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 5 3 9 - S CT J OH N W I LL I SGI LBERT, J

R.
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 17/ 2009 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. CH AR LES E
. W EBSTER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: COAHO M A COUN TY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N T: O FFI CE O F I N D I G EN T A PPEA LS BY : LESL I E S. LEE P HI L L I P W
. BR OADHE AD 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 : S T E P HANI E BR E L AND W OOD DI STRI CT A TTOR NEY : BREN DA FAY M I TCH ELL 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 - 11/ 10/ 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. CAR LS ON , PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. J ohn Gi l be r t , J r . was c on vi c t e d of a gg r a va t e d a s s a ul ts t e mm i ng f r om an i nci dent b e tw e e n h im a n d A lice S tap leto n . G ilb e rt w a s s e n ten c e d a s a h a b itu a l o ffe n d e r to life in pr i s on w i thoutpar ol e underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 99- 19- 83 (Rev. 2007). A f t erthe tr i al j udge deni ed G i l bert ’ s m ot i on f orj udgm entnot w i ths t andi ng t he ver di ct , or i n the al t ernat i ve,
a new tr i al , G i l bertper f ect ed thi s appea l , al l egi ng err or s atthe tr i al
- courtl evel
. Fi ndi ng no
err or , w e af

f i r m the j udgm entof

the C i r cui tC our tof

C oahoma C ounty.

### 2 F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶2. G i l bertand St apl et on w er e r om anti cal l y i nv olved pr i ort o the al t er cat i on betw een th e m . A t o n e p o in t, G ilb e rt a n d S tap leto n liv e d to g e th e r, d e sp ite G ilb e rt’s b e in g m a rrie d to
a n o th e r w o m a n . E v e n tu a lly , S tap leto n m o v e d o u t o f th e ir a p a rtm e n t, an d G ilb e rt fre q u e n tly
v isited S tap leto n a t h e r n e w a p a rtm e n t. ¶3. T he al t er cat i on betw een G i l bertan d S t aplet on o ccurr ed on D ecem ber 18, 2008. G il b ert, S tapleton , an d S tapleton ’s da u g h ter, Jam ie S tapleton (Ja m ie), a ll w ere in S tapleton ’s apart m entw at chi ng t el evi s i on. St apl et on w as l yi ng o n a sof a unders om e s heet s w hen the al t er cat i on began. T he t es t i m ony as t o w hatoccurr ed dur i ng the al t er cat i on is i n di s put e. G i l bertt es t i f

i ed that , w hi l e he w as l eani ng overSt apl et on t o ki s s hergoodbye, she pul l ed out a kni f e and s w ung i tathi m . H e t es t i f i ed t hathe and St apl et on s truggl ed overthe kni f e and that h e e v en tually too k the k n if e fro m S tapleton , d rop p ed it , an d ran o u t th e d o o r. ¶4
. St a pl e t on t e s t i f

i e d t hatG i l ber ts t abbed he rw hi l e s he w as l yi ng on t he s of a. She t es t i f i ed thatG i l bertf

i rs tst abbed he ri n the ea rw hi l e s he w as l yi ng dow n and then i n t he ches t , l ef tarm , and back of

the nec k af

t ers he had s t ood up. St apl et on al s o t es t i f i ed thats he and G i l berthad s truggl ed overthe kni f e and thathe e ventual l y ha d run outthe back doorof th e a p a rtm e n t. ¶5. J ami e t es t i f

i ed t hat she fe l l as l eep w hi l e w at chi ng t el evi s i on but w oke up w hen s he hear d herm othera nd G i l berts truggl i ng. She t es t i f i ed thats he s aw G i l berts t ab St apl et on and th a t S tap leto n a ttem p ted to fig h t o ff G ilb e rt. J a m ie th e n b e g a n h itt in g G ilb e rt a n d to ld h im t o s t op.

### Miranda v. Ari zona , 384 U. S. 436, 467-68, 471, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 1 

### (19 66 ). 3 ¶6. O f

f i cerSi m s , a c r i m i nal i nves t i gat orw i th t he C l arksdal e P oli ce D epartm ent , w as
as s i gned t o i nves t i gat e the ca s e. Si m s t es t i f i ed a l ar ge am ountof bl ood and seve r al bl oods o a k e d b a n d a g e s we r e o n th e f l o o ro f S t a p l e t o n ’ s a p a r t me n t . Af t e rv i e wi n g th e s c e n e , S i ms
w entt o G i l bert ’ s hom e and knoc ked on hi s door
. W hen G i l bertc ame t o the door , hi s cl ot hes had bl ood on them, and he had a l ar ge cuto n hi s hand. Si m s pl ace d G i l bertunderarr es tand to o k h im to th e p o lice d e p a rtm e n t. ¶7. A ttr i al , Si m s t es t i f i ed thatG i l bertha d r ef

us ed t o s peak w i th hi m a f t erhe had gi ven G i l berthis Mir anda ri g h ts. D efe n se c o u n sel o b jected to this t esti m o n y an d m o v ed for a 1
m i s tr i al
. T he tr i al j udge s us t ai ned the obj ect i on, overrul ed the mot i on f ora mi s tr i al , and
a d m o n ish e d th e ju ry to d isre g a rd S im s’s sta tem e n t. ¶8. Si m s al s o bagged G i l bert ’ s bel t , s hi r t , and pant s and t ook the i t ems t o the M i s s i s s i ppi C rim e L a b o ra to ry , alo n g w ith b lo o d sa m p le s f ro m b o th S tap leto n a n d G ilb e rt. A fo re n sic pathol ogi s tt es t i f

i ed thats even of

t he ei ghts t ai ns on G i l bert ’ s cl othi ng m at ched hi s D N A and
o n e m a tch e d S tap leto n ’s D N A . D u rin g h is te stim o n y , the fo re n sic p a th o lo g ist re fe rre d to St aplet on as the “vi ct i m . ” D ef ens e couns el pr evi ous l y had f i l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne to pr ohi bi tt es t i m ony r ef

err i ng t o St apl et on a s the “vi ct i m . ” The tr i al c our tde ni ed thi s m ot i on b u t g ra n te d G ilb e rt a c o n tin u in g o b je c tio n to th e u s e o f t h e te rm “ v ic tim .” ¶9. T he j ury f

ound G i l bertgui l ty of

aggr avat ed as s aul t . G i l bertthen moved f or j udgm ent
n o tw ith stan d ing the v erd ict(JN O V ), o r i n the a lt ern ati v e, a n ew tr ial , an d the tri al co u rt

### 4

d e n ied th is m o tio n . A t th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , th e tri a l co u rt g ra n ted th e S tate ’s m o tio n to amend t he habi tual
- of

f enderport i on of G i l bert ’ s i ndi ctm entt o re f l ectthe corr ectcr i m es f or
w hich G il b ert p revi ou sl y h ad b een co nv i ct ed. G i l bertw as sent enced t o li fe i n p ri son as a h a b itu a l o ff

e n d e r u n d e r M is s is s ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -8 3
. See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 19- 8 3 (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). DI S CU S S I ON ¶10. G il b ert p rese n ts fou r issue s for this C o u rt ’s co n side rati o n : (1) w h ethe r the tr ial co u rt
err ed i n d eny i ng G i l bert ’ s m ot i on f orj udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ctor , i n the al t ernat i ve, m ot i on f

ornew t r i al ; ( 2) w hetherthe tr i al c our te rr ed i n de nyi ng G i l bert ’ s m ot i on f orm i s tr i al ; ( 3) w hetherthe t r i al cour terr ed i n al l ow i ng t es t i m ony r ef err i ng t o St apl et on as the “vi ct i m ; ” and ( 4) w hetherG i l bert ’ s s ent enci ng as a habi tual of f enderunderM i s s i s s i ppi C o d e S ec ti o n 9 9 -19 -83 w as p rop er. I . W HET HER T HE T RI AL COURT ER RE D I N DE NYI NG GI LB ER T’ S M OTI ON F ORJ UD GMEN T NO T W I T HS TA NDI NG T HE V E R D I C T , OR I N T HE A L T E R N A T I V E , MOT I ON F OR NEW TRI AL. ¶ 1 1
. Gi l b e r ta s s e r t s th a tth e tr i a l c o u r te rr e d i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n th i s mo t i o n f o r J NOV beca us e the evi dence pr es ent ed by the St at e w as i ns uf f i ci ent . A l s o, G i l berta s s ert s thatt he tr i al courterr ed i n f

ai l i ng t o gr anthi s m ot i on f or new tr i al beca us e the j ury ver di ctw as agai ns tthe gr eatw ei ghtof the evi dence
. A
. G i l ber t ’s Mot i on f

orJudgm ent

N otw i ths tandi ng the Verdi ct

### 5

¶12. G ilb e rt c laim s th e trial c o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n fo r JN O V b e c a u se th e S tate di d notpr esent suff

i ci entevi dence t o m eetthe r equi r ed bur den of pr oof
. I n anal yzi ng t he
s uf f i ci ency of

t he evi dence , t hi s C our tvi ew s the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o t he pr os ecut i on and as ks i f

“any r at i onal t r i erof f

actcoul d have f

ound t he es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e beyond a r eas onabl e doubt
. ” B u sh v. S ta te , 89 5 So. 2d 836, 843 ( M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng Ja c ks on v. V

a. , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 5 , 9 9 S . C t. 2 7 8 1 , 6 1 L . E d . 2 d 5 6 0 (1 9 7 9 )) . A p e rso n is g u ilty o f a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt i f h e “ 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 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 seriou s b o d il y h arm . ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-7 (2)(b ) (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶13. G i l bert ar gues that no r at i onal tr i er of f act coul d have f

ound hi m gui l ty, beca us e the
w i tnes s t es t i m ony of

f er ed aga i ns thi m w as bi as ed and, as a r es ult , the t es t i m ony w as not
cr edi bl e. T w o of

the w i tnes s es of

f er ed by the St at e agai ns tG i l bertw er e St apl et on a nd her daught er , J ami e. Fi r s t , G i l bertas s ert s thatSt apl et on’ s t es t i m ony w as bi as ed bec aus e s he w as
m o tiv a ted to p ro tec t h e rse lf fro m p o te n tia l p ro se c u tio n re su lti n g fro m th e a lterc a tio n w ith G i l bertand bec aus e s he w as j eal ous of G i l bert ’ s r el at i ons hi p w i th hi s w i f e. Secondl y, G i l bertcl ai m s Jami e’ s t es t i m ony w as bi as ed beca us e she w as pr egnantand w as m ot i vat ed t o t es t i f y i n f avorof herm otheri n or dert o have a pl ace t o l i ve. Fur ther , G i l bertar gues that the t es t i m ony of

St apl et on a nd J ami e w as i ncons i s t entw i th thei rpr etr i al s t at ement s and the evi dence f

ound atthe s cene . ¶14. T he St at e pr es ent ed phot ogr aphi c evi dence of St apl et on’ s i nj ur i es , and St apl et on and J ami e both t es t i f

i ed t hatG i l berthad st abbed St apl et on. T hi s C our tm ay not“pas s upon t he

### 6

cr edi bi l i ty of

w i tnes s es and, w here t he evi dence j us t i f i es a ver di ct , i tm us tbe ac cept ed as havi ng been f

ound w or thy of

bel i ef
. ” Ma ss e y v. S ta te , 992 So. 2d 1161, 1163 ( M i s s . 2008) ( quot i ng D a v is v . S ta te , 5 6 8 S o . 2 d 2 7 7 , 2 8 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 )). ¶15. W hen the evi dence i s vi ew ed i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the pr os ecut i on, “a r at i onal tr i erof f actcoul d have f

ound” beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatG i l bertw as gui l ty of
a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt. B u sh , 895 So. 2d at843 ( quot i ng Jacks on , 443 U
. S. at315)
. T hus , the tr i al courtdi d noterrw hen i tdeni ed G i l bert ’ s m ot i on f orJN O V att acki ng the s uf f i ci ency of the evi dence
. B
. G i l ber t ’s Mot i on f

orN ew Tri al ¶1 6. G i l ber t c l a i ms the tr i a l c ou r t e rr e d i n de ny i ng hi s mot i on f or ne w tr i a l beca us e t he
ver di ctw as agai ns tthe gr eatw ei ghtof the evi dence
. W hen r evi ew i ng t he deni al of a m ot i on f ornew tr i al , t hi s C our tw i l l “onl y di s turb a ver di ctw hen i ti s s o cont r ary t o t he
overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof t he 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 , 895 So. 2d at844 ( ci t i ng He rr in gv. S ta te , 691 So. 2d 948, 957 ( M i s s . 1997) )
. T he C our ts houl d gra nta new t r i al onl y “i n exce pt i onal cas es i n w hi ch the evi dence pr eponder at es he avi l y a gai ns tthe ver di ct . ” I d . ( quot i ng A m ikerv. D r ugs f or L es s, I nc. , 7 9 6 S o . 2 d 9 4 2 , 9 4 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 )). ¶17. B ot h S t aplet on an d Jam i e tes t i fi ed t hat G i l berth ad assaul t ed St apl et on. A l s o, St apl et on’ s bl ood w as found on G i l bert ’ s cl othi ng, and St apl et on had f i ve w ounds r es ul t i ng f r om the att ack. T hi s i s notan except i onal cas e “i n w hi ch the evi dence pr eponder at es

### 7

heavi l y agai ns tt he ver di ct . ” I d . ( quot i ng A m iker , 796 So. 2d a t947)
. A ccor di ngl y, the tr i al ju d g e d id n o t er r in d e n y in g G ilb e rt’s m o tio n fo r a n e w trial. ¶18. I n s um , w e f

i nd t hatt he t r i al j udge di d noter rw hen he di s m i s s ed G i l bert ’ s m ot i on f or j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ct , ori n the al t ernat i ve, a new tr i al
. T hus , ther e i s no
m er i tt o thi s i s s ue. I I . W HET HER T HE T RI AL COURT ER RE D I N DE NYI NG GI LBERT’ S M OTI ON FOR M I S TRI AL. ¶19. G i l bert cl ai m s that the tr i al cou rt er r ed w hen i t deni ed hi s m ot i on f or m i s tr i al af

t er O ff i cer Si m s t est i fi ed to G i l bert ’s exerci se of hi s Mir anda r i g h t s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , Of

f i c e rS i ms t est i fi ed thathe h ad read G i l berthis Mir anda r i ght s a nd then G i l berthad “r ef us ed t o s peak
w i th [ hi m ] ab outthe i nci dent
. ” G i l bert ’ s att orney pr om pt l y obj ect ed t o the t es t i m ony and
m o v e d fo r m istria l. T h e tri a l co u rt su sta in e d the o b jec tio n , d e n ied the m o tio n fo r m is tr ia l,
a n d th e n a d m o n ish e d th e ju ry to d isre g a rd O ffic e r S im s’s sta tem e n t. ¶20. T he s t andar d of r evi ew f

ordeni al of

a m oti on for m i st ri al is abuse of di s cr et i on. R o llin s v . S ta te , 970 So. 2d 716, 720 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng W ith e rs v. S ta te , 907 S o. 2d 342, 352 (M i ss. 2005) )
. “The t r i al courtm us tdecl ar e a mi s tr i al w hen ther e i s an err ori n the p ro c e e d in g s re s u ltin g i n s u b s ta n tia l a n d ir re p a ra b le p re ju d ic e to th e d e fe n d a n t’ s c a s e .” G o ss e tt v. S ta te , 6 6 0 S o . 2 d 1 2 8 5 , 1 2 9 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 5 ) (cit ing U R C C C 5
. 1 5 ). T h e tri al co u rt has “cons i der abl e di s cr et i on i n de t erm i ni ng w hethera mi s tr i al i s w arr ant ed s i nce the j udge i s bes tpos i t i oned f

orm eas ur i ng t he pr ej udi ci al ef f ect . ” I d. ( ci t i ng R o u n dtre e v. S ta te , 568 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 7 8 (M iss
. 1 9 9 0 )). If th e tri a l j u d g e d e ter m in e s th a t th e e rro r d id n o t re su lt i n

### 8

s ubs t ant i al and i r r epar abl e pr ej udi ce, the “j udge s houl d adm on i s h the j ury t o di s r egar d t he i m pr opr i ety i n orde rt o cur e i t s pr ej udi ci al ef f ect . ” I d. at1291 ( ci t i ng P e rk in s v . S ta te , 600 S o . 2 d 9 3 8 , 9 4 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 )). ¶21. G ilb e rt a ss e rts th a t O ffic e r S im s’s te stim o n y re g a rd in g G ilb e rt’s in v o k in g h is rig h t to
s i l ence vi ol at ed hi s const i tut i onal ri ghtt o a f ai rtr i al
. O f

f i cerSi m s t es t i f

i ed t o the eve nt s t hat
occurr ed af

t erhe had l ocat ed G i l bert . T he f ol l ow i ng i s the r el evantpartof the t es t i m ony: [ Pr os ecut or ] : “O nce you – s o onc e you l ocat ed hi m , w hat , i f anythi ng, di d you do?” O f f i cerSi m s : “ W el l , I knoc ked on the doorof the r es i dence , and a ge nt l eman opened the doorw hi ch w as notM r . G i l bert . I as ked hi m i f M r . G i l bertw as at the r es i dence
. H e s ai d that he w as. H e ki nd of w entback f

ur theri n t o the r e s i d e n c e . M r . Gi l b e r tc a me t o t h e d o o r . He h a d b l o o d
- s t a i n e d c l o th i n g . He h a d a lar g e cu t on h is h a n d . A t th a t ti m e , I p lac e d h im u n d e r a rre st, to o k h im t o the C l arksdal e P oli ce D epart m ent and read him his Mi r anda R i ght s and att empt ed t o i nt ervi ew hi m , and he r ef us ed t o s peak w i th m e aboutthe in c id e n t.” [G ilb e rt ’s A tto rn e y ]: “ I’ m g o in g to o b je c t to th is .” C our t : “I s us t ai n t he – w el l , exac t l y w hatar e you obj ect i ng t o?” [ G i l bert ’ s A t t orney] : “I ’ m obj ect i ng t o hi s – m ay w e appr oach the benc h, your H onor ?” C ouns el appr oache d t he benc h. C o u rt : “ S u re .” [ G i l bert ’ s A t t orney] : “ T he of f i cers ays thathe – I ’ m obj ect i ng t o the f actthat t he of f i c e ri s t e s t i f

yi ng tha tthe d e f

e nd a ntr e f

us e d t o t a l k t o hi m. H e h ad no o b lig a tio n to ta lk to h im .”

### 9

C o u rt: “C o u n se l is e x p a n d in g o n s o m e o f h is a n sw e rs. H e n e e d s to re stric t h is ans w er s t o the ques t i ons thata r e as ked. Y ou know , he s i m pl y as ked – I m ean he ad vis ed h i m of hi s Mi r anda R ig h ts . T h a t a n s w e rs th e q u e s tio n .” [P ro se c u to r]: “ I w a s try in g n o t to lea d , b u t w ith th e C o u rt’s in d u lg e n c e , I’ll le a d a littl e m o re .” C o u rt : “ I’ ll g iv e y o u s o m e lim ite d la titu d e .” [P ro s e c u to r]: “ I’ m n o t tr y in g .” [G ilb e rt ’s A tto rn e y ]: “ I w o u ld lik e a g a in to m o v e fo r a m is tr ia l.” C o u rt : “I’l l sus tain the o b jecti o n , b u t I w il l ov erru le th e o b jecti o n for a m is tr ia l.” A l l couns el r eturn f

r om the benc h. C our t : “The j ury w i l l d i sr egar d the l as tcomm entw i th r egar d t o the def endant ’ s s t at ement . T he def endantcan - - actual l y the y h a ve a c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o speak ornott o s peak, and i f a def endantexer ci s es hi s cons t i tut i onal ri g h t n o t to s p e a k , th a t is h is ri g h t.” ¶ 2 2
. “ It is im p ro p e r a n d o rd in a rily , rev e rsib le e rro r to c o m m e n t o n th e a c c u se d ’s p o stMir anda s i l ence . ” E m e ry v. S ta te , 869 So. 2d 405, 408 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng Q u ick v . S ta te , 569 So. 2d 1197, 1199 ( M i s s . 1990) )
. H ow ever, ther e ar e exc ept i ons t o thi s gener al rul e. I d . S p e c ifica lly , w h e n th e d e fe n d a n t’s p o st- Mir anda r i ght s ar e m ent i oned onl y once a nd t he ju d g e a d m o n ish e s th e ju ry c o n c e rn in g th e sta tem e n t, th e v io latio n w ill n o t re su lt i n re v e rsib le
e rr o r. H ig g in s v . S ta te , 5 0 2 S o . 2 d 3 3 2 , 3 3 5 (M iss . 1 9 8 7 ); see al so W illiam s v . S ta te , 445 So. 2d 798, 806 ( M i s s . 1984) ( hol di ng thatthe tr i al courtdi d no tco m m i trever s i bl e err or
w hen i tr ef

us ed t o gr antdefend ant’ s m ot i on f orm i s tr i al af

t era t es t i f

yi ng pol i ce of

f i cer

### 10

referred t o de fen d an t’ s ex erc ise o f Mir anda r i ght s onl y once a nd the j udge admoni s hed the jury to d isr eg ard the re m ark )). ¶23. I n H

i gg ins , the tes tify in g o ffic e r sta ted th a t a ft e r h e h a d g iv e n th e d e fe n d a n t h is Mir anda r i ght s , the def endanthad s t at ed “I w antt o t al k t o m y l aw yer . ” H i gg ins , 502 So. 2 d a t 3 3 4 . T h e d e fe n s e a tto rn e y th e n o b je c te d a n d m o v e d fo r a m is tr ia l. I d . T he tr i al j udge
su sta in e d the o b

jecti o n an d then ad m o n ishe d the ju ry to d isr eg ard the o ffi ce r’s st atem en t. I d . T h is C o u rtfou n d that, b ec au se th ere w as o n ly a s ing le referen ce to the d efe n d an t’ s exerci se of hi s Mir anda ri gh t s and the j udge had a dm oni s hed the j ury t o di s r egar d t he te s tim o n y , th e s ta te m e n t h a d n o t r e s u lte d in re v e rs ib le e rr o r. I d . at335. ¶24. Si m i l ar t o H

i gg in s and Wil

lia ms , i n the pr es ent cas e, ther e w as onl y one m ent i on of G i l bert ’s exerci se of hi s Mir anda r i ght s . Fur ther , the tr i al j udge pr om pt l y admoni s hed the ju ry to d isre g a rd O ffic e r S im s’s c o m m e n t. A c c o rd in g ly , the trial ju d g e d id n o t ab u se h is d isc re tio n w h e n h e d e n ied G ilb e rt’s m o tio n fo r a m istria l; th e re fo re , w e fin d th is iss u e to h a v e n o m e rit. I I I . W HET HER T HE T RI AL COURT ER RE D I N AL LOW I NG T E S T I M ON Y R E F E RR I NG T O A L I CE S T AP L E T ON AS T HE “ V I C T I M .” ¶25. W hen thi s C our tcons i der s on appea l an assi gn m ent of err or dir ect ed atthe tr i al
court ’ s admi s s i on orexcl us i on of evi dence , ours t andar d of r evi ew i s abus e of

di s cr et i on. Cla rk v. S ta te , 40 So. 3d 531, 542 ( M i s s . 2010) ( ci t i ng E v a n s v . S ta te , 25 So. 3d 1054, 1057 (M iss. 2 0 1 0 )).

### 11

¶ 2 6
. G ilb e rt a ss e rts th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d b y a llo w in g a n e x p e rt w itn e ss fo r th e S tate to
r ef ert o St apl et on a s the “vi ct i m . ” G i l bertpr evi ous l y had f i l ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne r eques t i ng that the tri al co u rt disall o w an y test im o n y referring to S tapleton as th e “ v ict im ;” ho w ev er, the tr i al courtdeni ed thi s m ot i on. B utthe tr i al courtgr ant ed G i l berta cont i nui ng obj ect i on to th e u se o f th e ter m “ v ictim ” th ro u g h o u t th e trial. ¶27. D ur i ng G i l bert ’ s tr i al , an expe r tw i tnes s t es t i f i ed t o the r es ul t s of

D N A t es t s conduct ed on t he bl ood st ai ns on G i l bert ’ s cl othi ng. G i l bertass ert s t hatt he t r i al cour ter r ed i n al l ow i ng t he f ol l owi ng t e s t i mony: “ The r e w a s on e bl oo d s t a i n f ou nd on the pa nt s tha ti s c on s i s t ent
w i th the r ef

er ence d blood s t ai n s ampl e of the vi ct i m . T her ef

or e, A l i ce St apl et on i s not
e x c lu d e d a s a D N A d o n o r t o th is s a m p le .” ¶28. W hi l e thi s C our thas notr evi ew ed the i s s ue of a w i tnes s r ef

err i ng t o an ac cus eras “the vi ct i m , ” w e f

i nd the r eas oni ng of

the C our tof

A ppeal s i n T

a c o n i v. S ta te , 912 S o. 2d 154, 156- 57 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2005) , t o be s ound, and ac cor di ngl y adoptthe hol di ng. I n T a c o n i, the C our tof

A ppeal s hel d thati tw as not r eversi ble err orf ora pr os ecut ort o r ef

ert o the
acc us eras the “vi ct i m , ” des pi t e the tr i al c our tpr evi ous l y ha vi ng gr ant ed a mot i on i n l i m i ne
o n th o s e g ro u n d s . I

d. ¶29. W e f

i nd thatthe tr i al co urtd i d no tab use it s dis cret i on i n al l ow i ng the t es t i m ony
r ef err i ng t o St apl et on as t he “vi ct i m . ” The tr i al courtpr evi ous l y had deni ed G i l bert ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne r egar di ng the t erm “vi ct i m , ” and the us e of the w or d w as i s ol at ed and not
em p h asize d
. T h ere fore , w e find n o m eritin this assign m en t of erro r.

### 12

I V. W HETHER GI LB ER T’ S S EN TE NCI NG AS A HAB I TU AL O F F E N D E R U N D E R M I SSISSIPP I C O D E SE C T I O N 99- 19- 83 W AS P ROP ER . ¶30. G i l bert w as s ent ence d t o l i f e i n pr i s on as a habi tual of f ender under M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 99- 19- 83 ( R ev. 2007). G i l bertas s ert s tw o r eas ons i n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m of

err or
r egar di ng hi s s ent ence . Fi r s t , G i l bertcl ai m s thatthe St at e’ s amend m ent t o hi s i ndi ctm ent
w as one of

s ubs t ance r atherthan f or m . Second, G i l bertc l ai m s thatthe St at e’ s s pecul at i on as to the m ea n ing s o f ab b rev iat ion s co n tai n ed w ith in ce rt ain d o cu m en ts resu lt ed i n a fail u re of the St at e t o m eeti t s bur den of pr oof atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng. A
. A m endm ent

of the I ndi ctm ent ¶3 1. “The ques t i on of whethe ra n i nd i c t menti s f a t a l l y de f

e c t i ve i s a n i s s ue of

l aw and enj oys a r el at i vel y br oad s t andar d of r evi ew . ” Co n ley v. S ta te , 7 90 S o. 2d 77 3, 78 1 (M i ss. 2001) ( ci t i ng P e terso n v. S ta te , 671 So. 2d 6 47 , 6 52 ( M i s s . 1996) )
. I ndi ctm ent s m ay be
a m e n d e d o n ly a s to f

o rm , n e v e r s u b s ta n c e . E v a n s v . S ta te , 813 So. 2d 724, 728 ( M i s s . 2002) ( quot i ng Mitch e ll v. S ta te , 739 So. 2d 402, 404 ( M i ss. C t . A pp. 1999) )
. A n amendm ent
re g a rd in g th e h a b itu a l- o ff e n d e r sta tu s o f a n in d ictm e n t is p e rm iss ib le, a s it a ffe c ts o n ly
s e n te n c in g a n d n o t s u b s ta n c e . B u rr e ll v. S ta te , 7 2 6 S o . 2 d 1 6 0 , 1 6 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). ¶3 2. G i l ber t ’ s ori gi na l i nd i c t mentl i s t e d f ou rof f e ns e s i n the ha bi tua l
- of f e nd e r s ect i on: i nt i m i dat i ng a w i tnes s , unl aw f ul us e of

a phone, obs truct i ng an of fi cer, an d at t empt ed hom i ci de. A l l c onvi ct i ons oc curr ed i n W i s cons i n. H ow ever , G i l bertw as notconvi ct ed of
a ttem p ted h o m icid e in W isc o n sin , b e c a u se h e h a d p lea d e d g u ilty to a le ss e r c h a rg e o f firs tdegr ee r eckl es s endange r m ent . A tthe s ent enci ng hear i ng i n t oday’ s cas e, the St at e moved

### 13

to a m e n d th e in d ictm e n t to re fle c t th e c o n v ictio n o f first-d e g re e re c k les s e n d a n g e rm e n t,
r atherthan att empt ed homi ci de. G i l bert ’ s or i gina l i ndi ctm entcont ai ned the f ol l ow i ng l anguage : and upon convi ct i on the s ai d def endanti s her eby cha r ged underM C A § 99- 19- 83 t o be s ent ence d t o l i f e i m pr i s onm ent , a nd/ orunde rM C A § 99- 19- 81 t o be s ent ence d t o the m axi m um t erm of i m pr i s onm entpr es cr i bed f ors uch f el ony, namel y, tw enty ( 20) years , and such s ent ence s hal l notbe r educe d or s us pended norshal l such per s on be el i gi bl e f orpar ol e orpr obat i on; i n thatthe sai d def endants hal l , then and ther e have been c onvi ct ed atl eas ttw i ce pr evi ous l y of

a f el ony orf

eder al cr i m e upon cha r ges s epar at el y br oughtand ar i s i ng outof

s epar at e i nci dent s atdi f f er entt i m es , and s hal l have be en s ent ence d t o and s erved s epar at e t erm s of one ( 1) yearor m or e i n thi s s t at e or el s ew her e; and t o the ext entthatthe s peci f i cs of s ai d convi ct i ons and s ent ence s ar e know n t o the G r and J ury atthi s t i m e, they ar e more part i cul ar l y des cr i bed as f oll ow s:

. . . the above s peci f i cs m ay be and sha l l be amended w hetherby addi t i on, del et i on, subs t i tut i on, ori n any otherm annerw hat s oeveras m any t i m es as nece s s ary t o corr ect l y s t at e the s peci f i cs of a ny a nd al l convi ct i ons , i ncl udi ng, butnotl i m i t ed t o the abov e, rel evantt o the above char ge thatthe def endant s hal l be s ent ence d underM C A § 99- 19- 83 and/ orM C A § 99- 19- 81. ¶33. I n L a c e

y v. S ta te , 629 So. 2d 591, 594 ( M i s s . 1993) , thi s C our t f ound no err or i n t he tr i al court ’ s perm i t t i ng an amendm entt o the i ndi ctm entt o r ef l ectthe actual cr i m es f

orw hi ch the def endantpr evi ous l y had bee n convi ct ed. I n L acey , the def endant ’ s ori gi nal i ndi ctm ent l i s t ed t hr ee N evada convi ct i ons forbur gl ary, cons pi r acy t o comm i tbur gl ary, and att empt ed g ra n d la rc e n y . I

d . T he i ndi ctm entw as am end ed t o re f l ectthe ac tual cr i m es f

orw hi ch the d e fe n d a n t w a s c o n v icte d : at t em pt ed b u rg lar y , c o n sp ira c y to c o m m it robb ery , and at t empt ed g ra n d la rc e n y . I

d . T his C ou rtheld that the tr i al cou rtdid not err i n all ow i ng t hese

### 14

a m e n d m e n ts, b e c a u se th e am e n d m e n ts d id n o t d e p riv e th e d e fe n d a n t o f fa ir n o tice o r im p a ir h is a b ility to d e fe n d
. I

d. at595. ¶34. Si m i l ar t o L acey , the amendm entt o G i l bert ’ s i ndi ctm entr ef l ect ed the ac tual cr i m e f or
w hi ch he w as convi ct ed. T hi s amendm entaf f ect s onl y s ent enci ng, notthe s ubs t ance of G ilb e rt’s in d ictm e n t. A c c o rd in g ly , the tri a l co u rt d id n o t er r w h e n it allo w e d th e a m e n d m e n t. B
. B ur den of

P r oof U nderMis s is s i

ppiC ode Sec t i on 99- 19- 83 ¶ 3 5
. T h e S ta te m u s t p ro v e h a b itu a l- o ff e n d e r s ta tu s b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. D al go v. S ta te , 435 So. 2d 628, 630- 31 ( M i s s . 1983)
. The St at e cha r ged G i l bertas a habi tual of f ender
un der Sec t i on 99 -19-83, w hich r eads as fol l ow s: E very per s on convi ct ed i n thi s st at e of a fe l ony w ho shal l have been c onvi ct ed tw ice p re v io u sly o f a n y fe lo n y o r fe d e ra l c rim e u p o n c h a rg e s s e p a ra tely b ro u g h t an d a risin g o u t o f s e p a ra te in c id e n ts a t d iffe re n t ti m e s a n d w h o sh a ll h a v e b e e n se n te n c e d to a n d se rv e d se p a ra te te rm s o f o n e (1 ) y e a r o r m o re in any s t at e and/ orf

eder al penal i ns t i tut i on, w hetheri n thi s s t at e orel s ew her e, and w her e any one ( 1) of s uch f el oni es shal l have be en a c r i m e of vi ol ence s hal l be s ent ence d t o l i f

e i m pr i s onm ent , and s uch s ent ence s hal l notbe r educe d ors us pended nors hal l s uch per s on be el i gi bl e f orpar ol e orpr obat i on. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -19 -83 (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶36. G i l bertcl ai m s thatthe St at e di d notm eeti t s bur den of pr oof beca us e i ts pecul at ed as t o the m eani ng of abbr evi at i ons i n cer t ai n docum ent s used t o enhance t he s ent ence undert he h a b i tu a l
- o f

f e n d e rs t a tu t e . Th e tr i a l c o u r ta n d th e p r o s e c u t o rd i s c u s s e d th e me a n i n g o f s o me abbr evi at i ons cont ai ned i n t hes e docum ent s duri ng t he se nt enci ng hear i ng. Speci f i cal l y, t he tr i al courtand pr os ecut ordi s cus s ed w hether“i nt . ” meant“i nt ent i onal , ” if “cond. ” meant

“ c o n d itio n a l,” a n d if

“ in j.” m e a n t “ in

ju ry .”

### 15

¶37. T he t r i al court s t at ed t hat i t w as s at i s f i ed t hat t he S t at e had m et i t s bur den of pr oof
c o n c e rn in g th e re q u ire m e n ts o f S e c tio n 9 9 -1 9 -8 3 su c h th a t G ilb e rt sh o u ld b e se n ten c e d to li fe w ith o u t pa role as a S ec ti o n 9 9 -19 -83 h ab itu al offen d er. T h e tri al co u rtfou n d that G il b ert previ ou sl y h ad b een co nv i ct ed o f atleas ttw o fel on i es, i nti m i dati on of a w i tness and reckl ess end ang erm ent; t hat G i l berthad serv ed on e year or m ore f or each cri m e; and that r eckles s endange r m entw as a cr i m e of vi ol ence . T he tr i al cou rt ’ s j udgm entof convi ct i on and
s ent ence s t at ed thatG i l berthad bee n: convi ct ed atl eas tt w i ce pr evi ous l y of f el ony cr i m es i n the St at e of W i s cons i n, upon char ges s epar at el y br oughtand ar i s i ng outof s epar at e i nci dent s at di f f er entt i m es , and on ea ch s ai d pr evi ous convi ct i on the def endantw as s ent ence d t o and s erved s epar at e t erm s of one ( 1) yearorm or e i n the St at e of W i sconsi n pe nal i ns t i tut i ons , a tl eas tone of s uch pr i orf

el oni es a l s o be i ng a cr i m e of vi ol ence . ¶38. W e f

i nd f r om the r ecor d bef

or e us that the tr i al cou rt di d not err i n f i ndi ng thatt he St at e had pr es ent ed suf f i ci entevi dence s how i ng thatG i l berthad metthe r equi r ement s of Sect i on 99- 19- 83. T he di s cus s i on betw een the St at e and the t ri al courtas t o the meani ngs of s om e abbr evi at i ons i n the s ent enci ng document at i on di d nots how thatthe St at e had f ai l ed to m e e t its b u rd e n o f p ro o f. A s to G ilb e rt’s c o n v ictio n o f firs t-d e g re e re c k les s e n d a n g e rm e n t, the W i s cons i n document s cl ear l y re veal t hatG i l bertw as convi ct ed of “[ r ] eckl es s endange r 1 st D eg ; U se o f W ea p o n in C ri m e.” T h ere fore , the tri al co u rtd id n o t err i n sen tenc ing G il b ert
as a habi tual of

f enderunderSect i on 99- 19- 83. ¶3 9
. B ase d o n o u r discu ssion o n this i ssu e, w e find n o m eritin this assign m en t of erro r.

### 16 CO NC L US I ON ¶40. Forthe r eas ons st at ed, w e af f i r m J ohn W i l l i s G i l bert , J r . ’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence as im p o se d b y th e C o a h o m a C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt. ¶ 4 1
. CO NV I CT I O N OF AGG RAV ATED AS S AULT AND S ENTENCE O F LI FE I M P RI S ON M E NT , AS A H AB I T UA L OF F E ND E R, I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M EN T OF CORRE CT I ONS , AF F I RM ED . S EN TE NCE S HA LL NOT BE REDUC ED OR S USP ENDED NO R SHALL APP ELLANT BE E L I GI B L E F OR P AR OL E OR P RO B AT I ON . S E NT E NC E S HA L L RUN CONS EC UT I VE TO AN Y AND A LL S EN TE NCE S P RE VI OUS LY I M P OS ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , GRAVE S , P . J . , DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H, LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR.