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 5 - KA- 0 0 5 6 6 - S CT TAB I THA YOLANDA M I LL ER a / k / a TAB
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 11/ 2005 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. W . ASH LEY H I NES COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W ASHI NGTON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANT: CAROL L
. W HI TE
- RI CHARD P HI L L I P BR OADHE AD ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: OFFI CE O F THE ATTO RN EY G ENER AL BY : DE I RD RE M c CR OR Y DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : J OY CE I VY CH I LES 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 - 05/ 17/ 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. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . T a b ith a Y o lan d a M ill e r ap p e a ls fro m h e r c o n v ictio n o f m a n sla u g h ter a n d se n ten c e to t we n t y y e a r s i n t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e M i s s i s s i p p i De p a r t me n to f Co r r e c t i o n s . S h e r a i s e s t wo iss u e s: (1 ) th e v io latio n o f h e r rig h t to a sp e e d y trial a n d (2 ) th e d e n ial o f a fu n d a m e n tally fa ir t r i al beca us e s he w as notal l ow ed t o pr es entevi dence of pr i orabus e i nf

l i ct ed upon herby t he decea sed i n supp orto f her sel f- defense theory of the case. Is sue (1) i s brough tforthe fi rs t ti m e o n ap p ea l. A s th e v erd ictof th e jury i s rev erse d an d th is ca se is be ing rem an d ed for a
n e w trial, w e d is m is s th is iss u e w ith o u t p re ju d ice , to b e p ro p e rly filed w ith th e trial c o u rt. In re g a rd to Iss u e (2 ), th is C o u rt fin d s th e tri a l co u rt err e d in e x c lu d in g re lev a n t ev id e n c e to

### Miller testifiedtheywere n ot to geth er lon g b ecause “[h ]e used to mistreat me.” 1 

### Jame s’ s aut opsy re vea le d “ thepres enc e of ethyl al cohol , drinking al cohol , at a high 2 

### le velin thebl ood sys te m a s we llas theurine at a conc entrati on of 0. 18 perce nt, ethyl a lc ohol in t he bl ood and 0. 29 perce nt in th e urinespe ci me n.”More over , the phys ic ian who per for me d theaut opsy aver

re d that “ thebl ood alc ohol was wi th rea sona blece rt ainty hi gher thanwh at is record ed inthat th ere was administratio n o f fluid s to th e deced ent whichwo uld hav e a dilution al effect o[n ] the blo odethy l alcoh ol lev el.” Th is statement w as corro bo rated b y L ewis. 3 

### 2 corr obor at e M i l l er ’ s t est i m ony and thats uch err oraf f ect ed the j ury ver di ct . T her ef or e, beca us e M i l l erw as deni ed a f ai rt r i al , t he ver di cti s re ver s ed and the ca s e r emanded f ora new trial. FACTS ¶2. M i l l erand C al vi n J ames ha d a br i ef , buttum ul tuous , r om ant i c r el at i ons hi p. J ames 1 abus ed drugs and w as f r equent l y vi ol entt ow ard M i l l er , i ncl udi ng phys i cal l y at t acki ng her
w i t h a b roken b ott l e i n Jun e 20 00 an d w i t h a b ox cu t t er i n O ct ob er 2000 , so as t o tw i ce cau se in ju rie s re q u irin g m e d ica l tre a tm e n t in th e m o n th s p re c e d in g h is d e a th . A d d iti o n a lly , in e a rly N ovember2000, James broke i nt o M i l l er ’ s hom e and l ef therw i t h a bl ack e ye, bef or e bei ng arr es t ed f

orbur gl ary. ¶3. O n N ovember23, 2000, f ourorf i ve days a f

t erbr eaki ng up w i t h J ames, M i l l erand her fou r ch il d ren w ere inv it ed to T h an k sg iving d in n e r at th e h o m e o f T ash a L ew is’ s m o ther. T hataf t ernoon, J ames a ppear ed t here i nt oxi cat ed and ca us ed a di s turbance
. H e cur s ed 2 M ille r a n d to ld h e r, “ [y ]’a ll g o t d e a th o n y ’a ll. M y m a m m ie , m y d a d d y , and you .” (E m p h asis ad d ed ). F o ll o w ing d inn er, M il ler dro v e to th e h o m e o f M ary Jo h n so n (“M ary ”), 3

### Acc ording to Mary, sheand Mi ll er wer e “ stil l f

ri ends ” at t

his time . 4 

### Acc ording to Mi ll er , “ [J am es ] had [ thekni fe ] on thes ideof hi m at f ir st when hewas 5 

### comin g to wardme, andthenhe raisedit up .” 3 M i l l er ’ s “ex- s i s t er - i n-l aw . ” U pon arr i val , s he s aw J ames c om i ng dow n t he s t r eetand, 4
a c c o rd in g to M ille r, “ h e w e n t o n in th e h o u s e b e h in d m e c u rs in g .” ¶4. T her eaf

t er , J ames a s ked f

ora s cr ew dr i ver . W hen M ary t ol d hi m s he di d nothave a
sc re w d riv e r, h e a sk e d fo r a k n ife . A c c o rd in g to M a ry , “ w e a sk e d h im w h a t h e w a s g o in g to do w i t h i t . H e s ai d t hathe w as goi ng out s i de t o get[ t he] doorof f the ol d abandone d hous e, b e c a u s e h e h a d to fi x [M ille r’ s ] d o o r.” ¶5. W hen J ames came back i ns i de, M i l l er t es t i f i ed t hat s he w as s i t t i ng on t he arm of t he couch i n t he l i vi ng r oom and he aga i n began cur s i ng her
. She t hen w enti nt o t he ki t chen a nd
as ked M ary’ s daught er , B r i t t any, t o cuthe ra pi ece of cake
. B r i t t any w as hed of f a kni f e and h an d ed i t t o M il ler. A t th at po int, Jam es b eg an p u sh ing an d sh o v ing h er, t ell ing h er “ [l ] et’s go. ” She then ca l l ed 911. J ames c ont i nued t o cur s e M i l l er . She i ni t i al l y did no tr es pond beca us e s he “kn[ e] w how he i s [ , ] ” butthen t ol d hi m t o l eave heral one. H e then punche d her in th e fa c e . W h e n sh e w a rn e d h im to g e t b a c k , Ja m e s g ra b b e d a b u tch e r k n ife a n d d re w it back. A f

r ai d thatJ ames w as goi ng t o s t ab her , M i l l ers t abbed hi m i n the che s t . J ames be gan 5 appr oachi ng heragai n and M ary pul l ed hi m back. H e then col l aps ed on the l i vi ng r oom f l oor . M i l l eragai n cal l ed t he pol i ce. J ames w as pr onounced de ad atthe l ocal hos pi t al s oon t her eaf t er . M i l l eradmi t s t hats he i ni t i al l y t ol d t he pol i ce thatJ ames f el l on t he kni f

e. ¶6. M i l l er w as arr es t ed and char ged w i t h m ur der on N ovember 23, 2000. Subse quent l y, s he w as i ndi ct ed f

orm ans l aught eron M ay 10, 2001. O n J une 19, 2001, M i l l ers erved the

### This dem and wa s a ls o fi le d with theWas hingt on County Circ uit Cle rk. 6 

### Notethat Travis J ohnson, Mary’ s son, t es ti fi ed that Jame s had “j umpe d at ” Mi ll er , 7 

### “[a]cting lik e he w as go ing to h it her[,]” befo re she stab bedhim. 4 di s t r i ctat t or ney w i t h a “D emand f orD i s covery and S peedy Tri al ” w hi ch st at ed, i n par t , t hat “[ M i l l er ] doe s he r eby demand a s peedy t r i al pur s uantt o the l aw s a nd s t atut es of the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi , and pur s uantt o t he Si xt h and F ou r t eenth A m endment s t o the U ni t ed St at es Co n s t i tu t i o n a n d p u r s u a n tt o Ar t i c l e 3 , S e c t i o n 2 6 o f th e M i s s i s s i p p i Co n s t i tu t i o n . ” No 6
m ot i on f ora s peedy t r i al w as f

i l ed by M i l l erw i t h the ci r cui tc our tei t herbef or e the ver di ct or i n p ost -tri al m oti on s. ¶7. M ary and her daught er , A ndr eki a, had gi ven st at ement s t o t he pol i ce soon af t ert he i nci dentw hi ch i ndi cat ed thatJ ames ha d verbal l y abus ed and hi tM i l l ermom ent s bef or e s he
s t abbed him
. A tt r i al , t he t es t i m ony of M ary and A ndr eki a cha nged s ubs t ant i al l y. T hey t est i fi ed att he tr i al t hat , al t hough J ames w as cur s i ng and w al ki ng t ow ar d M i l l er , he w as unarm ed and had nothi ther
. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, the def ens e conf

r ont ed M ary w i t h her 7
e a rlier sta tem e n ts to th e p o lice . W h ile c o n fe ss in g th a t sh e h a d e a rlier lied to th e p o lice in p art, sh e d efian tl y d ec lared that sh e n ev er told the po li ce th at she fi rstsaw Jam es w ith a k n if e ort hat“he ki l l ed hi s s el f caus e he the one c om e i n t he hous e w i t h t he kni f e. ” She mai nt ai ned t hi s pos i t i on even a f

t erbei ng i nf

or m ed thatther e w as a tr ans cr i ptof hert ape- r ecor ded
s t at ement . O n di r ectexam i nat i on, A ndr eki a di d notr emem bergi vi ng the pol i ce a s t at ement af t erthe i nci dent
. O n c r os s - exami nat i on, how ever , A ndr eki a w as s how n a tr ans cr i ptof the st at em ent and t est i fi ed, “I r em em ber this ri gh there[ , ] ” aft er gi vi ng conf l i ct i ng tr i al t es t i m ony.

### 5

¶8. A ddi t i onal l y, M i l l er s ought t o i ntr oduce t he t es t i m ony of O f f i cer s T hom as R os s and Fr eddi e C annon of

the G r eenvi l l e Pol i ce D epart m entt o corr obor at e hert es t i m ony r egar di ng pr i orabus e i nf

l i ct ed upon herby J ames, unde rM i s s . R. Evi d. 404( a) ( 2)
. T he St at e obj ect ed t o R os s ’ s t es t i m on y, w hic h per t ai ned t o the J une 16, 2000, i nci dentof phys i cal abus e, on gr ounds of

r emot enes s . L i kew i s e, t he St at e obj ect ed t o C annon’ s t es t i m ony, w hi ch pert ai ned t o the N ov em ber 5, 20 00 , bu rgl ary i nciden t. T h e ci rcui tcou rtsust ai ned bo t h o bject i on s. T herea f t er , M i l l erpr of

f er ed t es t i m ony of

bot h of f i cer s . O f

f i cerR os s t es t i f

i ed thathe w as di s pat ched t o t he hos pi t al f ol l ow i ng an as s aul ti n w hi ch M i l l erw as t he vi ct i m a nd J ames w as the s u sp ec t. A cc o rdin g to O ffi ce r R o ss, M il ler reco u n ted th at after a d ispu te aro se o v er a c ra ck pipe , “sh e said
. . . th at [ Jam es] p icke d up a bo tt le an d hithe r on th e leftarm ne x t to t he el bow caus i ng a cutt o herarm t hathad t o be s t i t ched up by the doct or . ” O f f i cerC annon t es t i f i ed thathe arr es t ed J ames f orbur gl ar i zi ng M i l l er ’ s hom e. ¶9 . O n F eb rua ry 9 , 20 0 5 , th e jury fou n d M il ler g u il ty of m an slau g h ter. T h e C ir cu it C o u rt of W as hi ngt on Count y then s ent ence d hert o tw enty year s i n the cus t ody of t he M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof

C or r ect i ons . M i l l er ’ s m ot i on f orj udgm ent notw i t hs t andi ng the ver di ct ( “JN O V ”) or , i n the al t ernat i ve, f ora ne w tr i al , w hi ch di d notr ai s e t he s peedy t r i al i s s ue, w as d e n ied b y th e c irc u it co u rt. T h e re a fte r, sh e filed n o tice o f a p p e a l. A N A L Y S IS I . DENI AL OF A SP EEDY TRI AL. ¶10. T hi s C our thas s t at ed thatt he: [ r ] evi ew of a s peedy tr i al cl ai m encompas s es t he f act ques t i on of

w hethert he trial d e lay ro se fro m g o o d c a u se . U n d e r th is C o u rt’s s tan d a rd o f re v iew , this C our tw i l l uphol d a dec i s i on bas ed on s ubs t ant i al , cr edi bl e evi dence
. I f no

### Whic h st at es , “ [u] nle ss good c aus e be shown, and a continuanceduly grant ed by the 8 

### court, all offen ses for whichind ictments are p resentedto th e court sha ll be tri ed no l at er

than two hundred s eventy ( 270) days a ft er theac cus ed has beenarraigned. ” Mi ss . CodeAnn. § 99-17- 1 (Re v. 2000) (e mpha si s a dded)
. In Klopf er v. Nort h Carol ina , 38 6 U . S. 21 3, 87 S. Ct
. 98 8, 18 L. Ed
. 2d 1 ( 1967), 9 

### the UnitedStates S up reme Co urt estab lishedthat theri ght to a spe edytrial

isfundame ntal and , therefo re, impo sed upo n th e states bythe D ue P rocess C lause o f the F ourteenth Ame ndme nt t o theUnit ed St at es Constit uti on. 6 pr obat i ve evi dence s uppor t s t he tr i alcour t ’s f i ndi ngo f go o d ca u se, th is C o u rt w i l l or di nar i l y r ever s e. D eL o a c h v. S ta te , 72 2 S o . 2 d 5 1 2 , 5 1 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted) (em p h asis ad d ed ). M i l l ernow ar gues , f

ort he f i r s tt i m e, t hatt he del ay i n hert r i al vi ol at ed a s t atut ory r i ghtt o a t r i al w i t hi n 270 days of herar r ai gnm entunderM i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 17- 1 (Rev. 2000) and 8
a cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o a s peedy tr i al undert he Si xth and Four t eenth A m endment s t o t he U ni t e d St a t e s Cons t i tut i on ; A r t i c l e 3, Se c t i on 26 of t he M i s s i s s i pp i Cons t i tut i on ; a nd t he 9 unani m ous hol di ng of the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our ti n B arkerv. W ingo , 407 U . S. 514, 9 2 S
. C t. 2 1 8 2 , 3 3 L . E d
. 2 d 1 0 1 (19 7 2 ). ¶11. A s t hi s i s s ue i s r ai s ed f or t he f i r s t t i m e on appea l , t he t r i al cour t w as not af f or ded the oppor tuni t y t o conductan evi dent i ary hear i ng and cons i derevi dence and/ or t es t i m ony re g a rd in g th e s p e e d y tr ia l is s u e . T h is C o u rt is ill- s u ite d to a c t a s a fa c t- fi n d e r. See S ou th ern
v. Mis s . State H

os p. , 8 5 3 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 2 , 1 2 1 4 (M iss
. 2 0 0 3 ) (“ T h e ro le o f an ap p e llate co u rt is nott o be a f

actf i nderbutr atherdet erm i ne and appl y t he l aw t o t he f act s det erm i ned by the t r i erof f act . ”)
. T her ef

or e, t hi s i s s ue i s di s m i s s ed w i t houtpr ej udi ce. I f pr oper l y fi l ed, t he ci rcui tcou rt , a cou rtof r ecord, w i t h testi m o n y a n d ex hibi t s, i s bet t er posi t i on ed to ass ess M i l l er ’ s c l ai m of

a s peedy t r i al vi ol at i on unde rthe t ot al i t y of the ci r cumst ances v i a an

### Regarding Mi ll er ’s argume nt t hat a c hangein wi tne ss te stim ony cons ti tut es 10 

### pre judi ce , this Court

notes that , at

pres ent , s he of

fe rs no proof

, only inf er enc es . Fur

the rm ore , “[c]hang es in witnesses’ testimony are no t necessarilydu e to th e passag e of time an d d o n ot, by them se lve s, c onstit

uteproof of pre

judi cedueto de lay.” Stat e of Wis cons in v

. Huusko , 2006 Wis c. App. LEXI S 837 at *4 (Wi sc . App. 2006). This Court is ful ly awar e that witn esses regu larly ch ang e their testimo nyandthat, s tan d in g alo ne, d oes n ot meanthat a del ay in tria l c aus ed he r pr ej udic e. 7 e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng . A ttha te vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng , b oth t he d e f e nd a nta nd the St at e may addr es s t he l ength of

t he del ay, t he r eas on f orthe del ay, the t i m el i nes s and adequ acy of M i l l er ’ s as s er t i on of

herr i ght , and pre

j udi ce t o M i l l er , al ong w i t h otherr el evant 10
c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See B arker , 407 U . S. at530, 533. I I . DENI AL OF A FUNDA M ENTALLY FAI R TRI AL. ¶ 1 2 . R e g a rd in g th e tes tim o n y o f O ffic e rs R o ss a n d C a n n o n , M ill e r a rg u e s th a t: [ p] r es ent at i on of

cr edi bl e evi dence of

t he cont i nui ng cour s e of vi ol ence t hat J ames i nf

l i ct ed on [ M i l l er ] i n an att empt t o e s t abl i s h the r eas onabl enes s of her bel i ef t hatt he dange rt o he rof de ath orgr eatbodi l y harm w as i m m i nentw as d en ied b y the tri al co u rt , there b y eli m inating the m aterial fac ts th at w ere im p era tive to aid the ju ry in u n d erstan d ing the d ir e situ ati o n that [M il ler] f ace d, and ther eby r ender i ng a f ai rver di ctbas ed on al l of t he mat er i al evi dence i n t hi s cas e. F u rth e rm o re , M ill e r in sis ts th a t: [t] h e trial c o u rt e rro n e o u sly a n d w ith g re a t p re ju d ic e to [M ill e r] ref

u se d to a llo w th e tes tim o n y o f th e o ffic e rs, w h ich w a s a b so lu tely e ss e n tial to corr obor at e notonl y t he det ai l s of [ M i l l er ’ s ] t es t i m ony, butal s o hert heory of def ens e, cl ear l y es t abl i s hi ng [ M i l l er ’ s ] s t at e of m i nd t o the j ury att he t i m e of th e in c id e n t. In t otal , M i l l er as ser t s that because “t he jury w as notabl e t o place them sel ves i n [M i l l er’ s] pos i t i on att he t i m e of

t he ki l l i ng and appr ehend the s i tuat i on as i tw as t o her , ” s he “w as pr ej udi ced a nd t he courtcomm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err orby r ef us i ng t o al l ow the t es t i m ony

### 8

pur s uantt o M i s s . R. Evi d. 404( a) ( 2)
. ” I n r es pons e, t he St at e unper s uas i vel y m ai nt ai ns that t he t es t i m ony of

O f f i cer s Ross a nd Cannon w as c um ul at i ve and any r es ul t i ng e r r orw as harm l ess. ¶ 1 3 . A c c o rd in g to th is C o u rt: [ t ] he admi s s i bi l i t y of

t es t i m oni al e vi dence i s l ef tt o t he s ound di s cr et i on of the tria l c o u rt w i thi n the boundar i es of the Mis s is s i

ppi R ul es of

E vi dence , an d it w i l l no tbe foun d in errorun l ess i thas abus ed i t s dis cr et i on . S u c h e rro r w ill w arr antr ever s al onl y w hen the abus e of di s cr et i on has r es ul t ed i n pr ej udi ce to t he ac cus ed. Ha r r is v . S ta te , 86 1 So
. 2d 10 03 , 10 18 ( M i s s . 20 03 ) ( e mpha s i s a dd e d)
. M i s s . R. Evi d. 404( a) ( 2) pr ovi des , “[ e] vi dence of a per s on’ s char act er or a tr ai tof hi s char act eri s not admi s s i bl e f

orthe purpos e of

pr ovi ng thathe a ct ed i n c onf or m i t y ther ew i t h on a part i cul ar o c c a s i o n , e x c e p t : . . . [ e ] v i d e n c e o f a p e r t i n e n tt r a i to f

c h a r a c t e ro f

t h e v i c t i m o f

t h e c r i me off ered by an acc used . .
. . ” M iss
. R . E vid. 40 4(a) (2)
. H ow ever, “such e vidence is not
c o m p e ten t u n til

th e re h a s f

ir s t b e e n s o m e e v id e n c e th a t th e v ic tim h a d b e e n th e a g g re s s o r.” R o b in so n v. S ta te , 566 So. 2d 1240, 1241 ( M i s s . 1990) ( emphasi s added)
. I n the ca s e s ub j udi ce, suff

i ci entevi dence w as adduce d t o cr eat e a j ury i s s ue as t o w hetherJ ames w as t he aggr es s ori n t he N ovember23, 2000, i nci dent
. M ary’ s s t at ementt o the pol i ce pr ovi ded that Jam es w as v erb all y ab u sive to M il ler an d h ad w iel d ed a k n if e in th e k it ch en ; A n d rek ia’s
s t a t e me n tt o t h e p o l i c e s a i d t h a tJ a me s v e rb a l l y a b u s e d a n d h i tM i l l e rb e f o r e s h e s t a b b e d h i m; L e w is te stifie d th a t Ja m e s th re a ten e d M ill e r e a rlier in th e d a y , s tatin g th a t “s h e g o t d e a th
ar ound her [ ; ] ” and M i l l ert es t i f i ed thatJ ames punc hed heri n the f ace and w as aboutt o s t ab herw i t h a but cherkni f

e w hen s he s t abbed hi m . “[ W ] her e any doubtexi s t s as t o w ho w as t he aggr es s ori n an i nci dentw hi ch r es ul t s i n the dea t h of a part i ci pantor w here a def endant

### 9

cl ai m s sel f- defense, ev idence o f a deceased’s pr evious threat s and h aras sm ents against def endant
. . . i s admi s s i bl e. ” D a y v. S ta te , 5 89 S o. 2 d 63 7, 642 ( M i s s . 1991)
. T he i m por t ance of

admi t t i ng s uch evi dence l i es i n the f actt hati t“ena bl es j ur or s t o putt hemsel ves in th e d e fe n d a n t’s p lac e a t th e tim e o f th e k ill in g a n d v iew th e s itu a tio n a s it a p p e a re d to hi m . ” Id
. T he t es t i m ony of t ho s e of f i cer s w as r el evantt o s uppor thert es t i m ony of pr i or i nci dent s . G i ven thatevi dence w as pr es ent ed thatJ ames w as the aggr es s or , thi s C our tf i nds t hatt he ci r cui tcour tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on in deemi ng the t es t i m ony of O f f i cer s R os s and C annon i nadmi s s i bl e. Fur t herm or e, t hi s err orw as notharm l es s , as i tcannotbe mai nt ai ned t hat“the s ame r es ul tw oul d hav e been r eac hed had [ t he err or ] notexi s t ed. ” B urns ide v. S ta te , 882 So. 2d 212, 216 ( M i s s . 2004) ( quot i ng L a n c a ste r v . S ta te , 2 00 S o. 7 21 , 72 2 (M i ss. 1941) )
. I n short , “[ w ] i t houtal l t he f act s and ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng the [ i nci dent ] , t he j ur y w as handi cappe d i n det erm i ni ng w hatr eal l y occurr ed, and [ M i l l er ] w as pr ej udi ced by any dec i s i on t hat r esul t ed. ” D ay , 5 8 9 S o . 2 d a t 6 4 4 . G iv e n th a t p re ju d ice , this c a se is
re v e rse d a n d re m a n d e d to th e c irc u it co u rt fo r a n e w trial. CO NC L US I ON ¶1 4. B as ed upon t he af or ement i on e d a nal ys i s , t hi s C our tf i nds t hatI s s ue ( 1) w as i m pr oper l y r ai s ed f

ort he f i r s tt i m e on appea l and, t her ef or e, i s di s m i s s ed w i t houtpr ej udi ce to pro p erly fi le a m o ti o n i n th e tr ial co u rt . R eg ard ing Issue (2), th is C o u rtfi n d s th e tri al co u rt
err ed i n e xcl udi ng r el evantand pr obat i ve evi dence w hi ch af f ect ed the j ury ver di ct . A s M i l l er
w a s d e n ied a fa ir trial, th e v e rd ict is r e v e rse d a n d th e c a se re m a n d e d fo r a n e w trial. ¶ 1 5 . RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D.

### 10

S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND D I AZ , P. J J . , CARL S ON, GRAVE S AND DI CK I NSON , J J . , CO NCU R. EAS LEY, J . , DI S S ENTS W I THO UT S EPARATE W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.