I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 1 - KA- 0 1 7 0 2 - S CT S T AN L EY GI L M OR E a

/ k / a S T AN L EY T REM AI NE GI LM ORE a

/ k / a “ M ONEY” v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 14/ 2011 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . LAM AR P I CKARD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: CLAI BORNE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT : F RA NK G. VOL L OR AT T OR NE Y 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 : BI LLY L. GO RE D IS T R IC T A T T O R N E Y : A L E X A N D E R C . M A R T IN NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 06/ 27/ 2013 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E W A L L E R , C . J. , C H A N D L E R A N D K I N G , JJ. CH AND LER, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. St anl ey G i l m or e w as convi ct ed of aggr avat ed as s aul t and pos s es s i on of a w eapon by a c o n v ict ed felon o n S ep tem b er 7 , 2 0 1 1 , in the C ir cu itC o u rto f C o p iah C o u n ty. G il m o re s t i pul at ed thathe pr evi ous l y had bee n convi ct ed of tw o s epar at e f

el oni es a nd thathe had s hot D el w i n Sm i th f

ourt i m es i n s el f

- def ens e. G i l m or e appe al ed hi s convi ct i on, r ai s i ng num er ous err or s . W e r ever s e and r em and fora new tr i al on both count s , beca us e G i l m or e w as pr ej udi ced by the i ntr oduct i on of i nadmi s s i bl e evi dence of a pr i orconvi ct i on.

### 2 FACTS ¶2 . In M arc h o f 20 1 1 , D elw in S m i th an d R on nie T h o m p so n w o rke d tog ethe r as p rom o ters f or a rap co ncerti n Por tG i bs on, M i s s i s s i ppi , and agr eed t o s pl i tthe pr ocee ds f r om the c o n c e rt e v e n ly . D u rin g th e c o n c e rt , S tan ley G ilm o re (a lso k n o w n a s “ M o n e y ” ) to ld T hom ps on thathe s aw Sm i th’ s br otherpocket i ng t i cketm oney f r om one of

the door s . T hat n i g h t , S mi th a n d T h o mp s o n h a d a d i s p u t e r e g a r d i n g th e a mo u n to f mo n e y th e y h a d s p l i t . On M ar ch 28, 2 01 1, S m i th w entt o T hom ps on’ s hous e t o di s cus s the mat t er . Sm i th and T hom ps on s poke out s i de the hous e atf i r s t . A tsome poi nt , G i l m or e ca m e out s i de, T hom ps on w entback i ns i de, and Sm i th w as s hotf ourt i m es and s ever el y w ounded. ¶ 3 . S m ith tes tified th a t h e w a s n o t a n g ry w h e n h e a rriv e d a t T h o m p so n ’s h o u se a n d o n ly w ant ed t o r es ol ve the di s agr eement . H e cl ai m ed that , af t eran ini t i al f

r i endl y gr eet i ng, G i l m or e bega n t o “cop a n att i tude” a nd “w ant ed t o getvi ol ent . ” W hen Sm i th began t o back aw ay, G i l m or e pul l ed a gun outof the w ai s tof hi s pant s and s hotSm i th bel ow the hea r tas S m ith tu rn e d to lea v e . S m ith fell to th e g ro u n d , an d G ilm o re sh o t h im tw o m o re tim e s in h is arm and i n the hi p. Sm i th s ai d “M oney, m an, you ai n’ tgott o s hootm e. ” G i l m or e then s hot hi m a f our th t i m e i n hi s s i de bef or e f l eei ng. T hom ps on came out s i de, hel ped Sm i t h of f t he gr ound and i nt o a t ruck, and t ook hi m t o t he hospi t al . A l though S m i th w as hi tw i th onl y f our b u llets, h e sa id h e h e a rd fiv e sh o ts a n d o n e o f th e m m iss e d , b u t n o t th e first o n e . S m ith m ai nt ai ned he di d nott ake a gun t o the house , m ade no t hr eat s t ow ar d G i l m or e, and di d not s truggl e w i th G i l m or e overa gun. ¶ 4 . T h o m p so n te s tified th a t S m ith w a s u p se t b e c a u se , a fte r th e c o n c e rt, T h o m p so n to ld Sm i th he w as notgoi ng t o w or k w i th hi m a nym or e. W hen Sm i th c ame t o the hous e, he w as

### 3

angry and s ai d he w as t i r ed of hear i ng peopl e “t al ki ng i n the s tr eet ” abouthi s br others t eal i ng m oney. H e a s ke d t o t a l k t o Gi l mor e , w ho c a me ou t s i de a nd t ol d Smi th whathe ha d s een dur i ng the conc ert . Sm i th then thr eat ened G i l m or e, s ayi ng “ I gotw ol ves , I gotki l l er s , I got g u n s,” w h ich T h o m p so n u n d e rsto o d to m e a n h e h a d p e o p le w h o “ w o u ld d o so m e th in g to peopl e f orhi m . ” Thom ps on w enti ns i de t o getanotherper s on named “C ool , ” beca us e he di dn’ tknow w hatw as “gett i ng r eady t o go of f . ” A tthatpoi nt , Thom ps on he ar d a coupl e of guns hot s , l ooked outthe f r ont - doorpeep hol e, and s aw Sm i th on the gr ound. T hom ps on c a lle d 9 1 1 a n d to o k S m ith to th e h o s p ita l. ¶5. G i l m or e t es t i f

i ed thathe w as ups t ai r s t al ki ng t o a f ami l y m emberoverFacebook w hen T hom ps on cal l ed hi m dow ns t ai r s . H e cl ai m ed he w as notcarryi ng a gun, and thatSm i th w as i n a r age w hen he w entout s i de. A f t erThom ps on w entba ck i n the hous e, G i l m or e t es t i f i ed thatSm i th r an t ow ar d hi m w i th a gun. G i l m or e t hen gr abbed Sm i th’ s hand, and a s hotw ent o ff, h itt in g a b lu e an d red C ro w n V icto ria in th e d riv e w a y . A tu ss le e n su e d , in w h ich S m ith and G i l m or e w ound up on the gr ound, and the gun f i r ed s ever al t i m es a s G i l m or e w r es t l ed to g e t th e g u n . G ilm o re e x p lain e d th a t h e “ g ra b b e d [th e g u n ] at a n a n g le d o w n p u lli n g it t ow ar ds outof

[ Sm i th’ s ] hand” a nd Sm i th f el l on t op of

hi m . G i l m or e gotcontr ol of the gun, g o t u p o ff th e g ro u n d , sa w S m ith g e t u p , a n d th e n “ sq u e e z e [d ] th e g u n , b u t I c a n ’t sa y I h it h im .” G ilm o re d ro p p e d th e g u n , ran d o w n th e s tr e e t an d c a lled a frie n d w h o to o k h im to V i cks bur g. H e f

l ed i ns t ead of

goi ng the pol i ce“ beca us e I w as s car ed of w hathe w as goi ng t o do t o m e, ” and be caus e Sm i th t ol d hi m “thathi s peopl e w or k on the f or ce” i n Por tG i bs on and “thathe’ s pa i d thos e. ” H e bel i eved Sm i th w oul d s om ehow be a bl e t o us e hi s i nf l uence to h u rt h im .

### 4

¶6. Fr eddi e Y arbr ough, a C l ai rborne C ounty s her i f f’ s deputy, t est i fi ed thathe i nv est i gat ed the s cene the day of

the s hoot i ng, and thathe found no gun and s aw no bul l ethol es i n t he C r ow n V i ct or i a. E l bertH yder , cal l ed by t he St at e dur i ng r ebutt al , t es t i f i ed thathe dr ove up t o t he house duri ng t he i nci dentand w i tnes s ed G i l m or e hol di ng a gun and backi ng aw ay f r om the hous e, w hi l e Sm i th c ame ar ound the back of the hous e w i th bl ood runni ng dow n hi s back. H yderdi d nothearany guns hot s , and af t erpul l i ng i nt o the dr i vew ay t o s ee i f G i l m or e w as g o in g to sh o o t S m ith , h e b a c k e d u p an d d ro v e aw a y , b e c a u se h e h a d ch ild re n in th e ca r w ith h im . ¶7 . G i l m or e w a s c on vi c t e d on b oth c ou nt s , a nd the tr i a l c ou r tde ni ed hi s m ot i ons f or di r ect ed ver di ctand a ne w tr i al . G i l m or e now r ai s es the f ol l ow i ng e rr or s : ( 1) thatthe ver di ct w a s a g a in st th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e , (2 ) th a t th e trial ju d g e e rre d in r ej ect i ng hi s r eques t ed l es s er - i ncl uded- of f ens e i nst ruct i on, ( 3) thatthe tr i al j udge in a d e q u a tely in stru c ted th e jur y tha t th e S tate h a d th e b u rd e n o f p ro v in g b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubtthathe di d notacti n s el f - def ens e, ( 4) thatthe tr i al j udge err ed i n adm i t t i ng evi dence of a pr i orc onvi ct i on of

s i m pl e batt ery, a nd ( 5) that the St at e i m pr oper l y pr es ent ed evi dence i n i t s r ebutt al case thati tw as r equi r ed t o pr es entdur i ng i t s cas e- i n- chi ef . M or eover , he ar gues that , cumul at i vel y, thes e err or s m er i tr ever s al , even i f none mer i t s r ever s al s t andi ng a lo n e . 1. W he t he r t he ve r di c t was ag ai ns t t he ov e r whel m i ng wei ght of t he e vi de nc e s uc h t hat t he t r i alco ur t abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by de nyi ng G ilm o r e ’s m o tio n fo r a n e w tr ia l. ¶8. Sm i th ar gues t he t r i al cour tshoul d have gr ant ed hi s m ot i on fora new tr i al , and t hat t o u p h o l d th e v e r d i c t s wo u l d s a n c t i o n a n u n c o n s c i o n a b l e i n j u s t i c e . S p e c i f

i c a l l y , h e c l a i ms

### 5

the o ve rw he l mi ng wei gh to f the e vi de nc e p r ov e d tha tSmi th w a s the a gg r e s s orw ho th re a te n e d G ilm o re w ith th e g u n , a n d th a t G ilm o re a c te d in s e lf -d e fe n s e . ¶ 9 . W e re v ie w th e d e n ia l o f a m o tio n fo r a n e w tr ia l f o r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Shef f ield v. S ta te , 7 49 S o. 2d 123, 127 ( M i s s . 1999) . W e mustvi ew the evi dence i n the l i ghtm ost fa v o ra b le to the v e rd ict, an d a n e w tri a l w ill b e g ra n ted o n ly in th o se “ e x c e p tio n a l ca se s in w hi ch the evi dence pr eponder at es heavi l y agai ns tthe ver di ct ” and i s “s o contr ary t o t he overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence thatt o al l ow i tt o s t and w oul d s anct i on an uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ” B u sh v . S ta te , 895 So. 2d 836, 844 ( M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng A m iker v. D r ugs f

orLes s, I

nc. , 7 96 S o. 2d 942, 847 ( M i s s . 2000) ) . T he evi dence s uppor t i ng t he v e rd ic t m u s t b e e x tr e m e ly w e a k , te n u o u s , o r d o u b tf u l f o r u s to a w a rd a n e w tr ia l. D ilw o rth v. S ta te , 909 So. 2d 731, 737 (M i s s . 2005). T he “j ury i s t he s ol e j udge of the w ei ghtof

t he evi dence and the cr edi bi l i ty of the w i tnes s es , ” and i tmay choos e t o bel i eve one w i tnes s over a n o th e r. E w in gv. S ta te , 45 So. 3d 652, 655 ( M i s s . 2010) ( quot i ng Mo h r v . S ta te , 584 So. 2 d 4 2 6 , 4 3 1 (M is s . 1 9 9 1 )) . ¶ 1 0 . A p e rso n w h o “ a ttem p ts to c a u se o r p u rp o se ly o r k n o w in g ly c a u se s b o d ily in ju ry to a n o th e rwi th a d e a d l y we a p o n o ro th e rme a n s l i k e l y t o p r o d u c e d e a th o rs e r i o u s b o d i l y h a r m” i s guil ty o f agg rav ated assaul t . M i ss. C od e A nn . § 9 7-3-7( 2)( a)( i i ) ( R ev. 20 06 ). B ecause G i l m or e s t i pul at ed thathe had caus ed bodi l y i nj ury t o Sm i th by s hoot i ng hi m f ourt i m es , t he S tat e h ad to p rov e o n ly tha t G il m o re “ p u rpo sely o r k n o w ing ly” sh o t S m ith , an d n o t i n selfd efe n se. T h e S tate p rov ided am p le ev iden ce , p ri m aril y S m ith ’s de tai led a cc o u n t, for a rea so n ab le j u ry to b eli ev e tha t G il m o re p u rpo sely an d k n o w ing ly sh o t Sm ith , that G il m o re w as the aggr es s or , and thathe di d notacti n s el f - def ens e. T he j ury, bei ng the s ol e j udge of

### 6

w itn ess c red ibil ity , w as e n ti tl ed to b eli ev e S m ith ’s s tory o v er G il m o re’s an d T h o m p so n ’s s t or i es . Fur ther , c ert ai n f act s i n G i l m or e’ s t es t i m ony w er e contr adi ct ed by bot h O f f i cer Y arbr ough and El bertH yder , s uch as thatthe f i r s ts hothi ta pa r ked cari n the dr i vew ay, t hat G i l mor e d r op pe d the g un a tthe s c e ne , a nd the d e s c r i pt i on o f the c l othe s Gi l m or e w as w ear i ng. J us tbeca us e the j ury chos e t o be l i eve Sm i th ove rG i l m or e does notmean the ver di ct w as bas ed on extr emel y w eak ort enuous evi dence , and G i l m ore’ s evide nce di d not pr eponder at e heavi l y a gai ns tthe ver di ct . G i l m or e i s notent i t l ed t o a new tr i al on aggr avat ed a s s a u lt. ¶11. U nder our f

el ony pos s es s i on s t atut e, a convi ct ed f el on i s pr ohi bi t ed f

r om pos s es s i ng “any f i r earm . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 37- 5 ( R ev. 2006) . B eca us e G i l m or e s t i pul at ed thathe w a s a c o n v icte d fe lo n w h o w a s n o t ab le to p o ss e ss a fire a rm law fu lly , th e S tate n e e d e d o n ly t o pr ove thatG i l m or e had “w i l l ful l y poss es s ed a f i r earm . ” J

o n e s v . S ta te , 920 So. 2d 465, 473 ( M i s s . 2006) . A gai n, thi s w as a f actques t i on thatthe j ury w as ent i t l ed t o deci de i n f avor of the St at e. Sm i th t es t i f

i ed thatG i l m or e had a gun on hi s per s on w hen he c ame out s i de, and thatG i l m or e had pr oduced the gun and s hothi m . E ven though G i l m or e t es t i f i ed thathe w r es t l ed the gun a w ay f r om Sm i th onl y i n s el f

- def ens e, the j ury hear d enough evi dence t hat i tr eas onabl y coul d f

i nd thatSm i th’ s s t ory w as t rue. In addi t i on t o S m i th’ s t es t i m ony, H yder tes tified th a t h e sa w G ilm o re h o ld in g th e g u n . T h e ju ry ’s f in d in g th a t G ilm o re w ill fu lly pos s es s ed the f

i r earm w i th w hi ch he s hotSm i th w as notbas ed on extr emel y w eak ort enuous evi dence , and w e w i l l notdi s turb thatf i ndi ng now . G i l m or e’ s c l ai m i n thi s i s s ue i s w i thout m e ri t.

### 7

2. W het her the tri al court err ed i n ref usi ng t o i nst ruct t he j ury on sim p le as sa u lt . ¶12. T he t ri al cou r t r ej ect ed G i l m or e’ s r eques t ed j ury i ns truct i on on the l es s er - i ncl uded o ffen se o f si m p le assa u lt . G il m o re a rgu es th at th ere w as a su ffi cien t ev iden ti ary b asis for a c o n v ictio n o f th a t les se r o ffe n se , an d th a t t h e tr ia l co u rt w a s re q u ire d to g ra n t h is re q u e st. Speci f i cal l y, G i l m or e poi nt s t o hi s t es t i m ony thathe di d notknow w hy Sm i th w as a ngry, t hat he di d nothave a gun w hen he c ame dow n the s t ai r s , thatSm i th f i r s tpos s es s ed the gun, and thatG i l m or e w r es t l ed the gun a w ay f r om Sm i th s uch thatSm i th w as a cci dent l y s hots ever al t i m es . G i l m or e al s o t es t i f i ed that , a f

t erhe w r es t l ed the gun a w ay f r om S m i t h, he squeez ed the tr i ggeronce – butcoul d nots ay w hetherhe hi tSm i th – bef or e dr oppi ng the gun and run n ing aw ay . T h e S tat e a rgu es th ere w as n o ev iden ti ary b asis for a jury to fi n d tha t G il m o re act ed n egli gen t l y, and that a negli gen ce t heo ry i s i n co nsi st ent w i th G i l m ore’ s sel f- defense theory. I n otherw or ds , G i l m or e coul d nothave ne gl i gent l y s hotSm i th i n s el f - def ens e. ¶13. W e r evi ew a tr i al j udge’ s de ni al of a l es s er - i ncl uded- of

f ens e j ury i ns truct i on de novo. D o w n s v . S ta te , 962 So. 2d 1255, 1258 ( M i s s . 2007). W hi l e “[ a] def endanti s ent i t l ed t o have jury instruction s g iven w h ich p rese n t his th eo ry o f th e c ase , ” w e h a v e h e ld tha t “th e c o u rt m ay r ef us e an i ns truct i on w hi ch i ncorr ect l y s t at es the l aw , i s c over ed f ai r l y el s ew her e i n the i ns tructi ons , ori s w i thoutf oundat i on i n the evi dence . ” N e w e ll v. S ta te , 49 So. 3d 66, 74 ( M i s s . 2010) ( quot i ng He a rn v. S ta te , 3 So. 3d 722, 738 ( M i s s . 2008)) . T o be ent i t l ed t o a lesser-inclu d ed -offen se in stru cti o n , “a d efe n d an t m u st p o int t o so m e e v iden ce in the rec o rd f r om w hi c h a j ury r e a s on a bl y c ou l d f i nd hi m notgu i l ty o f

the c r i me w i th whi c h h e w as char ged and a tthe s ame t i m e f i nd hi m gui l ty of

a l es s er - i ncl uded of

f ens e. ” G o o dn ite v . S ta te ,

### 8

799 So. 2d 64, 69 ( M i s s . 2001) . W e m us tvi ew t he evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the d efe n d an t, d raw all rea so n ab le i n feren ce s in h is f av o r, an d take into a c c o u n t “th at th e jury m ay notbe requi r ed t o bel i eve a ny evi dence of f er ed by the St at e. ” Fa irc h ild v. S ta te , 459 So. 2d 793, 801 ( M i s s . 1984) . B uti f no r eas onabl e j ury coul d have f ound the def

endant gui l ty of the l es s er - i ncl uded of

f ens e, w e w i l l uphol d t he deni al of the pr opos ed i ns truct i on. I d . ¶14. E ven vi ew i ng thi s evidence i n a li gh tm os tf avor abl e t o G i l m or e, G i l m or e has not pr es ent ed s uf

f i ci entevi dence of negl i gence . A per s on i s gui l ty of s i m pl e as s aul ti f

he

“ n e g lig e n tly ca u se s b o d ily inju ry to a n o th e r w ith a d e a d ly w e a p o n o r o th e r m e a n s lik e ly to p ro d u c e d e a th o r se rio u s b o d ily h a rm .” M iss . C o d e A n n . 9 7 -3 -7 (R e v . 2 0 0 6 ). “ O n c e a d e a d ly w eapon i s i ntr oduced, the di s t i nct i on betw een s i m pl e and a ggr avat ed as s aul t. . . hi nges upon w hetherthe i nj ur i es w er e i nf l i ct ed negl i gent l y ori nt ent i onal l y. ” J a c kso n v. S ta te , 684 So. 2d 1213, 1230 ( M i s s . 1996) . W e have s t at ed that“[ t ] he rec kl es s nes s ornegl i gence cont empl at ed by the st atut e i s i n t he acti t s el f ” and “ does notr ef

ert o the s ubj ect i ve i nt entof the def endant . ” N

o b les v. S ta te , 464 So. 2d 1151, 1154 ( M i s s . 1985 ). “M oreover , w hen ser i ou s or s ub st anti al bo dil y h arm has r esul t ed, w e have be en i ncli ned t o h old that the case i s def i ni t el y one of

aggr avat ed as s aul t . ” Jacks on , 684 So. 2d at1230 ( ci t i ng Hutchinson v. S ta te , 5 9 4 S o . 2 d 1 7 , 2 0 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ); H a rb in v. S ta te , 4 7 8 S o . 2 d 7 9 6 , 8 0 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 ); Co lb u rn v. S ta te , 4 3 1 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 )). ¶15 . If all of the shots that hit S m i th w ere fi red as a res ult of the struggle, then G il m o re act ed i n s el f

- def ens e, notoutof

negl i gence . I n N

obles , w e st at ed thata t heo ry of s el f- defense is in c o m p a tib le w ith a th e o ry o f n e g lig e n c e , in tha t “[t] h e rec k les s o r n e g lig e n t bel i ef that[ the

### 9

def endant ] w as act i ng i n s el f def ens e i s contr a t o the f

oundat i on of

thatdef ens e, i . e. , t he r eas onabl e bel i ef

of i m m i nentbodi l y harm . ” N obles , 4 6 4 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 5 4 (e m p h a sis in or i gi nal ) . I f

w e as s um e G i l m or e’ s acc ountthatS m i th att acke d hi m i s cr edi bl e, t hen G i l m or e’ s s el f

- def ens e s truggl e coul d nothave be en negl i gent , as he w oul d have ha d a r e a s o n a b l e b e l i e f

o f i mmi n e n tb o d i l y h a r m. ¶ 1 6 . It i s p o ss ib le, h o w e v e r, th a t, a fte r th e p e rio d o f ti m e in w h ic h G ilm o re re a so n a b ly act ed i n s el f

- def ens e ( thati s , af

t erw r es t l i ng the gun aw ay f r om Sm i th) , G i l m or e coul d have negl i gent l y ( r atherthan i nt ent i onal l y) f i r ed one m or e s hotand hi tSm i th one more t i m e, gi vi ng r i s e t o a s i m pl e as s aul t . Y et , G i l m or e’ s t es t i m ony thathe s queez ed the tr i ggeronce butdid no tk no w if

he s hotSm i th i s the onl y pos s i bl e evi dence of negl i gence and i s t oo t enuous f ora r eas onabl e j ur ort o have f ound thatG i l m or e ac t ed outof negl i gence . W e have stat ed that “a lesser-inclu d ed o ffen se in stru cti o n sh o u ld n ev er b e g ran ted o n th e b asis o f pu re s pecul at i on. ” Fa irc h ild , 4 5 9 S o . 2 d 7 9 3 , 8 0 1 (M iss . 1 9 8 4 ). A g a in , w e lo o k to th e a c t it se lf t o det erm i ne negl i gence , and nott o G i l m or e’ s subje ct i ve i nt ent . Squeezi ng the tr i ggerand hitt i ng S m i th cau sed ser i ou s bod i l y h arm , and as such, w e ar e “i ncli ned t o ho l d that the case i s def i ni t el y one of

aggr avat ed as s aul t . ” Jacks on , 684 So. 2d at1 230. W e af f i r m the tr i al courton thi s i s s ue. 3. W he t he r t he t r i alc our t ade quat e l y i ns t r uc t e d t he j ur y t hat t he St at e had t he burden o f provi ng beyond a reas onabl e doubt t hat G ilm o r e d id n o t a c t i n s e lf -d e fe n s e . ¶17. G i l m or e f

ur thera r gues thatthe r eques t ed s i m pl e- as s aul ti ns truct i on, I ns truct i on D - 1, w as the onl y i ns truct i on t hatadequat el y expl ai ned t o t he j ury thatthe St at e had the bur den t o pr ove beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatG i l m or e di d nots hootS m i t h i n s el f - def ens e.

### 10

B ec au se D -1 w as re

jected , h e a rgu es th e ins tru cti o n s w ere d efe cti v e in e x p lai n ing h is th eo ry of s el f - def ens e t o the j ury and thathe i s ent i t l ed t o a new tr i al . H ow ever , G i l m or e does not cl ai m thatthe adm i t t ed i ns truct i ons di d notadequa t el y expl ai n hi s theory of s el f - def ens e or w e re o th e rw ise d e fe c tiv e in sta tin g th e law , ex c e p t th a t h e a rg u e s th e y d id n o t cle a rly sta te w h ich p a rty h a d th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f re g a rd in g se lf-d e fe n se . W h ile n o tin g in its b rie f th a t th is i s s ue “c aus ed u s som e conc ern, ” the St at e ar gues that , t aken t ogetheras a w hol e, t he i ns truct i ons adequa t el y i ns truct ed the j ury and thatG i l m or e w as notdeni ed a vi abl e def ens e. ¶18. J ury I ns truct i on 2 r ead: T h e C o u rt in stru c ts th e Ju ry th a t th e law p re su m e s e v e ry p e rso n c h a rg e d w ith th e c o m m is s io n o f a c ri m e to b e in n o c e n t. This pr e s um pti on p lac e s upo n t

he State the bur de n of

pr ov ing t

he def endant guilt y of e v e r y m ate r ial

e le m e nt of t he c r im e w ith w h i ch h e is char ged . B ef or e you ca n r eturn a ver di ctof gui l ty, the St at e mustpr ove t o yours at i s f act i on be yond a r eas onabl e doubtthat the d ef endanti s gui l ty. T he pr es um pt i on of i nnocenc e att ends the def endant t hr ough ou tthe tr i a l a nd pr e va i l s a ti t s c l os e un l e s s ov e r c ome b y e vi de nce w h ich sa tisifies th e ju ry o f th e d e fe n d a n t’s g u ilt b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. T he def endant is not r equir ed to pr ove his innocence . ( E m phas i s added. ) T he tr i al courtgave s ever al addi t i onal i ns truct i ons , namel y I ns truct i ons 4 , 5 , 6 ,7 , a n d 9 , w h ich e x p lain e d th e la w o n s e lf-d e fe n se . F u rth e r, th e ju ry w a s in stru c ted in J ury I ns truct i on N um ber11 t hat“a r eas onabl e doubtm ay ar i s e f r om the w hol e of

t he evi dence , the conf

l i ctof the evi dence , the l ack of ev i den ce, orthe i ns uf f i ci ency of

t he evi dence ; buthow everi tar i s es , i f i tar i s es , i ti s yours w orn duty t o f i nd the D ef

endant‘ N ot G ui l ty. ’ ” ¶1 9. W e r evi ew t he deni al ora c c e pt a nc e o f a p r op os e d j ury i ns t ruct i on f orabus e of di s cr et i on. Ma

y e v. S ta te , 4 9 S o . 3 d 1 1 2 4 , 1 1 2 9 (M iss . 2 0 1 0 ). A g a in , “[a ] de fe n d a n t is en ti tl ed to h av e jury instruction s g iven w h ich p rese n t his th eo ry o f th e ca se,” b u t “the co u rt

### 11

m ay r ef us e an i ns truct i on w hi ch i ncorr ect l y s t at es t he l aw , i s cover ed f ai r l y el s ew her e i n the i ns truct i ons , ori s w i thoutf oundat i on i n the evi dence . ” N e w e ll 4 9 S o . 3 d at 74 . Ju ry i nst ruc t i ons m us tbe cons i der ed t ogether , and i f , w hen r ead a s a w hol e, the i ns truct i ons “f ai r l y announce the l aw of the ca s e and c r eat e no i nj us t i ce, no r ever s i bl e err orw i l l be fo u n d ,” e v e n if

th e y d o n o t p e rf

e c tly d e s c r ib e th e la w . Maye , 49 So. 3d at1129 ( quot i ng R u b e n ste in v. S ta te , 9 4 1 S o . 2 d 7 3 5 , 7 8 4 -85 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 )). ¶20. I n P ier c e v. S ta te , w e gr ant ed a new tr i al w her e the def endant ’ s r eques t ed i ns truct i on, w h ich e x p lai n ed that the S tat e h ad the b u rde n o f pro v ing the d efe n d an t did n o t act i n selfd e fe n s e , w a s d e n ie d . P ier ce , 2 8 9 S o . 2 d 9 0 1 , 9 0 2 (M iss. 1 9 7 4 ). W e d id so b ec au se “ [t ] h ere w a s n o o th e r in stru c tio n , eith e r fo r th e S tate o r fo r th e d e fe n d a n t, se tti n g o u t o r d e a lin g w ith the rul e aboutw hi ch appe l l antdes i r ed thatthe j ury be i nf or m ed” a nd beca us e the “omi s s i on w as notc ur ed by a r eadi ng of a l l of the i ns truct i ons t ogether . ” I d. H o w e v e r, w e p re v io u sly have appr oved the pr eci s e l anguage of J ury Ins truct i on 2 and hel d i ts uf f i ci entt o i ns tructt he jury that the S tat e h as th e b u rde n of pro v ing th at th e d efe n d an t d id no t ac t in self- d efe n se. In Ma y e v. S ta te , the j ury w as nots peci f i cal l y i ns truct ed thatthe St at e bor e the bur den of pr oof o n s e lf -d e fe n s e . Maye , 49 So. 3d 1124, 1130 n. 1 ( M i s s . 2010) . H ow ever , j us tas i n thi s cas e, I ns truct i on N um ber2 i n thatcas e s t at ed that , “‘t he S t at e [ has ] the bur den of pr ovi ng t he def endantgui l ty of

every m at er i al el ementof t he cr i m e . . . ’ and t hat‘[ t ] he def endanti s not r equi r ed t o pr ove hi s i nnocence . ’ ” I d . W e hel d that“[ t ] hi s i ns truct i on s ur vi ves the P ier ce ru le, s in c e it i n fo rm e d th e ju ry th a t itsh o u ld n o t lo o k to M a y e to p ro v e se lf-d e fe n se , b u t to the St at e t o pr ove the l ack ther eof . ” I d.

### 12

¶21. G i l m or e cont ends that J ury I ns truct i on 2, w hen r ead t ogether w i th J ury I ns truct i on 3, i s m i s l eadi ng, beca us e I ns truct i on 2 i ns truct s thatthe St at e mustpr ove “e very m at er i al el ementof

the c r i me w i th whi c h h e i s c ha r ge d. ” Bec a us e I ns truc t i on 3 p r ov i de s a l i s tof e lem e n ts fo r th e S ta te to p ro v e th a t d o e s n o t in c lu d e “ a n d n o t in se lf-d e fe n se ” o r w o rd s to thatef f ect , G i l m or e ar gues t he i m pl i cat i on of the i ns truct i ons , w hen r ead t ogether , i s thatt he S tate h a d to p ro v e o n ly th e e lem e n ts liste d in In stru c tio n 3 b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. H ow ever , as w as the ca s e i n Maye , a ny ambi gui ty her e w as r es ol ved by the i ns truct i on that G i l m or e w as “notr equi r ed t o pr ove hi s ow n i nnocenc e. ” Fur ther , I ns truct i on N um ber11 m ade c l earthat , how evera re as onabl e doubtar os e, the j ury w as s w orn t o f i nd G i l m or e not gui l ty. W e f

i nd thatthe j ury w as s uf f i ci ent l y i ns truct ed thatthe St at e bor e the bur den of p ro v in g b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t th a t G ilm o re d id n o t a c t in s e lf -d e fe n s e . 4. W het her the tr i al j udge erre d by al l ow i ng t he St at e t o quest i on G i l m ore about hi s pri or as s aul t convi ct i on i n L oui s i ana. ¶22. D ur i ng the St at e’ s cr os s - exami nat i on of G i l m or e, the St at e as ked G i l m or e w hether he w as a vi ol entper s on and then as ked hi m about hi s convi ct i on f orbatt ery agai ns ta f

or m er g ir lf ri en d i n L o u isi an a. G il m o re’s co u n sel objected t o bo th qu esti o n s, arg u ing that G il m o re had notpl ace d hi s char act erati s s ue pr i ort o thi s p oint , and thathe al r eady ha d s t i pul at ed thathe w as a convi ct ed f el on. T he St at e s peci f

i cal l y ar gued t o the tr i al courtthati tw as us i ng the co nv i ct i on t o im peach G i l m ore’ s st at em en t t h at h e w as not a vi olentperson, bu tal so ar gued that“[ t ] hes e ar e as s aul tc onvi ct i ons w hi ch i s vi ol ent . W e’ r e tryi ng cr i m es of vi ol ence w h ic h h e s a y s h e ’s n o t a v io le n t p e rs o n .” ¶23 . T he spec i fi c exch ang e betw een the S t at e and G i l m ore w as as f oll ow s:

### 13

Q . W ho i s – I m ay b e prono un ci ng this w rong, but do y ou k no w a C arni se S and ers ? A . Y e s , th a t’ s o n e o f m y k id s ’ m o th e r’ s [s ic ]. Q . Y ou’ ve neve r– A . A ctua ll y I ha v e tw o k ids b y h er. Q . A nd you’ r e nota vi ol entper s on? [G ilm o re ’s c o u n se l im m e d iate ly re q u e s te d a c o n fe re n c e w ith th e ju d g e . H is obj ect i on w as overrul ed] Q . Y o u w ere say ing y o u h ad tw o ch il d ren b y h er? A . Y es. Q . H av e y o u ev er a d m itted to b att ery o n h er? A . W e hav e had ou r di sagreem ents . Q . W ell , yo u w ere no t co n v ict ed in a c o u rtin L o u isi an a o n sim p le ba tt ery o n h er? A . Itw as a ch arg e that I p rob ab ly p lead ed to g et o u t of jai l on it , y es, si r. ¶2 4 . G il m o re arg u es this evid en ce w as ina d m issi b le ch ara cter ev iden ce u n d er R u le 4 0 4 (b), a n d th a t its a d m is s io n p re ju d ic e d h im s u c h th a t h e is e n ti tle d to a n e w tr ia l. See M i s s . R. E vi d. 404( b) . T he St at e ar gues thatthi s ques t i oni ng w as pr operim peachmentby a pr i or convi ct i on underR ul e 609( b) , and that , i n any event , the i ntr oduct i on of thi s e vi dence w as harm l es s err orbeca us e the j ury al r eady ha d been i nf or m ed thatG i l m or e w as a convi ct ed fe lo n . See M is s . R . E v id . 6 0 9 (b ). ¶ 2 5 . “ A trial ju d g e e n jo y s a g re a t d e a l o f d isc re tio n a s to th e re lev a n c y a n d a d m iss ib ili ty of evi dence . U nl es s the j udge abus es thi s di s cr et i on s o as t o be pr ej udi ci al t o the ac cus ed, t he

### 14

C our tw i l l notr ever s e this rul i ng. ” W e lde v. S ta te , 3 So. 3d 113, 116- 17 ( M i s s . 2009) ( quot i ng Fish e r v. S ta te , 6 9 0 S o . 2 d 2 6 8 , 2 7 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 )). “R ev ersa l i s p rop er o n ly w h ere s u c h d is c r e tio n h a s b e e n a b u s e d a n d a s u b s ta n tia l r ig h t o f a p a rt y h a s b e e n a ff e c te d .” J o h n so n v. S ta te , 666 So. 2d 499, 503 ( M i s s . 1995) . A bs entan exc ept i on, “[ g] ener al l y, evi dence of

any cr i m e otherthan the one f orw hi ch the def

endantis b ei ng t r i ed i s not admi s s i bl e. ” W

el de , 3 S o . 3 d a t 1 1 7 . A
. W a s th is e v ide n c e a dm iss ib le u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (B )? ¶26. M i ssi ssi ppi Rul e of Evi dence 404( B ) pr ovi des t hat “[ e] vidence o f ot her cri m es, w r ongs , oract s i s notadmi s s i bl e t o pr ove the char act erof a pe r s on i n or dert o s how thathe act ed i n conf

or m i ty ther ew i th, ” butm ay “be a dm i s s i bl e f orotherpurpos es s uch as pr oof of m ot i ve, opportuni ty, i nt ent , pr epar at i on, pl an, know l edge, i dent i ty, orabs ence of m i s t ake or acc i dent . ” M i s s . R . E vi d. 404. W e empl oy a tw o- partt es tf ordet erm i ni ng w hen evi dence of o th e r c ri m e s is a d m is s ib le u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 . W el de , 3 So. 3d at117. Fi r s t , “the evi dence o ff e re d m u s t . . . b e r e le v a n t t o p ro v e a m a te ri a l is s u e o th e r t h a n th e d e fe n d a n t’ s c h a ra c te r,” and s econd, “the pr obat i ve val ue of the evi dence mustoutw ei gh the pr ej udi ci al ef f ect . ” I d. ( quot i ng Cra w

fo rdv. S ta te , 7 5 4 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 1 , 1 2 2 0 (M is s . 2 0 0 0 )) . ¶2 7 . N o c o n n e c ti o n ex ist s be tw ee n th e fi v e-y ea r-old L o u isia n a c o n v ictio n fo r sim p le batt ery agai ns tG i l m or e’ s gir l fr i end and the cu rr ent aggravat ed-ass aul tchar ge. T he St at e does n o t ar g u e th a t th e c o n v ic tio n w a s in tro d u c e d to sh o w “ m o tiv e , o p p o rtu n ity , inte n t, pr epar at i on , plan, kn ow l edg e, i den t i ty, or absence o f m i st ake o r acci dent . ” The tr i al tr ans cr i pt i ndi cat es t he St at e soughtt o adm i tt he evi dence atl eas ti n partas char act erevi dence – that is, in o rd e r to su g g e st th a t G ilm o re a c ted in c o n fo rm ity w ith the p rio r co n v ictio n –w h e n it

### 15

ar gued t o the tr i al j udge: “W e’ r e tr yi ng cr i m es of vi ol ence w hi ch he s ays he’ s nota vi ol ent p e rs o n .” T h is w a s c le a rl y im p e rm is s ib le . ¶28 . A l tho ug h the S t at e al so soug ht t o i m peach G i l m ore ab o u t w h ethe r o r n o t he w as a vi ol entper s on, G i l m or e’ s cr edi bi l i ty i n re gar d t o thatans w erw oul d notbe a mat er i al i s s ue i n the ca s e. M or eover , t o i m peac h G i l m or e, the St at e, n ot G i l m or e, f i r s ts oughtt o put G ilm o re ’s c h a ra c te r a t is s u e , a ta c tic w h ic h w e h a v e lo n g h e ld to b e im p e rm is s ib le . Johnson , 6 6 6 S o . 2 d a t 5 0 3 ; T

o b ia s v . S ta te , 472 So. 2d 398, 400 ( M i s s . 1985) . W hi l e the St at e does n o t argu e tha t i t w as se ek ing t o pro v e an elem en t of felon y p o sses sion o f a fir ea rm , itb ea rs not i ng thatthi s e l ementw as es t abl i s hed by G i l m or e’ s s t i pul at i on. T hus the pr ej udi ci al ef f ect of thi s t es t i m ony w oul d ha ve f aroutw ei ghed i t s pr obat i ve val ue. Thi s e vi dence w as not admi s s i bl e underR ul e 404. B . W a s th is e v ide n c e a dm iss ib le u n d e r R u le 6 0 9 (1)(B )? ¶29. M i s s i s s i ppi Rul e of E vi dence 609 governs i m peac hm ent of a def endant w i th a pr i or convi ct i on, and “r es tr i ct s t he us e of convi ct i ons t o thos e f

orw hi ch the pena l ty i s death or im p rison m en t f

o r on e y ea r or m o re o r th o se in v o lving ‘dish o n esty o r false stat em en t. ’” B la c k m a n v. S ta te , 6 5 9 S o . 2 d 5 8 3 , 5 8 5 (M iss . 1 9 9 5 ) ( q u o tin g M iss . R . E v id . 6 0 9 ). In th is case, G i l m ore w as co n v ict ed o f s i m ple bat t ery i n L ou i si ana, a cr i m e w hich carr i es a m axi m um pot ent i al puni s hm entof bei ng “i m pr i s oned f

ornotm or e than s i x m onths . ” La. R e v . S ta t. A n n . § 1 4 :3 5 . ¶ 3 0 . T h e S tate re lies g e n e ra lly o n th e a b u se -o f-d isc re tio n s ta n d a rd o f re v iew a n d a ss e rts that it“thin k [s] this co n v ict ion v ia gu il ty p lea w as a d m issi b le by v irtue o f” R u le 60 9 (1)(B ). T h e S tate c ites n o law su p p o rtin g th is a ss e rtio n . N e ith e r d o e s it a rg u e th a t sim p le b a ttery is

### 16

a cr i m e i nvol vi ng di s hones ty ora f al s e s t at ement , noraddr es s how G i l m or e’ s convi ct i on of a cri m e carrying a m axim um pen al ty o f s i x m on ths w as adm i ssi ble t o im peach G i l m ore’s cr edi bi l i ty underR ul e 609. T hi s St at e’ s ar gum ent t hat t hi s evi dence w as admi s s i bl e under R u le 6 0 9 is c o m p lete ly w ith o u t m e rit. C
. W as adm issi on of this evi den ce ha rm l ess er ror? ¶ 3 1 . T h e S tate falls b a c k o n the cla im tha t, e v e n if th is e v id e n c e w a s in a d m iss ib le, its adm i ssi on did not pr ej ud i ce G i l m ore and am ou nted t o harm l ess err or. Sp eci fi cal l y, becau se G il m o re st ipu lat ed t o th e jury th at he w as a c o n v ict ed fel o n , th en t esti m o n y rega rd in g h is c o n v ic tio n fo r s im p le a s s a u lt w o u ld h a v e c o m e a s n o p re ju d ic ia l s u rp ri s e to th e ju ry . ¶32. “W her e an e r r ori s deemed harm l es s , r ever s al i s notw arr ant ed. ” W illia m s v . S ta te , 9 9 1 S o . 2 d 5 9 3 , 6 0 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ). H o w ev er, th is C o u rth as n arro w ly d efine d h arm less erro r, sta tin g th a t “[a ]n e rro r is h a rm les s o n ly w h e n it i s a p p a re n t o n th e fa c e o f th e re c o rd th a t a f ai rm i nded j ury coul d have a r r i ved atno ver di ctotherthan thatof gui l ty. ” Fo rr e st v . S ta te , 335 S o. 2 d 900, 903 ( M i s s . 1976) . R el evantf act or s i n det erm i ni ng w hethererr orw as h a rm les s o r p re

ju d icia l in c lu d e “ w h e th e r th e iss u e o f in n o c e n c e o r g u iltis c lo se , the q u a n tity and cha r act erof

the err or , a nd the gr avi ty of the cr i m e cha r ged. ” R o ss v. S ta te , 954 So. 2d 9 6 8 , 1 0 1 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). ¶3 3. I n Fo rr e st v . S ta te , w he r e “ the e vi de nc e w a s f a i r l y e ve nl y d i vi de d o n the i s s ue of def e nd a nt ' s g ui l t , ” i mpr op e rq ue s t i on i ng a nd i mpr op e ra r gu ment s b y the St a t e wer e f ound to b e ind ividu all y h arm less, b u t, cu m u lat ively , the y req u ir ed rev ersa l of th e d efe n d an t’ s b u rg la ry c o n v ic tio n . Forrest , 335 So. 2d at903. T he i m properques t i oni ng i n Forrest i nvol ved i ns i nuat i ons thatthe def endanthad comm i t t ed s i m i l aract s bef or e ( butnotthathe

### 17

had bee n convi ct ed of

them ), an d att empt s t o di s cr edi tthe def endant ’ s w i tnes s es as bei ng p a id f o r t h e irte s tim o n y . I

d. a t901. T he evi dence of G i l m or e’ s pr i orconvi ct i on i n thi s cas e, w hi ch i nvol ved a ba t t ery agai ns tG i l m or e’ s gi r l f r i end, w as m uch more pr ej udi ci al than that i n Forrest . M or eover , e ach t i m e the St at e i n Forrest aske d an i m pr operquest i on, the j udge in s tru c te d th e ju ry to d is re g a rd th e s ta te m e n t. I d. T h a t w a s n o t d o n e b y th e trial ju d g e in th is c a s e . ¶34 . T he S t at e ci t es D eHe n re v. S ta te , i n w hi ch a daught er ’ s out - of - court st at em ent t o a 911 di s pat cherthat“my fa therhas s hotm y m other ” w as admi t t ed as an e xci t ed utt er ance , e v e n th o u g h th e d a u g h te r d id n o t w itn e s s th e a c tu a l s h o o tin g . D eHe n re v. S ta te , 43 So. 3d 4 0 7 , 4 1 8 -1 9 (M iss . 2 0 1 0 ). W e h e ld th is w a s h a rm les s e rro r, b e c a u se th e d isp a tch e r w a s a b le t o t e s t i f y tha ts he a s ke d the da ug ht e rw he the rs he ha d s e e n the s ho ot i ng , a nd the daught er s a id s h e d id n o t. I

d. at419. T her e, any pr ej udi ce w as of f s etby cl ar i f

yi ng t es t i m ony thatthe daught erdi d notactual l y w i tnes s the cr i m e. T her e i s no s i m i l arof f s ett i ng t es t i m ony her e. ¶35. I n W

ill ia m s v . S ta te , a cas e i nvol vi ng f el ony pos s es si on of a w eapon, w e found the tr i al court ’ s deni al of

the def endant ’ s of

f ert o s t i pul at e t o hi s pri orf el ony convi ct i on t o be h arm less erro r, d u e to o v erw h elm ing ev idenc e supp ort ing the v erd ict , “inc lud ing the v ict im ’s phot o l i ne- up i dent i f

i cat i on, the vi ct i m ’ s tes t i m ony, as w el l as corr obor at i ng gas s t at i on s ur vei l l ance vi deot ape, a nd 911 aud i ot ape. ” Wil lia ms , 9 9 1 S o . 2 d 5 9 3 , 6 0 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ). H er e, how ever , the evi dence w as f ai r l y even on both s i des , w i th tw o eyew i tnes s es t es t i f yi ng to c o m p lete ly c o n tra ry e v e n ts fo r e a c h sid e , an d n o c o rro b o ra tin g su rv e ill a n c e tap e to c o n tr a d ic t G ilm o re ’s s to ry .

### 18

¶3 6. I n a Courto f

Appe a l s c a s e a l s o t i t l ed W ill ia m s v . S ta te , the def

endant w as char ged w i th aggr avat ed as s aul tf ors t abbi ng t he v i ct i m w i th a pocke tkni f e and w i th f

el ony p o s s e s s io n o f a d e a d ly w e a p o n . Wil la ms , 3 7 S o . 3 d 7 1 7 , 7 1 9 (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 1 0 ). A t trial, the St at e i ntr oduced the def endant ’ s s t i pul at i on thathe w as a convi ct ed f el on t o pr ove the fe lo n y p o s s e s s io n c o u n t. I d. at723. O n appea l , the St at e conc eded thata pocke tkni f e di d not c o n s titu te a d e a d ly w e a p o n u n d e r t h e s ta tu te . I d. at7 19 -20. U pon r ever s i ng the f el ony p o sses sion co n v ict ion , th e C o u rto f A p p ea ls he ld tha t th e introd u cti o n o f th e d efe n d an t’ s pr i orconvi ct i on , w hi ch w oul d have be en i nadmi s s i bl e exc eptf orthe f el ony pos s es s i on c h a rg e , w a s c le a rl y p re ju d ic ia l. I

d. at7 21 -22. T he C our tof A ppeal s emphasi zed that the def endant ’ s cas e hi nged on hi s ow n t es t i m ony thathe had s t abbed the vi ct i m i n s el f - def ens e, and thathi s credi bi l i ty w as a key f act ori n the out come of w hatw as a “c l os e ca s e. ” I d. at 7 2 2 -2 4 . ¶37. B eca us e of

the cl os e “he s ai d, s he s ai d” natur e of the evi dence i n thi s cas e, w e cannot s a y th a t “ a fa irm in d e d ju ry c o u ld h a v e a rr iv e d a t n o v e rd ic t o th e r th a n th a t o f g u il ty .” I ns t ead, the i s s ue of

i nnocenc e orgui l ti s cl os e, and the quant i ty and cha r act erof t he e v id e n c e fa v o rs n e ith e r G il m o re n o r th e S tat e su b stan ti all y . M o reo v er, th e a g g rav ated -a ss a u lt c h a rg e is a g ra v e o ffe n se fo r w h ich G ilm o re w a s s e n ten c e d to tw e n ty y e a rs’ im p riso n m e n t. T he St at e ac know l edges thati t , notG i l m or e, f i r s ts oughtt o putG i l m or e’ s char act erati s s ue by as ki ng w hetherhe w as a vi ol entpe r s on i n or dert o i m peac h hi m w i th hi s pr i orconvi ct i on. A s the St at e ca ndi dl y poi nt s outi n i t s br i ef , w e have hel d pr evi ous l y thats uch “i m peac hm ent i s i m perm i s s i bl e and gr ounds f or r ever s al and r emand. ” Johnson , 666 So. 2d at503. T he

### 19

in tro d u c tio n o f G ilm o re ’s p rio r b a ttery c o n v ictio n w a s n o t h a rm les s e rro r, an d G ilm o re is e n title d to a n e w tr ia l o n b o th th e a g g ra v a te d -a s s a u lt a n d fe lo n y -p o s s e s s io n c h a rg e s . 5 . W h e th e r th e tr ia l co u r t e r r e d w h e n it a llo w e d th e S ta te to c a ll E lb e r t H y d e r d u r in g r e b u tta l. ¶3 8 . G il m o re furthe r com p lai n s th at, d u ri n g reb u tt al, the S tat e w as all o w ed to call E lbert H yder , w ho t es t i f

i ed thathe had w i tnes s ed partof the i nci dent , i ncl udi ng G i l m or e ca rr yi ng a gun. G i l m or e cont ends t he St at e purpos el y w i thhel d H yder ’ s t es t i m ony unt i l af t eri t s cas ei n- chi ef and ar gues thatthe St at e w as obl i gat ed t o pr es ental l r el evantevi dence bear i ng on G i l m or e’ s gui l tdur i ng i t s cas e- i n- chi ef . T he St at e cont ends H yder ’ s t es t i m ony – thathe s aw G i l m or e bac ki ng aw ay w hi l e hol di ng t he gun and t hatG i l m or e w as w ear i ng a “bl ack di ckey s ui t ” – w as of

f er ed t o r ebutG i l m or e’ s t es t i m ony thathe w as w ear i ng paj amas a nd a “w i febeater ” t -s hirtand that he di d n ot i l l egall y p ossess the g u n . G il m ore ext ensi vely cr ossex am ined H y d er, an d i t is ap p are n t from his co u n sel’s objecti o n i n th e re co rd th at G il m o re w a s n o t su rp rise d b y th e c o n ten t o f H y d e r’s p ro sp e c tiv e tes tim o n y . A fte r th e S tate re ste d its r ebutt al cas e, the j udge as ked G i l m or e’ s couns el “A nythi ng el s e, couns el ?” t o w hi ch G i l m or e’ s couns el r es ponded “N o, yourhonor . ” ¶39 . A tri al cou rt ’s decis i on t o all ow subst anti ve ev i den ce i n rebut t al i s r eview ed for abu se of di s c r e t i on. Mill

s v . S ta te , 8 1 3 S o . 2 d 6 8 8 , 6 9 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ); R o n e y v. S ta te , 16 7 M i ss. 827, 150 S o. 774, 775 ( 1933) . T he gener al rul e i n M i s s i s s i ppi i s t hat“t he party w ho has the b u rd e n o f p ro o f, a n d th e d u ty to o p e n th e c a se , m u st in h is o p e n in g , an d b e fo re h e re sts in h is pr oof , i ntr oduce a l l the s ubs t ant i ve evi dence upon w hi ch he r el i es t o es t abl i s h hi s demand, and t he ext entof thatdem and. ” R o n e y v. S ta te , 16 7 M iss. 82 7 , 15 0 S o . 77 4 , 7 7 5 (19 3 3 ). In

### 20

M y e rs v. S ta te , we s t a t e d tha ta dmi s s i on o f s ub s t a nt i ve e vi de nc e d ur i ng r e bu t t a l “ do es not cons t i tut e r ever s i bl e err or , unl es s i ti s show n t hatno oppor tuni ty i s af f or ded the def

endant t o r epl y by s urr ebutt al t es t i m ony. ” M yers , 3 5 3 S o . 2 d 1 3 6 4 , 1 3 6 9 (M is s . 1 9 7 8 ). ¶40. “W hether the t es t i m on y evide nce i s pr oper l y of f er ed dur i ng the cas e- i n- chi ef oras r ebutt al evi dence i s notal w ays cl ear , ” and w hen i ti s uncl ear , “the tr i al j udge mustbe gi ven due di s cr et i on, espe ci al l y w hen t he def endanti s per m i t t ed s urr ebutt al . ” Mc G a u g hy v. S ta te , 742 So. 2d 1091, 1 09 4 (M i ss . 1999) . W hen s om e doubtexi s t s aboutw hetherthe evi dence o ff e re d s h o u ld h a v e b e e n p re s e n te d d u ri n g th e S ta te ’s c a s e -i n -c h ie f, the co u rtsh o u ld re so lve the d o u b t i n fav o r of the rec ep ti o n in reb u tt al w h ere ( 1) i t s r ece pt i on w i l l notcons um e s o much addi t i onal t i m e as t o gi ve an undue w ei ghti n pr act i cal pr obat i ve f or ce t o the evi dence s o r ece i ved i n r ebutt al , and ( 2) the op po si t e party w oul d be s ubs t ant i al l y as w el l pr epar ed t o m eeti tby su rre b u ttal a s if th e te stim o n y h a d b e e n o ffe re d in c h ief , an d (3 ) th e o p p o site p a rty u p o n re q u e st th e re fo r is g iv e n th e o p p o rtu n ity to re p ly b y su rre b u ttal. R oney , 150 So. at775 -76. H ow ever , “[ i ] ti s onl y i n s uch doubt f ul cas es that[ r ece pt i on of s ubs t ant i ve evi dence i n r ebutt al ] s houl d be pe r m i t t ed, ” and “no party s houl d be perm i t t ed as a d eli b era te tri al t ac ti c to d ec ide in ad v an ce o f tri al t o w ith h o ld a p art of h is ca se in c h ief .

. . and t hen of

f erthe evi dence i n r ebutt al . ” Ho sfo rdv. S ta te , 52 5 S o. 2d 78 9, 79 1 (M i ss. 1 9 8 8 ). ¶ 4 1 . T h is s itu a tio n f

a lls in to th e “ d o u b tfu l ca se ” c a teg o ry , in w h ich th is C o u rt sh o u ld r es ol ve the doubti n f

avorof admi t t i ng the St at e’ s t es t i m ony. The St at e cl ear l y had a r ebutt al purpos e i n cal l i ng H yder , pr i m ar i l y us i ng h i s t es t i m ony t o i m peac h G i l m or e’ s t es t i m ony reg ard ing w h at he w as w ea ri n g as w ell as h is de scripti o n o f th e s h o o ti n g . W h il e H y d er’s tes tim o n y w a s a lso su b sta n tiv e e v id e n c e th a t G ilm o re p o ss e ss e d th e g u n , itw a s n o t so lely

### 21

of f er ed as s ubs t ant i ve pr oof thatG i l m or e pos s es s ed the gun. A l l of the R oney fac tors w ere m ether e. H yder ’ s t es t i m ony di d not“ cons um e s o much addi t i onal t i m e as t o gi ve an undue w e ig h t” to h is te stim o n y , as h is d ire c t tes tim o n y c o n sis ted o f tw o p a g e s in th e trial tra n sc rip t. G ilm o re ’s c o u n se l w a s n o t su rp rise d b y H y d e r’s tes tim o n y , a n d G ilm o re jus t as e a sily c o u ld h a v e a n s w e re d it b y s u rr e b u tta l a s h e c o u ld h a v e d u ri n g h is c a s e -i n -c h ie f. ¶42. G i l m or e w as gi ven t he oppor tuni ty forsurr ebutt al , and he cho s e nott o pre s entany. W e tr eat“r ebutt al t es t i m ony thati s unchal l enged w i th no s urr ebutt al t es t i m ony by the oppos i t e party as s om ew hats i m i l art o a mot i on t o r eopen a cas e. ” Sm ith v. S ta te , 646 So. 2d 5 3 8 , 5 4 3 (M iss . 1 9 9 4 ). G e n e ra lly , a p a rty s h o u ld li b e ra lly b e a llo w e d to re o p e n a c a se to s how f act s thatar e vi t al t o the i s s ues “and a f ai l ur e t o do s o m ay be c ons i der ed an a bus e of j ud i ci al di s cr et i on. ” R eagan E qui p. Co. v. V

aughn G in Co. , 42 5 So . 2d 10 45 , 10 47- 48 ( M i s s . 1983) ( quot i ng W e l l s -Lam ont

C or p. v. W at kins , 247 M i s s . 379, 387, 151 So. 2d 600, 604 (1963) ) . U nderour l i ber al s t andar d, the j udge pr oper l y al l ow ed the St at e t o cal l H yder d u ri n g re b u tta l. 6 . W h e th e r c u m u la tiv e e r r o r s m e r it r e v e r sa l. ¶43. B eca us e the err oneous a dm i s s i on of G i l m ore’ s pri or bat t ery con vict i on , st andi ng a lo n e , e n title s G ilm o re to a n e w tr ia l, th e re is n o n e e d to a d d re s s th is is s u e . CO NC L US I ON ¶44. T he i ntr oduct i on of i nadmi s s i bl e evi dence of G i l m or e’ s pr evi ous batt ery convi ct i on w as i m pr operi m peac hm ent . T hi s err orw as un du l y pre j udi ci al and af

f ect ed a s ubs t ant i al r i ght . W e r ever s e the j udgm ent s of convi ct i on of

the C i r cui tC our tof

Cl ai rborne C ounty and re m a n d fo r a n e w tr ia l o n b o th c o u n ts .

### 22

¶ 4 5 . RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL LER , C. J . , DI CK I NSO N A ND RA ND O LPH , P. J J . , LA M AR , K I TC H EN S, P I ER CE , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.