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 0 0 4 8 - S CT EB ON I B EN A W H IT E a /k /a EB ON

I W H IT E a /k /a EBO NI B. W H I TE
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/ 27/ 2010 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. LAM AR P I CKARD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: CLAI BORNE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: CYNTHI A AN N ST EW ART AT T ORNE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L B Y : J O H N R . H E N R Y , J R
. DE I RD RE M c CR OR Y SCOTT STUA RT D IS T R IC T A T T O R N E Y : A L E X A N D E R C
. M A R T IN 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 - 11/ 07/ 2013 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. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. A C l ai borne C ounty j ury convi ct ed E boni W hi t e of m ans l aught er , and the tr i al j udge
s ent ence d hert o a t erm of tw enty year s i n the cus t od y of t he M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm entof C orr ect i ons ( M D O C )
. W hi t e now appea l s t o thi s C ourtcl ai m i ng the tr i al courterr ed by:
r ef us i ng t o di s m i s s heri ndi ctm entbas ed on ce r t ai n i m proper i nf l uence s on the gr and j ury; pr ohi bi t i ng herexpertw i tnes s , J ef f r ey C urt i s , f

r om gi vi ng hi s opi ni on attr i al on the us e of f or ce i n s el f- defense; r ef us i ng t o i ns tructthe j ury on hertheory of s el f
- def ens e; and not

### 2

a l l owi ng h e rwi tne s s , Ri c ky Tho mps on , t o t e s t i f y be c a us e h e was i n the c ou r tr oo m dur i ng C urt i s ’ s t es t i m ony. A ddi t i onal l y, W hi t e cha l l enges the w ei ghtand s uf f i ci ency of

the
e v ide n ce to su p p o rth er c o n v ict ion an d arg u es c u m u lat ive e rror. T h e C o u rto f A p p e a ls affirm ed , fi n d ing n o e rror. H av ing g ran ted ce rt iorari o n the issu es o f w h ethe r the tr ial co u rt
e rr e d b y e x c l u d i n g R i c k y T h o mp s o n ’ s t e s t i mo n y a n d d e n y i n g W h i t e ’ s j u ry i n s tru c t i o n s , we f i n d e rr o ra n d r e v e r s e f

o ra n e w tr i a l
. On c e r t i o r a r i , we l i mi to u rr e v i e w t o W h i t e ’ s c l a i ms thatthe tr i al courterr ed i n notal l ow i ng T hom ps on t o t es t i f y and by notal l ow i ng an instruction em b o d y ing the C astl e D o ctri n e. F ind ing m eritt o bo th claim s, w e re v erse W h it e’s
c o n v ictio n a n d s e n ten c e a n d re m a n d th e c a se to th e C laib o rn e C irc u it C o u rt fo r a n e w trial.

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶ 2
. T h e fo llo w in g fa c ts a n d h isto ry w e re a d o p te d fr o m th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls’ m a jo rity
o p in io n . E b o n i W h ite a n d th e v ictim , D a n ielle N e w so m e , w e re stu d e n ts a t A lco rn S tate U ni ver s i ty and had be en f r i ends s i nce hi gh s chool
. T hey l i ved i n t rai l er hom es acr os s the
s tr eetf r om one anotheri n a tr ai l erpark nearL orm an, M i s s i s s i ppi
. W hi t e l i ved w i th other
r o o mma t e s , a n d Ne ws o me l i v e d wi th h e rf o u r - y e a r - o l d s o n , Da n i e l
. W h i t e a n d Ne ws o me had a “ f al l i ng out ” w hen N ew s om e acc us ed W hi t e of f ai l i ng t o s t op f

orhe rc hi l d’ s s chool bus one morni ng atthe end of O ct ober2009. T he bus pi cked up N ew s om e’ s chi l d every m orni ng and t ook hi m t o a H ead St artpr ogr am. W hi t e r emem ber s the i nci dentas f ol l ow s . T hat
m orni ng s he w as t aki ng a f ootbal l pl ayert o pr act i ce. She b acked o ut of herdr i vew ay and
s t opped behi nd the bus
. T he bus ’ s l i ght s w er e on, buti thad no s t op s i gn; s o W hi t e dr ove
ar ou nd the b us , t o i t s l e f t , a nd d r ov e t o A l c orn’ s c a mpus . Sho r t l y a f t e rr e turni ng hom e,

### 3

W hi t e hea r d ba ngi ng a the rdoor
. I tw as N ew s om e, w ho w ant ed t o know i f W hi t e had gone
ar ound the s chool bus
. W hi t e s ai d yes
. N ew s om e exc l ai m ed, “Y ou al m os thi tm y f **ki ng baby. ” W hi t e r es ponded thatshe ca m e now her e nearthe chi l d. N ew s om e then thr eat ened W hi t e: “I f

s om ethi ng happens t o m y baby, I [ am] goi ng t o f **k you u p. ” W hit e d i d not thi nk m uch of

N ew s om e’ s thr eatunt i l l at er , w hen N ew s om e s t art ed a “ campai gn of har as s m ent ” ag ai nstW hi t e. N ew s om e w oul d cal l W hi t e a “ b***h” eve ry t i m e s he s aw W h ite. A d d iti o n a lly , N e w so m e told W h ite th e p o lice w e re lo o k in g fo r h e r a n d h e r v e h icle b e c a u se o f th e b u s in c id e n t. ¶3
. A ppr oxi m at el y one w eek a f t erthe bus i nci dent , W hi t e f i l ed a c om pl ai nt f

or h a ra s s m e n t w ith th e C la ib o rn e C o u n ty S h e ri ff’s O ff ic e a g a in s t N e w s o m e . M a rt h a L o tt, a di s pat cherw i th the s her i f f’ s of f i ce, f i l l ed outthe compl ai ntf

orm f orW hi t e. W hi t e s t at ed that
on N ov em b er 1 , 2 0 09 , N ew som e cam e t o W hit e’s trai l er door and m ade thr eat s becau se W h i t e h a d d r i v e n a r o u n d th e s c h o o l b u s . F u r th e r , e v e ry t i me W h i t e c a me h o me , Ne ws o me
w a s o u tsid e w a iti n g fo r h e r, cu rsin g a n d c a lli n g W h ite n a m e s. W h ile, n o rm a lly , L o tt w o u ld cont actthe l aw - enf

orcem ent aut hor i t i es w hen a c om pl ai ntw as f i l ed, thi s t i m e s he di d not becaus e W hi t e di d notas k hert o. ¶4. O n the morni ng of N ovember12, 2009, atappr oxi m at el y 8: 00 a. m . , W hi t e s t art ed her vehi cl e, butshe re turned t o hertr ai l erw i th a ca s e of beerherr oom m at e had l ef ti n her
v e h i c l e , a s s h e c o u l d n o tt a k e i tt o s c h o o l
. S h e th e n h e a r d b a n g i n g a th e rd o o ra n d Ne ws o me threa tenin g , “B * * * h , co m e o u tsi d e. I’ m g o ing to g et yo u . C o m e o n . I k n o w y o u a re in there

. . . a i n ’ tn o wa y o u t . Yo u ’ r e g o i n g t o s e e me t o d a y . ” A n e i g h b o ra l s o t e s t i f i e d Ne ws o me
w oke herby r epea t ed yel l i ng atW hi t e’ s t r ai l ersomethi ng t o the ef f ectof: “B ***h, I ’ m goi ng

### Tes timony at t ri alshowed thesilver

objec t coul d have been Newsom e’ s c el l phone , 1 

### whic h Whit e’ s f

ather found lying on t

he windshi el d of White ’svehi cl e l at er that day. 4 t o w ho op yo ur a**. B ** *h , co m e o ut of there” forapp roxi m at el y fi ft een to tw enty m i nu t es. A not herne i gh bo rov e rhe a r d the c omm ot i on a nd w a s s o c on c e rne d s he c a l l e d the po l i ce. W hi t e s t ayed i n the tr ai l erf orappr oxi m at el y an ho ur and a hal f tryi ng t o avoi d N ew s om e,
m issi n g a c o ll eg e ca lculu s test at 9 :00 a . m . W h it e m ad e n u m ero u s p h o n e c all s to h er b roth er,
m other , an d f

ather ; how ever , s he coul d notgeti n t ouch w i th them. W hi t e’ s br otherhad dat ed N ew s om e; s o W hi t e thought“he c oul d t al k t o [N ew som e] an d f i gur e outw hatw as goi ng on. ” W hen W hi t e f i nal l y r eac hed herf

ather , he t ol d hert o f

or getabouthercal cul us t es tand go i m m edi at el y t o the courthous e and f i l e f ora re s tr ai ni ng orde r . A l s o, he t ol d her t o br i ng hom e herhandgun, w hi ch W hi t e had boughtforsaf ety dur i ng r oad tr i ps , as the tr i ps
w er e conc l uded. ¶5
. A ts om e poi nt , W hi t e e xi t e d he rtr a i l e r , wi th the h a nd gu n i n t he pocke tof her backpa ck, headi ng t ow ar d the dr i ver ’ s doorof he rve hi cl e. N ew s om e ca m e f orw ar d f r om her tr ai l eracr os s the hi ghw ay, appr oache d the dr i ver ’ s doorof W hi t e’ s vehi cl e, and bl ocked W h it e’s a cc ess to h er v eh icl e. T h e tw o ex ch an g ed w o rds in W h it e’s d ri v ew ay , w h ere W h ite’s v e h icle w a s p a rk e d . W itn e ss e s re c o u n ted th a t N e w so m e a g a in s tate d , “Y o u tried to h it m y b a b y ,” a n d a sk e d W h ite, “ W h y d id y o u try to r u n o v e r m y c h ild ? ” W h ite to ld N ew s om e they had “ di s cus s ed thi s al r eady” an d t o “ c hi l l out , ” butN ew s om e r es ponded, “N o, f **k that
. F**k that
. W e f i xi ng t o di s cus s i tagai n. ” W hi t e s t at ed t hat, as N ew s om e w as appr oachi ng her , N ew s om e’ s hand ca m e up, and there w as s om ethi ng s i l veri n i t , w hi ch W h i t e th o u g h twa s a we a p o n . On e e y e wi tn e s s t e s t i f i e d t h a tW h i t e wa s c u r s i n g Ne ws o me 1

### 5

as w el l , c al l i ng he ra “b***h” a nd s t at i ng s he w as “t i r ed. ” W hi t e then t ook herhandgun f r om herbackpa ck and s hotN ew s om e s ever al t i m es . L aw - enf or cementof

f i cer s arr i ved t o hear g u n sh o ts an d saw a c row d o f pe o p le ha d g a th e re d . N e w so m e fe ll to the g rou n d
. O ffi ce rs to ld W h ite to p u t th e g u n d o w n , a n d sh e th re w it t o w a rd s th e m sta tin g , “Y o u c a n h a v e it
now . ” A s they w er e arr es t i ng W hi t e, s om eone s ai d, “Eboni , I t ol d you t o w ai ti n the hous e. I t ol d you t o w ai t . ” W hi t e, very ups et , r es ponded, “Y ’ al l w as t aki ng t oo l ong . . . [ N ew s om e]
w ou l dn ’tl eave m e al on e. ” N ew som e died f rom m ult i ple gunsh ot w ou nd s. ¶6. W hi t e w as i ndi ct ed f ormurde r . She f

i l ed a m oti on t o d i sm i ss the indi ctm ent f or im p rop er influe n ce b y the g ran d -j u ry fore p erso n , w h o W h it e c lai m ed k n ew an d d isl iked h er. T h e tr ia l c o u rtd e n ie d th e m o tio n . A th re e -d a y tr ia l e n s u e d in S e p te m b e r 2 0 1 0
. ¶7. A tthe tri al , several of W hi t e’ s and N ew s om e’ s nei ghbor s t es t i f i ed. O ne nei ghbor t e s t i f i e d th a t , o n th e mo rn i n g o f t h e s h o o t i n g , h e p u l l e d u p i n h i s v e h i c l e t o wh e r e Ne ws o me
w as s t andi ng, a nd s he t ol d hi m a young l ady had tr i ed t o run overherchi l d. T he nei ghbor told N ew so m e to “ leti t g o ” an d retu rn to h er trail er. N ew so m e also tri ed t o st o p h er c h il d ’s b u s d riv e r, w h o w a s c o m in g th ro u g h th e tra iler p a rk at th e ti m e , to tell th e d riv e r th a t W h ite had tr i ed t o run overherchi l d. N ew s om e then appr oache d one of W hi t e’ s r oom m at es w ho
w a s o u tsid e . T h e ro o m m a te to ld N e w so m e sh e h a d n o th in g to d o w ith th e in c id e n t an d to sp ea k w ith W h it e a b o u t i t, an d return ed to h er trai ler. ¶8. T hr ee nei ghbor s t es t i f i ed they s aw W hi t e s hoot i ng the gun. W hi t e, t es t i f yi ng on he r
ow n behal f

, cl ai m ed s he t ook the gun w i th hert o t ake i thom e, on herf ather ’ s advi ce – not t o sho otN ew s om e. R egar di ng the s hoot i ng, W hi t e cl ai m ed thats he had w i tnes s ed N ew so m e’s c ap ac ity for v iolen ce in o ther p ri o r i n stan ce s an d feltsh e h ad to p rotec t herse lf
.

### 6

N ew s om e’ s aut ops y s how ed a tot al of f i ve guns hotw ounds : one t o the hea d, thr ee t o the t or s o, and one t o the thi gh. N o w eapons w er e f ound on N ew s om e’ s body. ¶9. T he j ury found W hi t e gui l ty of the l es s er - i ncl uded of f ens e of m ans l aught er . T he tr i al j udge s ent ence d hert o tw enty year s i n the cu st od y of t he M D O C
. W hi t e’ s m ot i on f or j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ct(JN O V ) or a new t r i al w as deni ed, and W hi t e appe al ed. In a n e ig h t- tw o d e c is io n , th e C o u rto f A p p e a ls a ff ir m e d
. DI S CU S S I ON I. T h e tr ial co u rt e r r e d in n o t a llo w ing o n e o f W h it e’s w it n esse s to te s ti fy b e c a u s e th e w it n e s s h a d v io la te d th e s e q u e s tr a ti o n r u le . ¶10. W hi t e cl ai m s the tr i al c ourti m pr oper l y e xcl uded hereyew i tnes s , R i cky Thom ps on, fro m tes tify in g a t tria l b e c a u se h e v io late d th e w itn e ss se q u e stra tio n ru le. M iss iss ip p i R u le of E vidence 6 15 go verns w i tness sequestrat i on . Itprovides: A tthe r eques tof

a par ty t he courtshal l orde rw i tnes s es excl uded s o thatthey c a n n o t h e a r th e tes tim o n y o f o th e r w itn e ss e s, a n d it m a y m a k e th e o rd e r o f its ow n m oti on . T h is rule does no tauthori ze exc l usi on of ( 1) a party w ho i s a natur al per s on, or( 2) a n of f i cerorempl oyee of

a party w hi ch i s nota natur al perso n d esi gn at ed as i t s r epresent at i ve b y it s att orney, or(3) a person w ho se pr es ence i s s how n by a party t o be es s ent i al t o the pr es ent at i on of hi s caus e. M
. R
. E
. 615. T he purpos e of w i tnes s s eques tr at i on i s t o ( 1) r es tr ai n w i tnes s es f r om t ai l or i ng the irtesti m on y to that of earl i er w i tnesses and (2) t o aid i n d et ect i ng t est i m on y thati s l ess th a n c a n d id
. D o ug la s v . Sta te , 525 So. 2d 1312, 1316 ( M i s s . 1988) ( quot i ng G e de rs v. U . S. , 4 2 5 U .S . 8 0 , 8 7 , 9 6 S . C t. 13 3 0 , 1 3 3 5 , 4 7 L . E d . 2 d 5 9 2 (1 9 7 6 )). T h e a p p e llate c o u rt is l i m i t ed t o an abus e- of

- di s cr et i on s t andar d w hen r evi ew i ng an al l e ge d s e qu e s tr a t i on vi ol a t i on. W h ittin g to n v. Sta te , 74 8 S o. 2d 71 6, 71 9 (M i ss. 19 99 ). “ R ev ersal i s not j ust i fi ed u nles s ther e i s a s how i ng of

pre j udi ce s uf

f i ci entt o const i tut e abus e of di s cr et i on on the partof the

### 7

tr i al j udge i n notor der i ng a mi s tr i al ornote xcl udi ng t es t i m ony. ” Id
. ( ci t i ng D ouglas , 525 So. 2d at1318)
. W hen a w i tnes s has vi ol at ed the rul e, the tr i al courthas di s cr et i on as t o the p ro p e r r e m e d y . Fin ley v. Sta te , 725 So. 2d 226, 233 ( M i s s . 1998) ( ci t i ng D ouglas , 525 So. 2 d a t 1 3 1 7 ). ¶1 1. A tt r i al , W hi t e s ou gh tt o c a l l Ri c ky Tho mps on a s a wi tne s s . T he St at e obj ect ed, h o w ev er, be ca u se T h o m p so n h ad b ee n in the co u rtroo m for a t l ea st pa rto f C u rt is’ s t es t i m ony. W hit e argued thatT hom ps on w oul d t es t i f y aboutthe eve nt s s urr oundi ng the shoo t i ng and w ou l d n ot t ou ch o n an ythi ng ab ou tw hich C urt i s had tes t i fi ed. N evertheles s, th e trial c o u rt su sta in e d th e o b jec tio n . T h e tria l ju d g e sa id , “[T ]he ru le w a s in v o k e d , an d if [T h o m p s o n h a s ] b e e n in th e c o u rt ro o m , I w o n ’tle t h im te s tif y .” ¶1 2. L at er , W hi t e pr of f er ed t hatT hom ps on “w oul d t es t i f y a s t o the c i r cumst ance s
su rro u n d ing the s h o o ti n g w ith resp ec t t o w h at he saw an d h ea rd. T h e p u rpo se o f th is testi m o n y w o u ld be t o sup p o rt[ W h it e’s] clai m of self d efe n se. A n d i t w o u ld n o t re late in
a n y m a n n e r t o th e te s tim o n y o f C u rt is .” ¶13. I n D ouglas , thi s C ourtaddr es s ed the pr operre m edy w hen a tr i al j udge know s that the
s eques tr at i on rul e has been vi ol at ed bef or e the w i tnes s t es t i f

i es ci t i ng f

orgui dance f

eder al l aw r egar di ng R ul e 615 of the F eder al R ul es of

E vi dence , upon w hi ch M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E v id e n c e 6 1 5 is m o d e led : T h e fe d e ra l co u rts h a v e n o ted th a t th e b e st re m e d y fo r v io latio n o f th e R u le o c c u rs a t trial. A t trial tw o s itu a tio n s g e n e ra lly a rise w h e re th e trial c o u rt is cal l ed upon t o deal w i th s eques tr at i on vi ol at i ons . Fi r s t , ther e i s the s i tuat i on, as i n thi s cas e, w her e the tr i al j udge know s bef or e the w i tnes s t es t i f

i es thatthe w itn e ss is in v io latio n o f th e R u le. A s th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f o r th e F ifth C i r cui ts t at es , fai l ure of a w i tnes s t o compl y w i th a s eques tr at i on or derdoes n o t alo n e ren d e r h is tes tim o n y ina d m iss ib le
. U . S. v. Suarez , 487 F. 2d 236,

### 8

238 ( 5th C i r . 1973)
. W hethert o excl ud e the w i tnes s i s l ef tt o the s ound d is c re tio n o f t h e ju d g e . U . S. v. W ar r en , 5 7 8 F
. 2 d 1 0 5 8 , 1 0 7 6 (5th C ir
. 1 9 7 8 ). W arr en goes on t o s ay thatthe j ud ge shoul d notexcl ude w i tnes s es unl es s he det erm i nes thatthe t es t i m ony w i l l r es ul ti n pr obabl e pr ej udi ce t o the other p a rt y . W

ar r en 578 F. 2d at1076, n. 16. I n U . S. v. B las co , 7 02 F. 2d 1315 (11th C i r. 19 83 ), the E l even th C i rcui tsum m ari zed thatstri king t est i m on y is a s er i ous sanc t i on, appr opr i at e onl y w her e a pa r ty has s uf f er ed ac tual pr ej udi ce and ther e has been c onni van ce by the w i tnes s orcouns el t o vi ol at e the rul e. B las co , 7 0 2 F
. 2 d at 13 2 7
. T h e m o re a p p rop ri ate sa n cti o n is a “fu ll -bo re cr os s - e xa mi na t i on ” of

the w i tne s s on the f

a c t s of the vi ol a t i on of

the R ul e. U . S. v. Jim enez , 780 F
. 2d 9 75 , 981 ( 11th C i r . 1986)
. Fur therm or e, the tr i al c o u rt c o u ld ad e q u a tely res p o n d to th e p o ss ib ili ty o f p re ju d ice b y sp e c ifica lly in stru c tin g th e ju ry th a t a v io latio n o f th e R u le s h o u ld b e c o n sid e re d in e v a lu a tin g th e c re d ib ility o f t h e w itn e s s . Jim enez , 7 8 0 F . 2 d a t 9 8 1 ; see al so U . S. v. Cox , 7 5 2 F
. 2 d 7 4 1 , 7 4 8 (1st C ir
. 1 9 8 5 ). D ouglas , 525 So. 2d at1317. ¶14. T hi s C ourt has hel d that , i f the w i tnes s di d not del i ber at el y att empt t o ci r cumventthe
se q u e stra tio n ru le, th e a p p ro p ria te r e m e d y is to a llo w d e fe n se c o u n se l a n o p p o rtu n ity to
c ro s s -e x a m in e th e w itn e s s fu lly a b o u t th e ru le v io la tio n . B ro w n v. Sta te , 682 So. 2d 340, 349 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ). T h e U .S . S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t: I f a w i tness di s obeys the or derof w i thdr aw al , w hi l e he may be pr ocee ded ag a i ns tf orc on t e mpt , a nd hi s t e s t i mony i s op e n t o c omm e ntt o the j ury by r eas on of

hi s conduct , he i s notther eby di s qual i f i ed, and the w ei ghtof author i ty i s t hathe ca nnotbe exc l uded on thatgr ound, m er el y, al though the ri g h t t o ex clud e u n d er pa rt i cular ci rcum stan ces m a y b e su p p o rte d a s w ith in th e so u n d d isc re tio n o f th e trial c o u rt. Holder v. U

nited States , 15 0 U. S. 91 , 92 , 14 S. Ct
. 10 , 37 L. Ed. 10 10 ( 18 93 ) ( c i t a t i ons
om i tt ed) ( emphasi s added)
. T he U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s f

orthe Fi f

th C i r cui thas d e fin e d “ p a rticu larc irc u m sta n c e s” to m e a n th a t “th e w itn e ss sh o u ld b e d isq u a lified o n ly
w hen he ha s vi ol at ed the s eques tr at i on orde rw i th ‘ the cons ent , conni vance , pr ocur ementor kn ow l edg e of

the [ def endant ] orhi s couns el
. ’ ” Bra s wel l v. W ainwri ght , 463 F. 2d 1148,

### 9

11 52 -53 ( 5th C i r . 1972) ( quot i ng U nited States v. Schaef

er , 299 F. 2d 625 , 631 ( 7th C ir
. 1 9 6 2 ))
. ¶1 5
. A s the F if

th C ir cu it n o ted, d efe n d an ts h av e a fu n d a m e n tal rig h t to the c o m p u lsory p ro c e s s o f w itn e s s e s . B ra sw e ll , 463 F. 2d at1153- 54 ( ci t i ng W as hington v. T

exas , 38 8 U. S. 14, 87 S. C t . 1920, 18 L
. E d. 2d 1019 ( 1967) )
. I n B ra sw e ll , th e d e fe n d a n t’s s o le
corr obor at i ng w i tnes s w as prevent ed f r om t es t i f

yi ng becaus e the w i tnes s had bee n pr es ent in th e c o u rt ro o m d u ri n g th e a g g ra v a te d -a s s a u lt v ic tim ’s te s tim o n y . B ra sw e ll , 4 63 F. 2d a t 1 1 5 0 , 1 1 5 5 . N o p ro ff

e r w a s m a d e , a n d th e w itn e s s d ie d a ft e r t h e tr ia l. I d. T he U ni t ed St at es C o u rto f A p p e a ls fo r t h e F if th C ir c u it a ff

ir m e d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s g ra n t o f h a b e a s re lie f. I d. at 11 4 9
. Ith eld th at th e e x clus ion o f th e w itn e ss ’s testi m o n y h ad v iolated th e d efe n d an t’ s f u n d a m e n ta l, c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to c a ll w itn e s s e s o n h is b e h a lf
. I d. a t11 54
. Thou gh the def endant ’ s counse l had i nvoked the rul e, the courtf ound thatthe def

endanthad notw ai ved hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o the compul s ory att endanc e of w i tnes s es by hi s couns el havi ng d o n e s o . I

d. Such w ai veri s pr oper , the courts ai d, onl y i f the def endan tm akes a know i ng, i nt el l i gent , e xpr es s w ai ver , orthe w i tnes s vi ol at es the rul e w i th the “k no w l edge, p ro c u re m e n t, o r c o n s e n t” o f t h e d e fe n d a n t o r h is o r h e r c o u n s e l. I d. at 115 4- 55. A s f

orthe abs ence of

a f orm al pr of

f er , t he courtfound thatt he def endant ’ s att orney’ s t es t i m ony dur i ng th e h a b e a s h e a ri n g w a s s u ff ic ie n t. I d. at 1 1 5 5
. T h e atto rn e y tes tified tha t th e w itn e ss w o u ld h a v e c o rro b o ra ted th e d e fe n d a n t’s v e rsio n o f e v e n ts a n d th a t th e tes tim o n y w a s im p o rta n t. I d. a t 1 1 5 2 , 1 1 5 5 . T h e c o u rt sa id th a t th e d e fe n d a n t’s rig h t to d u e p ro c e ss e n title d h im to p re s e n t “ c ru c ia l” e v id e n c e o f h is s o le c o rr o b o ra tin g w itn e s s to th e ju ry . I d. a t1155- 56. T he Fi f th C i r cui ts um m ar i zed:

### 10

[ W ] e thi nk thatonl y w her e s om e overr i di ng pol i cy cons i der at i on i s s how n f or the exclusi on o f

a w i tnes s orw her e i tcan be s how n thatthe def endantm ade a[ n] [ i nt ent i onal , know i ng] w ai verof hi s s i xth amendm entr i ghtcan atr i al c o u rt p ro p e rly e x c lu d e a v ital w itn e ss fo r v io latio n o f th e ru le. T h e “ c o n se n t, conni vance , pr ocur ementorknow l edge of the def endantorhi s couns el ” i n the unauthor i zed pr es ence of the w i tnes s w oul d c ert ai nl y s eem t o be val i d r eas ons fo r e x c lu s io n . B ra sw e ll , 4 6 3 F .2 d a t 1 1 5 6
. ¶1 6
. H e re , th e C o u rt o f A p p ea ls he ld tha t th e tri al co u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscre tio n in
e x c lu d in g T h o m p s o n a s a w itn e s s . W h ite v . Sta te , N o. 2011- K A
- 00048- C O A , 2012 W L 8 0 2 3 5 8 5 , at * 2 0 (M iss
. C t. A p p . O c t. 2 3 , 2 0 1 2 ). Ito p in e d tha t W h ite p re se n ted a c o m p lete def ens e by ca l l i ng f

i f t een w i tnes s es dur i ng hercas e- i n- chi ef ; thatnothi ng i n the pr of f er
s how ed a s i gni f

i cantf actthatw as notpr es ent ed by anotherw i tnes s ; and thatW hi t e coul d not
s h o w th a t s h e h a d b e e n p re ju d ic e d b y T h o m p s o n ’s e x c lu s io n . I d. ¶1 7
. A d m itt e d ly , T h o m p so n ’s tes tim o n y d o e s n o t a p p ea r t o b e a s cru cial t o W h it e’s def ens e as the exc l uded t es t i m ony w as i n B ra sw e ll –W hi t e di d, i n f

act , cal l a t ot al of

f i f t een
w itn e ss e s. E v e n so , o n ly tw o o f th e w itn e ss e s c a lled w e re e y e w itn e ss e s. T h o m p so n w o u ld h a v e b e e n a th ir d , a n d th e d e ta ils o f h is te s tim o n y a re u n k n o w n . ¶1 8. W e f

i nd t hatt he tr i al cour tabus ed i t s di s c r e t i on i n thi s i ns t a nc e by excl udi ng T hom ps on’ s t es t i m ony f orno bas i s otherthan a vi ol at i on of t he se ques tr at i on rul e. T he tr i al
c o u rts h o u ld h a v e m a d e a d e te rm in a tio n a s to th e p re ju d ic ia l e ff

e c t o f t h e v io la tio n . Br o wn , 6 8 2 S o . 2 d at 3 4 9
. W e d e c lin e , h o w e v e r, t o d e c id e w h e th e r th is e rro r c o n stitu ted re v e rsib le
err or . A s w i l l be expl ai ned i n the f ol l ow i ng i s s ue, w e al so fi nd thatW hi t e w as deni ed her rig h t to h a v e th e ju ry p ro p e rly in stru c ted o n h e r se lf-d e fe n s e c laim , w h ich w a s re v e rsib le
erro r.

### 11

II. T h e tr ial co u rt e rr ed in r efu sing to instr u ct th e ju ry o n D efe n d a n t’s t heory of

t he cas e. ¶19. W hi t e cl ai m s the tr i al c ourte rr ed by r ef us i ng t o al l ow hert o s ubm i ta j ury i ns truct i on
w hi ch w oul d have encompas s ed hertheory of s el f
- def ens e conc erni ng the C as t l e D octr i ne. T h e s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w fo r th e d e n ia l o f a ju ry in s tru c tio n is a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . D av is v. S ta te , 18 So. 3d 842, 847 ( M i s s . 2009)
. “[ T ] he def ens e i s ent i t l ed t o an i ns truct i on cover i ng the th eo ry o f the c ase so lon g a s the re is e v iden ce in the rec o rd th at w o u ld su p p o rtthat theo ry
w i tho ut regar d t o the proba t i ve value of that evidence so l on g as i ti s m o re tha n a m ere
s ci nt i l l a of

pr oof
. ” L e ste r v . Sta te , 862 So. 2d 582, 586 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2004) ( ci t i ng McG ee
v. Sta te , 8 2 0 S o . 2 d 7 0 0 , 7 0 5 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 0 )). ¶2 0. The C ou r tof

A pp e a l s m a

j or i ty f ou nd t ha tt he t r i a l co urtdi d no tab us e i t s di s c r e t i on in d en y ing W h it e’s instruc ti o n b ec au se sh e fa il ed to p rov ide e v iden ce su p p o rt ing h er se lf
def ens e theory. B el i evi ng the dr i vew ay w her e N ew s om e w as ki l l ed w as a “c om m on” or publ i c dr i vew ay, the C ourtof A ppeal s f

ound no evi dence t o s upporta tr es pas s cl ai m , and thus no bas i s f

oral l ow i ng a j ury i ns truct i on pr edi cat ed on the C as t l e D octr i ne. T he j uryi nstruct i on con fer ence w as not transcr i bed ; theref ore, the reas on s the tri al cou rtref used these in s tru c tio n s a re n o t k n o w n . W h ite v . Sta te , N o. 2011- K A
- 00048- C O A , 2012 W L 8023585,
a t * 1 0 , n .3 (M is s . C t. A p p . O c t. 2 3 , 2 0 1 2 ). ¶21. W hi t e’ s propos ed i ns truct i on setforth t he “C ast l e D octr i ne” s t atut ory pr es um pt i on,
a s c o d ified in M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 9 7 -3 -1 5 (3 ). T h a t se c tio n p ro v id e s th a t: A p e rso n w h o u se s d e fe n siv e f o rc e s h a ll b e p re su m e d to h a v e re a so n a b ly f ear ed i m m i nentdeath orgr eatbodi l y harm , orthe comm i ssi on of a f el ony upon hi m oranotherorupon hi s dw el l i ng, oragai ns ta ve hi cl e w hi ch he w as o c c u p y in g , o r a g a in st h is b u sin e ss o r p lac e o f e m p lo y m e n t o r th e im m e d iate

### 12

pr emi s es of

s uch bus i nes s orpl ace of empl oym ent , i f

t he per s on agai ns tw hom th e d e fe n siv e fo rc e w a s u se d , w a s in th e p ro c e ss o f u n law fu lly a n d fo rc ib ly ent er i ng, orhad unl aw f

ul l y and f or ci bl y ent er ed, a dw el l i ng, occupi ed vehi cl e, bus i nes s , pl ace of

empl oym entort he i m m edia t e pr emi s es ther eof ori f that per s on ha d unl aw f

ul l y r emoved orw as a t t empt i ng t o unl aw f ul l y rem ove anothera gai ns tthe otherpe r s on’ s w i l l f r om thatdw el l i ng, oc cupi ed vehi cl e, bus i nes s , pl ace of

employm entorthe i m m edi at e pr emi s es ther eof and the per s on w ho us ed def

ens i ve f or ce kne w orhad r eas on t o bel i eve thatthe fo rc ib le e n try o r u n law fu l a n d fo rc ib le a c t w a s o c c u rrin g o r h a d o c c u rre d . T h is pr es um pt i on s hal l notappl y i f the per s on agai ns tw hom def ensi ve f or ce w as us ed has a r i gh tto be i n ori s a l aw f ul r es i dentorow nerof the dw el l i ng, vehi cl e, bus i nes s , pl ace of e m pl oym entorthe i m m edi at e pr emi s es ther eof or i s the l aw f

ul r es i dentorow nerof the dw el l i ng, vehi cl e, bu si ness , pl ace of empl oym entorthe i m m edi at e p rem i s es ther eof ori f the per s on w ho us es defensi ve f

or ce i s engage d i n unl aw f ul act i vi ty ori f

the per s on i s a l aw e n fo rc e m e n t o ff

ic e r e n g a g e d in th e p e rf o rm a n c e o f h is o ff

ic ia l d u tie s [.] M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-1 5 (3) (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶ 2 2
. B a se d o n o u r re v iew o f th e re c o rd , e n o u g h e v id e n c e w a s p re se n ted a t W h ite’s trial to at l ea st r aise a q u esti o n as to w h ethe r W h it e w as e n ti tl ed to the “C astl e D o ctri n e” statu tory p re su m p tio n c o d ified b y S e c tio n 9 7 -3 -1 5 . A s th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls d iss e n t p o in ted o u t: [ T ] he r ecor d s how s thatthe i nci dentt ook pl ace i n the i m m edi at e v i ci ni ty of W hi t e’ s hom e, r i ghtnextt o W hi t e’ s vehi cl e. I n f act , a f t erN ew s om e s pot t ed W hi t e w al king t o hervehi cl e, N ew s om e cr os s ed the s tr eetand arr i ved atthe vehi cl e bef

or e W hi t e eve n r eac hed i t . W hi t e’ s vehi cl e w as parked i n fr ontof he rtr a i l e ri n a n a r e a r e f e rr e d t o a s a “ c omm on d r i ve w a y. ” W hi t e s ha r ed the dri vew ay w i th r oom m at es and r es i dent s of the tr ai l ernextdoor
. N ew s om e, how ever , l i ved ac r os s the s tr eet , a nd di d nots har e thi s dr i vew ay w i th W hi t e. A lth o u g h th e dr iv e w a

y w a s a “ c o m m o n ” driv e w a y , it w a s o n ly c o m m o n to th o s e r e s i de n t

s wh o s h a r e d

i t , wh i c h d i d

n o ti n c l u de Ne ws o me . A ques t i on a r i s e s t o wh e th e rNe ws o me wa s tr e s p a s s i n g wh e n s h e c r o s s e d th e s tr e e t , c a me ont o the pr operty surr oundi ng W hi t e’ s r es i dence , and pr event ed W hi t e f r om l eavi ng by bl ocki ng W hi t e’ s acce s s t o hervehi cl e. T hi s ques t i on s houl d have been pr es ent ed t o the j ury. W h ite , N o. 2011- K A
- 00048-CO A , 2012 W L 8023585, *30 ( ¶59) ( R us s el l , J
. , di s s ent i ng) (em p h asis ad d ed ).

### 13

¶ 2 3
. W e a g re e w ith th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls d iss e n ter s. G iv e n th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted a t trial, W h it e w as e n ti tl ed to an ad eq u ate jury instruction sett ing forth S ec ti o n 9 7 -3-1 5 (3)’s statutory p re s u m p tio n a n d its a tte n d in g p re re q u is ite s a s p re s c ri b e d b y th a t s e c tio n . CO NC L US I ON ¶24. W e r ever s e the j udgm ent s of the C ourt of A ppeal s and the ci r cui t court , and r emand th e c a se to C laib o rn e C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt fo r fu rth e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is opi ni on. ¶ 2 5
. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W A LL ER , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D R A N D O L P H , P . JJ. , LA M A R , K I TC H EN S, CHANDL ER , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.