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 9 - KA- 0 1 7 3 2 - S CT EL Z I E JUNIOR HAR RI

S ON
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 16/ 2009 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. VER NO N R
. CO TTEN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: NES HOBA COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F I ND I GEN T APPEALS BY : W
. D A N I EL H I N CH CL I FF LESL I E S. LEE 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 BY : DE I RD RE M CC RO RY DI S T RI CT AT T ORNE Y: M AR K S HE L DON DU NC AN NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 12/ 09/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
B E F O R E C A R L SO N , P . J. , R A N D O L P H A N D K I T C H E N S, JJ. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. E l zi e J uni orH arr i s on appea l s f r om hi s convi ct i on on f

i ve count s of

s t atut ory r ape and
s exual batt ery. H arr i s on r ai s es tw o as s i gnm ent s of e rr orbas ed on comm ent s m ade by the trial c o u rt, b u t d id n o t ra is e a n o b jec tio n a t th e tim e th e c o m m e n ts w e re m a d e . B o th
a ss ig n m e n ts a re w ith o u t su b sta n tiv e m e rit. W e aff irm the jud g m e n t of

the N e sh o b a C o u n ty C ir c u it C o u rt . FACTS

### 2

¶ 2
. S .W . (b o rn Ja n u a ry 1 7 , 1 9 9 1 ) liv e d in th e L in w o o d co m m u n ity o f N e sh o b a C o u n ty
w ith h e r m o th e r, t w o b ro th e rs , a n d s te p fa th e r, H a rr is o n (b o r n D e c e m b e r 1 7 , 1 9 8 1 ). S .W
. test if ied th at, o n M o ther’s D ay , 2 0 0 4 , H arrison w as p rese n t w h il e sh e a n d h er b roth ers w ere pr epar i ng a M other ’ s D ay car d. She s ai d s he w as l ooki ng dow n atthe ca r d, butH arr i s on
s eemed t o thi nk thatshe w as l oo king athi s cr ot ch. S. W
. t es t i f i ed thathe l ooked dow n at hi m s el f and t hen smi l ed ather
. She st at ed that , short l y t her eaf t er , he se ntherm otheroutof th e h o u s e o n a n e rr a n d , t o l d t h e b o y s t o g o t o t h e i rr o o m, a n d t o l d h e rt o g o t o a n o th e rr o o m. She s ai d he ca m e i n and had s ex w i th her , penetr at i ng herm outh and anus. S. W
. t es t i f i ed th a t, i n th e n e x t fe w w e e k s, w h ile s h e w a s s til l th irtee n , h e sta rte d h a v in g v a g in a l se x w ith h e r, an d th a t th is c o n tin u e d n u m e ro u s tim e s a t v a rio u s lo c a tio n s, u n til a fte r h e r six tee n th bi r thday. A f

t ers he bega n t o go t o chur ch, herpas t ornot i ced t hat she w as depr es s ed and b e g a n to c o u n se l h e r. E v e n tu a lly , sh e c o n fid e d in h im . H e a d v ise d S .W . a n d h e r m o th e r to
r eportH arr i son t o the s her i f f’ s of f i ce. T hey di d s o. H arr i s on w as arr es t ed and ga ve a
s t at ementt o an i nves t i gat oraf t erw ai ving h i s ri ghtt o couns el
. T he i nves t i gat orw r ot e a
s t at ement , r ead i tba ck t o H arr i s on, a nd ga ve hi m a n oppor tuni ty t o m ake c hanges
. H arr i s on si gn ed the st at em ent, w hich r eads as fol l ow s: I am nots ur e of

the dat e butw hen w e w er e l i vi ng i n L i nw ood [ S. W
. ] m y s t epdaught erw oul d com e ont o m e and I di d nothave se x w i th herbutI di d t ouch herpr i vat es w i th m y hands
. I n 2006 w e w er e l i vi ng [ nearPhi l adel phi a] and [S .W .] c a m e o n to m e a g a in a n d I d id h a v e s e x th e n . I h a d s e x w it h [S .W .] 3 ors o di f f er entt i m es i n 2006. [ S. W
. ] w as 16 year s ol d i n 2006. I haven’ thad s ex w i th [ S. W
. ] s i nce 2006.

### 3

H arr i s on w as i ndi ct ed on f i ve count s : ( 1) St atut ory r ape for i nt er cour s e w i th a chi l d under age f our t een; ( 2) Sexual batt ery f oror al s ex w i th a chi l d underage f our t een; ( 3) Sexual b a ttery fo r a n a l se x w ith a c h ild u n d e r ag e fo u rte e n ; (4 ) S tatu to ry rap e fo r in ter c o u rse w ith a chi l d betw een t he age s of f our t een a nd s i xt een; ( 5) Sexual batt ery f ori nt er cour s e w i th a
s ix te e n -y e a r- o ld c h ild b y a p e rs o n o f tru s t o r a u th o ri ty o v e r t h e c h ild
. See M i s s . C ode A nn. § § 9 7 -3-6 5 (1)(b ), 9 7 -3-9 5 (1)(d ), 9 7 -3-9 5 (2) (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶3. T r i al w as hel d J ul y 14- 15, 2009. Pr i ort o voi r di re , the ju d g e m a d e intr o d u ctory
rem ark s, inclu d ing instructing the ju ry th at an ind ictm en t m ea n s o n ly th at tw elve m em b ers of a grand jury, heari ng on l y the Stat e’s si de o f the case, hav e found that pr ob able cause
e x is ts th a t a c ri m e h a s b e e n c o m m itte d . T h e ju d g e e x p la in e d , in tera lia , the pr es um pt i on of inn o ce n ce , the b u rde n o f p roo f, a n d the req u ir em en t of u n an im ity . Im m ed iat ely a ft er the jury p an el w as se lected , the jud g e c o n ti n u ed h is i n tr o d u ctory an d ex p lana tory rem ark s b efo re
excus i ng thos e veni r emen w ho had no tbeen s el ect ed. A s thi s w as the l as tj ury tr i al of the
w ee k , tho se n o t ch o sen ha d co m p let ed th eir jury du ty. T h e jud g e e x toll ed the v alue o f j u ry
s ervi ce and thanked the veni r e m ember s f orha vi ng s erved. T he j udge des cr i bed j ury s ervi ce
a s a “ g o o d a n d n o b le th in g ,” a n “ in d is p e n s a b le li n k ,” a n d “ p a rta n d p a rc e l o f t h e ru le o f l a w .” H e r eca l l ed a s peec h he had gi ven on I ndepende nce D ay and c om par ed ours ys t em t o thatof Ir an, w here “there’s n o su ch thing as a j ury tri al or an i nd i ctm ent . . . . ” F oll ow i ng these
r emar ks , the j udge excus ed thos e veni r e m ember s w ho ha d notbeen c hos en and c ont i nued hi s expl anat ory re m arks , i ncl udi ng i nf orm i ng t he w i tnes s es and t he j ury t hatthey w oul d be

### 4

excus ed f

orl unch. H e i ns truct ed the w i tnes s es nott o have a ny cont actw i th the j ur or s , and t ol d the j urors n ott o di s cus s the ca s e among t hemsel ves orw i th other s . H arr i s on di d not
o b je c t a t a n y tim e to a n y re m a rk b y th e tr ia l ju d g e . ¶4
. O n tw o o cc asio n s
– just b efo re the fi rst lun ch b rea k an d just b efo re ex cu sing the ju ry f orthe ni ght– the courtdes cr i bed the ca s e as a “c api t al cas e. ” I n both i ns t ance s , the
comm entw as m ade t o i m pr es s upon the j ur or s and w i tnes s the s er i ous nes s of the ca s e and the im po rt ance o f theirfol l ow i ng the co u rt ’s instruct i on s. T he co urtnev er s ai d itw as a capi t al
- m ur dercas e ora dea th- penal ty cas e. H arr i s on di d notobj ecton ei therocca s i on. ¶5. D ur i ng S
. W
. ’ s t es t i m ony, w hen s he w as f i r s tas ked aboutthe eve nt s of M other ’ s D ay, 2004, s he s truggl ed w i th c om pl et i ng he ra ns w er s . T he j udge as ked heri f s he nee ded t o t ake a br eak. H e t ol d hert o t ry t o answ eri f s he coul d, butas s ur ed herthati f s he coul d notgo on, h e w o u ld allow h er to tak e a b rea k
. F o ll o w ing th is, th e p rose cu tor ask ed som e p reli m inary ques t i ons , butw hen he r eturned t o ques t i ons aboutM other ’ s D ay, S. W
. s poke s of t l y and w as t old t o speak up. S he w as agai n un able t o an sw er, and the judge ordered the co urti n recess. W hi l e the j ury w as out , the j udge s poke t o S. W
. , i ntr odu ci ng h i m sel f , expl ai ni ng the ci r cumst ance s , and att em pti ng t o cal m herdow n enough t o cont i nue. S. W
. acc ept ed the j udge’ s of

f ert ake ab re ak t o compose he r s el f
. She l ef tthe courtr oom acc om pani ed by a f emal e bai l i f

f
. W hen S. W
. r eturned, the j udge agai n i ns truct ed hert o s peak l oudl y enough t o be hea r d and t o ans w erthe ques t i ons t o the bes tof herabi l i ty. She as s ur ed the j udge that
s he coul d do s o. A f

t erques t i oni ng r es um ed, the f ol l ow i ng col l oquy occurr ed:

### 5

S tate : N o w , at a n y tim e th a t d a y , d id y o u g e t an y id e a a b o u t w h a t it

w a s th a t h e th o u g h t y o u w e re lo o k in g a t?
. . . . D e fe n se : O b

jec tio n to sp e c u latio n . A s to w h a t th e d e fe n d a n t th o u g h t. C o u rt: I’m g o in g to o v e rru le th e o b jec tio n . I th in k th a t’s a v a lid ques t i on. G o ahea d and ans w erthe ques t i on i f you can. S .W .: Y e s . S tate : A n d w h a t w a s th a t? S. W
. : H i s pr i vat e ar ea. S tat e: S o h e w a s stan d ing in a p o sit ion su ch , w ith resp ec t t o the c ard

you w er e gaz i ng at– D ef ens e: O bj ect i on t o l eadi ng. C our t : I ’ l l s us t ai n that
. T ry nott o l ead. St at e: Judg e, I ’ m j us ttryi ng t o r e- cap a nd gi ve s om e cont extt o w hat

sh e ’s te stifie d a b o u t. C our t : O kay. St at e: N o[ w ] , once you l ooked atthe car d, w as he st andi ng i n an ar ea

nearw her e he w oul d have be en abl e t o thi nk you w er e l ooki ng a th i m? D ef ens e: O bj ect i on t o s pecul at i on on w hatthe def endantw oul d have be en thi nki ng. C our t : I ’ m goi ng t o overul e the obj ect i on. T he – w hatw e’ r e s eeki ng

is th e tru th
. . . . T h e c o u rt is se e k in g to a llo w th a t to c o m e in w i thi n the par amet er s of the rul es . T he w i tnes s i s a chi l d, ei ght een ye a r s of

a ge no w , bu tw a s thi r t e e n a tthe t i me, a nd w i thi n thatt ot al cont ext , the courti s s eeki ng t o s t ay aw ay f r om th e ru le, a s fa r a s lea d in g , b u t als o to g e t at th e tru th a n d I w o u ld i ns tructcouns el t o do the bes tthathe ca n . . . t o notl ead. So go a h e a d a n d m a k e a n o th e r e ff o rt .

### Har ri son’ s brie f als o inc lude s argum ent s regarding thep rop rie ty of the“l aw and 1 

### ord er speech .” Ho wev er, this argument w as no t raised as a sep arate issue. SeeMis s. R. App. P. 28(a)( 3). 6 H arr i s on ne i the rob

j e c t e d t o the tr i a l c ou r t ’ s s t a t e mentno rc l a i med tha tthe tr i a l j ud ge ha d
v o u c h e d fo r t h e v e ra c ity o f t h e w itn e s s . ¶ 6
. T h e ju ry fo u n d H a rriso n g u ilty o n a ll fi v e c o u n ts . T h e c o u rt se n ten c e d H a rriso n to fi fty ye ars. T h e co u rtde n ied H arrison ’s m o ti o n for j u d g m en t n o tw ith stan d ing the v erd icto r, i n the al t ernat i ve, ne w tr i al
. I n i t , H arr i s on r ai s ed s even a s s i gnm ent s of err or , none of

w hi ch is re p e a te d in h is b ri e f t o th is C o u rt . I S S UES ¶7. T he is sues, as quo t ed fr om H arr i son’s br i ef, are as fol l ow s: 1 I. D i d the tri al cou rt ’s repeat ed m i scharact eri zat i on of the case as a “ c a p ital c a se ” tain t th e ju ry a n d p re v e n t H a rriso n fr o m re c e iv in g a fa ir tr ia l. I I
. D i d t he tr i al cour tcom m enton the ver aci ty and the truthf ul nes s of the S tate ’s p rim a ry w itn e ss th e re b y d e n y H a rriso n a fa ir trial. III. W h e th e r th e c u m u lativ e e ffe c t o f th e fo re g o in g ju d icia l co m m e n ts, if they w er e otherw i s e notf ound t o be r eversi bl e err or , w as s uf f i ci ent err ort o r equi r e thi s caus e be r ever s ed. A N A L Y S IS ¶ 8
. T h e s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w fo r t h e is s u e s ra is e d is a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . See Mille r v . S ta te , 9 9 6 S o . 2 d 7 5 2 , 7 5 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 8 ); S tric k la n d v. Sta te , 9 8 0 S o . 2 d 9 0 8 , 9 1 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ). I. D i d the t ri al cou rt’ s rep eated m i scha racteri z ati on of the case as a “c api t alc as e ” t ai nt t he j ur y a nd pr e ve nt H ar r i s on f r om r e c e i vi ng a fa ir t r ia l.

### 7

¶9. T hi s i s s ue i s proc edur al l y barr ed. H arr i s on di d nott i m el y obj ect , i ncl ude thi s i s s ue in h is p o s t- tr ia l m o tio n , o r a rg u e o n a p p e a l w h y it s h o u ld n o t b e p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d
. See D o ss v. S ta te , 709 So. 2d 369, 381 ( M i s s . 1996) ( ci t i ng Fo ste r v . Sta te , 639 So. 2d 1263, 1286 ( M i s s . 1994) ) ( “the cont empora neous obj ect i on rul e al s o appl i es t o comm ent s by the tr ial jud g e” ). ¶ 1 0
. S h o u ld w e o v e rlo o k th e b a r a n d c o n sid e r th e a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r, it is w ith o u t m e rit. H arrison arg u es th at a “ ‘ca p it al ca se’ [i s] a c ase , m erit ing th e u lt im ate p en alty , ” thu s, the ju ry
m usthav e tho ug h t H arri son w as deservi ng of the d eath p enalty. H arr i son fi rs tci t es a century- ol d cas e s t at i ng thatj ur or s ar e “ve ry s us cept i bl e t o the i nf l uence of the j udge. ” See G re e n v. Sta te , 9 7 M is s . 8 3 4 , 5 3 S o . 4 1 5 , 4 1 6 (1 9 1 0 ). G r een i s dist ing u ishe d , as th e jud g e’s
s t at ement s evi nced pr ej udi ce t ow ar d the def endantand i ndi cat ed t o the j ury the pr ef err ed
o u tc o m e . I

d. ( “W e w antt o br eak thi s [ r aci al ep i t het ] ' s neck. ”)
. O thercas es ci t ed by H a rr is o n a ls o a re d is tin g u is h a b le
. See Fe rm o v. Sta te , 370 So. 2d 930, 933 ( M i s s . 1979) (tria l co u rt in v o lv e d itse lf in p lea n e g o tiatio n s); H a n n a h v . Sta te , 336 So. 2d 1317, 1321 (M iss. 1 9 7 6 ) (tri al co u rtask ed p rose cu tor i f he h ad an o b jecti o n ). ¶ 1 1
. F u r t h e r mo r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s c o m m e n t s w e r e n o twi t h o u ts u p p o r ti n t h e l a w.

“‘ [ C ] api t al cas e, ’
. . . w hen us ed i n any s t atut e s hal l denot e cr i m i nal cas es , of f ens es and
cr i m es puni s habl e by dea th ori m pr i s onm entforl i f e i n t he st at e peni t ent i ary. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 1- 3- 4 (Rev. 2005). H arr i s on w as i ndi ct ed on t w o count s of s t atut ory r ape, a cr i m e f or
w h ic h lif e im p ri s o n m e n t is p o s s ib le
. See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-6 5 (2)(c) (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ).

### 8

¶ 1 2
. F irst, w e fin d th a t th is a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d
. W e a lso fin d th a t, if th e p ro c e d u ra l b a r is n o t ap p lied , the a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. I I . D i d t he t ri al c ourt c om m ent on t he ve raci t y and t he t rut hf ul nes s of th e S ta te ’s p r im a r y w itn e ss th e r e b y d e n y H a r r iso n a fa ir t r ia l. ¶13. H arr i s on ar gues t hatt he tr i al cour t ’ s com m entw as a “st amp of appr oval ” that s i gnal ed to the jur y tha t th e jud g e b e liev e d h e r an d tha t th e d e fe n se w a s try in g to p re v e n t th e tru th f r om bei ng t ol d. T he S t at e ar gues thatthi s i s s ue al s o i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed by the cont empora neous - obj ect i on rul e. H ow ever , thes e com m ents w er e made i n an obj ect i on col l oquy. Such a rul i ng w oul d r equi r e a l i t i gantt o obj ectt o the expl anat i on of a f ai l ed obj ect i on. ¶ 1 4
. T h e trial c o u rt d id n o t v o u c h fo r S .W .’s v e ra c ity , b u t o n ly c o m m e n ted th a t g e tti n g to th e tru th w a s th e c o u rt’s g o a l. “ [T ]ha t th e tru th m a y b e a sc e rta in e d ” is a m o n g th e u lti m a te p u rp o se s o f th e ru les o f e v id e n c e . M iss . R . E v id . 1 0 2 . E v e n w h e n a trial c o u rt’s c o m m e n ts “have the ef

f ectof bol s t er i ng a w i tnes s ’ s t es t i m ony i n the eye s of the j ury, ” they do not
n e c e s s a ri ly c o n s titu te re v e rs ib le e rr o r. Sh o re v. Sta te , 2 8 7 S o . 2 d 7 6 6 , 7 6 8 (M iss. 1 9 7 4 ). In Sh ore , this C o u rt fo u n d th a t a ju d g e ’s c o m m e n t w a s a “ sta m p o f a p p ro v a l,” a s h e h a d sa id th a t a w itn e s s h a d n o t b e e n im p e a c h e d
. I d. at768. H ow ever , t he appe al w as notdeci ded on th a t p o in t, a s th e C o u rta lr e a d y h a d fo u n d re v e rs ib le e rr o r o n a n o th e r i s s u e . I d. “W e do not
s t at e thatthe comm ental one w oul d cons t i tut e r ever s i bl e error , butw e do poi ntoutthat
c o m m e n t u p o n th e e v id e n c e b y a trial ju d g e in th e p re s e n c e o f th e ju ry is h a z a rd o u s to af f i rm ance on appea l
. ” I

d. at769 ( ci t i ng G r een , 5 3 S o . at 41 6 ).

### 9

¶ 1 5
. A trial c o u rt is p e rm itt e d to e x p lain its ru lin g s, b u t n o t to m a k e p re ju d icia l co m m e n ts
a b o u t th e e v id e n c e . W

e lls v. Sta te , 6 9 8 S o . 2 d 4 9 7 , 5 1 0 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ); L o fto n v. Sta te , 818 So. 2d 1229, 1232 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2002). A l though t he overrul ed obj ect i ons her e w er e f or
s pecul at i on, the i s s ue on appeal i s t he court ’ s re as oni ng, w hi ch r el at ed t o a l eadi ng ques t i on. A tri al cou rthas the d i scr et i on t o all ow l eading q uest i on s und er c ertai n cir cum st ances, so l ong as doi ng s o doe s notpr ej udi ce a “compl ai ni ng pa r ty. ” J o n e s v . Sta te , 606 So. 2d 1051, 1 0 5 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ) (“T h e c lassic ex am p le for allow ing the u se o f l ea d ing q u esti o n s is w h ere
a c h ild is a w itn e s s .” ). ¶16
. T his C ou rt has descri bed the balanci ng act requi red of a tri al cou rt j ud ge as f oll ow s: O f c o u rse , h e sh o u ld k e e p o ff o f th e p ro v in c e o f th e ju ry , a n d n o t try to i nfl uence thei rver di ct ; and w hi l e i tm i ghtbe s af erf orhi m t o rul e w i thout givi ng his reas on s theref or, he h as the ri gh tt o g i ve such reas on s i f he so d esires, an d to sh o w w h y , in h is op inion , the re aso n s ad v an ce d for a co n tr ary rul i ng ar e uns ound.
. . . I ti s true that“an ove r s peaki ng j udge i s no w el l
- tuned cymbal , ” but
. . . nei theri s an aphoni c dumm y a bec om i ng r ece pt acl e f or jud ici al po w er. B u m p u s v . Sta te , 166 M i s s . 276, 144 So. 897, 899 (1932) ( quot i ng Ber ge rv. U . S. , 25 5 U. S. 2 2 , 4 3 , 4 1 S . C t. 2 3 0 , 2 3 6 , 6 5 L . E d . 4 8 9 (1 9 2 1 ))
. ¶17. W e f

i nd no err oron thi s i s s ue. III . W h ether the cu m u l ati ve eff ect of t h e forego i n g jud i ci al com m en ts , i f t hey w ere ot herw i s e not f ound t o be reve rs i bl e er ror, w as s uf f i c i e nt e r r or t o r e qui r e t hi s c aus e be r e ve r s e d. ¶18
. T h ere b eing no “err or, harm l ess or otherw i se, ” there can be n o cu m u lat ive erro r. L y n c h v. Sta te , 9 5 1 S o . 2 d 5 4 9 , 5 5 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). CO NC L US I ON

### 10

¶19. T he j udgm entof the N es hoba C ounty C i r cui tC our ti s af f i rm ed. ¶20. 

### COUNT I: CONVICTI ON OF STATUTORY RAPE A ND SENTENCE OF TWEN TY( 20 ) YE AR S I N TH E CU ST OD Y OFTHE MI SS I SS I PP IDE PA RT ME NT OFCO RREC TI ON S,AF FI RM ED . COUNT I I : CO NV I CT I ONOFSE XUAL BATTERY AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY (20) YEAR S IN THE CUSTODY OF TH E M ISS ISS IPP I DE PA RT ME NT OF CORRECT ION S, A FF IRM ED . CO UN T III: CONVICTI ON OF SEXUAL BATTERY AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY (20) YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MI SSISSI PPI DEPARTMENT OF CO RREC TI ON S,AF FI RM ED . CO UN T IV: CO NV I CT I ONOFST AT UT ORY RAPE AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY (20) YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MI SSI SS I PP IDE PA RT ME NT OFCO RREC TI ON S,AF FI RM ED . CO UN T V : CONVICTI ON OF SEXUAL BATTERY AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY (20) YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MI SSISSI PPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,AFFIRMED. SE NTENCES IN COUNTS I , I I AND I IISHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY FOR A TOTAL OF TWENTY (20) YEARS TO SERVE. SENTENCE IN COU NT IV SHALL RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCES I N C OU NT S I, IIAN D I I I . SE NT EN CE I N C OU NT V S HALL RU N CO NS EC UT I VE LYTO SE NT EN CE S I N C OU NT S I , I I , II IAND IVFOR A TO TAL OFSIXT Y ( 60 ) YE AR S T O S ER VE . TH E C OU RT SU SP EN DE D T EN( 10 ) YE AR S FROM THE SENTEN CE IN COUNT V, LEAVING A TOTAL OF FI FTY (50) YE AR S T O S ER

VE , AN D WHI CHSE NT ENCE SHALL B E S ER VE D D AY - FO RDAY. W AL L E R, C . J . , C AR L S ON , P . J . , L AMAR , KI T CH E NS , C HA ND L E R AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR. GRAVE S , P . J . , CONCURS I N RE S UL T ONL Y. DI CK I NSON, J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND RESULT W I THO UT S EPARATE W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.