ p r e s u me s th a t j u r o r s f o l l o w th e i n s tru c t i o n s o f th e c o u r t . To p r e s u me otherw i s e w oul d be t o r enderthe j ury s ys t em i noper abl e. ’ ” Mo o re v. S ta te , 787 So. 2d 1282, 129 1 (M i ss. 2 00 1) ( quot i ng P u c k e tt v. S ta te , 7 3 7 S o . 2 d 3 2 2 , 3 4 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 )). U n if o rm C i r cui tand C ounty C our tR ul e 3. 06 makes c l earthat : “ [ j ] ur or s a r e notperm i t t ed t o m i x and
m i ngl e w i th the att orneys, part i es , w i tnes s es and s pect at or s i n the courtr oom , corr i dor s , or re stro o m s in th e c o u rth o u se . T h e c o u rt m u st in stru c t ju ro rs th a t th e y a re to a v o id a ll co n tac ts
w i th the att orneys , pa r t i es , w i tnes s es ors pect at or s . ” A ccor di ngl y, a f t erthe j ury w as s w or n, th e tr i a l c o u r ti n f

o r me d th e m: Shoul d a ny on e a pp r oa c h y ou , don’ tengage i n conver s at i on w i th anyone. Y o u are req u ir ed t o m ak e y o u r dec isi o n ba sed on th e e v iden ce p rese n ted h ere i n the courtr oom a nd i ns truct i ons of l aw thatI gi ve t o you t o f ol l ow . A nythi ng e ls e w o u ld b e im p ro p e r. If y o u a re ta lk in g to p e o p le a ro u n d th e h a ll w a y s [s ic ], o n the e leva tor, p ark ing lot, so m eb o d y ’s g o in g to rep o rtthat to m e a n d I’m g o ing to h av e to re ce ss a tri al an d b ri n g y o u in an d co n d u ct a h ea ri n g an d try to d e ter m in e if a n y b o d y , N o . 1 , h a s d o n e a n y th in g im p ro p e r a n d if so , h a s it af f ect ed s om eone’ s r i ght . So, i f you j us tki nd of

hang by your s el f

f orthe next d a y o r so , itw ill b e th e b e st w a y to h a n d le th a t. F o r in sta n c e , w e are g o in g to re c e s s fo r l u n c h in a fe w m in u te s a n d y o u ’l l b e o n y o u r o w n . T her e is n othi ng i n the r ecor d t o over come t he pr es um pt i on thatthe j ur orf ol l ow ed the tr i al
c o u rt’ s instruc ti o n s n o t t o tal k to an y o n e. M o reo v er, i t app ea rs th at th e b ail if f p ro m p tly f ol l ow ed the j ur orf

r om the courtr oom ; pr es um abl y, i f the bai l i f

f had s een the j ur or

### 18

comm uni cat i ng w i th s om eone out s i de the courtr oom , he w oul d have i nf or m ed the tr i al j udge,
w ho then w oul d have conduct ed a hea r i ng on the mat t er . N eal di d notr eques ta hea r i ng, nor di d he r eques tthata r ecor d be m ade on a nythi ng thattr ans pi r ed dur i ng the r ece s s conce r ni ng th e ju ro r. T h is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. V. W HE T HE R H E AR S AY T E S T I M ON Y D E NI E D N E AL HI S RI GHT T O C O N F R O N T A T I O N . ¶ 3 1 . N e a l a ss e rts th a t th e S ta te e lic ite d im p e rm iss ib le h e a rsa y tes tim o n y tw ice d u rin g its
c a s e - i n - c h i e f

. F i r s t , Ne a l ’ s n e i g h b o r , L o e rk e r , t e s t i f i e d th a twh e n Cl e v e l a n d ’ s s o n , C. D. , c a me b a c k to h e r h o u se , h e c o m p lain e d to h e r th a t “h is b e d ro o m w in d o w w a s lo c k e d a n d h e c o u ld hearhi s baby br othercryi ng i ns i de b utnobody w oul d ans w erthe doororl ethi m i n and he
s ai d, ‘ thats eems odd. M y w i ndow i s neverl ocked. ’ ” S econd, D et ect i ve H odges t es t i f i ed that he b el i eved the eight -m on th-ol d h ad been i n his cr i b si nce aroun d three o’ cl ock p. m . becau se C . D . ha d be en t o the hom e, ha d he ar d the baby cryi ng, a nd ha d r eturned t o Loer ker ’ s hom e. ¶32. N eal cl ai m s thathi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o c onf r ontthe w i tnes s es a gai ns thi m w as v iolated b y the a d m issi o n o f th ese tw o stat em en ts i n v iolati o n o f Cr aw f or d v. W as hington , 5 4 1 U .S . 3 6 , 1 2 4 S . C t. 13 5 4 , 1 5 8 L . E d . 2 d 1 7 7 (2 0 0 4 ). A s N e a l d id n o t co n tem p o ra n e o u sly
o b jec t to th e a d m iss io n o f e ith e r o f th e se s tate m e n ts, h e fa iled to p re se rv e th is iss u e fo r a p p e a l. B o y d v. S ta te , 977 So. 2d 329, 337 ( M i s s . 2008) . H ow ever , “[ u] nderthe pl ai n- err ordoctr i ne, w e ca n r ecogni ze obvi ous err orw hi ch w as notpr oper l y r ai s ed by the def endanton appea l , and
w hi ch af f ect s a de f endant ’ s ‘ f

undament al , s ubs t ant i ve r i ght . ’ ” Sm ith v. S ta te , 986 So. 2d 290, 29 4 (M i ss. 20 0 8 ). T his C ou rthas held that a vi olat i on of the C on fr on t at i on C l ause i s a

### 19

vi ol at i on of a “f

undament al , s ubs t ant i ve r i ght . ” I d. T o s how pl ai n err or , N eal m us tpr ove that t he i nc l us i on of

the s t a t e ment s “ s e r i ou s l y a f f e c t s the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty o rpu bl i c r e put at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” U nite d State s v. O lano , 507 U . S. 725, 732, 113 S. C t . 1770, 1776, 123 L . E d. 2d 508, 518 ( 1993) . “To det erm i ne i f pl ai n err orha s oc curr ed, w e mustdet erm i ne ‘i f the tr i al cou rthas deviat ed fr om a l egal rule, w hetherthat errori s pl ai n, cl ear orob vious, and w hetherthe err orha s pr ej udi ced the out come of the tr i al . ’ ” Mc G e e v. S ta te , 953 S o. 2d 2 1 1 , 2 1 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). ¶33. H ear s ay i s def

i ned as “a s t at ement . . . off ered i n evi dence t o pr ove the truth of t he
m att eras s ert ed. ” M i s s . R . E vi d. 8 01 (c) . L oerker ’ s t es t i m ony aboutw hatC . D . s ai d w as i ndeed he ar s ay beca us e i tw as of f er ed t o pr ove the truth of the m att era s s ert ed, w hi ch w as t hat atthe t i m e C . D . arr i ved home, he coul d notgeti ns i de bec aus e no one a ns w er ed the door , and h is w in d o w , alth o u g h o rd in a rily o p e n , w a s lo c k e d . M iss . R . E v id . 8 0 1 (c ). T h e se fa c ts s uppor t ed the pr os ecut i on’ s t heory t hatN eal ki l l ed C l evel and and t hen al t er ed the cr i m e s cene a n d lo c k e d th e w in d o w s b e fo re h e w e n t to w o rk ; th e p ro se c u to r re fe re n c e d th e se fa c ts in
c lo s in g a rg u m e n t in s u p p o rt o f t h is th e o ry . ¶ 3 4 . H o w e v e r, L o e rk e r’s h e a rsa y tes tim o n y d id n o t vio late N e a l’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h t, b e c a u s e o n ly te s ti m o n ia l h e a rs a y is c a p a b le o f v io la tin g th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. Craw ford , 541 U . S. at68. W hi l e the C our ti n Craw ford de cl i ned t o pr ovi de a “ compre hens i ve def i ni t i on o f ‘te stim o n ial,’” it s ta te d th a t “ [w ]ha tev e r e lse th e ter m c o v e rs, it ap p lies a t a m in im u m to pr i ort es t i m ony ata pr el i m i nary hear i ng, bef or e a gr and j ury, or ata form ert r i al ; and t o pol i ce i nt err ogat i ons , . . . the moder n pr act i ces w i th cl os es tki ns hi p t o the abus es at w hi ch the

### 20

C onf r ont at i on Cl aus e w as di r ect ed. ” I d. In the C our t ’ s anal ys i s , i tart i cul at ed that

“‘ [ t ] es t i m ony, ’ . . . i s typ i cal l y ‘a s ol emn decl ar at i on oraf f i r m at i on m ade f

orthe purpos e of
es t abl i s hi ng orpr ovi ng s om e f act . ’ A n acc us erw ho m akes a f or m al s t at ementt o governm ent of f i cer s bear s t es t i m ony i n a s ens e thata per s on w ho m akes a ca s ual rem ark t o an acqua i nt ance does not . ” Craw ford , 541 U . S. at51 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T he C our tf ur thers t at ed th a t: V ar i ous f

orm ulat i ons of

thi s cor e cl as s of

“t es t i m oni al ” s t at ement s exi s t : “ex part e in- courtt es t i m ony ori t s f unct i onal equi val entthati s , m at er i al s uch as af f i davi t s , cus t odi al exami nat i ons , pr i ort es t i m ony thatthe def end ant w as u n a b le to c ro ss -e x a m in e , o r sim ilar p re trial s ta te m e n ts th a t d e c lar a n ts w o u ld re a s o n a b ly e x p e c t to b e u s e d p ro s e c u to ri a lly ,” “ e x tr a ju d ic ia l s ta te m e n ts . . . con t ai ned i n form al i zed tes t i m on i al m at eri al s, such as a ffi d av i t s, dep osi t i on s, pr i ort es t i m ony, orconf es s i ons , ”. . . “s t at ement s thatw ere m ade unde r ci r cumst ance s w hi ch w oul d l ead a n obj ect i ve w i tnes s r eas onabl y t o bel i eve that th e s ta te m e n t w o u ld b e a v a ila b le fo r u s e a t a la te r t ri a l.” I d. at 51 -52 (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶35. A ppl yi ng Craw

ford , this C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t “ a s ta te m e n t is te stim o n ial w h e n it is gi ven t o the pol i ce ori ndi vi dual s w or ki ng i n connec t i on w i th t he pol i ce f orthe purpos e of pr os ecut i ng the ac cus ed. ” Ho bg o o d v. S ta te , 9 2 6 S o . 2 d 8 4 7 , 8 5 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). C . D . ’s
s t at ement s t o L oerkerw er e notm ade f orany pr os ecut or i al purpos e; i n fa ct , nei therC . D . nor L o erk er e v en k n ew o f C leve land ’s de ath a t th e tim e the s tat em en t w as m ad e. L o erk er’s t es t i m ony aboutC . D . ’ s comm ent s bor e no r e s e mbl a nc e t o the c or e cl as s of t es t i m oni al hear s ay i dent i f i ed i n Craw

ford . T h e re fo re , w e fin d tha t i t w a s n o n tes tim o n ial, a n d it d id n o t im p lica te N eal ’ s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtorthe pl ai n- err ordoctr i ne.

### 21

¶36. N orw as the pl ai n- err ordoctr i ne i m pl i cat ed by Inve s t i gat orH odges ’ s t es t i m ony. T hat t es t i m ony w as nothear s ay, and t hus a hea r s ay obj ect i on t o the t es t i m ony pr oper l y w oul d have b e e n o v e rru led . In v e stig a to r H o d g e s’s tes tim o n y w a s re sp o n siv e to q u e stio n s fr o m th e S tate as t o w hy he cont act ed the D epart m entof H um an Servi ces t o pi ck up the chi l dren f r om t he
s cene . I nves t i gat orH odges r es ponded thathe di d s o be caus e the mot herw as dead, the f ather
wa s wi th p o l i c e , a n d th e b a b y h a d b e e n l e f ti n th e c r i b f

o ra n e x t e n d e d p e r i o d o f t i me . He expl ai ned thathe had concl uded thatthe baby had bee n i n hi s cr i b s i nce the af t ernoon bas ed on the i nf

or m at i on pr ov i ded to him by L oerkerthatC . D . had hea r d the baby c ryi ng t hat af t ernoon. I nves t i gat orH odges ’ s t es t i m ony w as notel i ci t ed t o prove thatt he baby i n fa cthad been c ryi ng thataf

t ernoon, butonl y t o expl ai n Inve s t i gat orH odges ’ s deci s i on t o proc eed a s he di d r egar di ng t he chi l dr en. T hus , t hi s t es t i m ony w as notoff er ed t o prove t he t ruth of the
m a tte r a s s e rt e d , a n d it is n o t c o n s id e re d h e a r s a y . R u b e n ste in , 9 4 1 S o . 2 d a t 7 6 4 ; N eal v. S ta te , 8 0 5 S o . 2 d 5 2 0 , 5 2 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). VI . W HE T HE R N E AL RE CE I VE D I NE F F E CT I VE AS S I S T AN CE OF CO UNSEL . ¶ 3 7 . W ith n e w a p p e llate c o u n se l, N e a l l ists e ig h t alleg a tio n s o f in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e b y h is trial c o u n se l. W e q u o te th is list, v e rb a tim : 1. [ def ens e couns el ] p r om i s ed i n openi ng i ntruder s had ki l l ed Lakes hi a and thr eat ened N eal i f

he t ol d i nves t i gat or s , butneveragai n t ouched on t hi s s ubj ect a t all; 2. f ai l ed t o obj ectt o Cr aw

f or d v. W as hington hear s ay use d t o devel op m ot i ve and cul pabi l i ty;

### 22

3. f ai l ed t o cr os s - exami ne w i tnes s es on the cr i m e s cene t o devel op s uppor tf or pos t - m or t em decapi t at i on and us e aut ops y concl udi ng s uch; 4. fai l ed to objectt o j ury i nst ruct i on that did noti nclude decap i t at i on and cau se of death; 5 . faile d to m o v e fo r a c h a n g e o f v e n u e ; 6. f ai l ed t o cal l N eal t o t es t i f y i n s uppor tof

i ntruderdef

ens e; 7 . faile d to m a k e tim e ly o b jec tio n s a n d d e m a n d a d v e rse ru lin g s fr o m th e c o u rt; 8 . fa ile d to re q u e s t le s s e r i n c lu d e d m a n s la u g h te r a n d m u tila tio n in s tru c tio n s . ¶38. T he St at e ar gues that N eal ’ s i nef f ect i ve- as s i s t ance - of

- couns el cl ai m cannot be r ai s ed on di r ectappea l beca us e the cl ai m s are i ncapa bl e of s how i ng def

i ci entper f

or m ance bas ed upon the “f

ourcorner s of

the r ecor d. ” Mc G re

g o ry v . S ta te , 979 So. 2d 12, 21 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2008) . M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 22( b) s t at es that“[ i ] s sues w hi ch may be raised in p o st- co n v ict ion p roc ee d ing s m ay also b e raised o n d ir ec t app ea l i f suc h issue s are bas ed on f

act s f ul l y appar entf

r om the r ecor d. ” B uti f

“t he appe l l anti s r epr es ent ed by couns el
w ho di d notr epr es entthe appe l l ant attr i al , the f ai l ur e t o r ai s e s uch i s s ues on di r ectappea l
s h a ll c o n s titu te a w a iv e r b a rr in g c o n s id e ra tio n o f t h e is s u e s in p o s t- c o n v ic tio n p ro c e e d in g s .” Id . ¶ 3 9 . T h e c o m m e n t m o re fu lly e x p lain s th a t: R ul e 22( b) al l ow s the appe l l antt o r ai s e pos t - convi ct i on i s s ues on di r ectappea l w h e re th e iss u e s a re fu lly a p p a re n t fro m th e re c o rd o f th e trial, a n d fa ilu re to r ai s e s uch is sues cons t i tut es a w ai ver . U nderthi s pr ovi s i on, i s s ues s uch as cl ai m s of

i nef f ect i ve assi st ance of

couns el f

orf ai l ur e t o obj ectt o evi dence o ffe re d b y th e sta te o r to a rg u m e n t b y th e sta te m u st b e ra ise d o n d ire c t ap p e a l. O t her post
- convi ct i on i s s ues w hi ch ca nnotbe r ai s ed atthe t i m e of appea l

### 23

beca us e they i nvol ve ac t i ons ori nact i on out s i de t he r ecor d ar e notw ai ved s i nce they ca nnotpr act i cal l y be r ai s ed w i thoutf ur therde vel opm entori nves t i gat i on. M iss . R . A p p . P . 2 2 c m t.; s ee al s o H a v a rdv. S ta te , 9 2 8 S o . 2 d 7 7 1 , 7 8 2 -84 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). ¶4 0. T hi s C our tal s o has det a i l e d the a pp r op r i a t e s t andar ds of r evi ew and t es t s f

or d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a d e fe n d a n t h a s re c e iv e d in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l:
a def endantmustpr ove thathi s a t t orney' s pe r f or m ance w as de f

i ci ent , a nd that th e d e fic ien c y w a s s o su b s ta n tia l as to d e p riv e th e d e fe n d a n t o f a fa ir trial. Str i ckland v. W

as hington , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 -6 9 6 , 8 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 7 4 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 2 0 5 2 (1 9 8 4 ); W

ilch e r v . S ta te , 4 7 9 S o . 2 d 7 1 0 , 7 1 3 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 ); Strin ger v. S ta te , 454 S o. 2d 468, 477 ( M i s s . 1984) . T hi s C our tl ooks atthe t ot al i ty of ci r cumst ance s t o det erm i ne w hethercounsel ' s ef f or t s w er e both def

i ci entand p re ju d ic ia l. Ca rn e

y v. S ta te , 5 2 5 S o . 2 d 7 7 6 , 7 8 0 (M iss . 1 9 8 8 ); R e a d v. S ta te , 430 So. 2d 832, 839 ( M i s s . 1983) . “J udi ci al s crut i ny of c ouns el ' s per f

or m ance [ i s] hi ghl y def

er ent i al . ” Str i c kl

and , 46 6 U. S. a t68 9. The r e i s a s tr on g b ut r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on thatcouns el ' s conductf al l s w i thi n t he w i de r ange of re a s o n a b le p ro fe s s io n a l a s s is ta n c e . Car ney , 5 2 5 S o . 2 d a t 7 8 0 ; G il liar d v. S ta te , 4 6 2 S o . 2 d 7 1 0 , 7 1 4 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 ). O n ly w h e re it i s re a so n a b ly p ro b a b le thatbutf

orthe att orney' s err or s , the out come of the tri al w oul d have be en d if fe r e n t, w ill w e fi n d th a t c o u n s e l' s p e rf o rm a n c e w a s d e fi c ie n t. D i ckey v. S ta te , 6 6 2 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 0 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 5 ); R e e d v. S ta te , 536 So. 2d 1336, 1 3 3 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). Ho lly v . S ta te , 7 1 6 S o . 2 d 9 7 9 , 9 8 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). ¶41 . N eal ’s fi rs targum ent i s that hi s tri al c o u n sel p rov ided the fr am ew ork of a defense theory dur i ng hi s openi ng s t at ement , buthe ne verment i oned thattheory a gai n. I ti s true that dur i ng hi s openi ng s t at ement , def ens e couns el expl ai ned how arm ed i ntruder s ent er ed the hom e, hel d N eal atgunpoi nt , and then s hotand deca pi t at ed C l evel and. H e t ol d t he j ury t hat N eal i ni t i al l y had t ol d thi s s ame s t ory t o i nves t i gat or s . T hi s i ni t i al theory of de f ens e w as not ex p lored b y the d efe n se d u ri n g c ro ss -ex am ination o f th e S tat e’s w itn esse s o r du ri n g N ea l’ s ca se-in-c h ief.

### 24

¶42 . Just becau se cert ai n “i ssues m ay properl y be rai sed on dir ect app eal , . . . w e st i l l m ust
m ake a det erm i nat i on as t o w hethercer t ai n i s s ues shoul d be addr es s ed on di r ectappeal , or be l ef tf ora notherda y f

orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef pr ocee di ngs . ” H

ava rd , 928 So. 2d at784. T he sp ec if ic issue h ere is w h ethe r o r no t defe n se c o u n sel’s fail u re to a d d ress the intru d er the o ry d u rin g N e a l’s c a se -in -c h ief c o n stitu ted ine ffe c tiv e as sis tan c e . T h e re is n o w a y to d e fin itely anal yze thi s ques t i on w i thou tinf orm at i on out s i de the r ecor d. T her e coul d be s ever al
r eas onabl e expl anat i ons f orw hy defense coun sel nev er r evis i t ed the i ntrud er theo ry, i ncludi ng the f actthatN eal di d nott ake the s t and. B ecaus e thi s i s s ue i nvol ves ques t i ons of i nact i on by tr i al cou nsel and w ou l d requir e i nform at i on ou t si de the r ecord, i tcann ot pr op erl y b e addr es s ed
a t th is tim e . It m o re a p p ro p ri a te ly w o u ld b e ra is e d in p o s t- c o n v ic tio n -r e lie f p ro c e e d in g s . ¶43. A s f

or t he rem ai ning sev en asser t i on s m ade by N eal i n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m of i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el , none cons t i tut es i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance . N eal ’ s as s ert i ons th a t d e fe n se c o u n se l fa iled to o b jec t to h e a rsa y a n d ju ry in stru c tio n s a n d fa iled to m a k e tim e ly obj ect i ons ar e al l pr ot ect ed as w i thi n the r eal m o f t ri al st ra t egy. “The deci s i on t o ‘ m ake
cert ai n obj ect i ons f

al l [ s ] w i thi n the ambi tof tr i al s trat egy an d cannotgi ve r i s e t o an i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el cl ai m . ’ ” S

p ice r v . S ta te , 973 So. 2d 184, 203 (M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng P o w e ll v. S ta te , 806 So. 2d 1069, 1077 ( M i s s . 2001) ) . L i kew i s e, N eal ’ s cl ai m that def ens e couns el f

ai l ed t o cross - exami ne w i tnes s es t o devel op a pos t - m or t em-de capi t at i on th e o ry f a ll s w ith in th e a m b it o f t ri a l s tr a te g y . See W ilcher , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d at 76 2 . N ea l’ s al l egat i on thatdef

ens e couns el w as def

i ci entf orf ai l i ng t o move f

ora c hange of

venue doe s n o t re q u ire re v e rsa l. “ T h is C o u rt h a s h e ld tha t de fe n se co u n se l i s u n d e r n o d u ty to a ttem p t to

### 25

tr ans f ervenue; ther ef

or e, the dec i s i on nott o s eek a change of venue w oul d f

al l w i thi n t he
r eal m of tr i al s tr at egy. ” B ra w n e r v . S ta te , 9 4 7 S o . 2 d 2 5 4 , 2 6 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ). N e a l’s c laim that itw as erro r fo r co u n sel n o t t o req u est th e lesse r-offen se m an slau g h ter an d m u ti lat ion jury instruction s fail s, as th is C o u rth as stated that “tri al co u n se l' s d e c isio n to n o t r eq u est a jury in s tru c tio n fa lls u n d e r th e c a te g o ry o f tr ia l t a c tic s , w h ic h a re n o t s u b je c t to re v ie w .” Sm iley v. S ta te , 815 So. 2d 1140, 1148 ( M i s s . 2002) ¶44. Fi nal l y, the factthatd efense couns el nevercal l ed N eal t o t es t i f y i n s uppor tof an i ntruderdef

ens e does notcons t i tut e i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el . T he t r i al j udge qu est i on ed N eal in cha m bers abo ut w hethero r not he w anted t o t est i fy. N eal and his defense
c o u n se l sp o k e p riv a tely a b o u t th e m a tter, a n d N e a l d e ter m in e d th a t h e w ish e d to re m a in sile n t. T he r ecor d al s o i ndi cat es t hatdef ens e couns el di s cus s ed the pos s i bi l i ty of t es t i f yi ng ver s us nott es t i f yi ng w i th N eal on s ever al occa s i ons , and N eal f el tthati tw as i n hi s bes ti nt er es tnot t o t es t i f y. N eal agr eed w i th t hes e st at ement s w hi l e i n cham ber s . D ef ens e couns el cannotbe hel d i n err orf

orf ai l i ng t o cal l a def

endantt o t es t i f

y w hen the def

endantm akes an i nf

or m ed
a n d v o lu n tar y d e c isio n to re m a in s ile n t. G r a y v. S ta te , 8 8 7 S o . 2 d 1 5 8 , 1 6 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). N o n e o f N e a l’s c o n ten tio n s re q u ire s re v e rsa l b a se d u p o n in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l. VI I . W HETH ER THE TRI AL CO URT VA LI DLY AC CEPTE D THE J URY’ S VE RDI CT AN D A DJ UDI CAT ED NE AL GUI LT Y. ¶45. N eal ar gues thatthe tr i al j udg e ne ve rpr op e r l y a cce pt ed the j ury ver di ctand adj udi cat ed hi m gu i l t y on t he r ecor d; ther ef or e, no val i d convi ct i on exi s t s . H e ci t es M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 99- 19- 3( 1) , w hi ch pr ovi des , i n per t i nentpar t , t hat : “a per s on i ndi ct ed f ora cr i m i nal

### 26

of f ens e s hal l notbe convi ct ed ther eof unl es s . . . by ver di ctof a j ury acc ept ed and r ecor ded i n cour t . A per s on s hal l notbe puni s hed ther ef orunl es s l egal l y convi ct ed. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 19- 3( 1) ( R ev. 2007) . N eal cont ends thatunderSec t i on 99- 19- 3( 1) , no val i d convi ct i on exi s t s beca us e the tr i al j udge di d notexpr es s l y s t at e on the r ecor d that“the courtacc ept s the ju ry ’s v e rd ic t.” ¶46 . U nif

orm C i rcui t and C ou nty C ou rt R ule 3. 10 go verns j ury deli berat i on s and verdi ct s. T h e ru le s tate s, in p a rt, th a t: W hen the j ur or s have a gr eed upon a ver di ctthey s hal l be conduc t ed i nt o the courtr oom by the of

f i cerhavi ng them i n char ge. T he cou rtshal l as k the f or eman orthe j ury panel i f an agr eementhas been r eac hed on a ve r di ct . I f the f or eman orthe j ury panel ans w er s i n the af f i r m at i ve, the j udge s hal l c al l upon the f or eman orany m emberof the panel t o del i vert he ver di cti n w r i t i ng t o the c ler k o r th e c o u rt. T h e c o u rt m a y th e n e x a m in e th e v e rd ict a n d c o rre c t ita s to m att ers o f form . T h e clerk or the co u rtsh all then rea d the v erd ictin o p en co u rt in th e p re se n c e o f th e ju ry . T h e c o u rt s h a ll in q u ire if e ith e r p a rty d e sire s to p o ll the j ury, orthe courtm ay on i t s ow n m oti on p oll the j ury. . . . I f the court , on i t s ow n m ot i on, oron m ot i on of e i therpa r ty, pol l s the j ury, eac h j ur ors hal l be as ked by t he c ou r ti f

the ve r di c tr e nd e r e d i s tha tj ur or ' s ve r di c t . I n a c r i mi na l cas e w here the ver di cti s unani m ous . . . the courts hal l or derthe ver di ctf i l ed a n d e n ter e d o f re c o rd a n d d isc h a rg e th e ju ry u n les s a b ifu rc a ted h e a rin g is nece s s ary. ¶47. T he r ecor d of

the pr ocee di ngs i n the i ns t antc as e i ndi cat es the pr ocedur es pr es cr i bed i n R ul e 3. 10 w er e sc rupul ous l y f ol l ow ed. T he tr i al courtr ece i ved a not e f r om the j ury s t at i ng thati thad r eac hed a ve r di ct , and the courtor der ed thatthe j ury r eturn t o the courtr oom . W hen th e ju ry w a s s e a ted , the trial c o u rt a sk e d o n e ju ro r if th e ju ry h a d re a c h e d a d e c isio n in th is
c a se , an d if th a t d e c isio n w a s u n a n im o u s. T h e ju ro r re s p o n d e d a ffirm a tiv e ly to b o th ques t i ons . T he tr i al courtas ked the courtcl erk t o r ead the j ury’ s w r i t t en ver di ctal oud i n open

### 27

c o u rt. T h e c o u rt c ler k re a d th e v e rd ict, w h ich sta ted : “W e , the ju ry , fin d th e d e fe n d a n t, J erm ai ne N eal , gui l ty as char ged. ” The t r i al courtas ked i f couns el had any r eques t s , and N ea l’ s co u n sel resp o n d e d th a t h e w o u ld li k e the jury p o ll ed . A cc o rdin g ly, th e tri al co u rt p o ll ed the ju ry. T h e p o ll rev ea led th at th e v erd ictw as u n an im o u s. T h en , the tr ial co u rt br oughtN eal bef

or e the benc h and s t at ed, “M r . N eal , the j ury ha s f ound you gui l ty of

m ur der

. . . the l aw i s thatI s ent ence you t o l i f e i n pr i s on a nd I or dera tthi s t i m e pr onounce t hat a s yo ur sent ence a nd yo u w i l l be sent enced t o the Stat e D epart m ent of C orr ect i on s f

or the rest of yourl i f e. ” T he verdi ctw as f

i l ed and e nt er ed of

r ecor d, and the tr i al courtent er ed a ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e th a t se t fo rth th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict. ¶48. I t i s cl ear f

r om thes e pr ocee di ngs , w hi ch w er e i n f ul l compl i ance w i th R ul e 3. 10, t hat N eal w as val i dly conv i ct ed “b y a v erdi ctof the jury acce pted and r ecorded i n co urt . ” M i ss. C ode A nn. § 99- 19- 3( 1) ( R ev. 2007) . T he tr i al c our tdi d notha ve t o s t at e expr es s l y thatthe
c o u rt a c c e p te d th e v e rd ic t in o rd e r to e ff e c t N e a l’ s c o n v ic tio n . I d. N eal ci t es no author i ty t hat
w o u ld su p p o rt su c h a re q u ir e m e n t; th e c a s e s h e c ite s , State v. T aylor , 54 4 S o. 2 d 13 87 (M i ss. 1989) and McL a rty v. S ta te , 842 So. 2d 590, 596 ( M i s s . Ct . A pp. 2003) , i nvol ve j ury pol l i ng, w h ich is n o t an iss u e in th is c a se . T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. V I I I . W H ET H ER N EA L W A S EN TITL ED TO LE SSER - O FFE N SE J URY I NSTRU CTI ON S OF HEA T- OF- PAS S I ON M ANSLAUGH TER A N D D E S E C R A T I O N O F A H U M A N C O R P S E . ¶4 9 . N ea l ar g u e s th a t h e w as en ti tl ed to jury instruction s o n the lesser o ffen se o f he at-ofpas s i on m ans l aught er , and on the cr i m e of dese cr at i on of

a human corps e codi f i ed at

### Mississip pi C od e Sectio n 9 7-2 9-2 5(2 )(a) pro vid es that: 5 

### Ev ery perso n wh o shall kn ow ing ly an d w illfullydig up , excep t as oth erwise provi ded by l aw, or in any way de se crat e any cor pseor rem ains of any hum an being, or caus e through word, dee d or action thesam e t o happe n, s hal l upon convi ction beguilt

y of a fe lony and sha llbe i mpris oned f or not more than three(3) years or f

ine d not m orethan FiveThousand Dol lars ($5, 000.00) , or bo th, inthe d iscretionof th e court. Th e st at uteprovi des an e xem

pti on from i ts provi si ons f or good- fa it

h organ har

ves ting for transp lant an d fo r “anygo o df aith u se of a cad aver o r bo dypart fo r medical o r scientific edu cationor research .” Miss. C od e Ann. § 

### 97-29- 25(2) (b) (Re v. 2006) . 28 M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 9 7 -29 -25 (2). T h e S tat e p rep are d jury in stru c ti o n s o n h ea t- o f- 5 pas s i on m ans l aught er , butthe tr i al cour tdeni ed thes e i ns truct i ons upon a det erm i nat i on t hat they w er e notw arr ant ed by the evi dence . N eal di d notr eques tthatthe j ury be i ns truct ed on h ea t- o f-pa ssion m an slau g h ter, n o r d id h e o b ject w h en the tri al co u rtd en ied th e S tat e’s i nst ruct i on s. ¶50. “A n err orconce r ni ng t he r ef us al of j ury i ns truct i ons ‘ i s pr ocedur al l y pr es erved by the
m e re ten d e rin g o f th e in s tr u c tio n s, su g g e stin g th a t th e y a re c o rre c t an d a sk in g th e C o u rt to s ubm i tthem t o the j ury. ’ ” R u b e n ste in , 941 So. 2d at789 ( quot i ng E dw a rds v . S ta te , 737 So. 2d 275, 310 ( M i s s . 1999) ) . I ti s w el l es t abl i s hed thatw hen err ori s pr edi cat ed upon the deni al of a j ury i ns truct i on reque s t ed by the def endant , the def

endantneed notm ake a
c o n te m p o ra n e o u s o b

je c tio n to th e d e n ia l in o rd e r t o p re s e rv e th e e rr o r f o r a p p e a l. G r een v. S ta te , 8 8 4 S o . 2 d 7 3 3 , 7 3 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). B u t w h en a d e fen d an t argu es th at th e tri al co u rt err on eou sl y d en ied a jury instruct i on request ed b y the Stat e, ordi nari l y the defendan tm ust h a v e o b je c te d to th e d e n ia l in o rd e r to p re s e rv e th e is s u e fo r a p p e a l. See R e y n o ld s v . S ta te ,

### 29

9 1 3 S o . 2 d 2 9 0 , 2 9 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). W ith o u t a de fen se o b jecti o n to the d en ial o f a jury i ns truc t i on t e nd e r e d by the St a t e , we a s s ume tha tthe d e f e nd a ntwas s a t i s f

i e d w i th the t r i al
court ’ s deci s i on t o rul e adve r s el y t o the St at e. ¶51 . B ecause N eal did not t end er a heat -of -pass i on -m ansl aug hterj ury i nst ruct i on t o the tr i al
courtor obj ectt o t he deni al of the St at e’ s heat
- of
- pas s i on- m ans l aught erj ury i ns truct i ons , he i s pr oc e du r a l l y ba r r e d f r om a r gu i ng o n a pp e a l tha tthe j ury s ho ul d ha ve b e e n i ns truc t e d on h e a t- o f- p a s s io n m a n s la u g h te r. R u b e n ste in , 9 4 1 S o . 2 d a t 7 8 9 ; R eynol ds , 913 So. 2d at298. N otw i ths t andi ng the pr ocedur al ba r , the tr i al c our tc orr ect l y f ound thatthe evi dence di d not
s uppor ta hea t - of

- pas s i on- m ans l aught erj ury i ns truct i on. ¶5 2. H eat - of

- pas s i on m ans l aug ht e rr e qu i r e s “ a s t a t e of vi ol e nta nd un c on tr ol l a bl e r age engende r ed by a bl ow orcert ai n otherpr ovocat i on gi ven, w hi ch w i l l r educe a homi ci de f r om the gr ade of

murde rt o thatof

m ans l aught er . ” Ho b so n v. S ta te , 7 30 S o. 2 d 2 0, 26 -27 (M i ss. 19 98 ) ( qu ot i ng T

a it v. S ta te , 6 6 9 S o . 2 d 8 5 , 8 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 )). “ P a ss io n o r a n g e r su d d e n ly
ar ous ed atthe t i m e by s om e i m m edi at e and r eas onabl e pr ovocat i on, by w or ds oract s of one atthe t i m e. T he t erm i ncl udes an emot i onal s t at e of m i nd char act er i zed by anger , ra ge, hatr ed, f ur i ous r es entm entort err or . ” Id . at27. “The pas s i on f el tby the per s on comm i t t i ng the ac t

‘ s houl d be s uper i nduced by s om e i ns ul t , pr ovocat i on, ori nj ury, w hi ch w oul d natur al l y and i ns t ant l y pr oduce, i n the mi nds of or di nar i l y cons t i tut ed men, the hi ghes td egree of
e xa s pe r a t i on. ’ ” G ra h a m v. S ta te , 582 So. 2d 1014, 1018 ( M i s s . 1991) ( quot i ng B ar nett v. S ta te , 5 6 3 S o . 2 d 1 3 7 7 , 1 3 7 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 )).

### 30

¶53. T her e w as no evi dence thatN eal a ct ed upon a n i m m edi at e and r eas onabl e pr ovocat i on su d d e n ly giv ing ri se to p assio n or an g er, as req u ir ed by case law . N ea l ad m itted to in v e stig a to rs th a t h e a n d C lev e lan d h a d n o t q u a rre led o n th e d a y o f th e m u rd e r. T h e o n ly
ev i de nc e of

N e a l ’ s mot i ve t o k i l l Cl e ve l a nd c a me f r om N e a l ’ s s us pi c i on s tha tC l evel and pos s i bl y had bee n unf

ai thf ul t o hi m and thatA . B . w as nothi s s on. T he evi dence w as t hat N eal had been harbor i ng t hes e sus pi ci ons forsome t i m e pr i ort o t he m ur der . T her ef or e, the evi dence di d nots uppor ta hea t - of
- pas s i on-mans l aught erj ury i ns truct i on. ¶54. N eal di d notpr es erve err ori n the f ai l ur e t o gr anta j ury i ns truct i on on des ecr at i on of
a h u m a n c o rp se . N e ith e r N e a l n o r th e S tate re q u e ste d a n in stru c tio n o n th is c rim e . W h ile N ea l argu es th at th e tri al co u rth ad a d u ty su a sp o n te t o instruct the ju ry o n d ese cra ti o n o f a h u m an co rpse , “[a] tr ial co u rt is n o t r eq u ir ed to su a sp o n te i n stru ct th e jury o r sug g est j u ry i ns truct i ons i n addi t i on t o w hatthe part i es t ender . ” W ilso n v. S ta te , 936 So. 2d 357, 363 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng Co n n e r v . S ta te , 632 So. 2d 1239, 1254 ( M i s s . 1993) ( overrul ed on other gr ounds ) ) . A tr i al courtcannotbe hel d i n err orf ornotgi vi ng an i ns truct i on thatw as never re q u e s te d . H

a rr is , 861 So. 2d at1017. A s N eal ’ s ar gum enti s pr ocedur al l y barr ed, w e do not addr es s hi s ar gum entthatthe cr i m e of des ecr at i on of

a huma n corps e i s a l es s erof f ens e of
m u rd e r. T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I X. W HE T HE R N E AL I S E NT I T L E D T O R E L I E F B AS E D O N CUM UL AT I VE ER ROR. ¶55. N eal ar gues that err or s occurr ed that , cons i der ed cumul at i vel y, deni ed him t he ri ght to a fair a n d im p a rtial trial. In ca se s in w h ich this C o u rt fin d s h a rm les s e rro r o r e rro r th a t is

### 31

n o t re v e rsib le in a n d o f itse lf, th e C o u rt h a s th e d isc re tio n to d e ter m in e o n a c a se -b y -c a se b a sis
w hetherthe err or s , consi der ed cum ul at i vel y, r equi r e r ever s al due t o the r es ul t i ng cumul at i ve p re ju d icia l ef

fe c t. B y ro m v. S ta te , 863 So. 2d 836, 847 ( M i s s . 2003) . T hi s cas e i s not s us cept i bl e t o c um ul at i ve- err ora nal ys i s be caus e w e have det erm i ned thatno err or s occurr ed. R u ffin v. S ta te , 9 9 2 S o . 2 d 1 1 6 5 , 1 1 7 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 8 ). T h e re fo re , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. X. W HET HER T HE E VI DE NCE W AS S UF F I CI EN T T O S UP P ORT T HE VE RD I CT AN D WH ET HER T HE VE RDI CT W AS AG AI NS T T HE O V E R W H E L M I N G E V I D E N C E . ¶56. I n hi s f

i nal ar gum ent , N eal cont ends that the evi dence w as i ns uf f i ci ent t o s uppor tt he
v e rd ic t, a n d th a t th e v e rd ic t w a s 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 .

A. Suf f i ci ency of

the ev i dence
. ¶ 5 7 . W h e n re v iew in g a c h a llen g e to th e su ffic ien c y o f th e e v id e n c e , “ th e c ritica l in q u iry is
w hetherthe evi dence s how s ‘ beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatacc us ed comm i t t ed the ac t charged , and that he di d so u nd er s uch ci rcum st ances tha tevery elem ent of the o ff ense e x iste d ; an d w h e re th e e v id e n c e fa ils to m e e t th is te st it is in su ffic ien t to su p p o rt a convi ct i on. ’ ” B u sh v. S ta te , 895 So. 2d 836, 843 ( quot i ng Ca rrv. S ta te , 208 So. 2d 886, 889 ( M i s s . 1968) ) . H ow ever , thi s does notr equi r e the C our tt o “a sk it self w h ethe r it

b e liev e s th a t th e e v id e n c e a t th e tr ia l es tab lish e d g u ilt beyond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” I ns t ead, the r el evantques t i on i s w hether , af t er vi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the pr os ecut i on, any r at i onal tr i ero f f actcoul d have f

ound the es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e beyond a re a so n a b le d o u b t. Id . ( quot i ng J

a c kso n v. V

irg in ia , 443 U . S. 307, 315, 99 S. C t . 2781, 61 L . E d. 2d 560 ( 1979) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ) . I f “the f act s and i nf

er ence s . . . ‘ poi nti n f

avorof

### 32

th e d e fe n d a n t o n a n y e lem e n t o f th e o ffe n se w ith su ffic ien t fo rc e th a t re a so n a b le m e n c o u ld nothave f

ound beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatthe def endantw as gui l ty, ’ the pr operr emedy i s forthe appe l l at e courtt o r ever s e and r ender . ” Id . ( quot i ng E dw a rds v . S ta te , 469 So. 2d 68, 70 ( M i s s . 1985) ) . B uti f the evi dence i s s uf

f i ci entt o s how thatr eas onabl e and f ai r - m i nded per s ons , i n the exe r ci s e of i m part i al de l i ber at i ons , mi ghtha ve r eac hed a di f f er entconcl us i on on every el ementof

the of f ens e, w hi l e cons i der i ng the beyond- a- r eas onabl e- doubts t andar d, “the evi dence w i l l be dee m ed t o have be en s uf f i ci ent . ” Id . ¶ 5 8 . In o rd e r to fin d N e a l g u ilty o f m u rd e r, th e ju ry h a d to c o n c lu d e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubtthatN eal had ki l l ed C l evel and w i thoutthe author i ty of l aw and w i th del i ber at e des i gn t o ef f ectherdeath. V i ew i ng the evidence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the ver di ct , the evi dence w as s uf

f i ci entt o enabl e a r at i onal j ury t o f i nd eac h of

thes e el ement s bey ond a
r eas onabl e doubt . N eal gave tw o conf es s i ons t o t he pol i ce i n w hi ch he a dm i t t ed thathe had ki l l ed C l evel and, i n one conf es s i on s t at i ng thathe ha d de capi t at ed C l evel and, a nd i n another
s t at i ng thathe had s hothertw i ce i n the hea d and then h e h ad deca pi t at ed her . H e f ur ther admi t t ed thataf

t erki l l i ng C l evel and, he had t aken s t eps i n an ef f or tt o conce al hi s i dent i ty as the ki l l er , s uch as bl eac hi ng C l evel and’ s body, s endi ng m i s l eadi ng t extm es s ages , and di s pos i ng of

C l evel and’ s head, t he gun, and t he kni f e. N eal ’ s conf

es s i on t o bei ng the ki l l er w a s c o rro b o ra ted b y th e d is c o v e ry o f b lo o d o n h is s h o rts a n d b y N e a l’s u n c h a ra c ter istic t ar di nes s atw or k on the af t ernoon of

the murde r . T here al s o w as evi dence thatN eal act ed
w i th del i ber at e des i gn; N eal conf es s ed thathe had ki l l ed C l evel and due t o hi s m ount i ng s us pi ci on of

heri nf i del i ty.

### 33 B
. W ei ghtof the ev i dence
. ¶59. N eal ar gues that the tr i al court err ed by denyi ng hi s m ot i on f or a new tr i al beca us e the
v e rd ict w a s a g a in st th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e . O n r e v ie w o f a c h a llen g e to the w ei ghtof

the evi dence , thi s C our tw i l l re ver s e f ora new t r i al onl y i f

t he tr i al court ’ s rul i ng w a s a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Mille r v . S ta te , 980 So. 2d 927, 929 ( M i s s . 2008) . W e w i l l not di s turb the ver di ctunl es s i t“i s s o contr ary t o the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence t hat t o al l ow i tt o s t and w oul d s anct i on an uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ” B u sh , 895 So. 2d 844 ( 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 )). ¶6 0 . O n a m o ti o n for ne w tri al, “the co u rt sit s as a th irteen th j u ror. T h e m o ti o n , h o w ev er, i s addr es s ed t o the di s cr et i on of the court , w hi ch s houl d be exerci sed w i th caut i on, and the pow ert o gr anta new tr i al s houl d be i nvoked onl y i n e xcept i onal c as es i n w hi ch the evi dence pr eponder at es heavi l y agai ns tthe ver di ct . ” Id . ( quot i ng A m ikerv. D r ugs f orL es s, I

nc. , 796 S o . 2 d 9 4 2 , 9 4 7 ) (M iss . 2 0 0 0 )). A ll “ e v id e n c e sh o u ld b e w e ig h e d in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le t o the ver di ct . ” I

d. ( ci t i ng He r r ing , 691 So. 2d at957) . R ever s i ng a ve r di ctbe caus e i tw as a g a in st th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e “ d o e s n o t m e a n th a t ac q u itt a l w a s th e o n ly pr operver di ct . ” I

d. ( quot i ng Mc Q u e e n v. S ta te , 4 2 3 S o . 2 d 8 0 0 , 8 0 3 (M iss . 1 9 8 2 )). It sim p ly
m eans thatthi s C our t“di s agr ees w i th the j ury' s re s ol ut i on of the conf l i ct i ng t es t i m ony. ” Id . “Thi s di f f er ence of opi ni on does nots i gni f y acqui t t al any more t han a di s agr eementamong the j ur or s themsel ves . I ns t ead, the pr operr emedy i s t o gr anta new tr i al . ” I d. ¶ 6 1 . T h e re w a s a m p le e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt th e v e rd ic t o f g u ilt in th is c a se . In h is
c o n fe ss io n s to th e m u rd e r, N e a l g a v e d e ta iled e x p lan a tio n s o f w h a t o c c u rre d a n d o f h isE ven i f the def endantdi d notdi r ect l y r ai s e the s uf f i ci ency of

the i ndi ctm ent , orl ack 6 th e re o f, th is C o u rt w o u ld b e re q u ire d to re v iew th e iss u e u n d e r th e p lain -e rro r d o c trin e a s it a ff e c ts a fu n d a m e n ta l, s u b s ta n tiv e ri g h t. 

### 34 m ot i ve. N eal ’ s conf

es s i ons , al ong w i th the t es t i m ony of i nves t i gat i ng of

f i cer s s etf or th above,
s t r on gl y pr e po nd e r a t e d i n f a vo ro f the f i nd i ng o f g ui l t . W e c a nn ots a y tha tthe v e r di ctw as a g a in st th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e s u c h th a t a n e w tria l is re q u ire d in o rd e r to
a v o id a m a n ife st in

ju stic e . T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit.

CO NC L US I ON ¶62. Fo r t hese re as ons , w e af f i r m N eal ’ s convi ct i on of m ur der and s ent ence of l i f e i n t he cust od y o f the M i ssi ssi pp i D epart m ent of C orr ect i on s. ¶ 6 3 . CONV I CT I ON OF M URDE R AND S EN TE NCE OF LI F E I M P RI S ONM EN T I N TH E C U STO D Y O F T H E M I SSI SSI PPI DE PA R TM EN T O F C O R R EC TIO N S, AF F I RM ED . WALLER, C.J., CARL SON, P.J., DICKINSON, RANDOLPH, KITCHENS AND PIERCE, JJ., C ONCUR. G RAV ES, P.J., CONCURS INRESUL T ONLY WITHOUT SEPARA TE WRITT EN OPI NI ON. KITCHENS, J., SPEC IALLY C ONCURS WITH SEPARA TE WRITTEN O PINION JOINED BY C ARLSON AND GRAVE S, P.JJ., AND DICKINSON AND CHANDLE R, JJ., AND JOINE D IN PARTBY RANDOLPH, J. LAMAR, J. , N OT PART IC IP AT IN G. KI T CH E NS , J US T I CE , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RR I NG : ¶ 6 4 . W h ile I a g re e w ith th e m a jo rity ’s u lti m a te ju d g m e n t, I fe e l o b lig e d to w rite s e p a ra tely to a d d re ss a tro u b les o m e c o m p lica tio n in th e in d ictm e n t. ¶65. A l though the def endantf r ames the i s s ue i n the cont extof a j ury i ns truct i on, I cannot over l ook the cur i ous l y- dr af t e d i nd i c tment ’ s c omi ng da ng e r ou s l y c l os e t o om i t t i ng an es s ent i al
e lem e n t o f m u rd e r: th a t is, tha t th e d e fe n d a n t k ill e d th e v ictim . A s th e m a jo rity c o rre c tly 6

### 35

o b se rv e s, M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 9 9 -7 -3 7 se ts fo rth e x p licitly a n d su c c in c tly a ll th a t is
n e c e ss a ry to c h a rg e a n a c c u se d p e rso n w ith n o n -c a p ital m u rd e r. M a j. O p . a t ¶ 1 1 , n . 3 . In th is
cas e, how ever , the dr af

t erof the i ndi ctm entappar ent l y under t ook t o i m pr ove upon thi s t i m et es t ed, s i m pl e, and s uf

f i ci entlanguage. T hi s i ndi ctm ental l eges thatN eal “di d w i l l f ul l y, unl aw f ul l y, an d f

el oni ous l y d e c a

p ita te L akes hi a C l evel and, a human bei ng; J erm ai ne N eal act ed w i th the del i ber at e des i gn t o ef f ectthe dea th of

L akes hi a C l evel and, i n di r ectvi ol at i on o f S ec ti o n 9 7 -3-1 9 (1)(a).” (E m p h asis ad d ed . ) ¶66. B y f

ai l i ng t o tr ack the cl ear and s i m pl e s t atut ory l anguage that has w or ked f orl egi ons o f M iss iss ip p i p ro se c u to rs in th o u sa n d s o f m u rd e r c a se s, th e S tate risk e d v io latio n o f th e b a sic
cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt hatt he def endanthave not i ce of

t he spe ci f

i c char ge br oughtby the gr and j ury. U . S. Const . a m end. V I ( “I n a l l c r i m i nal pr os ecut i ons , the acc us ed s hal l e nj oy the r i ght t o . . . b e i n f

o r me d o f th e n a tu r e a n d c a u s e o f th e a c c u s a t i o n . . . . ” ) ; U. S . Co n s t . a me n d . XI V; M iss . C o n st. a rt. 3 , § 2 6 (“ In a ll crim in a l p ro se c u tio n s, th e a c c u se d sh a ll h a v e a rig h t . . . to demand t he natur e and c aus e of the ac cus at i on . . . . ”) . H ad the def endantdemurr ed t o t he in d ictm e n t in th is c a se , a c o n sc ien tio u s trial ju d g e lik e ly w o u ld h a v e h a d a s m u c h d iffic u lty i n notgr ant i ng i tas thi s w r i t erha s ha d i n s t oppi ng s hor tof s ayi ng thatthe f

ai l ur e t o f

i l e s uch
a p le a d in g c o n s titu te d in e ff e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. ¶67. T hi s C our t has recogni zed that , al though i ndi ctm ent s ar e t o be cons trued s tr i ct l y, “a
r eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i on of t he l anguage empl oyed i n s t at i ng the of f ens e i s al w ays p e rm iss ib le,” a n d th e in d ictm e n t w ill b e su ffic ien t a s lo n g a s, w h e n re a d a s a w h o le, “ it cont ai ns every el ementof the of f ens e i nt ended t o be cha r ged and s uf f i ci ent l y appr i s es t heN o ta b ly , th e a u to p s y re p o rt in d ic a te s th a t th is d e c a p ita tio n o c c u rr e d p o s t- m o rt e m . 7 

### 36 def endantof w hathe mustbe pr epar ed t o m eet . ” H a m ilto n v. S ta te , 197 S o. 2d 469, 473- 74 (M i ss. 19 67 ). T he m aj ority o p i nion correct l y fi nd s the indi ct m ent s uff i ci ent “because d e c a p itatio n is a c e rta in ly d e a d ly a c t w h e n d o n e w ith th e d e lib e ra te d e sig n to e ffe c t th e d e a th of a hum an bei ng. ” M aj . O p. at¶ 11, n. 2. O bvi ous l y, decapi t at i on i s a dea dl y actonl y i f t he
v ictim is s til l a liv e w h e n b e h e a d e d , an d p o st-m o rte m d e c a p itatio n w o u ld c o n stitu te o n ly
m ut i l at i on of

a c orps e, notmurde r . T he i ndi ctm enti s s aved, notby the w or d d e c a p ita te , but 7 by the w ords a h uman be i ng and the phr as e t o ef f ect the death of

. F ro m th is v e rb iag e , itis
s uf f i c i e nt l y i mpl i e d tha tthe v i c t i m w a s a l i ve a tthe t i me o f d e c a pi t a t i on , a nd thus , t he decap i t at i on w as a “ki l l [ i ng ] and m urder. ” M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 99 -7- 37 (R ev. 20 07 ). T hu s, i n the pr es entcas e, t he i ndi ctm entas a w hol e i s m i ni m al l y s uf f i ci entt o al ertthe def

endantt hat h e is b e in g c h a rg e d w ith m u rd e r. ¶68. H ow ever , I w oul d c aut i on pr os ecut or s t o f ol l ow s tr i ct l y the l anguage f ound i n Sect i on 9 9 -7 -3 7 in o rd e r to a v o id u n n e c e ss a ry c o n fu s io n o r p o ten tial d u e p ro c e ss v io latio n s in noncapi t al m ur dercas es . T he not i ce pr ovi s i ons cont ai ned i n ourcons t i tuti on s ar e a fun d am en tal n ec essity o f o u r crim inal justi ce sy stem , an d the s tat e leg isl ature an d this C o u rt hav e provided a si m ple but sure r eci pe forthe preparat i on o f non -capi t al m urder i nd i ct m ents . See M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -7 -3 7 (R e v . 2 0 0 7 ); W in sto n v. S ta te , 127 M i s s . 477, 485, 90 So. 1 7 7 , 1 7 8 (1 9 2 1 ) (“ [I] t is e x p re ss ly p ro v id e d b y sta tu te th a t itsh a ll b e su ffic ien t to c h a rg e in an i ndi ctm entf

orm ur derthatthe def

endantd i d fel on i ous l y, w i l f ul l y, and of

hi s m al i ce

### 37

a fo re th o u g h t, kill a n d m u rd e r th e d e c e a se d .”). T h e p o ten tial fo r d u e p ro c e ss a b u se s is e a sily avoi ded w he n the St a t e s i mpl y tr a c ks the l a ng ua ge of Se c t i on 99
- 7- 37 i n i t s murde r i ndi ctm ent s , addi ng, of cour s e, the name of the dec edent , des cr i bi ng hi m orheras a human bei ng, and conc l udi ng i n the m ann er r equi r ed by A r t i cl e 6, Sect i on 169 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C o n stitu tio n o f 1 8 9 0 : “. . . a n d all ind ictm e n ts sh a ll co n c lu d e ‘a g a in st th e p e a c e a n d d ig n ity
o f th e state.’ ” C A R L S O N A N D G R A V E S , P . JJ . , D IC K IN S O N A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ . , JO IN THI S OPI NI ON . RAN DO LPH, J . , J OI NS T HI S OPI NI ON I N PART.