I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 2 - KA- 0 1 4 1 5 - S CT C RA IGD E

A N D R E W IL L IA M Sa/k/ a C RA IG WI L L I A MSa / k / a C RA IG D . WI

L L I A MS
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 25/ 2012 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N
. R O B E R T P
. C H A M B E R L IN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: DES OTO COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F S TATE PUB LI C D EFENDER BY : W
. D A N I EL H I N CH CL I FF G EO RG E T. H O LM ES DAV I D CLAY VAN DERBURG 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 BY: LAURA HOG AN TEDDER J O H N R . H E N R Y , J R
. DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: J OHN W
. CH AM P I ON 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 - 03/ 27/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
B E F O R E R A N D O L P H , P . J. , P I E R C E A N D K I N G , JJ. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. C ra ig D e a n d re W ill iam s w a s c o n v ic te d o f a rm e d r o b b e ry in th e D e S o to C o u n ty C i r cui tC our tf

ol l ow i ng a j ury tr i al
. W i l l i ams appe al s hi s convi ct i on, cl ai m i ng: ( 1) a br oken “B B g u n ” d o es n o t m ee t th e d efinit ion o f a d ea d ly w ea p o n for p u rpo ses o f M issi ssipp i’ s
ar med- r ob be ry s t a tut e ; ( 2) the tr i a l c ou r tf a i l e d t o i ns truc tthe j ury r e ga r di ng the l egal def i ni t i on of a dea dl y w eapon; and ( 3) beca use the jury w as i ns truct ed thatthey “ne ed not

### 2

actual l y s ee a deadl y w eapon, ” they w er e mi s i ns truct ed on the l egal ne ces s i ty of the us e of a dea dl y w eapon. Fi ndi ng no m er i ti n any of thes e cont ent i ons , w e af f i rm W i l l i ams’ s arm edr obbery convi ct i on. FACTS ¶2. O n M ar ch 10, 2011, na r cot i cs a gent s w i th the D eSot o C ounty Sher i f f’ s D epartm ent
or gani zed a contr ol l ed drug- and- gun buy be tw een R odney L ong a nd W i l l i ams, t o t ake pl ace atthe Tul ane Park A partm ent s i n H orn L ake, M i s s i s s i ppi
. L ong, a conf i dent i al i nf

orm ant
w orki ng of

f a pr evi ous drug c har ge, ha d i nf orm ed the agent s thathe c oul d “ s cor e drugs and
a g u n ” fr o m W illia m s . ¶3. A ta pr e- buy l ocat i on, the agents w i red L on g w i t h au dio and v i deo s urvei l l ance
e q u ip m e n t an d p ro v id e d h im $ 2 8 0 in c a sh fo r th e tra n sa c tio n . F ro m th e re , L o n g d ro v e h is veh i cl e t o the T ulane Pa rk A partm ents . T he a g ents fol l ow ed L on g in separat e veh i cl es,
s t ayi ng cl os e enough behi nd t o moni t orthe tr ans act i on vi a the audi o tr ans m i t t erconce al ed in s id e L o n g ’s c lo th in g . ¶4. W hen Long arr i ved atthe apartm entcompl ex, he metW i l l i ams i n an ups t ai r s br eez ew ay l ocat ed out s i de apa r tm entbui l di ng num ber800. W i l l i ams as ked Long i f he had br ought the m oney. Long sa i d, “Y es . ” Long t hen as ked W i l l i ams i f he had br ought“the pi l l s and the gun. ” W i l l i ams s ai d, “Y eah, I goti t . ” Long pul l ed t he bu y m oney outof hi s pocketand began count i ng i ti n fr ontof W i l l i ams. A tt hatpoi nt , W i l l i ams pul l ed f r om hi s pocketw hat L o n g b e liev e d w a s a b lac k h a n d g u n ; sh o v e d it i n L o n g ’s s to m a c h ; an d to ld L o n g to g iv e h im

“ e v e ry th i n g ” a n d n o b o d y wo u l d g e th u r t . As Lo n g h a n d e d W i l l i a ms th e mo n e y , W i l l i a ms gr abbed the money, hi tL ong on the s i de of the hea d w i th the gun, an d ran fr om the s cene .

### 3

S tu n n e d a n d sc a re d , L o n g sh o u ted , “I ju st g o t ro b b e d .” H e a rin g th is fro m th e a u d io tr ans m i s s i on, the age nt s im m ediat el y proc eede d t o the s cene . E n r out e, one age nts aw an A fr i can-A m eri can m al e w eari ng a red and black ho od ed sw eat shi rtrunning eastbo un d across the apa r tm entcompl ex. A f ootchas e ens ued, endi ng w hen W i l l i ams r an i nt o a nearby s hed. T he age ntr adi oed f

orba ckup and s ecur ed the ar ea. W hi l e i n the s hed, W i l l i ams, w ho w as
a g e f i f t e e n a tt h e t i me , c a l l e d h i s mo th e rf r o m h i s c e l l u l a rp h o n e . W i l l i a ms ’ s mo th e rc a me to th e s c e n e , a n d W illia m s s u rr e n d e re d to th e a g e n ts s h o rt ly th e re a ft e r. ¶ 5
. D u rin g th e ro b b e ry in v e stig a tio n , C o m m a n d e r R o g e r H u tch in s fo u n d $ 2 8 0 h id d e n in W i l l i ams’ s s hoe. Back atthe apa r tm entcompl ex, D eputy K ei th Postnot i ced w hatappea r ed t o hi m t o be a G l ock . 45- cal i bers emi aut om at i c handgun l yi ng i n a f l ow erpoti n f

r ontof A p a rtm e n t 7 0 1 . D e p u ty P o st re p o rte d w h a t h e h a d fo u n d to D e p u ty K e n n y F re e . D e p u ty Fr ee c ame and r etr i eved the i t em and pr oces s ed i tforevi dence
. T he i t em w as det erm i ned t o be a br oken pel l et/ B B gun. D ur i ng ques t i oni ng, W i l l i ams admi t t ed t o the r obbery and that the p el l et t/ B B gu n w as hi s. ¶6. A D eSot o C ounty gr and j ury i ndi ct ed W i l l i ams f or arm ed r obbery underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97- 3- 79 ( R ev. 2006)
. A D eSot o C ounty j ury found W i l l i ams gui l ty of arm ed
r obbery bas ed on evi den ce tha ti ncl uded: t es t i m ony f r om L ong and age nt s i nvol ved i n the i nves t i gat i on; W i l l i ams’ s conf es s i on; a r ecor di ng of

the audi o and video s urvei l l ance ; the
m oney f ound i n W i l l i ams’ s s hoe; and the pel l et/ B B gun s ubm i t t ed i nt o evi dence
. U pon W i l l i ams’ s convi ct i on f orarm ed r obbery, t he tr i al cour ts ent ence d W i l l i ams t o tw enty- f i ve year s i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm entof C orr ect i on s (M D O C ) , w i th tw el ve year s t o s erve, f

ol l ow ed by thi r t een year s pos t - r el eas e s upervi s i on, w i th f i ve yea r s r eport i ng.

### 4

¶7. W i l l i ams t i m el y appeal s hi s convi ct i on. A ddi t i onal fa ct s , as nec es s ary, w i l l be added d u ri n g o u r discu ssion o f th e issue s, w h ich w e re lat e v erb ati m as se t f o rth in W il li am s’s
a p p e lla te b ri e f. DI S CU S S I ON I . W HETH ER THE BRO KEN BB G UN I NTRO DUC ED I NTO E VI DE NC E W AS A D E AD L Y WEA P ON W I T HI N T HE M EA NI NG OF THE ARM ED - ROBB ER Y S TA TU TE , W HERE THE ONLY P ROOF ADDUCED S HOW ED THE TOY W AS BR O K EN A N D W H E N U SED A S A C LU B D I D N O T C A U SE S ER I OUS BODI LY I NJ URY. ¶8. Sect i on 97- 3- 79, under w hi ch W i l l i ams w as tr i ed and convi ct ed, s t at es i n p er t i nent p a rt: E very per s on w ho s hal l f el oni ous l y t ake ora t t emptt o t ake f r om the per s on or f r om the pr es ence the per sonal pr operty of anotherand aga i ns thi s w i l l by v io len c e to h is p e rso n o r b y p u tti n g su c h p e rso n in fe a r o f im m e d iate in ju ry to h is p e rs o n b y th e e x h ib itio n o f a d e a d ly w e a p o n sh a ll b e g u ilty o f r o b b e ry . .

. . M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-7 9 (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶9. C i t i ng D u c k w o rth v. S ta te , 477 So. 2d 935 ( M i s s . 1985) , W i l l i ams ac know l edges that
w hethera part i cul ari t em i s a ctual l y a “de adl y w eapon” as cont empl at ed by s t atut e, has l ong b e e n h e ld to b e a q u e s tio n fo r t h e ju ry ’s d e te rm in a tio n . See D u c k w o rth , 477 So. 2d at938 (af fi rm i ng arm ed-r ob bery co nv i ct i on w h ere q u est i on w hethera blank st art er pi st ol w as a d e a d ly w e a p o n w a s p ro p e rly re so lv e d b y th e ju ry ). W ill iam s a lso a c k n o w led g e s th a t b o th th i s Co u r ta n d th e Co u r to f Ap p e a l s h a v e a f

f i rme d a rme d
- r o b b e ry c o n v i c t i o n s wh e r e a BB g u n w a s u s e d d u ri n g th e c o m m is s io n o f a ro b b e ry . See S a u c ierv. S ta te , 562 So. 2d 1238, 1 2 4 6 (M is s . 1 9 9 0 ), overr ul ed on othergr ounds ( f i ndi ng thata br oken pel l etg un w ei ghi ng

### 5

“thr ee orf

ourpounds [ , ] ” w hi ch coul d be used as a cl ub t o i nf l i cts er i ous bodi l y i nj ury, m et th e d e fin iti o n o f a d e a d ly w e a p o n u n d e r S e c tio n 9 7 -3 -7 9 ); T h o m a s v . S ta te , 936 So. 2d 964, 967 ( M i s s . C t . A pp . 2006) ( af f i rm i ng arm ed- r obbery convi ct i on w her e “[ t ] her e w as test im o n y that a p ell et gu n ca n infl ictseriou s b o d il y injury ”). W il li am s co n tend s, h o w ev er, the evi dence her e i s uncontr overt ed thatthe pel l et/ B B gun i n ques t i on w as br oken and i n o p e r a b l e , wh i c h d i s t i n g u i s h e s h i s c a s e f r o m T hom as . W i l l i ams f

ur thercont ends thatno pr oof w as adduced for t he j ury as t o the pel l et/ B B gun’ s w ei ght , and, even though the p e lle t/B B w a s u s e d a s a c lu b , n o s e ri o u s b o d ily in ju ry re s u lte d ; th u s , Sauci eri s i nappl i cabl e. ¶10. I n hi s ar gum enton appea l , W i l l i ams m akes m uch of the f actthe pel l et/ B B gun ent er ed i nto evi dence attr i al w as br oken. U nl i ke the S au cier C our t , w e do nothave the ac tual p e l l e t/ BB g u n b e f

o r e u s o n a p p e a l , a n d th e r e c o r d d o e s n o ti n d i c a t e wh a te x a c t l y W i l l i a ms
m eans by “broke n. ” N evertheles s, this f act w a s fo r th e ju ry to c o n ten d w ith , n o t th is C o u rt. B a se d u p o n the re c o rd b e fo re u s, o n e re a so n a b ly c a n in fe r fro m th e a d d iti o n a l fa c ts o f th is
cas e thatw hatbr oke the pel l et/ B B gun w as the m anneri n w hi ch i tw as us ed. T hatno s er i ous b o d il y injury resu lt ed fr o m i ts u se sim p ly go es to the v ict im ’s go o d fortun e, no t t o W il li am s’s
cu lp a b ili ty u n d er S ec ti o n 9 7 -3-7 9
. A n d the fa ct th at t esti m o n y w as g iven as to the g u n ’s
w e ig h t is o f n o m o m e n t to th is C o u rt . T h e p e llet/B B g u n w a s s u b m itt e d to th e ju ry fo r its i n s p e c t i o n a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e o b j e c t ’ s p r o p e n s i ty f

o rh a rm. ¶11. I n Cit

tadino v . S ta te , 1 9 9 M iss . 2 3 5 , 2 4 S o . 2 d 9 3 (1 9 4 5 ), th is C o u rt v o c ife ro u sly
art i cul at ed the l egi s l at i ve i nt entbehi nd ourarm ed- r obbery s t atut e. I n addr es s i ng the arg u m en t th at th e S tat e h ad fai led to estab li sh th e ex ist en ce of a de ad ly w ea p o n b ec au se th ere

### 6

w as no proof

thata f i r earm us ed i n a r obbery w as l oaded orthati t s pot ent i al use as a bl udgeon w as noti nt i m at ed, the Ci ttadino C o u rt sa id th is: T h e e v il so u g h t to b e a b a ted w a s th e e m p lo y m e n t o f su c h w e a p o n s a s a re h e ld gen eral l y, and theref

ore by the vict i m , t o b e dead l y. W e d o n o t have a case w her e the w eapon ha s been s how n nott o be dea dl y beca us e notl oaded or o th e rw ise in c a p a b le o f u se as a fire a rm . N o r d o w e trea t of the m a n n e r o f its u se sin c e it w a s n o t u se d to e ffe c t a b a ttery b u t ac c o m p lish e d its p u rp o se b y its ch a l l e ng e tha tthe a c t orw a s r e a dy , a bl e a nd qu i t e w i l l i ng t o mak e i tde a dl y. T he l i m i t ed opt i on, m ade pr overbi al by the t echni ques of a ruthl es s bandi try, of m oney orl i f

e i s a re pr es ent at i on by the cul pr i tt hatt he w eapon i s deadl y and thathe w i l l ki l l beca us e he c an ki l l
. T hi s r epr es ent at i on , w hethervoi ced or no t , i s w h at the ban ditexp ect s or i nsi st s that the v i ct i m com prehen d an d so a c c e p t as lit e ra lly tru e , w h e re b y h e is im m o b ili z e d b y a re a so n a b le fe a r. T h is i s the s ubs t ance f

r om w hi ch a genui ne i nf er ence of the dea dl y char act erof

the w eapon may be f

orm ed.

. . . . T h e se c o n sid e ra tio n s a re n o t ad v a n c e d to fo rtify d o u b ts a s to th e p rim a fa c ie s uf f i ci ency of

the pr oof

of deadl y char act erw her e the w eapon us ed i s , as s uch pr oved oruni ver s al l y r ecogni zed a s i n thatcate gory and exhi bi t ed f orthe purpos e of

ef f ect i ng r obbery thr ough a f earof i m m edi at e i nj ury t o the per s on. T h e law h as fro m ea rl iestti m es re co g n ized the r ig h t of th e v ict im to justi fy r et al i at i on by extr eme m eas ur es upon the r eas onabl e as s um pt i on thatthe thr eat and dange rar e r eal beca us e they have i nt ent i onal l y been s o r epr es ent ed by the as s ai l ant . I f

the ci t i zen may s o pr es um e i n hi s ow n def ens e, t he St at e may do s o i n de f ens e of s oci ety, of

w hi ch he i s a r epr es ent at i ve uni t . T he pr ovocat i on of bl oods hed, even a tthe hands of the vi ct i m , w as notunw or thy of l egi s l at i ve n o tice . T h e [trial] co u rt w a s n o t, th e re fo re , in e rro r in a llo w in g th e ju ry to d r a w th e i n f

e r e n c e s wh i c h a p p e l l a n th i ms e l f i n t e n d e d th e v i c t i m t o d r a w. Ci ttadino , 24 So. 2d at95- 96. ¶12. C i t i ng Ci ttandino , D u c k w o rth , a nd othercas es , the Sauci er C our t f ound the B B gun ati s s ue b e f

or e i twas , a s a matt e ro f l a w , a “ de a dl y w e a po n” wi thi n the mea ni ng of t he
a rm e d -r o b b e ry s ta tu te . Sauci er , 562 So. 2d at1246. T he C our tqual i f i ed i t s hol di ng, s t at i ng: “O f cour s e, the cons t i tut i on pr ecl udes a di r ect ed ver di ctf orthe pr os ecut i on on any es s ent i al el em entof

the of f ens e cha r ged. A ccor di ngl y, w e may onl y hol d thatthi s w eapon w as not

### 7

s u c h th a t S a u c ie r w a s e n title d to h a v e th e iss u e ta k e n fr o m th e ju ry a n d d e c id e d in h is fa v o r.” I d. ¶1 3. H er e, W i l l i ams m ake s the s a me a r gu ment ( s ) a s s e r t e d be f or e a nd r e

j ect ed by t he Ci ttadino , D u c k w o rth , and Sauci erCo u r t s . I n l i n e wi th th o s e h o l d i n g s , we f i n d W i l l i a ms
w as notent i t l ed t o a di r ect ed ver di cton the ques t i on of w hetherthe pel l et/ B B gun cons t i tut ed
a “ d e a d ly w e a p o n ” u n d e r S e c tio n 9 7 -3 -7 9 . T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I I . W HETH ER TH E FAI LURE O F THE TRI AL CO URT TO I NSTR UC T TH E JUR Y R EG AR DI NG TH E D EFI NI TI O N O F A DE AD L Y WEA P ON , A N E CE S S AR Y E L E M E NT T O T HE C R IM E O F A R M E D R O B B E R Y , D E N IE D W IL L IA M S A F A IR TRI AL. I I I . W HET HER T HE I NS TR UCT I ON GI VE N T HE J URY T HAT [ THE VI CTI M ] “ NEED NO T ACTUALLY SEE A DEADLY W EAPO N” W AS CON FUS I N G AND THEREBY M I S I NST RUC TED THE J URY ON THE LEGA L NECES S I TY O F A N A C T U A L D E A D L Y W E A P O N B E IN G U T IL IZE D IN THE CRI M E OF ARM ED ROBB ER Y. ¶14. W e addr es s i s s ues tw o and thr ee t ogether
. W i l l i ams f i r s t cont ends that , beca us e the tr i al courtf

ai l ed t o pr ovi de an i ns truct i on l egal l y de f i ni ng f orthe j ury a dea dl y w eapon, the
n e c e ss ity o f a n a c tu a l d e a d ly w e a p o n a s re q u ire d b y S e c tio n 9 7 -3 -7 9 w a s o b v iate d in th is
cas e . W i l l i a ms f

urthe rc on t e nd s the e rr orw a s c ompou nd e d when the tr i a l c ou r ti ns truc t ed th e ju ry a t th e S ta te ’s re q u e s t th a t th e v ic tim n e e d n o t s e e a d e a d ly w e a p o n . ¶15. A tthe out s et , w e not e thatW i l l i ams di d noto bjectto any o f the j ury i ns truct i ons
c o m p lain e d o f o n a p p e a l. N o r d id W ill iam s p re se n t to the tri a l co u rt an y o f th e a rg u m e n ts he pr es ent s h er e. T her ef or e, W i l l i ams’ s poi nt s of cont ent i on ar e s ubj ectt o pl ai n- err or revi ew . U nd er ou r plai n-errordoctr i ne, there has t o be a f i nd i ng of error , and that errorm ust

### 8

h a v e re s u lte d in a m a n if e s t m is c a rr ia g e o f j u s tic e fo r r e v e rs a l to o c c u r. G ra y v. S ta te , 549 S o . 2 d 1 3 1 6 , 1 3 2 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ). ¶ 1 6
. “ T h is C o u rt re a d s ju ry in stru c tio n s a s a w h o le to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e ju ry w a s fu lly and pr oper l y i ns truct ed acc or di ng t o the appl i cabl e l aw . ” Cla rk v. S ta te , 40 So. 3d 531, 544 ( M i s s . 2010)
. “[ I ] f

al l i ns truct i ons t aken a s a w hol e f ai r l y, b ut not neces s ar i l y per f ect l y,
announce the appl i cabl e rul es of l aw , no err orr es ul t s . ” Id
. ( quot i ng D a v is v. S ta te , 18 So. 3 d 8 4 2 , 8 4 7 (M is s . 2 0 0 9 ))
. ¶17. T he l aw , of

cour s e, r equi r es the j ury “mustbe i ns truct ed r egar di ng the el ement s of the
cr i m e w hi ch the def

endanti s char ged. ” Hu n terv . S ta te , 68 4 S o . 2d 6 2 5 , 6 3 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). W e fi nd that j ury i nstruct i on S -1 does so. Itreads as f oll ow s: T h e D e fe n d a n t [W ill a m s], ha s b e e n c h a rg e d w ith th e c rim e o f R o b b e ry w ith a D eadl y W eapon, al s o know n as A rm ed R obbery. If y ou f i nd f r om the e v id e n c e in th is c a se , b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t: 1 ) O n o r a b o u t M a rc h 1 0 , 2 0 1 1 , th e D e fe n d a n t [W illia m s ], 2 ) D id ta k e fr o m th e p re s e n c e o r f ro m th e p e rs o n o f [ L o n g ], 3) C ert ai n p ers on al property, being ap proxim at el y $ 28 0. 00 i n cash m o n e y , w h ich w a s th e p e rso n a l p ro p e rty o f th e D e S o to C o u n ty Sher i f f’ s D epartm ent , and 4) Such t aki ng w as agai ns tthe w i l l of [ L ong] , and 5 ) A s a m e a n s o f ta k in g th e c a sh m o n e y , [W ill iam s] p u t [L o n g ] i n fea r of im m ed iat e inju ry to h is p e rson b y the e x h ibit ion o f a d e a d ly w e a p o n , to- w it: a p isto l; then you s hal l f

i nd [ W i l l i ams] , gui l ty of R obbery w i th a D eadl y W eapon. If th e S tate h a s fa iled to p ro v e a n y o n e o r m o re o f th e a b o v e listed e lem e n ts beyond a r eas onabl e doubt , then you s hal l f i nd the def

endantnotgui l ty.

### 9

¶18. W i l l i ams, how ever , cont ends thatthe tr i al courtal s o s houl d have gi ven an i ns truct i on
s i m i l art o the one uphe l d by thi s C our ti n D u c k w o rth and l at eri n D a v is v. S ta te , 530 So. 2d 694 ( M i s s . 1988) , def

i ni ng w hatl egal l y con st i tut es a dea dl y w eapon. T he i ns truct i on provided in tho se cases, gen eral l y, reads as f oll ow s: It is a q u e stio n o f fa c t fo r th e Ju ry to d e te rm in e w h e th e r th e [in stru m e n t] cl ai m ed t o h a ve be e n u s e d b y the [ D e f e nd a nt ] w a s a de a dl y wea po n i n the m annercl ai m ed t o have be en us ed i n thi s cas e. A deadl y w eapon m ay be def i ned as a ny obj ect , art i cl e orm eans w hi ch, w hen us ed as a w eapon i s , unde rthe exi s t i ng ci r cumst ance s , r eas onabl y capabl e or l i kel y t o pr oduce de ath ors er i ous bodi l y harm t o a human bei ng upon w hom th e o b je c t, a rt ic le o r m e a n s is u s e d a s a w e a p o n . See , e .g ., D a v is , 530 So. 2d at700 ( ci t i ng D u c k w o rth , 4 7 7 S o . 2 d a t 9 3 8 ). ¶19. W e ag ree w i t h W i l l i am s thatthi s type i ns truct i on bett eri nf orm s the j ury that the ques t i on as t o w hethera part i cul ari ns trum entcons t i tut es a dea dl y w eapon l i es w i th the j ury. B ut w e cann ot s ay that , becau se this part i culari nstruct i on w as not gi ven , a m anif est
m isc a rria g e o f in

ju stic e re su lted in th is c a se . A g a in , ju ry in stru c tio n S -1 p ro p e rly se t fo rth al l the el ement s of t he cr i m e of arm ed r obbery. W i l l i ams’ s cont ent i on t o the contr ary, the i ns truct i on i s notpe r empt ory. I tdoes notas s um e orchar ge the j ury thatthe pel l et/ B B gun
wa s i n f a c ta d e a d l y we a p o n . An d i tc l e a r l y g i v e s th e j u ry th e o p t i o n o f f i n d i n g th a tW i l l i a ms d id n o t e m p lo y th e u s e o f a d e a d ly w e a p o n . ¶ 2 0
. S til l, W illia m s a rg u e s th a t, b e c a u se o f ju ry in stru c tio n S -2 , th e ju ry w a s a llo w e d to infer tha t th e p ell et/ B B g u n at i ssu e n ee d n o t hav e b ee n an ac tual d ea d ly w ea p o n . Ju ry in stru c tio n S -2 in stru c ted th a t: “W h e n a d e fe n d a n t m a k e s a n o v e rt a c t an d th e v ictim

### 10

re a so n a b ly b e liev e s th a t th e d e fe n d a n t h a s a d e a d ly w e a p o n , itis n o t re q u ire d th a t th e v ictim actual l y s ee a deadl y w eapon t o s uppor ta convi ct i on f orarm ed r obbery. ” ¶21. T hi s i ns truct i on i s ba s ed on thi s C our t ’ s hol di ng i n D a m b re ll v. S ta te , 903 So. 2d 681 ( M i s s . 2005) , w her e w e overrul ed G ib b y v. S ta te , 744 So. 2d 244 ( M i ss. 1999)
. I n G ibby , thi s C our thel d thatthe vi ct i m ’ s as s um pt i on thatthe def endantpos s es s ed a gun w as in s u ff ic ie n t to p ro v e th e e x h ib itio n o f a d e a d ly w e a p o n u n d e r S e c tio n 9 7 -3 -7 9
. G ibby , 744 So. 2d at245. T he D a m b re ll C our thel d: A ft er car eful con si derat i on , this C ou rtov errules G ib b y v. S ta te , 744 So. 2d 244 ( M i s s . 1999)
. W e f

i nd thatw hen a de f

endantm akes an overtactand a r eas onabl e per s on w oul d bel i eve thata deadl y w eapon i s pr es ent , ther e i s no re q u ire m e n t th a t a v ictim m u st a c tu a lly se e th e d e a d ly w e a p o n in o rd e r to c o n v ict p u rsu a n t to [S e c tio n ] 97 -3 -7 9 . T h e re fo re , a v ictim is n o t re q u ire d to have “ def

i ni t e know l edge” of

a dea dl y w eapon i n the s ens e thatthe w eapon m ustactuall y b e seen b y the vi ct i m ’s ow n ey es. ¶22. W i l l i ams ar gues thatthe D a m b re ll d e c isio n (w h e re p ro o f e x iste d o f a n a c tu a l d e a d ly
w eapon us ed by the def

endant ) di d noti nt end t o do aw ay w i th the s t atut ory r equi r ementthat
a deadl y w eapon be us ed i n a n a rm ed r obbery, ye tthats eems t o be an u nint ended
c o n se q u e n c e . W ill iam s c o n ten d s th a t th e ju ry in th is c a se w a s to ld im p licitly b y th e S tate that al l the law requi res t o co nv i ctsom eon e of arm ed robb ery i s w hat the v i ct i m percei ves. ¶23. W e do notf

i nd thatt o b e t he case. N or do w e fi nd D a m b re ll c o n tro lli n g in th is i ns t ance . T he St at e pr es ent ed di r ectevi dence of the ac tual i ty of

a de adl y w eapon. A nd even though the St at e nee dl es s l y pr es ent ed a c i r cumst ant i al theory of a dea dl y w eapon thr ough j u ry i n s tru c t i o n S
- 2 , th i s wa s i n c o n s e q u e n t i a l , s i n c e th e q u e s t i o n o f wh e th e rth e p e l l e t/ BB g u n c o n s titu te d a d e a d ly w e a p o n w a s s u b m itte d to th e ju ry fo r i ts d e te rm in a tio n . ¶ 2 4
. A c c o rd in g ly , w e fin d iss u e s tw o a n d th re e a re w ith o u t m e rit.

### Da mb rell v. Sta te , 903 So. 2d 681 (Mi ss . 2005)
. 1 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 97-3- 79 (Re v. 2006)
. 2 

### Gib by v. State , 744 So. 2d 244, 245 ( Mis s. 1999). 3 

### 11 CO NC L US I ON ¶25. W e af

f i rm W i l l i ams’ s arm ed- r ob bery c on vict i on and the s ent ence i m pos ed by the D e S o to C o u n ty C ir c u it C o u rt . ¶ 2 6
. CONVI CT I ON O F ARM ED R OBBERY AND S EN TE NCE OF TW EN TY F I VE ( 2 5 ) YE AR S I N T HE CU S TOD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF C O R R E C T I O N S, W I T H T W E L V E ( 12) Y E A R S T O SE R V E A N D TH I R T E E N ( 13) YE AR S P OS T - RE L E AS E S UP E RV I S I ON , W I T H F I VE ( 5 ) YE AR S RE P OR T I NG , W I TH COND I TI ONS , AF F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , RANDOL P H, P . J . , LA M AR, KI TC HENS , KI NG AND C O L E M A N , JJ . , C O N C U R . D IC K IN S O N , P . J. , C O N C U R S IN P A R T A N D IN R E SU L T W I T H SE P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y C H A N D L E R , J. D IC K IN S O N , P R E S ID IN G JU S T IC E , C O N C U R R IN G IN P A R T A N D IN RES ULT: ¶27. B eca us e I cont i nue t o dis agree w i th thi s C our t ’ s hol di ng i n D a m b re ll v. S ta te , and 1 beca us e the tr i al j udge i n thi s cas e gr ant ed the St at e a j ury i ns truct i on bas ed on thatdeci s i on, I c o n c u r in p a rt a n d re su lt. ¶28. M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s a rm ed- r obbery s t atut e r equi r es the St at e t o p rove t hat the defe ndant f aci l i t at ed a r obbery by “exhi bi t i on of a dea dl y w eapon. ” A nd i n G ib b y v. S ta te , w e h e ld 2 that the st atute m eant w hat i tsai d, and that a r ob bery vict i m ’s as s um ption thatthe def

endant pos s es s ed a w eapon w ou l d no tsubst i tut e f oractual exhi bi t i on of

the w eapon dur i ng the
r obbery. 3

### Da mb rell, 903 So. 2d at 682. 4

### Id. at 683. 5 

### Id. at 689, 690 ( Dic kins on, J ., dis se nting) ( ci ting Co nley v. State , 790 So. 2d 773, 6 

### 809 (Mi ss . 2001) ). Mis s. Code Ann. § 97-3- 79 (Re v. 2006)
. 7 

### 12 ¶2 9. B ut i n D a m b re ll , th e d e fen d an t – w h o h ad en tered a sto re, i n tend ing to co m m it a
r obbery – carr i ed w i th hi m a kni f e thatw as c om pl et el y c oncea l ed by a t ow el w r apped a r ound hi s hand. H e w as convi ct ed of arm ed r obbery, and he appeal ed, ar gui ng thathe di d not 4
e x h ib it an y w e a p o n a t all. ¶30. A m aj or i ty of

t hi s C our tadopt ed the conce ptof c ons truct i ve exhi bi t i on, thati s t o s ay, the St at e no l ongerw as r equi r ed t o pr ove the def endantactual l y exhi bi t ed a de adl y w eapon ( as r equi r ed by the s t atut e) , s o l ong as t he S t at e co ul d pr ove that“a de f endant[ m ade] an
o v e rta c t a n d a re a s o n a b le p e rs o n w o u ld b e lie v e th a t a d e a d ly w e a p o n [w a s ] p re s e n t. . . .” 5 ¶ 3 1
. B e liev in g th a t sta tu tes sh o u ld b e a p p lied a s th e y w e re w ritten b y th e L e g is la tu re , I di s s ent ed i n D a m b re ll
. A s I s t at ed i n thatc as e, cr i m i nal s t atut es m us tbe s tr i ct l y cons trued i n f a vo rof the ac cus ed, and the maj or i ty opi ni on i m perm i s s i bl y abr ogat ed a s t atut ory el ement
o f a rm e d ro b b e ry . S im p ly p u t, on e c a n n o t co m m it arm e d r o b b e ry w ith o u t ac tu a lly 6 exhi bi t i ng a dea dl y w eapon. 7 ¶ 3 2
. In th e c a se b e fo re u s to d a y , the trial c o u rt g ra n te d a ju ry in s tru c tio n b a se d o n th is C ou rt ’s D a m b re ll

hol di ng. B eca us e I bel i eve D a m b re ll w as err oneous l y deci ded, I cannot j oi n the m aj or i ty’ s c oncl us i on thatthe tr i al courtdi d noterrby gr ant i ng thati ns truct i on. T hat

### 13

sa id , the d e fe n d a n t in th is c a se a c tu a lly e x h ib ited a d e a d ly w e a p o n , so I jo in th e m a jo rity in p a rt, an d in re su lt. CH AN DL E R, J . , J OI NS T HI S OP I NI ON
.