I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 1 - CT - 0 1 5 9 1 - S CT J OSEPH ROBERT

REI TH a

/ k / a J OSEPH R. REI TH a / k / a J OSEPH REI TH v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 22/ 2011 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . W IL L IA M E . C H A P M A N , III CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T : M ADI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT OFFI CE O F S TATE PUB LI C D EFENDER BY : GEO RG E T. HO LM ES 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 : LAU RA HO GA N TED DER D I STR I CT A TTO RN EY : M I CH A EL G U EST 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 : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 04/ 10/ 2014 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. RAN DO LPH, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . Fol l ow i ng a j ury tr i a l i n the Ci r c ui t Cour t of M a di s on County, M i s s i s s i pp i , J os e ph R obertR ei th w as c onvi ct ed f orthe m ur derof

hi s e x- w i f

e and s ent ence d t o l i f

e i m pr i s onm ent in th e c u sto d y o f th e M iss iss ip p i D e p a rtm e n t o f C o rre c tio n s. R e ith a p p e a led , an d h is c o n v ic tio n a n d se n te n c e w e re a ff ir m e d b y th e M is s is s ip p i C o u rt o f A p p e a ls . R e ith v. S ta te ,

__ S o . 3 d __ , 2 0 1 3 W L 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 (M iss. C t. A p p . M ar. 19 , 2 0 1 3 ). F o ll o w ing th at co u rt ’s

### 2

d en ial o f his m o ti o n for reh ea ri n g , R eith fi led a p eti ti o n for w ri t of ce rt iorari, w h ich th is C our tgr ant ed. FACTS ¶2 . For purpos e s o f

c e r t i or a r i r e vi e w , we a do ptthe f ol l owi ng f

a c t s f r om t he C our t of A ppeal s ’ opi ni on. R ei th and h i s w i f

e, T amm y, di vor ced i n 2007. T he coupl e s har ed cus t ody of th e ir o n ly c h ild , D y lan . F o llo w in g th e d iv o rc e , T a m m y v o ice d h e r in ten t to m o v e to A las k a an d to ta k e D y lan w ith h e r. O n M a rc h 1 2 , 2 0 1 0 , R e ith pet i t i oned the cha ncery courtf ora t empora ry r es tr ai ning orde rand a perm anenti nj unct i on t o pr eventTam m y f r om r emovi ng D yl an f

r om the s t at e. O n M a rc h 2 3 , 2 0 1 0 , T a m m y a lleg e d ly w e n t to R e ith ’s a p a rtm e n t to v isit w ith D yl an. H ow ever , D yl an w as nothom e. W hi l e i ns i de the apa r t m ent , R ei th and T amm y began t o ar gue aboutT amm y thr eat eni ng t o t ake D yl an t o A l as ka. R e ith late r k ill e d T a m m y a s s h e a ttem p ted to lea v e h is a p a rtm e n t. R e ith admi t t ed t hathe ki l l ed T amm y buti ns i s t ed thathe “bl acke d out ” bef or e ki l l i ng h er. R e ith , 2013 W L 1122311, at*1. I S S UES ¶3. O n w ri tof cer t i orar i , R ei th rai ses the fol l ow i ng i ssues, res t at ed as fol l ow s: I . T he t ri al court ’ s err or i n grant i ng i nst ruct i on S -5 w as not h arm l ess. II. In effec ti v e a ssistan ce o f co u n sel re g a rd ing instr u ction S -5 . A s i s s ue I i s di s pos i t i ve, w e w i l l addr es s onl y thati s s ue. A N A L Y S IS ¶ 4 . T h is C o u rt a p p lie s a n a b u s e -o f- d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd to ju ry in s tru c tio n s . W illi am s v. S ta te , 111 So. 3d 620, 623 ( M i s s . 2013) . “The i ns truct i ons a r e t o be r ead t ogetheras a w hol e,

### 3

w i th no one i ns truct i on t o be r ead a l one ort aken outof cont ext . ” B a iley v. S ta te , 78 So. 3d 308, 315 ( M i s s . 2012) ( quot i ng Y o u n gv. S ta te , 891 So. 2d 813, 819 ( M i s s . 2005) ) . “W hen r ead t ogether , i f

t he j ury i ns truct i ons fa i r l y st at e t he l aw of the cas e and cr eat e no i nj us t i ce, then no re ver s i bl e err orw i l l be f ound. ” B ailey , 78 So. 3d at315 ( ci t i ng N e w e ll v. S ta te , 49 S o . 3 d 6 6 , 7 3 (M iss. 2 0 1 0 )). T h e tri al court’s error i n gra n ti n g inst ru cti on S -5 w as n ot ha rm l ess. ¶ 5 . R e ith a rg u e s th a t in stru c tio n S -5 w a s g iv e n in e rro r. S -5 re a d , in p e rtin e n t p a rt, D el i be r a t e de s i gn may b e pr e s umed f r om t he un l a w f

ul a nd de l i be r a t e us e of a dea dl y w eapon. ¶6. “I ns truct i ons i n f or m s s i m i l art o [ S- 5] have be en bef or e the C our tf

ormany year s and a l ong l i ne of case s have di s cus s ed s uch i ns truct i ons . ” T ra n v. S ta te , 681 So. 2d 514, 517 ( M i s s . 1996) . T he C our thas “cons i s t ent l y hel d s uch an i ns truct i on err oneous [ , ] ” butthe ra tio n a le e s p o u s e d in th o s e c a s e s le ft o p e n th e o p p o rt u n ity to re q u e s t s u c h a n in s tru c tio n . Id . T oday, w e cl ar i f

y and f or ecl os e i t s f

utur e us e, f

or“ due pr oces s r equi r es thatthe St at e pr ove ea ch elem en t of th e o ffen se b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t” an d i n stru cti o n s w h ich a ll o w the ju ry t o pr es um e gui l ton an es s ent i al el ementof an of f ens e run count ert o ourm os tbas i c t enetof c ri m in a l la w . N

e a l v. S ta te , 4 5 1 S o . 2 d 7 4 3 , 7 5 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). ¶7. T hr oughouta cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on, ther e i s onl y one pr es um pt i on as t o the def endant – “[t ] he p res um pti on of i nn ocen ce – thatbedr ock ‘ axi om at i c and e l ement ary’ pr i nci ple w ho se

‘ enf or cementl i es atthe f

oundat i on of

the admi ni st rat i on of

ourcr i m i nal l aw . ’ ” In re W in sh ip , 397 U . S. 358, 363, 90 S. C t . 106 8, 2 5 L . E d. 2d 368 ( 1970) ( quot i ng Cof f in v.

### See Tran , 681 So. 2d at 517 (quoting Bla nk

s v. Sta te , 5 42 So. 2d 222, 227 1 

### (Miss.19 89 )) (intern al citati ons omit te d) ( “De finitionally, were gard mali ceaf ore thought

and del iberatedes ign a s s ynonymous .” ). 4 U nited States , 156 U . S. 432, 453, 15 S. C t . 394, 39 L . E d. 481 ( 1895) ) . T he “pr es um pt i on of i nnocenc e . . . ext ends t o every el ementof the cr i m e. ” Mor is s ette v. U nited States , 342 U . S. 246, 275, 72 S. C t . 240, 96 L . E d. 288 ( 1952) . T he cr i m e w i th w hi ch R ei th w as char ged in th is c a s e w a s d e lib e ra te - d e s ig n m u rd e r. “ ‘D e lib e ra te d e s ig n c o n n o te s a n in te n t to k ill . .

. . ’ T hus , ‘ i nt ent ’ w as an es s ent i al el ementof the cr i m e upon w hi ch” Rei th w as pr es um ed in n o c e n t a n d “ th e S ta te w a s re q u ir e d to p ro v e [h is ] g u ilt b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t.” Wil lia ms , 111 So. 3d at623 ( quot i ng B ro w n v . S ta te , 9 6 5 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 3 , 1 0 3 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 )). ¶8. A s i ntenti s an ess ent i al e l ementof de l i ber at e- des i gn murde r, “i t s exi st ence is a ques t i on of

f actw hi ch m us tbe s ubm i t t ed t o the j ury. ” Mo ris se tte , 3 4 2 U . S . at 27 4 . “It f ol l ow s thatthe tr i al courtm ay notw i thdr aw orpr ej udge the i s s ue by i ns truct i on thatthe l aw r a i s e s a p r e s u mp t i o n o f

i n t e n tf r o m an act . ” Id . (e m p h a sis ad d e d ). S -5 d id jus t th a t – it to ld th e ju ry th a t it m a y p re s u m e in te n t f ro m th e u s e o f a d e a d ly w e a p o n , i . e. , “ an ac t . ” A l l ow i ng the ju ry to “a ssu m e inten t f rom an isolated fac t . . . preju d g e[s] a c o n clus ion w h ich th e jury s houl d r eac h of

i t s ow n vol i t i on. ” Id . at 275 . A s s uch, S- 5 i s i n hopel es s “conf l i ctw i th t he overr i di ng pr es um pt i on of i nnocenc e w i th w hi ch the l aw endow s the ac cus ed . . . . ” Id . ¶9. O urpr i orcas es have notaddr es s ed thi s conf l i ct . I n T r an , this C o u rt ex am ined a jury i ns truct i on w hi ch cont ai ned the exa ctl anguage o f S-5. T he T r an C our ts t at ed “thatan i ns truct i on on an as s ert ed pr es um pt i on of m al i ce[ ] fr om t he use of a dea dl y w eapon i s pr oper 1 o n ly w h e re th e te s tim o n y h a s fa ile d to e s ta b lis h th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f t h e u s e o f t h e w e a p o n .”

### 5

T r an , 681 So. 2d at517 ( quot i ng S tew a rt v . S ta te , 226 So. 2d 911, 912 ( M i s s . 1969) ) . T he C our thel d the i ns truct i on i n err orbeca us e eye w i tnes s t es t i m ony es t abl i s hed “the f act s of t he sh o o ti n g [, ] ” a n d b ec au se th e ins tru cti o n “ reli ev ed the p rose cu ti o n o f i ts [ b u rde n o f] per s uas i on. ” T

r an , 681 So. 2d at518. ¶10. R el yi ng on T

r an i n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , the C our t of A ppeal s hel d that , “eve n though del i ber at e des i gn may be pr es um ed f r om the unl aw f

ul a nd de l i ber at e us e of

a deadl y w eapon,

. . . th e circu m stan ce s surro u n d ing th e u se o f th e w ea p o n w ere estab li sh ed ”; th u s, “the jury s houl d nothave be en i ns truct ed t hatdel i ber at e des i gn coul d be pr es um ed f r om the us e of

t he deadl y w eapon. ” R e ith , 2 0 1 3 W L 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 , a t * * 3 , 4 . W e a g re e th a t th e in stru c tio n sh o u ld nothave be en gi ven. H ow ever , w e mustdepartf r om our pr i orcas es and hol d thata j ury m ay n e v e r b e in stru c ted th a t itm a y p re su m e d e lib e ra te d e sig n fro m th e u n law fu l an d d e lib e ra te us e of a dea dl y w eapon, even “ w her e the t es t i m ony ha s f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h the ci r cumst ance s of the us e of

the w eapon. ” T

r an , 6 8 1 S o . 2 d a t 5 1 7 . ¶11. R ece nt l y, i n Wil

lia ms , w e addr es s ed the use of pr es um pt i ve i ns truct i ons r egar di ng an el ementof

the cha r ged of

f ens e. L i ke R ei th, “W i l l i ams w as i ndi ct ed fordel i ber at e des i gn m ur der . ” Wil

lia ms , 111 So. 3d at623. “W i l l i am s adm i t [ t ed] thats he s hotand ki l l ed” the v ic tim . Id . at624. “H erdef ens e attr i al w as thatthe s hoot i ng w as a n a cci dent , and, ther ef or e, s he l acke d the r equi s i t e i nt entt o be f ound gui l ty of

del i ber at e des i gn m ur der . ” Id . W il li am s’s ju ry w a s in stru c ted , in p e rtin e n t p a rt: [ A ] person i s pr esum ed to h a v e in ten d e d th e n a tu ra l an d p ro b a b le c o n s e q u e n c e s o f h is v o lu n ta ry a n d d e lib e ra te a c ts . (I n s tru c tio n S -4 .)

### 6

Id . at623 ( emphasi s i n ori gi nal ) . A s W i l l i ams di d notdeny s hoot i ng the vi ct i m , s he ar gued th a t th is in s tru c tio n “ s h if te d th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f o n th e o n ly c o n te s te d i s s u e a t tr ia l, her i nt ent , vel

non . ” Id . at624. ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . W e agr eed. “A s a pr es um pt i on i s acc ept ed as true w i thoutpr oof

t o t he contr ary, ” w e hel d thati ns truct i on S- 4 ( “[ a] per s on i s pr es um ed t o i nt end . . . . ”) i m perm i s s i bl y s hi f t ed “the bur den t o [ W i l l i ams] t o pr ovi de pr oof[ ] ” thats he la c k e d in te n t. Id . at625. ¶12. I n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , R ei th di d not deny that he ki l l ed hi s ex- w i f e w i th a dange r ous w eapon. E s s ent i al l y, S- 5 t ol d t he j ury thati tcoul d as s um e R ei t h i nt ended t o ki l l her , t hus r el i evi ng t he St at e of

i t s burde n t o pr ove R ei th’ s gui l ton an es s ent i al el ementof the cr i m e. Justli ke S- 4 i n Wil

lia ms , S- 5 al l ow ed the j ury t o “convi ct [ ] [ R ei th] bas ed upon a pr es um pt i on as oppos ed t o evi dence beyond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” Wil lia ms , 1 11 S o. 3 d at 626. H ar m l es s E r r or ¶13. T he C our t of A ppeal s concl uded that any err or i n gr ant i ng S- 5 w as harm l es s “i n l i ght of the overw hel m i ng e vi dence a gai ns tRei th a nd the otherj ury i ns truct i ons [ . ] ” R e ith , 2013 W L 1122311, at*4. W e di s agr ee. ¶14. R egar di ng the “otherj ury i ns truct i ons [ , ] ” the C our tof A ppeal s s t at ed: T he las tparagraph o f i nst ruct i on S -1A i nform ed the j ury t hat the S t at e m ust p rov e e v ery elem en t of e ith er c ri m e b ey o n d a rea so n ab le do u b t befo re the jury coul d fi nd R ei th gui l ty. W e f i nd t hat , des pi t e the l anguage i n i ns truct i on S- 5, the ju ry w as fu ll y an d fai rl y i n stru cted of the S tat e’s b u rde n in p rov ing R eith ’s g u ilt .

### 7

Id . I n Wil

lia ms , the St at e ar gued thatthe j ury s epar at el y w as i ns truct ed thatW i l l i ams “w as

‘ pr es um ed . . . i nnocent ’ and thatthe ‘ St at e mustpr ove beyond a r eas onabl e doubt ’ that[ s he] w as ‘ gui l ty of

every m at er i al el ementof the of f ens e. ’ ” Wil

lia ms , 1 1 1 S o . 3 d a t 6 2 4 . W e r ej ect ed thatcont ent i on, f or“thes e gene r al i ns truct i ons as t o the [ S t at e’ s ] bur den and the def endant ’ s pr es um pt i on of i nnocenc e do notdi s s i pat e the err ori n the cha l l enged port i on of the i ns truct i ons . ” Id . a t625 ( quot i ng Fra n c is v . Fra n k lin , 4 7 1 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 -2 0 , 1 0 5 S . C t. 1 96 5, 85 L . E d. 2d 34 4 (198 5)) . B ased on ou r anal ysi s supra , no ton l y d oe s a ge ne r al i ns truct i on on the pr es um pt i on of i nnocenc e not“di s s i pat e the err or ” i n S- 5, the i ns truct i ons a re in h o p e les s c o n flict. ¶15. T he C our t of A ppeal s al so found that “the St at e pr es ent ed overw hel m i ng evi dence f r om w hi ch the j ury coul d i nf erthatRei th . . . i nt ended t o ki l l [ hi s ex- w i f e] . ” R e ith , 2 0 1 3 WL 1122311, at*4. I n Wil

lia ms , w e not ed that“[u] ndoubt edl y, the St at e pr es ent ed s ubs t ant i al evi dence of

W i l l i ams’ s gui l t . ” Wil

lia ms , 1 1 1 S o . 3 d a t 6 2 6 . H o w e v e r, [ h] ert es t i m ony w as s uf

f i ci entt o w arr antan i ns truct i on on acc i dentorm i s t ake, w hi ch w as gra nt ed. O nce herdef ens e w as pl ace d i n i s s ue and the i ns truct i on given, i tw as t he du ty of t he j ury to co nsi der W i l l i am s’ s t est i m on y an d d efense among al l the otherevi dence pr es ent ed. I tw as S- 4 w hi ch cr eat ed thi s di l emm a, for itis i m p o ssible to d eterm ine b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t w h ethe r th e jury e n g a g e d in th is c o n sid e ra tio n o r m e re ly re lied o n S -4 ’s p re s u m p tio n a s to in ten t. Id . W e agr ee thatcons i der abl e ev i dence exi s t ed by w hi ch the j ury coul d have i nf err ed del i ber at e des i gn on the partof R ei th, buta pr es um pt i on ( as s um pt i on) bas ed on thatevi dence i s err oneous . T he evi dence pr es ent ed al s o w as s uf f i ci entt o w arr anta hea t - of - pas s i on m a n s la u g h te r i n s tru c tio n , w h ic h w a s g r a n te d . R e ith , 2013 W L 1122311, at*4. “O nce

### 8

[ R ei t h’ s ] d e f

e ns e was p l a c e d i n i s s ue a nd the [ mans l a ug ht e r ] i ns truc t i on g i ve n, i tw as t he d u ty o f t h e ju ry to c o n s id e r [ h is ] . . . d e fe n s e a m o n g a ll th e o th e r e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d .” Wil lia ms , 111 So. 3d at626. J us tas i n Wil lia ms , w e f

i nd i t“i m pos s i bl e t o det erm i ne beyond a reas on able dou bt w hetherthe jury en gag ed in this con si derat i on o r m erel y rel i ed o n [S-5’ s] pr es um pt i on as t o i nt ent . ” Id . T hus , w e ca nnotconcl ude thatthe err ori n gr ant i ng S- 5 w as h a rm les s b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. CO NC L US I ON ¶16. T he ci r cui t court err ed i n gr ant i ng i ns truct i on S- 5, and w e cannot concl ude thats uch err orw as harm l es s . D el i ber at e des i gn m ay notbe pr es um ed, a nd w e overrul e ourpr i orcas es t o the ext entt hatt hey conf l i ctw i th thi s pr i nci pl e. W e adm oni s h t he ci r cui tcourt s nott o gr ant an i ns truct i on w hi ch r el i es upon a pr es um pt i on of i nt ent , as i tconf

l i ct s w i th the pr es um pt i on of i nnocenc e, re l i evi ng t he St at e of i t s burde n t o pr ove gui l tbeyond a r eas onabl e doubton an es s ent i al el ementof

the of f ens e. R ei th’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence i n the tr i al courta nd t he jud g m en t of th e C o u rto f A p p ea ls are reve rsed , an d th is ca se is rem an d ed t o th e C ir cu itC o u rt of M adi s on C ounty f

ora new tr i al cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. ¶ 1 7 . RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL LE R, C. J . , DI CKI NS ON, P . J . , LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER , P I ER CE , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.