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 4 - DR- 0 2 2 4 8 - S CT RO GER ERIC T

HORS ON
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 08/ 2002 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J ERR Y O. TE RRY, S R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HARRI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N T: J I M D A V I S DANI E L S
. BR E NNAN RI CH AR D F. KLA W I TER AT T OR NE YS 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 B Y : M A R V IN L . W H IT E , J R
. JA S O N L
. D A V IS DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: C O N O A
. C A R A N N A , II CI V I L - D EA TH PEN A LTY - PO ST CO NVI CT I ON DI SP OSI TI ON : PETI TI ON F OR POST- CO NV I CTI ON RELI EF IS D E N IE D IN P A R T A N D G R A N T E D IN P AR T
. T HI S C AS E I S R E MAND E D T O T HE CI RC UI T COURT OF THE S EC OND J UDI CI AL DI S T RI CT OF HAR RI S ON CO UNT Y F OR AN E VI DE NT I AR Y HE AR I NG CO NS I S T E NT W I T H AT KI NS, CHASE AND LYNCH - 08/ 30/ 2007 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. CAR LS ON , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT:

### 2 STA TE M EN T O F T H E C A SE AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶1. R oger E ri c T hors on w as i ndi ct ed on June 3, 1987, and char ged w i th capi t al m ur der of hi s ex-gi r l f

r i end, G l or i a M cK i nney, dur i ng the comm i s s i on of ki dnappi ng on M ar ch 4, 1987. T hor s on ent er ed a pl ea of notgui l ty and pr ocee d t o tr i al i n the Second J udi ci al D i s tr i ct of H arr i s on C ounty on M ay 16, 1988. T w o days i nt o the tr i al , a br eak- i n occurr ed i n a mot el
r oom occupi ed by t w o of the se ques t er ed j ur or s . T hor s on m oved f ora mi s tr i al , w hi ch w as gr ant ed. ¶2
. V enue f

ort he new t r i al was tr a ns f e rr e d t o W a l tha l l Coun ty, a nd t r i al began on Sept ember18, 1988, i n T yl ert ow n. T he j ury found Thors on gui l ty as char ged and r eturned
a sen tenc e o f d ea th. O n a p p ea l, this C o u rtrem an d ed for a Bat s on hear i ng t o det erm i ne i f the pr os ecut i on vi ol at ed B at s on v. K entucky , 476 U
. S. 79, 85- 86, 106 S
. C t . 1712, 1716- 17, 90 L . E d . 2 d 6 9 , 8 0 (1 9 8 6 ) i n e x e r c is in g its p e re m p to ry s tr ik e s . T h o rs o n v. S ta te , 653 So. 2d 876 ( M i s s . 1994)
. T he ci rcui tcour tf ound no B at

s on vi ol at i on, and Thors on appea l ed the ci r cui tcourt ’ s rul i ng. U pon hi s s econd appeal , thi s C ou rtr ever s ed Thors on’ s convi ct i on, f i ndi ng thata j ur orhad bee n i m pr oper l y chal l enged s ol el y f orherre l i gi ous af

f i l i at i on, and
o rd e re d a n e w tr ia l. T

h o rs o n v. S ta te , 7 2 1 S o . 2 d 5 9 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). ¶3. T hor s on’ s thi r d tr i al be gan J une 3, 2002, i n the C i r cui t C our t of the Second J udi ci al D i s tr i ctof

H arr i s on C ounty, w here he w as agai n f ound gui l ty of

capi t al m ur derand
s e n te n c e d to d e a th b y le th a l in je c tio n . T

h o rs o n v. S ta te , 8 9 5 S o . 2 d 8 5 , 9 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). T hor s on r ai s ed thi r ty- thr ee ( 33) as s i gnm ent s of err oron di r ectappea l , w hi ch thi s C our tf ound

### 3

t o be w i thoutm er i t . W e af f i r m ed T hor s on’ s convi ct i on and sent ence on N ovember4, 2004. I d . W e su b s e q u e n tly d e n ie d T h o rs o n ’s m o tio n fo r r e h e a ri n g o n F e b ru a ry 3 , 2 0 0 5
. Id
. H is pet i t i on f orw r i tof ce r t i or ar i t o t he U ni t ed St at es S upr eme C our tw as deni ed on O ct ober3, 2 0 0 5
. T hors on v. Mis s is s i

ppi , _

__ U .S . _

__ , 1 2 6 S .C t. 5 3 , 1 6 3 L . E d . 2 d 8 3 (2 0 0 5 ). ¶4. T hor s on now comes bef or e thi s C our t on hi s Pet i t i on f or Post
- C onvi ct i on R el i ef and h is s u p p lem e n tal p e tit io n . F o r th e re a so n s d isc u ss e d b e lo w , w e fin d th a t th is m a tter s h o u ld b e re m a n d e d to th e trial c o u rt fo r th e so le p u rp o se o f c o n d u c tin g a h e a rin g p u rsu a n t to A tk in s v . V

irg in ia , 5 3 6 U .S . 3 0 4 , 1 2 2 S .C t. 22 4 2 , 1 5 3 L .E d .2 d 3 3 5 (2 0 0 2 ); L y n c h v. S ta te , 9 5 1 S o . 2 d 5 4 9 (M is s . 2 0 0 7 ); a n d , Ch a se v. S ta te , 8 7 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). S TATEM ENT OF THE FACTS ¶ 5
. T h e fo llo w in g fa c ts a re g lea n e d fro m th is C o u rt’s o p in io n o n T h o rso n ’s d ire c t a p p e a l: O n M a rc h 4 , 1 9 8 7 , R o g e r E ric T h o rso n v isited E d g e w a ter M a ll i n B ilo x i in o rd e r to talk to h is fo rm e r fia n c e e , G lo ria M c K in n e y . H e w a s w o rrie d th a t h is nei ghborand gi r l f

r i end Patr i ci a C ook m i ghthave s ai d s om e thi ngs t o G l or i a, so h e w a n ted to ap o lo g ize to h e r in p e rso n . W h e n T h o rso n a rriv e d a t th e m a ll, h e learn ed fro m h is f

ri en d , R eg g ie B raz ea l, that M cK inn ey w o u ld n o t get o ff w o rk fro m M o rriso n ' s u n til 4 :0 0 p .m . H o w e v e r, T h o rso n re m a in e d a t th e m a ll unt i l M cK i nney l ef

tat4: 45 p. m . W hen M cK i nney exi t ed the mal l , T hor s on appr oache d hercar , t ol d hert hathe had com e t o apol ogi ze and as ked herf or a r i de t o the C edarL ake exi t . W hen they arr i ved atthe exi t , T hor s on as ked M c K in n e y to k e e p d riv in g tow a rd s h is h o u se b e c a u se h e still n e e d e d to talk to her
. A tthi s t i m e, T hor s on pul l ed a kni f e on M cK i nney. M cK i nney cont i nued t o dr i ve atkni f

e poi ntunt i l Thor s on di r ect ed hert o a di r tr oad. T hor s on then or der ed M cK i nney t o r emove al l of hercl othes and turn w i th herback f aci ng hi m . H e then pl ace d a . 22 r evol verpi s t ol on the das hboar d w hi ch he ha d r ece nt l y pur chas ed f

r om hi s nei ghbor , Paul Q ui nn. A f t erM cK i nney r emoved hercl othes , Thor s on r emoved a pi ece of r ope f r om hi s j acke tpocketand t i ed herhands behi nd herback. H e then pl ace d herbr as s i er e i n herm outh and t i ed itaro u n d he r nec k
. T h o rson th en rape d G lori a M cK inn ey . A ft er h e ra p ed h er, T h o r s o n t o o k a t o we l th a th e h a d f o u n d i n M c Ki n n e y ' s c a ra n d wi p e d d o wn

### As n otedin th e pro cedural histo ry o f this case, sup ra , this is the dateof Thor son’ s 1 

### thirdtrial. 4 everythi ng thathe thoughthe m i ghtha ve t ouched be caus e he di d notw antany o f h is f ing erp ri n ts i n h er c ar. T h o rson ask ed M cK inn ey if sh e w o u ld tell anyone w hathad j us thappene d, and s he s hook herhead i nd i cat i ng thats he w o u ld n o t. T h o rson told h er tha t he d id n o t be li ev e h er. H e the n too k the k n if e and s l i thert hr oat . T hor s on gotoutof hercarand r emoved a bl ue j acke tw hi ch h e h a d g iv e n to G lo ria , a p las tic p o w e r s tee rin g flu id b o ttl e a n d G lo ria ' s w a llet. H e r emoved G l or i a' s dr i ver ' s li cense f r om the w al l etbeca us e he w ant ed a pi ctur e of

her
. H e thr ew the bott l e and w al l eti nt o the w oods s o i tw oul d appea r that so m eo n e e lse h ad h u rtG lori a. A t th is t im e G lori a w as sitt in g in the ca r, bl eedi ng f

r om the w ound t o herneck. She w as abl e t o getoutof her carand w or k the br as s i er e f

r om herm outh. W hen s he scream ed f orhel p, T hor s on w al ked bac k t o the ca rand s hotheri n the hea d w i th the . 22 r evol ver . H e then ra n h o m e a n d h u n g G lo ria ' s c o a t in h is c lo se t. T h o rso n w a lk e d to P a tricia C ook' s t rai l er, w hi ch w as di r ect l y behi nd hi s , and cl eane d hi s hands and the kni f e w i th bl eac h t o r emove any tr ace s of bl ood orgunpow derr es i due. H e then w entback t o hi s t r ai l erand w r apped the kni f e, gun, shel l s and G l or i a' s w at ch in G lori a' s jack et an d b u ri ed itin a v ac an t l o t nea r his tr ail er. T hor s on w as arr es t ed f

ort he murde rof

G l or i a M cK i nney on M ar ch 8, 1987. O n J une 3, 1987, T hor s on w as i ndi ct ed i n the Second J udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H a rriso n C o u n ty fo r th e c a p ital m u rd e r a n d fe lo n y k id n a p p in g o f G lo ria M c K in n e y . T ria l co m m e n c e d o n Ju n e 3 , 2 0 0 2 .[ ] D u rin g th e trial th e S tate 1 cal l ed s ever al w i tnes s es t o t es t i f y dur i ng i t s cas e- i n- chi ef
. R egi nal d B r aze al f i r s tt es t i f i ed thatatthe t i m e of

G l or i a M cK i nney' s death he w as the hea d chef at th e M o rri so n ' s loc ated in E d g ew ater M all
. B raz ea l st ated tha t w h en h e left w or k on M ar ch 4, 1987, atapproxim at el y 3: 30 or4: 00 p. m . , T hor s on w as w a iti n g in th e p a rk in g lo t. T h o rso n a sk e d B ra z e a l w h a t ti m e M c K in n e y w o u ld be get t i ng of

f of w or k, and B r aze al r es ponded thathe w as nots ur e. T hor s on e x p la in e d th a t th e re w e re " s o m e th in g s h e w a n te d to g e t s tr a ig h t w ith h e r." T h e S tate a lso c a lled R ick G a sto n w h o w a s e m p lo y e d b y th e H a rriso n C o u n ty Sher i f f ' s D epart m ent . O n M ar ch 5, 1987, G as t on w as a C apt ai n w i th the Patr ol D i vi s i on and w as Shi f

tSupervi s or . G as t on f

i r s tc ame i n c ont actw i th T hor s on w hen he w as i nves t i gat i ng M cK i nney' s di s appea r ance . T horson t ol d G as t on thathe had nots een M cK i nney f ors ever al m onths
. H ow ever , G as t on i nf or m ed T hor s on thathe ha d be en s een t al ki ng t o he ra tthe m al l
. Thor son ex pla i ned th a t h e h a d b e e n th e re to s e e th e C ly d e sd a le h o rse s a n d h a d s e e n h e r b rie fly in

### 5

the parki ng l otw hen s he gotof f of w or k. Thor s on i nf

or m ed [ G as t on] thathe w oul d be w i l l i ng t o hel p w i th the i nves t i gat i on i n any w ay. [ G as t on] then dr ove Thors on t o the C entr al I nt el l i gence D i vi s i on (CID ) w her e he w as in tro d u c e d to In v e stig a to r Je rry T o o tle. O n c e a t th e C ID , T h o rso n c h a n g e d h is s t ory and t ol d the i nves t i gat or s thatM cK i nney had gi ven hi m a r i de f r om the m a ll th e p rev iou s da y . T h o rson spe n t sev era l h o u rs atth e C ID t alk in g to i nves t i gat or s on the eve ni ng of M ar ch 5, 1987, be f

or e he w as r eturned home. T he body of

G l or i a M c K i nn e y was s ub s e qu e nt l y f ou nd on M a r c h 7 , 1987. A f t erthe body w as di s cover ed, the i nves t i gat or s vi s i t ed Thors on' s hom e aga i n. T h o rso n v o lu n tar ily o ffe re d to c o m e to th e C ID . H e w a s n o t u n d e r a rre st a t th is t i m e. R ob ertB urr i ss, em ployed b y the B i l ox i Po l i ce D epart m ent, t est i fi ed t hat as a cr i m e s cene t echni ci an, he w as cal l ed t o t he sc ene w her e M cK i nney' s body and aut om obi l e w er e di s cover ed. B urr i ss i dent i f i ed s ever al pi ctur es t aken a tthe sc e n e o f th e c rim e w h ich p o rtra y e d b lo o d fo u n d in th e v ictim ' s c a r, th e v ictim w i th herthr oatcutand the vi ct i m l yi ng i n hercar . B urr i s s al s o i dent i f i ed p h o to g ra p h s d e p ictin g th e v ictim ’s h a n d s b o u n d a n d th e v ictim ’s m o u th g a g g e d w i th h e rb r a s s i e r e . B u rr i s s t e s t i f i e d t h a tw h e n h e p r o c e s s e d th e v i c t i m 's a u to m o b ile fo r fin g e rp rin ts, h e w a s o n ly a b le to d e v e lo p stre a k s w h ich led h im t o bel i eve the ca rhad bee n w i ped cl ean. N e x t, R ich a rd G ira u d , em p loy ed b y the H arriso n C o u n ty S h e riff' s D e p a rtm e n t, t e s t i f i e d tha ta s a n i nv e s t i ga t ora tthe t i me o f M c K i nn e y' s mur de rh e w as pr es entdur i ng the i nt ervi ew of T hor s on atthe C I D o n the eve ni ng of M ar ch 5 , 1 9 8 7
. G ir au d test if ied th at T h o rson co n ti n u o u sly c h an g ed h is st o ry r egar di ng t al ki ng t o and s eei ng M cK i nney the pr evi ous day. D ur i ng the next i nt ervi ew on M ar ch 7, 1987, T hor s on i nf or m ed the i nves t i gat or s thathe and M cK i nney had dr i ven pas tthe C edarL ake exi tt o a di r tr oad and ha d engage d i n s exual i nt er cour s e. T hor s on s t at ed thatM cK i nney then dr opped hi m of f at hom e. T hors on r emai ned atC I D unt i l he w as arr es t ed atappr oxi m at el y 1: 30 a .m . M a rc h 8 , 1 9 8 7 . G ira u d tes tified th a t h e w a s a rre ste d d u e to i ncons i s t enci es i n hi s s t at ement s . O n the m orni ng of M ar ch 8, 19 87 , G i r aud r ece i ved i nf

or m at i on f

r om Patr i ci a C oo k thatevi dence w as bur i ed nea r T hor s on' s r es i dence
. G i r aud t es t i f i ed thatthe i nves t i gat or s found a gun, a bl ue j acke t , a pi ctur e f

r om the vi ct i m ' s dr i ver ' s l i cens e and a k ni f e. A f t erf i ndi ng thes e i t ems, G i r aud t es t i f i ed t hathe re turned t o C I D and T hor s on w as br ought f r om the C ounty J ai l t o Jerry T oot l e' s off i ce i n t he C I D f

orf ur therques t i oni ng. G ir a u d te s tif

ie d th a t w h e n T h o rs o n w a s s h o w n th e k n if e , h e s ta te d , " W e ll, I gu e s s y ou k no w the r e s to f the s t ory. " Tho r s on was the n mi r a nd i z e d a nd he m ade a vi deo t aped c onf es s i on admi t t i ng t o t he m ur derof G l or i a M cK i nney.

### 6

D r . Paul M cG arry, a f or ens i c pathol ogi s t , t es t i fi ed t hathe per f or m ed the aut ops y on G l or i a M cK i nney on M ar ch 8, 1987. In des cr i bi ng the i nj ur i es suff ered b y M cK i nn ey, D r. M cG arry st at ed that "s he had a sl ash w ou nd across the f r ontof herneck thatopened up he rvoi ce box, opened a hol e i n herl arynx. She had a bul l etw ound t o the hea d thatw enti n t he r i ghtt empl e, and had spri nk l ed arou nd i tgu np ow der on the skin and hair , i nd i cat i ng i tw as cl ose range. " D r. M cG arry test i fi ed thatthe cau se of M cK i nn ey' s deat h w as a "gunshotw ound t o the hea d atcl os e r ange. " The w ound t o the vi ct i m ' s neck w oul d nothave been f

at al w i th pr operm anage m ent . A s exual as s aul tki tw as al so perf orm ed o n M cK i nn ey d ue to the ex t ensi ve inj uri es t o h er geni t al s. M ich a e l S tro u d , an e m p lo y e e o f th e H a rr is o n C o u n ty S h e riff' s D e p a rtm e n t, tes tified tha t h e e x e c u ted a w a iv e r to a llo w th e D e p a rtm e n t to d ra w a sa m p le of T hor s on' s bl ood. S tr oud al s o t es t i f i ed thata r ape ki tw as per f or m ed on the vi ct i m . C hr i s t opherL ar son, empl oyed by R el i aG ene Technol ogi es i n N ew O r l eans , L oui s i ana, t es t i f i ed thathe per f

or m ed a D N A a nal ys i s on the s emen t aken fr om the rape kitand t he blood t aken f rom T ho rs on . From the an al ysi s, L ar s on w as abl e t o det erm i ne that"the vagi nal s w ab f rom G l ori a M cK i nney wa s c o n s i s t e n twi th t h e g e n e t i c p r o f i l e f r o m th e b l o o d o f

Ro g e rT h o r s o n . " At the end of

thi s t es t i m ony, the St at e r es t ed. Thor s on then m oved f ora di r ect ed ver di ct , and the tr i al courtdeni ed the mot i on. D ur i ng the def

endant ' s cas e- i n- chi ef

, Patr i ci a C ook, T ho rs on' s f or m er gi r l f r i end, t es t i f

i ed thats he gave a s t at ementt o G i raud on M ar ch 9, 1987. C ook t es t i f

i ed thats he t ol d t he i nves t i gat or s t hatT hor s on had bur i ed evi dence on s om e pr operty nearhi s hom e. C ook al s o t es t i f i ed thatw hen T hor s on arr i ved atherhom e on the ni ghtof M ar ch 4, 1987, he w as hed hi s hands w i th bl eac h. D r . G eor ge Tat e, a cl i ni cal ps ychol ogi s t , t es t i f i ed thataf

t ers pendi ng t en and o n e -h a lf h o u rs w ith T h o rso n , rev iew in g p o lice r e c o rd s a n d m e n tal h e a lth reports, a n d co nd ucti ng several psych ologi cal exam s, T ho rs on w as "notso i m pai r e d by men t a l d i s e a s e o rd e f e c tt o make h i m i nc ompe t e ntt o gi ve a c o n fe s s io n ." R i char d I s ham t es t i f

i ed thathe s poke w i th Thor s on on M ar ch 7, 1987, atthe H arr i s on C ounty Jai l
. D ur i ng t he conver s at i on, Is ham w as w ear i ng a w i r e and tap e rec o rde r. Isha m test if ied th at he d id n o t i n form T h o rson that their conver s at i on w as bei ng r ecor ded. I s ham t es t i f i ed thatw hen he a s ked Thors on aboutthe cr i m e, T hor s on r es ponded that"ther e i s no ci r cumst ant i al evi dence a n d h e w a s s tic k in g to h is s to ry ."

### 7

T hor s on al s o t es t i f

i ed dur i ng hi s cas e- i n- chi ef
. T hor s on t es t i f

i ed thathe di d go t o E dgew at erM al l t o t al k t o M cK i nney. H e s t at ed thathe onl y had herdr i ve hi m t o hi s hous e i n W ool m arket
. T hor s on t es t i f i ed thatdur i ng hi s i nt ervi ew he w as thr eat ened a nd physi cal l y abus ed. H e s t at ed thathe onl y m ade the con fes si on becau se he fear ed for the li ves of M cK i nney' s tw o yo un g d aug hter s. T he def ens e r es t ed. The St at e f i nal l y r es t ed af

t erof f er i ng no r ebutt al t es t i m ony. O n J une 7, 2002, the j ury r eturned a ve r di ctof gui l t y. A s ent enci ng hear i ng w as hel d, a nd, on J une 8, 2002, the j ury r eturned the ver di ctof de ath f i ndi ng three agg ravat ors: 1) T hatthe capi t al of

f ens e w as comm i t t ed w hi l e enga ged i n the comm i ssi on of a ki dnappi ng; 2) T he of

f ens e w as hei nous , cruel and t or tur ous ; and 3) T he of

f ens e w as comm i t t ed w i th the purpos e of cover i ng up and hi di ng evi dence
. T hors on , 8 9 5 S o . 2 d at 94 -97 (¶¶ 2 -13 ). ¶6. I n t oday’ s appea l , T hor s on rai ses f i ve m ai n i s s ues conce rni ng m ent al r et ar dat i on; i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el ; exec ut i on by l ethal i nj ect i on r i s i ng t o the l evel of cruel and
unus ual puni s hm ent ; the St at e’ s f ai l ur e t o pr oduce e xcul pat ory evi dence dur i ng di s covery;
a n d c u m u la tiv e e rr o r.

### 8 A N A L Y S IS I . W HET HER A M EN TA LL Y RE TA RDE D DE F EN DAN T HAS B E E N S E NT E NC E D T O D E AT H I N V I OL AT I ON OF T HE E I GHT H A ND F OU RT E E NT H AM EN DMEN T S OF T HE UNI TE D S TA TE S CONS TI TU TI ON AND CORR ES P ONDI NG STA TE C O N STITU TIO N A L P R O V I SI O N S. ¶7. T hor s on cont ends that hi s exec ut i on w oul d be uncons t i tut i onal under the E i ghth and Four t eenth A m endment s of the U ni t e d St a t e s Cons t i tut i on , c orr e s po nd i ng s t a t e c on s t i tut i onal pr ovi s i ons , and Atkins , beca us e he i s m ent al l y re t ar ded. I n Atkins , the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tdet erm i ned thati m pos i t i on of the dea th penal ty on m ent al l y r et ar ded i nm at es
con st i tut ed cruel and unus ual puni s hm enti n vi ol at i on of the Ei ghth A m endmentt o the U n it e d S ta te s C o n s titu tio n . Atkins , 536 U
. S. at321. T he A t kins ma j o r i ty c i t e d two def i ni t i ons of

“ m ent al r et ar dat i on. ” The f i r s tw as f r om the A m er i can A s s oci at i on on M ent al R etard ati o n (A A M R ). “M en tal retard ati o n refe rs to su b stan ti al li m it ati o n s in p rese n t fun cti o n ing
. It i s c har act er i zed by s i gni f i cant l y s ubaver age i nt el l ectual f unct i oni ng, exi s t i ng concurr ent l y w i th r el at ed l i m i t at i ons i n tw o orm or e of the f ol l ow i ng appl i cabl e adapt i ve s ki l l a r eas : c om m uni cat i on, s el f
- car e, hom e l i vi ng, s oci al ski l l s, co m m un i ty use, sel f- dir ect i on , h eal th an d safety, funct i on al acade m i cs, le is u re , a n d w o rk . M e n ta l r e ta rd a tio n m a n if e s ts b e fo re a g e 1 8 .” I d. a t 3 0 8 , n .3 (c itin g M e n ta l R e ta rd a tio n : D e fi n itio n , C las sific a tio n , an d S y ste m s o f S u p p o rts 5 ( 9 ed. 1992) )
. T he s econd de f i ni t i on came f

r om the A m er i can Ps ychi atr i c A s s oci at i on. th “The es s ent i al f

eatur e of

M ent al R et ar dati on i s s i gni f i cant l y s ubaver age gener al i nt el l ectual f

unct i oni ng ( C r i t er i on A ) thatis acc om pani ed by s i gni f i cantl i m i t at i ons i n adapt i ve f unct i oni ng i n atl eas tt w o of the f ol l ow i ng ski l l areas : com m un i cat i on , sel f- care, ho m e l i ving, soci al / i nterpersonal s kil l s, us e of c om m uni ty r es our ces , s el f
- di r ect i on, f

unct i onal a cade m i c s ki l l s , w or k, l ei s ur e, heal th, and s af

et y (C ri t er i on B )
. T he ons etm us toccurbef or e age 18

### 9

year s ( C r i t er i on C )
. M ent al R et ar dat i on has m any di f f er entet i ol ogi es and may be se e n a s a f

i na l c omm on pa thway o f va r i ou s pa tho l og i c a l pr oc e s s e s that a ff e c t th e fu n c tio n in g o f t h e c e n tr a l n e rv o u s s y s te m .” I d. (c i t i ng “A m er i can Psyc hi atr i c A s s oci at i on, D i agnos t i c and St at i s t i cal M anual of M ent al D i s or der s ” 41 ( 4 ed. 2000) )
. T he Atkins d e c isio n d id n o t de fin e w h o is or is no t m e n tally th

r et ar ded f

orpurpos es of

el i gi bi l i ty f

ora dea th sent ence buti ns t ead “l eave s t o t he St at es the task o f de v elop ing ap p rop ri ate w ay s to e n forc e the co n sti tuti o n al restr ict ion u p o n [th eir]
exec ut i on of

s ent ence s . ” I

d . 536 U
. S. at317 ( quot i ng Ford v. W ainwri ght , 477 U
. S. 399, 4 0 5 , 4 1 6 -1 7 , 9 1 L . E d . 2 d 3 3 5 , 1 0 6 S . C t. 2 5 9 5 ( 1 9 8 6 ) )
. Atkins w as deci ded on J une 20, 2002, tw el ve ( 12) days af t erT hor s on w as s ent ence d t o death on J une 8, 2002. ¶8. T he St at e ar gues thatthe thi s i s s ue i s pr ocedur al l y ba rr ed pur s uantt o M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 21( 1) ( R ev. 2000) becaus e Atkins w as deci ded 434 days pr i ort o the dat e Thors on filed h is b rie f o n d ire c t ap p e a l. Itis th e S tate ’s p o sitio n tha t T h o rso n sh o u ld h a v e a rg u e d h is
c la im o f m e n ta l r e ta rd a tio n o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. W e d is a g re e . ¶9. I n Ch a se v. S ta te , 8 7 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 3 , 1 0 2 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ), th is C o u rt se t f o rth sp e c ific
r e q u i r e me n t s t o b e f

o l l o we d b y th e s ma l l n u mb e ro f p e r s o n s wi th me n t a l r e t a r d a t i o n c l a i ms
w ho w er e convi ct ed bef or e Atkins and Ch ase w er e handed dow n. Thi s C our tdeci ded Ch ase on M ay 20, 2 00 4, alm osttw o year s af t erT hor s on w as convi ct ed and ni ne mont hs af t erhe f i l ed hi s di r ectappea l
. T hi s C our tm ade c l earthatas a per s on convi ct ed bef or e Atkins w as h a n d e d d o w n , C h a se c o n stitu tio n a lly c o u ld n o t b e d e n ied th e o p p o rtu n ity to p re s e n t h is
m e n tal re tar d a tio n c laim to th e tria l c o u rt w h e re h e h a d d e m o n stra ted th a t h is IQ fe ll w ith in th e ran g e o f p o ss ib le m e n tal re tar d a tio n , an d h e h a d p re se n ted a n a ffid a v it o f a m e n tal h e a lth

### 10

car e pr of es s i onal t hathe s uf

f er ed f r om “mi l d r et ar dat i on. ” I d. T h o rso n fa lls in to th e sm a ll gr oup of per s ons di s cus s ed i n Ch ase . ¶1 0. Furthe r , Tho r s on c ou l d nothave a r gued Atkins before the tr i al court . A s s t at ed pr evi ous l y, T hor s on w as convi ct ed pr i ort o Atkins . T h is C o u rt re p e a ted ly h a s s tate d th a t it
w i l l no tc on s i de ra s s i gn ment s o f e rr oro n app e a l tha twer e n otf i r s tp r e s e nt e d t o the t r i al
court . “W e have hel d thaterr orn otr ai s ed attr i al ori n pos t - tr i al m ot i ons m ay notbe
re v ie w e d o n a p p e a l. Fos ter , 6 3 9 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 8 9 ; W a tts v. S ta te , 4 92 S o. 2d 12 81 , 12 91 (M i ss. 1986)
. ” D a v is v . S ta te , 6 6 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 8 , 1 2 4 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 5 ). T h is m a tter is p ro p e rly pr es ent ed t o thi s C our ton T hor s on’ s pet i t i on f orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef beca us e “i n pr act i cal
r eal i ty [ i t ] coul d notbe .
. . ra i s ed attr i al oron di r ectappea l
. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 3( 2) (R ev . 2 0 0 0 ). ¶11. T hi s C our tannounce d the r equi r ement s f orobt ai ni ng a hear i ng t o det erm i ne w hether a capit al defend ant i s m ental l y ret arded as fol l ow s: W i th the s ol e exc ept i on di s cus s ed bel ow , no def endantm ay be grant ed a h e a rin g o n the issu e o f E ig h th A m e n d m e n t pr o tec tio n fro m ex e c u tio n , d u e to al l eged ment al r et ar dat i on unl es s , pr i ort o the expi r at i on of the dea dl i ne s etby the tr i al courtf

orf i l i ng m ot i ons , the def

endants hal l have f

i l ed w i t h t he t r i al courta mot i on, s eeki ng s uch hear i ng. The def endantm us tatt ach t o the mot i on an aff i dav i tfr om atleas to ne exp ert , q uali fi ed as descri bed ab ov e, w ho op i nes, t o a r eas onabl e degree o f cert ai nty, that : ( 1) the def endanthas a combi ned I nt el l i gence Q uot i ent( "I Q ") of 75 orbel ow , an d; ( 2) i n the opi ni on of the expert , ther e i s a r eas onabl e bas i s t o bel i eve that , upon f ur thert est i ng , the def endantw i l l be f

ound t o be ment al l y r et ar ded, as def i ned her ei n. U pon r ece i vi ng s uch mot i on w i th att ache d af f i davi t , and any r es pons e f i l ed by the St at e, the tr i al courts hal l pr ovi de a r eas onabl e amount of t i m e f ort es t i ng th e d e fe n d a n t fo r m e n tal re tar d a tio n . T h e re a fte r, th e trial c o u rt sh a ll se t a hear i ng on the mot i on, and the mat t ers hal l pr ocee d.

### 11

Ch a s e, 873 So. 2d at1029. T hi s C our tf ur therhel d:

. . . t hatno def

endantm ay be adj udged m ent al l y re t ar ded f orpurpos es of

the E igh th A m en d m en t, u n less su ch d efe n d an t pro d u ce s, at a m inim u m , an ex p ert w h o e x p re ss e s a n o p in io n , to a re a so n a b le d e g re e o f c e rta in ty , tha t: 1. T he def

endanti s ment al l y r et ar ded, as thatt erm i s def i ned by the A m er i can A ss o c iatio n o n M e n tal R e tar d a tio n a n d /o r T h e A m e ric a n P sy c h iatric A s s oci at i on; 2 . T h e d e fe n d a n t h a s c o m p lete d th e M in n e so ta M u lti p h a sic P e rso n a lity I nvent ory- I I ( M M PI
- I I ) and/ orothers i m i l ar t est s , and the def endanti s not m al i nger i ng. Such expertm us tbe a l i cens ed ps ychol og i s torps ychi atr i s t , qual i f i ed as an experti n t he f

i el d of as s es s i ng m ent al re t ar dat i on, and furtherqual i f i ed as an experti n the admi ni s tr at i on and int erpr et at i on of t es t s , and i n the eva l uat i on of per s ons , f

orpurpos es of

det erm i ni ng m ent al r et ar dat i on. U pon m eet i ng thi s i ni t i al r equi r ementt o go f orw ar d, the def

endantm ay pr es ents uch otheropi ni ons and evi dence as the tr i al courtm ay al l ow pur s uant t o the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence
. I d. L at er , i n L

y n c h v. S ta te , 9 5 1 S o . 2 d 5 4 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 7 ), th is C o u rt h e ld th a t

. . . i n M i s s i s s i ppi i ti s a cce pt abl e t o ut i l i ze the M M PI
- I I and/ orothers i m i l ar te s ts . [ Ch ase ] at1029. T hi s Courtdi d noti nt end by i t s hol di ng t o decl ar e the M M PI
- I I orany one t es tas exc l us i vel y suf f i ci ent . H avi ng a var i ety of t es t s at thei rdi s pos al , court s ar e provided w i th a safeguard fr om po ssi ble m anipul at i on o f re su lts a n d d im in ish e d a c c u ra c y w h ich m ig h t re su lt if c o u rts a re lim ited to o n e tes t. T h e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt m e n tio n e d th e W e c h sle r A d u lt In te llig e n c e S c a le s T e s t. See A t kins , 536 U
. S. at309 n. 5, 122 S. C t . 2442. O thert es t s , as s ugges t ed by ment al heal th expert s , i ncl ude the Structur ed Interv iew of R ep o rt ed S y m p tom s (S IR S ), the V ali d ity Ind icator P rofil e (V IP ), an d the T est o f M em o ry M ali n g ering (T O M M ). I d. at 55 6 (¶ 2 3 ).

### 12

T he C our t ' s i nt erpr et at i on i n thi s c as e as t o the pr opert es tt o be admi ni s t er ed w i th r egar d t o an Atkins h ea ri n g su p erc ed es a n y co n tr ary d ec isi o n s. T h is C o u rt nei therendor s es the M M PI
- I I as the bes tt es tnor dec l ar es t hati ti s a r equi r ed t es t , and dec i s i ons thats t at e otherw i s e ar e expr es s l y overrul ed. I d . at 55 7 (¶ 2 4 ). ¶1 2
. T h e re c o rd in th is ca se rev ea ls that G eo rge T
. T ate, P h
. D
. , a cli n ical psy ch o log ist, tes tified a t T h o rso n ’s tria l th a t h e p e rso n a lly e v a lu a ted T h o rso n fo r ro u g h ly ten a n d a h a lf hour s . A ddi t i onal l y, D r . T at e adm i ni s t er ed the Shi pl ey i nt el l i gence t es t , the W i de R ange A chi evem ent Test , the M i nnes ot a M ul t i phas i c Per s onal i ty I nvent ory- R evi s ed, the Tayl or M a n ife st A n x iety s c a le, th e B e c k D e p re ss io n In v e n to ry , an d th e S e n ten c e C o m p letio n T e st. F u rth er, D r. T ate rev iew ed a rep o rton T h o rson by D r. G asp arrini from 19 8 8
. D r. T a te t es t i f i ed thatD r . G as parr i ni pe r f or m ed the W echs l erA dul tI nt el l i gence S cal e- R evi s ed (W A IS -R ) on T h o rson clos er in ti m e to th e ca p it al m u rde r and fou n d T h o rson t o ha v e an IQ of 77. T o chec k D r . G as parr i ni ’ s r es ul t s w i thoutr epea t i ng the t es t , D r . T at e t es t i f i ed thathe per f or m ed the Shi pl ey t es ta nd de t erm i ned T hor s on t o ha ve an I Q of 74. D r . T at e t es t i f

i ed th a t T h o rs o n w a s “ b o rd e rl in e re ta rd e d .” ¶13. A t the s ent enci ng phas e, D r . T at e t es t i f i ed that T hor s on w as “ment al l y handi cappe d, nott o the degr ee of

the m ent al l y r et ar ded, butthatthe i nt el l i gence i s notadequa t e f orm any of the demands of

l i f e i n str es s si tuat i ons . ” D r . T at e em phas i zed Thors on’ s chi l dhood w as extr emel y unpl eas ant , thatT hor s on had a t r oubl ed r el at i ons hi p w i th hi s f ather , had nervous pr obl ems very ear l y i n s chool , and l acke d s el f
- di r ect i on i n thathe w as eas i l y i nf l uence d.

### 13

¶1 4
. A tt ac h ed to h is p eti ti o n , T h o rson p rov ided this C o u rtw ith an affidav itfrom D r. M arc Z i m m erm an, a l i cens ed ps ychol ogi s t , w ho s t at es thathe has m etw i th T hor s on and per f or m ed the f ol l ow i ng t es t s : B ent on V i s ual R et ent i on T est , 5 edi t i on; Shor tC at egory T es t ; W i de th R an g e A ch ieve m en t T est, R ev isi o n 3 ; W isco n sin C a rd S o rtT est; S tr o o p C o lor an d W o rd T e st; S c re e n in g T e st fo r L u ria -N e b ra sk a N e u ro p sy c h o lo g ica l B a ttery ; W e c h ler A d u lt In tellig e n c e S c a le, 3 e d iti o n ; R e y 1 5 Ite m T e st, T e st o f M e m o ry M a lin g e rin g ; an d L u ria rd N eur ops ychol ogi cal B att ery. D r . Z i m m erm an s t at es thatT hor s on has a f ul l
- s cal e I Q of

70. D r. Z im m erm an is of the “o p inion to a rea so n ab le d eg ree o f p sy ch o log ical ce rt ainty that M r. R ogerE r i c Thors on m eet s t he cr i t er i a es t abl i s hed by t he A m er i can Ps ychi atr i c A s s oci at i on (D S M ) a n d th e A m e ric a n A ss o c iatio n o n M e n tal R e tar d a tio n to b e c la s s ifie d a s m e n tally
re tar d e d .” H e a lso sta tes in h is a ffid a v it th a t T h o rso n ’s a d a p tiv e b e h a v io r re v e a ls d e fic its in fu n c tio n a l a c a d e m ic sk ill s, w o rk , se lf-d ire c tio n , a n d so c ial/in terp e rso n a l sk ill s a n d th a t it i s document ed thatthe ons etof thes e def

i ci t s occurr ed bef

or e the age of

ei ght een. ¶15. Forthe f

or egoi ng r eas ons , w e f

i nd thatT hor s on has m etthe r equi r ement s es t abl i s hed by thi s C our ti n Ch ase a n d it p ro g e n y a n d th is m a tter s h o u ld b e re m a n d e d to th e C irc u it C our tof the Second J udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H arr i s on C ounty f

ora hea r i ng pur s uantt o Atkins , L ynch and Ch ase . I I . W HETH ER THO RSON RECE I V E D I N E F F E C T I V E ASS I S TANCE O F COUN S EL. ¶16. T hor s on as s ert s thathi s tr i al couns el w as i nef f ect i ve f orf ai l i ng t o devel op and pr es ent evi dence of

m ent al r et ar dat i on and otherm i t i gat i ng evi dence dur i ng sent enci ng, f orf ai l i ng

### 14

t o p r e pa r e the d e f

e ns e e xp e r t , f

orn otb e i ng p r e pa r e d a ttr i a l , a nd f orf a i l i ng t o pr es ent evi dence conce rni ng l ack of a val i d Mir anda w aive r. ¶17. T he t es tf

ori nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el is w el l -s et t l ed. “T he benchmar k f or j ud ging any cl ai m of i neff ect i ven ess [ of coun sel ] m ustbe w hethercou nsel ' s c o n d uct s o underm i ned the pr operf unct i oni ng of

the adver s ar i al pr oces s thatthe tr i al cannotbe r el i ed
on as havi ng pr oduced a j us tr es ul t . ” Str ickland v. W as hington , 466 U
. S. 668, 686, 104 S .C t. 20 5 2 , 80 L
. E d
. 2 d 67 4
. T o prev ail on th is claim , T h o rson m u st d em o n str ate th a t h is
couns el ' s per f

or m ance w as def

i ci entand thatthe def

i ci ency pr ej udi ced the def ens e of the
c a s e . I d. at687. “U nles s a d efendantm akes both s how i ngs , i tcannotbe s ai d thatthe
co n v ict ion o r d ea th se n tenc e re su lt ed from a b rea k d o w n in the ad v ersa ry p roc ess th at ren d ers the r es ul tunr el i abl e. ” S trin g e r v . S ta te , 454 So. 2d 468, 477 ( M i s s . 1984) ( ci t i ng Str i c kl and , 4 6 6 U
. S
. at 68 7 ). ¶ 1 8
. D e fe n s e c o u n s e l is p re s u m e d c o m p e te n t. W a sh in g to n v. S ta te , 62 0 S o. 2d 96 6 (M i ss. 1993)
. H ow ever , even w her e pr of es s i onal e rr ori s s how n, a r evi ew i ng c our tmustdet erm i ne
w hetherther e i s “ a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty that , butf orc ouns el ' s unpr of

es s i onal err ors, the
re s u lt o f t h e p ro c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if fe re n t.” Mo h r v . S ta te , 584 So. 2d 426, 430 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ). W h en review ing a cas e inv o lving th e d ea th pe n alty , the m o st i m p o rt an t i n q u iry i s “w hetherther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty that , abs entthe err or s , the s ent ence r–i ncl udi ng an appe l l a t e c ou r t , t o the e xt e nti ti nd e pe nd e nt l y r e - w e i gh s the e vi de nc e –woul d h a ve concl uded thatthe bal ance of t he aggr avat i ng and m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s di d notw arr ant death. ” Str i ckland, 466 U
. S. at695. I f T hor s on’ s pos t - convi ct i on a ppl i cat i on f ai l s on ei ther

### 15

of the Str i c kl

and p ro n g s , T h o rs o n is n o t e n title d to a n y re lie f o n th is is s u e . Fo ste r v . S ta te , 6 8 7 S o . 2 d 1 1 2 4 , 1 1 2 9 -30 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). A . Fai l ur e t o de ve l op a nd pre s e nt e vi de nc e of m e nt alr e t ar dat i on, ot her neurol ogi cal dysf unct i on and ot her m i t i gat i ng evi dence
. 1. Fai l ur e t o pe r f

or m an a de quat e m e nt alhe al t h work - up. ¶19. T hor s on as s ert s thathe i s m ent al l y re t ar ded and t hathi s counse l w as i nef f ect i ve f or f a i l i n g t o d e v e l o p e v i d e n c e o f h i s me n t a l d i s o r d e r s a n d l e a rn i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s . Be c a u s e we h a v e alread y de term ined i n Issue I that th is ca se m u st b e rem an d ed t o th e trial c o u rt to conductan Atkins h e a ri n g , th is s u b -i s s u e is m o o t. ¶20. N otw i thst and i ng the m oo t ness of thi s s ub- i s s ue, w e al s o f i nd thi s s ub- i s s ue t o be
w i thoutm er i t . D ur i ng the gui l tphase , T hor s on’ s counse l di d cal l D r . T at e, w ho t es t i f i ed that he per s onal l y eval uat ed Thors on f orr oughl y t en and one
- hal f hour s , per f

or m ed the numer ous t es t s des cr i bed i n I s s ue I , and concl uded t hatT hor s on had an I Q of 74. D r . T at e t es t i f

i ed that T h o rs o n w a s “ b o rd e rl in e re ta rd e d .”

2. O t he r f

ai l ur e s t o a de quat e l y i nve s t i ga t e m i t i ga t i on. ¶ 2 1
. A g a in , T h o rso n a rg u e s m a n y in a d e q u a c ies o f h is tria l co u n se l fo r fa ili n g to inv es tig a te
v a rio u s m a tters th a t w o u ld h a v e a id e d in s h o w in g th a t h e is m e n tally re tar d e d . A g a in , this iss u e is m o o t, bu t als o w ith o u t m e rit. ¶22. A s di s cus s ed pr evi ous l y, couns el cal l ed D r . T at e, w ho t ol d the j ury that T hor s on w as b o rd e rlin e m e n tally re tar d e d . T h o rso n ’s m o th e r a lso tes tified a b o u t T h o rso n ’s tro u b les w ith l earni ng i n s chool and chi l dhood i l l nes s es . I nas m uch as T hor s on’ s cas e w as t r i ed pr i ort o the

### 16

U
. S. Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Atkins , w e re fuse to fin d the p erfo rm an ce o f T h o rson ’s tr i al couns el de f

i ci entf orf ai l ur e t o f

ur theri nves t i gat e the ment al r et ar dat i on i s s ue. W e thus f i nd thatT hor s on has f

ai l ed t o m eetthe s t andar d s etf or th i n Str i c kl

and on thi s s ub- i s s ue. 3. N eed f

or addi t i onal m i t i gat i on evi dence. ¶23. U nderthi s s ub- i s s ue, T hor s on does notar gue thathi s tr i al couns el w as i nef f ect i ve, but i ns t ead, he s i m pl y as s ert s thatH urr i cane K atr i na has m ade i tdi f f i cul tf orpos t - convi ct i on
couns el t o i nves t i gat e, devel op and corr obor at e s i gni f i cantm ent al heal th i s s ues . T her e i s no i s s ue r ai s ed her e. H ow ever , the s ub- i s s ue i s mooti ns of ara s i tadvanc es T hor s on’ s cl ai m of
m ent al r et ar dat i on. B . In a d eq u a te p re p a ra ti o n o f ex p er ts for trial an d fail u re to i nves t i gat e. 1 . F a il u re to p ro p er ly co n su lt w it h a D N A ex p er t, fail u re to co n su lt a ser o log ist , a n d fa il u re to a d eq u a tely in v estiga te D N A t es t i ng. ¶24
. T ho rs on assert s that his cou nsel w as i l l -pr epared t o defend T ho rs on on D N A i ssues. T hor s on admi t s that“overa s er i es of ar gum ent s and ar den tw arni ngs by the C our t , the def ens e w on a nd t es t i ng of

the s emen s ampl e [ t aken f r om the body of

G l or i a M cK i nney] f

or DNA we n tf

o rwa r d
. ” Atth e S t a t e ’ s r e c o mm e n d a t i o n , Re l i a Ge n e i n Ne w Or l e a n s , L A, perf orm ed the D N A t est i ng . T ho rs on a sser t s that hi s coun sel w as not pr epared to cr ossexami ne the St at e’ s D N A exper tfr om R el i aG ene s o as t o at t ack s hor t f al l s i n the t es t i ng and
s ugges tthatt he t es tra i s ed t he poss i bi l i ty t hatsomeone el s e’ s D N A coul d have been pr es ent al ong w i th T hor s on’ s i n the s ampl e.

### 17

¶25. A ccor di ng t o the af f i davi tof T hor s on’ s tr i al couns el , R on A ct on w as r et ai ned as an exp e r tt o pr e pa r e Tho r s on ’ s d e f e ns e f orDN A i s s ue s . Pr i ort o the p r os e c ut i on c al l i ng t he R e liaG e n e w itn e ss , T h o rso n ’s a tto rn e y m a d e th e fo llo w in g re q u e st o f th e C o u rt: M R
. S M IT H : O k a y . B e fo re h e p u ts R e liaG e n e o n , I n e e d an o p p o rt u n ity to m ake a qui ck phone cal l t o m y exper t , j us task hi m tw o ques t i ons thathe w as c h e c k in g o n fo r m e . I talk e d to h im a b o u t itlas t n ig h t. D onal d Sm i th f

ur thers t at es i n hi s af

f i davi tthathe had ne vercr os s - exami ned a w i tnes s about D N A t es t i ng pri ort o T hor s on’ s t r i al
. K el l i e K oeni g L aw l erst at es i n heraf f i davi tthats he had neve rdeal tw i th D N A pri ort o T hor s on’s t r i al
. A s t he St at e poi nt s out , a r evi ew of the
c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n o f th e R e liaG e n e w itn e ss b y T h o rso n ’s tria l co u n se l ea sily a llo w s o n e to draw the conc l us i on thatD r . A ct on as s i s t ed couns el i n pr epar at i on f orcr os s - exami nat i on. T h o rso n c a n n o t sh o w th a t h is c o u n se l w a s d e fic ien t. ¶ 2 6
. F u rt h e r, e v e n a s s u m in g , ar guendo , that hi s att orneys w er e def i ci ent , T hor s on cannot
s how thatthe out come of hi s tr i al w oul d have be en di f f er ent . T he R el i aG ene e xpertt es t i f i ed thatthe D N A f

r om s perm r etr i eved f

r om the vi ct i m ’ s body m at ched Thor s on’ s , and thatthe chance of

f i ndi ng anotheri ndi vi dual w i th the s ame genet i c pr of i l e w as one i n t en bi l l i on. T ho rs on t est i fi ed thathe h ad a sex ual encou nterw i th the vict i m o n M arch 4, 1 98 7. H e al so conf es s ed t o ki l l i ng G l ori a M cK i nney i n hi s t aped c onf es s i on t o the pol i ce. T hi s s ub- i s s ue h a s n o m e rit.

### 18 2. Fai l ur e t o i nve s t i ga t e t he phys i c ale vi de nc e t o f i nd i nc ons i s t e nc i e s wi t h Thors on’ s c onf e s s i on. ¶27. T ho rs on as s ert s that once hi s couns el knew that the conf es s i on w as not goi ng t o be
s uppr es s ed, couns el s houl d have c onduct ed an i nves t i gat i on of the physi cal evi dence t o l ook f o ri n c o n s i s t e n c i e s wi th T h o r s o n ’ s c o n f e s s i o n . Th o r s o n f

i r s to f f e r s th e a f

f i d a v i t s o f

two
en tom o log ist s w h ere in itis st ated that d u e to th e lac k o f i n sec t i n festati o n o n M cK inn ey ’s body w hen f

ound on M ar ch 7, 1987, M cK i nney’ s body coul d nothave bee n i n t he w ooded
are a sin ce M arc h 4 , w h en T h o rson co n fesse d to h av ing k il led h er. T h ey a ssu m e that there
w as no i ns ecti nf

es t at i on on the body bec aus e ther e w as no m ent i on of i ns ecti nf

es t at i on by th e in v e stig a tin g o ffic e rs o r in th e c o ro n e r’s re p o rt. ¶ 2 8
. T h o r s o n a l s o a r g u e s th a t h i s c o u n s e l s h o u l d h a v e c h a l l e n g e d th e t i m e o f d e a th
. He of f er s the af f i davi tof D r . K r i s Sperry, Chi ef

M edi cal Exam i nerf

orthe St at e of

G eor gi a, w ho concl udes i n hi s af

f i davi tthathe i s of

the opi ni on thatM cK i nney w as ki l l ed and l ef ti n the pos i t i on i n w hi ch s he w as found i n t he l at e af t ernoon of

, oron the ni ghtof

, M ar ch 6, 1987. ¶29. T hor s on fur t her co ntends thathi s couns el w as i nef f ect i ve f ornoti nves t i gat i ng the bl ood s patt erevi dence , a nd he of f er s the af f i davi tof R onal d L
. Si nger , a cr i m e l ab di r ect or from F o rtW o rth , T ex as. S ing er states in h is a ffi d av itthat “[b]ased o n m y p reli m inary eval uat i on, I bel i eve ther e may be som e si gni f i cantdi s cr epanc i es betw een the i nf or m at i on p ro v id e d b y R o g e r T h o rso n in h is c o n fe ss io n an d the ev id e n c e at th e crim e sc e n e . . . .” Si ngercl ear l y s t at es thathi s opi ni on i s pr el i m i nary a nd thathe w oul d have t o exami ne al l of the evi dence f

r om the s cene and el s ew her e i n thi s cas e.

### 19

¶30. I n addi t i on t o T hor s on’ s vi deot aped conf es s i on, t he j ury w as pre s ent ed w i th the di r ect evi dence of

T hor s on’ s D N A f

ound on the vi ct i m . T he j ury al s o hear d t est i m on y f r om Patr i ci a C ook, T hor s on’ s gi r l f r i end atthe t i m e, w ho t es t i f i ed thaton M ar ch 4, 1987, T hor s on came hom e and w as hed hi s hands w i th bl eac h. She f ur thert es t i f

i ed t hatT hor s on t ol d herthat he h ad b uri ed the w ea p o n s u sed to m urder M cK i nn ey in a vacan tl ot and t hat he al so admi t t ed t o ki l l i ng M cK i nney. T he w eapons us ed t o m ur derM cK i nney w er e r et r i eved by l aw enf or cementaf

t err ece i vi ng a t i p fr om P atr i ci a C ook on M ar ch 9, 1987. T he w eapons h a d b e e n b u rie d in a v a c a n t lo t b e tw e e n T h o rso n ’s tra iler a n d th e tra iler b e lo n g in g to P a tricia C ook. I nves t i gat orToot l e t es t i f i ed thatw hen he s how ed T hor s on the r ecove r ed kni f e us ed t o cutM cK i nney’ s thr oat , T hor s on s t at ed “W el l , I gues s you know the r es tof the s t ory. ” ¶ 3 1
. T h e re is n o c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to e rr o rl e s s c o u n s e l. Mo h r v . S ta te , 584 So. 2d 426, 430 ( M i s s . 1991) ( r i ghtt o ef fect i ve cou nsel does notent i t l e def endantt o have a n att orney
w h o m ak es n o m ist ak es a t tri al; d efe n d an t on ly h as righ t t o h av e c o m p eten t cou n sel); Ca b e llo
v. S ta te , 5 2 4 S o . 2 d 3 1 3 , 3 1 5 (M iss . 1 9 8 8 ); fu rth e r, th is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t [ t ] he duty t o i nves t i gat e and pr epar e i s not l i m i t l es s and notevery br eac h m eans thatcouns el has f ai l ed t o r enderr eas onabl y ef fec t i ve as s i s t ance . "C o u n se l fo r a c rim in a l d e fe n d a n t is n o t req u ire d to p u rsu e e v e ry p a th u n til it bears fruito r unti l all co nceivable hope w i thers. " L ovet t v. Flor ida , 627 F. 2d 7 0 6 , 7 0 8 (5 C ir . 1 9 8 0 ). T h is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t.

th B ro w n v. S ta te , 798 So. 2d 481, 497 ( M i s s . 2001) ¶32. W hi l e T hor s on f aul t s couns el f

ornoti nves t i gat i ng phys i cal e vi dence t o i dent i f y the in c o n sis ten c ies w ith h is c o n fe ss io n , the re c o rd is fu ll o f in d e p e n d e n t ev id e n c e th a t is
cons i s t entw i th and s uppor t s Thor s on’ s c onf es s i on. Even i f

thi s C our tw er e t o det erm i ne that

### 20

T hor s on’ s couns el w as d efi ci entf ornotpur s ui ng thes e paths unt i l they bor e f rui t( w hi ch d e ter m in a tio n w e d o n o t m a k e ), T h o rso n still ca n n o t sh o w th a t th e o u tco m e o f h is tria l w o u ld have bee n di f

f er ent . T her ef

or e, t hi s i s s ue does notpas s the s t andar d s etf or th i n Str i c kl

and
a n d m u s t f

a il. Mo h r

, 5 8 4 S o . 2 d 4 2 6 , 4 3 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ); N e a l v. S ta te , 525 So. 2d 1279, 1281 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). I I I . W HETH ER EXECUTI ON BY LETHAL I NJ ECTI O N A M OU NTS TO CR UEL AND U NUSUAL PUNI S HM ENT. ¶3 3. I ti s T hor s on’ s c on t e nt i on tha te xe c ut i on b y l e tha l i nj e c t i on c on s t i tut es cruel and
u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t. T h is is th e first tim e T h o rso n h a s ra ise d th is issu e , a n d itw a s c a p a b le of be i ng r a i s e d o n d i r e c ta pp e a l
. The i s s ue i s no w pr oc e du r a l l y b a rr e d f r om f ur t her
cons i der at i on on c ol l at er al a ppeal
. M i s s . Code A nn. § 99- 39- 21( 1) ( R ev. 2000)
. I n Jor dan
v. S ta te , 918 So. 2d 636, 661 ( M i s s . 2005) , the pet i t i onerf ai l ed t o r ai s e l ethal i nj ect i on as an E igh th A m en d m en t cl aim an d this C o u rtem p loy ed the p roc ed u ral ba r. J or dan f ai l ed t o m ake a ny cl ai m r el at i ng t o the m ethod of e xecut i on a ttr i al or on dir ectapp eal
. T heref ore, thi s cl ai m i s barr ed for consi derat i on forthe fi rs t tim e o n a p p lic a tio n fo r l e a v e to s e e k p o s t- c o n v ic tio n re lie f. See M i s s . C ode A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -2 1 (1 ); B ish o p v. S ta te , 8 8 2 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 , 1 4 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ); G ra y so n v. S ta te , 8 7 9 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 8 , 1 0 2 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). I d. ¶34. N otw i ths t andi ng t he pr ocedur al bar , t hi s C our t , i n Jor dan , l ooked t o the mer i t s of the cl ai m and f

ound none base d on J or dan’ s f ai l ur e t o s ubm i tany s w orn pr oof as r equi r ed by M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -3 9 -9 (1 )( e ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 0 ). I d . at662. L i kew i s e, couns el f orT hor s on

### 21

f ai l s t o s ubm i tany af

f i davi tw hi ch l egi t i m at el y quest i ons the l ethal i nj ect i on pr ot ocol
e m p lo y e d b y 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. T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I V . W HET HER TH E ST ATE FAI LE D T O P RODUCE EXCULPATOR Y AN D O THER FAVO RABLE EVI DENCE. ¶35. In Ca rrv. S ta te , 873 So. 2d 991, 999 ( M i s s . 2004) , w e s t at ed: I n Bra dy v. Mar

y land , 373 U
. S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct
. 1194, 1196- 97, 10 L. E d. 2d 215 ( 1963) , the U ni t ed St at es Supre m e C our tes t abl i s hed the pr i nci pl e that "s uppr es s i on by the pr os ecut i on of evi dence f

avor abl e t o an ac cus ed upon r eques tvi ol at es due pr oces s w her e the evi dence i s m at er i al ei ther t o gui l tor to p u n is h m e n t, ir re s p e c tiv e o f t h e g o o d fa ith o r b a d fa ith o f th e p ro s e c u tio n ." I n det erm i ni ng w hethera B r ady v io latio n h a s o c c u rre d , an d th u s a n e w trial is m a n d a ted , th is C o u rt a p p lies th e fo u r-p a rt B r ady t es tadopt ed i n K in gv. S ta te , 656 So. 2d 1168, 1174 ( M i s s . 1995) , underw hi ch the def endantm us tpr ove:
a. thatthe St at e posses sed e vi dence f avor abl e t o the def

endant (i n clud ing im p ea ch m en t evid en ce ); b. thatthe def

endantdoes notposs es s the evi dence norcoul d he obt ai n i thi m s el f

w i th any r eas onabl e di l i gence ; c. thatthe pr os ecut i on s uppr es s ed the f avor abl e evi dence ; and d . th a t h a d th e e v id e n c e b e e n d is c lo s e d to th e d e fe n s e , a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty exi s t s thatthe out come of the p ro c e e d in g s w o u ld h a v e b e e n d iffe re n t. I d. at1174. I d . at999. ¶36
. T ho rs on p res ents thi s C ou rtw i th a li sto f i t em s w hich he asser t s m ay notha ve bee n p rov ided b y the S tat e to th e d efe n se in v iolati o n o f B r ady
. B r ady , 373 U
. S. at83. T hor s on, how ever , a dm i t s thatuncover i ng B r ady vi ol at i ons has bee n ham per ed beca us e al l of the f i l es on hi s cas e thatw ere r et ai ned by D onal d Sm i th, l ead de f ens e couns el , w er e des tr oyed by H urr i cane K atr i na. K el l i e K oeni g L aw l er , T hor s on’s ot hertr i al couns el , s t at ed i n her af f i davi tthats he pr ovi ded Thors on’ s pos t - convi ct i on couns el w i th tw o boxes of f i l es on

### 22

T hor s on, buts he know s t her e w er e m or e t hathave e i therbeen l os tordes tr oyed by H urr i cane K a tr in a . ¶37. D N A i nf

or m at i on f

r om R el i agene – T hor s on as s ert s thatthe S t at e d i d not pr ovi de i m por t antexcul pat ory dat a f r om R el i aG ene. T o s uppor tthi s cont ent i on, T hor s on pr ovi ded
an af f i davi tf r om a Randel l T. Li bby, Ph. D , w ho hol ds a doc t or al de gr ee i n m ole cul ar g e n e tics . A t th e re q u e st o f T h o rso n ’s p o st-c o n v ictio n c o u n se l, D r. L ib b y w a s re q u e ste d to of f eran opi ni on as t o the t es tr es ul t s / dat a pr ovi ded t o hi m . I n hi s af f i davi t , D r . L i bby i d e n t i f i e s s e v e r a l f

o r ms o f d a t a t h a twe r e n o ts u p p l i e d t o h i m, whi c h h e c l a i ms m ay c o n tain excul pat ory i nf

or m at i on. ¶38. T he pos s i bi l i ty thatmore da t a, w hi ch has no tbeen recei ved by D r. L i bby f r om R e lia G e n e fo r p o s t- c o n v ic tio n p u rp o s e s , m ay l ead t o excul pat ory i nf or m at i on does nots how th a t th e S tate , at th e tim e o f tr ia l, ha d e v id e n c e in its p o ss e ss io n th a t w a s fa v o ra b le to T h o rso n a n d th a t w e n t u n d isc lo se d to the d e fe n se . T h o rso n h a s n o t m e t th e fo u r-p a rt B r ady t es tadopt ed i n King . King , 6 5 6 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 7 4 . T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. ¶39. R ap S heet s and N C I C i nf or m at i on on Patri ci a C ook – T hor s on next as s ert s thatthe St at e has vi ol at ed B r ady by notpr ovi di ng ba c kg r ou ndi nf or m at i on on Patr i ci a C ook, a per s on
w hom the def

ens e bel i eved w as i nvol ved i n the cr i m e. T he r ecor d r ef l ect s thatT hor s on p r e v a i l e d o n a p r e t r i a l mo t i o n s e e k i n g th e r a p s h e e t s a n d NC I C i n f o r ma t i o n o n Co o k
. At tr i al , T hor s on’ s couns el cal l ed C ook as a w i tnes s and quest i oned heratgr eatl ength. W e ca n
r eas onabl y deduce f

r om thi s occurr ence t hatT hor s on’ s counse l di d r ece i ve the i nf or m at i on
r eques t ed by the mot i on. T he r ecor d does noti ndi cat e any obj ect i on by T ho rs on cl ai m i ng

### 23

thatthe i nf

or m at i on w as no trecei ved bef or e tr i al
. I f

the i nf or m at i on w as , i n f

act , not
r ece i ved, the i s s ue i s w ai ved bec aus e i tw as capa bl e of bei ng r ai s ed attr i al
. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 9 9 -39 -21 (1) (R ev . 2 0 0 0 ). ¶40
. R em aining claim s o f B r ady vi ol at i ons – T hor s on’ s r emai ni ng as s ert i ons under the cl aim o f B r ady vi ol at i ons i ncl ude thatthe St at e di d notpr ovi de bac kgr ound on other
w i tnesses cal l ed b y the prosecuti on and the d efense. T ho rs on do es not i den t i fy tho se
w i tne s s e s . H e a l s o a s s e r t s tha tthe St a t e d i d no td i s c l os e i nf ormat i on o mi t t e d f

r om pol i ce
r eport s , i ncl ud i ng i nt ervi ew s of otherw i tnes s es and know l edge of the l ocat i on of

phys i cal evi dence , s uch as the w al l etthatT hor s on cl ai m ed t o have thr ow n i n the w oods
. T hor s on
as s ert s thatthe S t at e di d notdi s cl os e evi dence of l engthy i nt err ogat i ons , w hi ch Thors on cl ai m s w oul d have show n hi s conf es s i on t o have be en nei thervol unt ary noracc ur at e. A s the St at e pr oper l y poi nt s out , thes e r emai ni ng c l ai m s ar e of f er ed w i thouts peci f

i ci ty and ca nnot b e sh o w n to m e e t an y o f th e fo u r-p a rt B r ady te s t. B r ady , 373 U
. S. at83. ¶41. I nef

f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el cl ai m – L as t l y, T hor s on pl eads i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance of coun sel i n the al t ernat i ve w i th respectt o an y o f hi s B r ady vi ol at i on cl ai m s thatw e f i nd t o be w i thoutm er i t . T hor s on does notpurs ue thes e al t ernat i vel y- pl ed i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance
o f co u n sel claim s w ith au tho ri ty o r an y arg u m en t w h a tsoe v er. T h ere fore , the issu es a re d e e m e d a b a n d o n e d
. D re n n a n v. S ta te , 6 9 5 S o . 2 d 5 8 1 , 5 8 5 -8 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ); Ho o p s v . S ta te , 6 8 1 S o . 2 d 5 2 1 , 5 2 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ); K e lly v . Sta te , 5 5 3 S o . 2 d 5 1 7 , 5 2 1 (M iss . 1 9 8 9 ); Sm ith
v. S ta te , 43 0 S o . 2d 40 6 , 40 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 ); R a m se u r v . S ta te , 36 8 S o. 2d 84 2, 84 4 (M i ss. 1 9 7 9 ).

### 24

V. W HET HER T HERE I S CUM UL AT I VE ER ROR. ¶42. T hor s on r ai s ed the i s s ue of cumul at i ve err or as t o both f eder al and s t at e l aw on di r ect
a p p e a l. T

hors on , 895 So. 2d at131- 32. T hi s courtf ound the i s s ues t o be w i thoutm er i t . T he S tat e n o w co n tend s tha t th e issu e is p roc ed u rall y b arred b y the d o c tri n e o f re s ju d ica ta pur s uantt o M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 21( 3) ( R ev. 2000)
. Pur s uantt o M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 39- 3( 2) ( R ev. 2000) , a pos t - convi ct i on r el i e f mot i on s e rve s the purpos e of pr ovi di ng a l i m i t ed pr ocedur e f

orr evi ew of

i s s ues that , “ i n pr act i cal r eal i ty coul d notbe ors houl d nothave be en
r ai s ed attr i al oron di r ecta ppeal
. ” I ts t ands t o r eas on thatpos t - convi ct i on i s s ues , r evi ew ed f orthe f i r s tt i m e, c an be s ubj ect ed t o c um ul at i ve- err ors crut i ny w i thoutbei ng barr ed by the d o ctri n e o f r e s ju d ic a ta
. T heref ore, the S t at e’s argum ent f ai l s. ¶43. I n hi s m ot i on f

or pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef , T hor s on cont ends gener al l y that the al l eged pr ece di ng err or s , t aken a s a w hol e, de pr i ved hi m of a f ai rtr i al
. T he s t andar d of r evi ew f or an appe al f

r om a capi t al m ur derconvi ct i on and dea th s ent ence i s thatof "he i ght ened
scruti ny . " B a lfo u r v . S ta te , 598 So. 2d 731, 739 ( M i s s . 1992) ( ci t i ng Sm ith v. S ta te , 499 So. 2 d 7 5 0 , 7 5 6 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ); W e st v . S ta te , 4 8 5 S o . 2 d 6 8 1 , 6 8 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 )). A ll d o u b ts are to b e r e s o lv e d in fa v o r o f th e a c c u se d b e c a u se “ w h a t m a y b e h a rm les s e rro r in a c a se w ith le s s a t s ta k e b e c o m e s re v e rs ib le e rr o r w h e n th e p e n a lty is d e a th .” I d. ( quot i ng Ir v in gv. S ta te , 3 6 1 S o . 2 d 1 3 6 0 , 1 3 6 3 (M is s . 1 9 7 8 ))
. See a l so Fish e r v . S ta te , 48 1 S o. 2d 20 3, 21 1 (M i ss. 1 9 8 5 ). ¶44. W hen i t comes t o i s s ues of a l l eged cumul at i ve err or , the C our tpr evi ous l y has t aken
no t e of tho se capi t al cases i n w hich the o pini on s of this C ou rtart i culat ed d i ff eri ng analyses.

### 25

Forexampl e, i n Mc Fe e v. S ta te , 5 1 1 S o . 2 d 1 3 0 , 1 3 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ) (r ap e c o n v ict ion an d li fe
se n ten c e a ffirm e d ), th is C o u rt a d d re ss e d e a c h a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r a n d fo u n d n o n e , b e it harm l es s orotherw i s e, by the tr i al court . B as ed on thatf i ndi ng, thi s C our ts t at ed: I n s um , M cFee cont ends thatthe cumul at i ve ef f ectof the al l eged err ors w as su ffic ien t to p re

ju d ice th e ju ry , es se n tially a llo w in g th e S tate to c o n v ict h im notof r ape, butof

m ur der
. Y et , as di s cus s ed, nei therthe i ntr oduct i on of the p h o t o g r a p h s n o rth e p r o s e c u t o r ' s c o mm e n t s c o n s t i tu t e d r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . As ther e w as no r ever s i bl e err ori n a ny pa r t , s o ther e i s no r ever s i bl e err ort o the w hol e. I d . ¶45. I n J

e n k in s v . S ta te , 607 So. 2d 1171, 1183- 84 ( M i s s . 1992) ( capi t al m ur der convi ct i on and dea th s ent ence r ever s ed and r emanded) , i n w hi ch t hi s C our tf ound both harm l es s err or and r ever s i bl e err orby the tr i al court , thi s C our ts t at ed: If re v e rsa l w e re n o t m a n d a ted b y th e S tate ' s d isc o v e ry v io la tio n s, w e w o u ld re v e rse th is m a tter b a se d u p o n th e a c c u m u late d e rro rs o f th e p ro se c u tio n . T h is C our thas of

t en rul ed t hater r or s i n t he l ow ercour tt hatdo notr equi r e r ever s al sta n d in g a lo n e m a y n o n e th e les s ta k e n c u m u lativ e ly re q u ire re v e rsa l. I d. ( ci t i ng G riffin v. S ta te , 5 5 7 S o . 2 d 5 4 2 , 5 5 2 -53 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 )). ¶46. I n Manning v. State, 726 So. 2d 1152, 1198 ( M i s s . 1998) ( capi t al m ur der convi ct i ons and dea th s ent ence af

f i r m ed) , the C our taddr es s ed tw enty- one as s i gnm ent s of e rr orw i th s ubpart s , and made num er ous f i ndi ngs of

no "r ever s i bl e err or . ” W e s t at ed: T hi s C our thas hel d thati ndi vi dual err or s , notr ever s i bl e i n themsel ves , m ay c o m b in e w ith o th e r e rr o rs to m a k e u p re v e rs ib le e rr o r. Ha n s e n v . S ta te , 592 S o . 2 d 1 1 4 , 1 4 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 1 ) [n 5 ]; G r if fi n v . S ta te , 557 So. 2d 542, 553 ( M i s s . 1990)
. T he ques t i on underthes e and other cases i s w hetherthe cumul at i ve ef

fectof al l err or s comm i t t ed dur i ng the tr i al depr i ved the def endantof

a f undament al l y f

ai rand i m part i al tr i al
. W her e ther e is "no re v e rs ib le e rr o r i n a n y p a rt , . . . th e re is n o re v e rs ib le e rr o r t o th e w h o le ." Mc Fe e v. S ta te , 5 1 1 S o . 2 d 1 3 0 , 1 3 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ).

### 26

Manning , 726 So. 2d at1198. ¶47. T hi s Courtr econc i l ed thes e di f f er entvi ew s i n B

yr om v. S ta te , 86 3 S o. 2d 83 6 (M i ss. 2 0 0 3 ) a n d h e ld : W h a t w e w ish to c lar ify h e re to d a y is th a t u p o n a p p e llate re v iew o f c a se s in w hi ch w e f

i nd har m l es s er r oror any err orw hi ch i s nots peci f i cal l y f ound t o be r ever s i bl e i n and of

i t s el f , w e sha l l have t he di s cr et i on t o det erm i ne, on a ca s eby- cas e bas i s , as t o w hethers uch err ororerr or s , al though notr ever s i bl e w hen st and i ng al on e, m ay w hen con si dered cu m ulat i vely r equ i re r ev ers al becau se of the r es ul t i ng cumul at i ve pr ej udi ci al ef f ect . T hathavi ng been sa i d, f orthe r eas ons her ei n s t at ed, w e f i nd thate rr or s a s m ay appe ari n the r ecor d bef or e us i n t oday' s cas e, a r e i ndi vi dual l y harm l es s beyond a r eas onabl e doubt , and w hen t aken c um ul at i vel y, the ef f ectof al l err or s comm i t t ed dur i ng the tr i al di d not depr i ve M i chel l e B yr om of a fund am ent al l y f

ai rand i m part i al tr i al
. W e thus af f i r m B yr om ' s convi ct i on and s ent ence . I d . at846- 47. ¶4 8
. A ft er a ca refu l r ev iew o f th e re co rd in the p rese n t case , w e c o n clud e tha t th e re co rd
s upp or t s no f

i ndi ng of

err ororerr or s , w hi ch w hen cons i der ed cumul at i vel y, had any p re ju d ic ia l e ff

e c t w h ic h d e p ri v e d T h o rs o n o f a fu n d a m e n ta lly fa ira n d i m p a r ti a l t ri a l. W e th u s fi n d th is is s u e to b e w ith o u t m e ri t. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 4 9
. E x c e p t fo r o n e iss u e , w e f in d th a t T h o rs o n ’s p e tition fo r p o st-c o n v ictio n re lief is
w ith o u t m erit ; ho w ev er, be ca u se T h o rson m ee ts the req u ir em en ts arti cu lat ed by this C o u rt i n Chase and has notbeen a f f or ded an Atkins h e a rin g , th is m a tter is r e m a n d e d to th e C irc u it C our tof the Second J udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H arr i s on C ounty f

oran evi dent i ary hear i ng pur s uant t o Atkins , Lync h and Ch ase .

### 27

¶ 5 0
. P ET I TI ON F OR P OS T- CONVI CT I ON RE LI EF I S DE NI ED I N P ART AND GR AN T E D I N P AR T . T HI S CA S E I S R E M AN DE D T O T HE C I RC UI T C OU RT OF THE S EC OND J UDI CI AL DI S TR I CT OF HARRI S ON COUNT Y F OR AN E VI DE NT I AR Y H E AR I NG CO NS I S T E NT W I T H AT KINS, CHASE AND LYNCH. S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND D I AZ , P . J J . , EA S LE Y, DI CKI NS ON, RAN DO LPH AND LA M AR, J J . , CO NCU R. G RA VES , J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY .