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 9 9 4 - S CT M ICHAEL BENARD M I LL ER
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 11/ 2007 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. M AR CU S D. GOR DON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: S COTT COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: EDM UND J . P HI LL I P S , J R. 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 : W . GLEN N W ATTS DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: M AR K S HE L DON DU NC AN 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 - 12/ 11/ 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 SM I T H , C . J. , C A R L SO N A N D R A N D O L P H , JJ. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. M icha el B enard M i l l er w as i nd i ct ed for the agg ravat ed assaul t of F at asha R un nels
. Fol l ow i ng a j ury t r i al i n t he C i rcui tC our tof Scot tC ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi , M i l l erw as f ound gui l ty a nd s e nt e nc e d t o tw e l ve y e a r s i n the c us t od y of the M i s s i s s i pp i Depa r t ment of C orr ect i ons ( “M D O C ”)
. A f t ert he deni al of hi s “M ot i on f orN ew T r i al , ” M i l l erf

i l ed not i ce o f a p p e a l. FACTS ¶2 . A cc o rdin g to R u n n els, sh e a n d M ill e r b e g a n d a tin g o n D e c e m b er 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 . In February 2007, Runnel s i nf or m ed M i l l erof

herdes i r e t o br eak up, as s he w i s hed t o getback

### At th e time, Ratliff h ad b een in p risonfor mo re thana year. A ccord ing to Runnels, 1 

### Ratli ff wasre le as ed f

rom pri son in July 2007.

2 t og e the rwi th the f

a the ro f h e rtw o c hi l dr e n, Deon Rat l i f f
. O n Fe brua ry 18 , 2 00 7, M i l l er 1 vi s i t ed R unnel s ’ s tr ai l er , w her e s he l i ved w i th herchi l dr en and he rm ent al l y han dicapped
s i s t e r , S u s i e Br o wn , a r r i v i n g a ta p p r o x i ma t e l y 5 : 3 0 o r6 : 0 0 p . m. Ru n n e l s t e s t i f i e d th a t“ we
w enti n m y r oom , and w e t al ked, and .
. . he w as j us tas ki ng w hy I w ant ed t o br eak up a nd go back w i th .
. . [ R at l i f f ]
. ” A f t erar gui ng “f

ora l i t t l e w hi l e[ , ] ” R unnel s s t at ed thats he i nf or m ed M i l l erthats he w as goi ng t o w at ch “D es per at e H ous ew i ves ” w i th B r ow n. ¶ 3 . Br o wn t e s t i f

i e d t h a ts h e h e a r d Ru n n e l s a n d M i l l e ra r g u i n g i n Ru n n e l s ’ s b e d r o o m. D ur i ng the t el evi s i on progr am, B r ow n t es t i f i ed t hatR unnel s and M i l l er“goti n a[ n] ar gum ent agai n, and s he t ol d hi m t o l eave heral one, l eave . ” A ccor di ng t o B r ow n, w hen M i l l err ef us ed t o l e a v e , Ru n n e l s “ wa l k [ e d ] o u tth e d o o r , we n ta n d p u th e rc l o th e s i n th e d ry e r . ” Br o wn furthe r t esti fi ed that “w h en [R u n n els] lefto u t w alkin g o u t th ere , [M ill e r] g o t up an d left
o u ts id e .” ¶4 . B e h in d the trail er, i n the s h ed w h ere h er w ash er a n d d rye r w ere loc a ted , R u n n e ls test if ied th at M il ler:
a sk e d m e w h y d id I w a n t to g o b a c k to . . . [R a tli ff], a n d I to ld h im ju st to leav e. A n d h e g rab b ed m e b y m y n ec k a n d p u sh ed m e a g ains t m y sh ed d o o r, and I t ol d hi m t o l eave , and he apol ogi zed. H e sa i d he w as s orry f orgr abbi ng m e by my neck. I t ol d hi m t o l eave agai n, and he a s ked f orthe ce l l phone he had boughtm e a coupl e w eeks ear l i er , so I gave i tt o hi m . A nd .
. . he t ook the p h o n e , an d h e b ro k e it. Ac c o r d i n g t o Ru n n e l s , “ I t o l d h i m t o l e a v e a g a i n , a n d th e n e x tth i n g I k n e w, . . . h e h a d me by m y thr oatagai n. A nd .
. . nextthi ng I r emem ber
. . . I w as on m y st om ach. ” A f t erM i l l er f or cef ul l y s tuck hi s f

i nger s i n hernos e and m outh, Runnel s t es t i f i ed thats he bi thi m , and s he

### 3

then “s t art ed gett i ng be ati n the head w i th s om ethi ng. ” She “tr i ed t o actl i ke [ s he] w as dyi ng s o he w oul d l eave [ , ] ” and as s he “w as l ayi ng ther e . . . he ar d s om ething fal l t o the gr ound,
a n d th e n [sh e ] .
. . h e a rd h im w a lk in g , an d [sh e ] he a rd h is tru c k c ra n k u p , a n d [sh e ] he a rd h im l eave r eal l y f

as t . ” W i th herhead f

eel i ng “very heavy, ” R unnel s t hen cr aw l ed t o hert r ai l er and att empt ed t o getB r ow n’ s att ent i on. Sever al m i nut es l at er , B r ow n t es t i f i ed thats he “opene d t he .
. . s cr een door , [ R unnel s ] w as l ayi ng ther e cove r ed up w i th bl ood overher head, al l overherhead and herhands , t oo. ” W hen par amedi c R ee A l f or d arr i ved att he scene, she t est i fi ed that“[ b] l oo d w as everyw here. ” A ccordi ng t o A l for d, R un nels : had a de ep l ace r at i on . . . a bove herr i ghteye. . . . [ S] he had l i ke a gol f
- bal l s i ze lac e ra tio n . . . d e e p tissu e lac e ra tio n . . . to h e r fo re h e a d . S h e h a d o p e n sk u ll fra c tu re . . . in th e b a c k o f h e r h e a d
. . . w h e re w e co u ld se e . . . sk u ll fra g m e n ts as w el l as t i s s ue. . . . [ H ] err i ghtmi ddl e f i ngerw as de f

or m ed.
. . . I as s um ed i tw as f r actur es of

the f ace j us tbeca us e of

the s w el l i ng. . . . [ A ] nd ther e w as p ie c e s o f w h ite p la s tic p a rt s in h e r h a ir
. . . . R e m a in in g c o n sc io u s, R u n n e ls in fo rm e d D e p u ty S h e riff Jo e M c D o u g a l of the S c o tt C o u n ty She r i f f’ s Depa r t menttha tM i l l e rh a d a s s a ul t e d he r . Bas e d up on whatAl f or d de s cr i bed as “[ v] ery ext ens i ve tr auma[ , ] ” R unnel s w as i ni t i al l y br oughtt o ScottRegi onal H os pi t al , then tr ans por t ed by ambul ance t o the U ni ver s i ty of M i s s i s s i ppi M edi cal C ent eri n J acks on, M iss iss ip p i. T h e fo llo w in g m o rn in g , In v e stig a to r S te v e C ro tw e ll o f th e S c o tt C o u n ty S h e riff’s D e p a rtm e n t fo u n d a b ro k e n b o x fan b e h in d R u n n e ls’ s h e d . A c c o rd in g to C ro tw e ll, “the but t ons and al l t hat[ w er e] broke outof i t . ” R unnel s r emai ned hos pi t al i zed f orf ouror fi ve d ays.

### Mi l l e r t e s t i f i e d that heand Runn e l s “w a s [s i c ] fri e nd s . I t wa s n’ t no re l at i on s hip. We 2 

### was g oo d clo se friend s.” The indic tm ent

provi ded that

Mil le r “ did wi ll ful ly, unlaw ful ly, fe loni ously, 3 

### purpos ely and knowingly c aus e s erious bodily inj ury t o [Runne ls ]
. . . under circ ums tance s manif es ting extre meindi ff

er enc e to theva lueof

human li fe , by be ating [ Runnel s] about the headandface, contrary to andin v iolatio n o f Sectio n 9 7-3 -7(2 )(a) . . . .” Wh ile ho spitalized , Runnels testifiedthat sh e hadspo kenwithRatliff an d “[h ]e told 4 

### me that . . . h e seen th em brin g [M iller] in, and[Miller] toldhim h e didn’t d o it.” 4 ¶5 . M i l l er , how ever , deni ed i nj ur i ng R unnel s . M i l l ert e s t i f i e d tha the a rr i ve d at 2 R u n n els’s trail er a rou n d 4 :00 p . m . , then left“a b o u t l ike 4 :30 . ” A cc o rdin g to M il ler: I w as s i t t i ng i n [ m y] truck, a nd [ R unnel s ] w as s t andi ng out s i de the truck, and [ B r ow n] w as hol di ng t he baby on t he st ep, becaus e [ R unnel s ] w as fi xi ng t o go back t o chur ch, beca us e [B row n] as ked me w oul d I br i ng hera D r . Pepper dr i nk. I s ai d, w el l , I ’ m notcomi ng back outher e. Pr i ort o l eavi ng, M i l l ert es t i f i ed that“[ w ] e had no f i ght , beca us e [ R unnel s ] s ai d s he w as goi ng back t o chur ch, and I s ai d, w el l , I’ m fi xi ng t o go hom e. ” A ccor di ng t o M i l l er , he t hen “w enthome, a nd that ’ s w her e I r emai ned. ” M i l l er ’ s mot hera nd f atherboth t es t i f

i ed thathe
r eturned home atappr oxi m at el y 5: 00 p. m . , a nd r emai ned ther e unt i l br i ef l y l eavi ng f

ort en o rf i f t e e n mi n u t e s a r o u n d 9 : 0 0 p . m. ¶6. O n J ul y 31, 2007, M i l l er w as i ndi ct ed f or aggr avat ed as s aul t . O n O ct ober 10, 2007, 3 the j ury t r i al com m ence d. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, C r otw el l t es t i f i ed thatM i l l erw as beatup

“ se v e ra l d a y s” a fte r b e in g jaile d
. A c c o rd in g to C ro tw e ll, R a tli ff w a s a p riso n e r a t th e S c o tt C ounty Sher i f

f’ s D epart m entatthe t i m e of thi s i ncident , buthad bee n “s epar at ed in ten tio n a lly ” fro m M ill e r. A s s u c h , R a tli ff w a s n o t am o n g th e in d iv id u a ls c o n v icte d in 4 conj unct i on ther ew i th.

### Runnel s ha d te stif ie d that s he pr evi ously “got a l ette r in my mailbox, s uppose d to be 5 

### from s omebody nam ed Mi ss y that I ’veneve r he ard of .
. . telling m e that sheknew whe re I l ive d, that shewas pr egna nt wi th [ Ratli ff

’s ] baby,
. . . that

I s hould s tay wit

h [Mi ll er ] or I was going to get

my butt whippe d.” Acc ording to Mill er , Runnel s had pre vious ly infor me d him about thi s l ette r. Further

more, Runnel s a

nd Mil le r both te stified to previ ously se eing unfami li ar

vehi cl es st op in Runne ls ’s dri veway, befo rele aving. Mi ll er al so t es ti fi ed t o a prio r instan ce in which“I too k [Runnels] to th e store, an d [th e SU V] drov e right b ehin d my car, went of f the road, and i t t

urne d around, we nt ba ck down the road. ” From t his col le ctive te stim ony, Mi ll er attempted to im ply an alte rnative, unknown as sail ant in t he s ubje ct incid ent. Mil le r’ s “Motion for

Ne w Tri al ” provide d, in pertinent part, that “ [t ] he [ c] ourt

er re d 6 

### in s ust aining e ver

y obje ction m adeby theStateand ove rr uling everyobje ction m adeby [Miller].” 5 ¶ 7 . A fte r th e S tate res ted , M ill e r’s m o tio n fo r d ire c ted v e rd ict w a s o v e rru led b y th e c irc u it
cou rt . T hereaft er, o n dir ectex am i nati on , M i l l er t est i fi ed that he w as j um ped “by four guy s” i n j ai l
. A ppar ent l y s eeki ng t o add anotherarr ow t o the qui verof hi s def ens e, M i l l er att empt ed t o i ns i nuat e thatthe f r aca s atthe j ai l s om ehow i nvol ved R at l i f f and w as interrelat ed w ith the a g g rav ated a ssau lto f R u n n els. T h e S tat e o b jected , stat ing “[i ] t do esn ’t 5 have a ny r el evance t o thi s cas e. ” The ci r cui tj udge s us t ai ned thatobj ect i on. C ouns el f or M i l l erthen made a pr of f eras t o the r el evanc e of the t es t i m ony, o uts i de t he hear i ng of t he
courtr eport erand j ury. T he ci r cui tj udge s ubs equent l y rul ed that“[ t ] he obj ect i on’ s s us t ai ned
as t o r el evanc e. ” T her eaf t er , the j ury f

ound M i l l ergui l ty a s c har ged and the “J udgm ent ” of the ci r cui tcourts ent enced hi m “t o s erve a t erm of tw el ve ( 12) year s i n the cus t ody of t he [ M D O C ]
. ” O n N ovember2, 2 00 7, M i l l erf i l ed a “ M ot i on f

orN ew T r i al , ” w hi ch w as 6
o v e rru led b y th e c irc u it co u rt. M ill e r th e n filed tim e ly n o tice o f a p p e a l.

### Acc ording to t he St at e, “[ t] he r ec ord r ef le ct s that Mill er did not include any prof

fe r 7 

### in th e recordas to h owthis testimo nywo uldhav e beenrelevant.” Mil le r r es ponds to theState ’s wai ver argume nt, st ating t

hat “[t ] o requireobje ctions 8 

### to a dver serul ings to obje ctions to pres er ve an is suefor

appe alwould l ogic al ly require infin ite numbers o f ob

jection s, a[n] absurd resu lt.”

6 I S S UE ¶8 . T h is C o u rtw il l con side r: W h ethe r th e c ir cu itco u rtab u sed its d iscreti o n in su stai n ing the S tat e’s r el evanc y obj ect i on. A N A L Y S IS ¶9. M i l l er ar gu es t hat “[ i ] f one pa r ty’ s w i tnes s t es t i f i es abouta t opi c, even on cr osse x a mi n a t i o n , t h e d o o ri s th e r e b y o p e n e d f o rth e o th e rp a r ty t o i n tr o d u c e e v i d e n c e o n th e s a me to p ic o v e r a re lev a n c y o b jec tio n .” In c o n

ju n c tio n w ith “ th e g e n e ra l ru le . . . t o p e rm it i ntr oduct i on of

as m uch evi dence as pos s i bl e overr el evanc y obj ect i on[ , ] ” M i l l eras s ert s t hat th e S tate ’s f

a ilu re to o b

jec t to C ro tw e ll’s c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n tes tim o n y o n th e jail a ss a u lt “opene d the door ” t o M i l l er ’ s t es t i m ony “ on the s ame s ubj ect , e ven though both w er e el i ci t ed b y d e fe n s e c o u n s e l.” ¶10. T he St at e r es ponds thatM i l l erw ai ved thi s i s s ue, i n t hat “[ t ] he recor d r ef l ect s that
w hen gi ven an opportuni ty t o obj ectt o the tr i al court ’ s rul i ng on groun ds b ei ng ar gued on appea l , nei therM i l l erorhi s c ouns el di d s o. [ ]
. . . [ A l s o, ] [ t ] hi s j ai l a s s aul tw as notm ent i oned 7 in M il ler’s m o ti o n for a ne w tri al. ” A d d ressing th e m erit s, th e S tat e ass erts that “the rec o rd 8 reflects no g rou n d s for ind icati n g th e relev an ce of th is test im o n y . ” S p ec if icall y , “the rec o rd
r ef l ect s thatM i l l erdi d notm eethi s bur den of pr oof f orshow i ng the r el evanc e of any addi t i onal t es t i m ony aboutthe ci r cumst ance s i nv olved i n the as s aul tupon M i l l erw hi ch

### 7

o c c u rre d a fte r h is a ss a u lt u p o n [R u n n e ls]. ” T h e S tate a d d s th a t th e c irc u it co u rt’s r u lin g “ d id
n o t prev en t M il ler’s co u n sel from a rgu ing d u ri n g c losing a rgu m en t by inn u en d o that R atl if f
w a s s o m e h o w re s p o n s ib le fo r t h e a s s a u lt u p o n [R u n n e ls ].” ¶1 1. R egar di ng w a i ve r , thi s Cour t no t e s tha t the r e c or d r e f l e c t s a pr of

f e r by c ou ns el f

or M i l l err egar di ng the rel evan ce of M i l l er ’ s t es t i m ony on the j ai l as s aul t . T her eaf t er , the
c irc u it j u d g e su sta in e d th e S tate ’s o b jec tio n . M o re o v e r, M ill e r’s “ M o tio n fo r N e w T ria l” g e n e r a l l y a l l u d e d t o e r r o rb y th e c i r c u i tc o u r ti n s u s t a i n i n g e a c h o bj e c t i o n o f th e S t a t e . As
su ch , this C o u rtco n clud es th at M il ler d id no t w aive co n side rati o n of th is issue
. H o w ev er, cons i der at i on of

i t s mer i t s , i
. e. , w hetherthe ci r cui tcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n s us t ai ni ng the St at e’ s r el evanc y obj ect i on, i s c om pl i cat ed by the f actthatthe s ubs t ance of the s ubj ect p ro ffe r w a s m a d e o u tsid e th e h e a rin g o f th e c o u rt re p o rte r. T h e re fo re , the re c o rd is d e v o id
o f su p p o rt fo r M ill e r’s re lev a n c y a rg u m e n t. ¶1 2. “Thi s C ou r t ’ s s t a nd a r d of r e vi e w when c on s i de r i ng a t r i al j udge’ s admi s s i on or ex clus ion o f ev iden ce is . .
. o n e o f abus e of dis cr et i on . ” P ier ce v. Cook , 2 0 0 8 M iss. L E X IS 398, at*17 ( M i s s . A ugus t14, 2008) ( ci t i ng W hitten v. Cox , 7 9 9 S o . 2 d 1 , 1 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 )) ( emphasi s added)
. M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 401 pr ovi des that“‘ [ r ] el evantevi dence ’
m eans evi dence havi ng any t endenc y t o m ake the exi s t ence of any f actthati s of

cons equenc e t o the det erm i nat i on of

t he ac t i on m or e pr obabl e orl es s pr obabl e than i tw ou l d be w i thout t he evi dence
. ” M i s s . R. Evi d. 40 1. M i s s i s s i pp i Rul e of Evi de nc e 40 2 s t a t e s , i n p a r t , t ha t

“ [e ] v ide n c e w h ich is no t re lev a n t is n o t a dm iss ib le
. ” M iss. R . E v id. 40 2 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T he ci r cui tcourtf

ai l ed t o m ake a r el evanc y c onnect i on be tw een the j ai l a s s aul tof M i l l erand th e a g g rav ated assa u lto f R u n n els, for w h ich M il ler w as in d ict ed
. T h ese w ere sep a ra te

### This Court would a dd that e ven i f the c ircui t judgedi d e rr be ca usethedoor ha d bee n 9 

### opene d, this er

ror was har ml es s gi ven the re le vanc y di sc onnec t betwee n the jaila ss ault and the ag grav ated assau lt of Runnels. 8 i nci dent s , di s connec t ed both t empora l l y a nd by l ocat i on. M i l l eras s ert s that“[ w ] hetheri tw as re le v a n t o rn o t, t h e d o o r h a d c e rt a in ly b e e n o p e n e d a n d th e te s tim o n y w a s a d m is s ib le .” H o w e v e r, i rre lev a n t ev id e n c e is no t ad m iss ib le. See M iss . R . E v id . 4 0 2 . T h e re fo re , this C o u rtca n n o t con clud e tha t th e c ir cu itjud g e a b u sed h is discre tion in su stai n ing the S tat e’s
re lev a n c y o b

jec tio n . A d d iti o n a lly , the tes tim o n y o f R u n n e ls a lo n e p ro v id e d “ c re d ib le

9 evi dence
. . . f

r om w hi ch the j ury coul d ha ve f ound orr eas onabl y i nf

err ed ea ch el ementof the of f ens e cha r ged. ” Ma m o n v. S ta te , 724 So. 2d 878, 881 ( M i s s . 1998) (ci t i ng D avis v. S ta te , 5 8 6 S o . 2 d 8 1 7 , 8 1 9 (M is s . 1 9 9 1 ))
. See al s o Co u sa r v . S ta te , 855 So. 2d 993, 998- 99 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ) (“ th is C o u rt h a s s ta te d th a t a s in g le w itn e ss ’s u n c o rro b o ra ted tes tim o n y is
s uf f i ci entt o s uppor ta c onvi ct i on. ”)
. A ccor di ngl y, thi s C our tf i nds thatthi s i s s ue i s w i thout
m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶13. T hi s C our taf

f i r m s t he “J udgm ent ” of

t he C i r cui tC our tof

Scot tC ounty f

i ndi ng M i l l er g u i l ty o f a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l ta n d t h e s e n t e n c e o f twe l v e y e a r s i n th e c u s t o d y o f th e M DOC. ¶ 1 4 . CO NV I CT I ON OF AG GR A V A T E D A S S A U L T A N D S E N T E N C E OF TW EL VE ( 1 2 ) YE ARS I N T HE CU S TODY OF THE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M EN T OF CORRE CT I ONS , AF F I RM ED . SM I TH , C . J. , W A LL ER A N D D I A Z, P. JJ . , EA SLE Y , C A R LSO N , G R A V ES, D I C K I N S O N A N D L A M A R , J J ., C O N C U R .