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 7 - KA- 0 0 1 3 5 - S CT MIC H A EL WA Y

N E 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 : 10/ 12/ 2006 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. W
. SW AN YER GER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N T: V I RG I N I A LY N N W A TK I N S W I LLI AM R. LAB AR RE GI NGE R E
. GI BS ON F R A N K L
. Mc WI L L I A MS 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 S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: F AYE P E T E RS 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 - 08/ 14/ 2008 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 SM I T H , C . J. , C A R L SO N A N D D I C K I N SO N , JJ. S M I TH, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. A th re e -c o u n t in d ictm e n t w a s re turn ed ag ains t M icha el W ay n e W ill iam s in th e C irc u it C our tof H i nds C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi , Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i c t , c ha r gi ng hi m w i th arm ed r obbery, ki dnappi ng, and pos s es s i on of a f i r earm as a convi ct ed f

el on. A f t era tr i al , the j ury f

ound W i l l i ams gui l ty of

a l l c ount s . T he tr i al c our tdeni ed hi s m ot i on f orj udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng th e v e rd ict (JN O V ) o r in th e a ltern a tiv e , a n e w trial. A g g rie v e d b y th e trial c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t, W ill iam s ra ise s th e fo llo w in g iss u e s o n a p p e a l:

### 2

I. W h eth er a T rial C o u rt’s R efu sa l t o A ll o w a N o n -testi fyin g D efe n d a n t to D ispla y H is T ee th B efo re th e J u ry V iolate d th e D efe n d a n t’s R igh t to P res ent a D ef

ens e. I I . W het her t he T ri al C ourt C om m i t t ed R ever s i bl e E rror W hen i t A dm i t t ed P r o s e c u ti o n E v id e n c e N o t P r o d u c e d D u r in g D is c o v e r y . I I I . W he t he r t he Tri alC our t C om m i t t e d R e ve r s i bl e Err or i n A dm i t t i ng E v id e n c e o f a P r io r C o n v ic ti o n . I V . W h ether t he T ri al C ourt C om m i t t ed R ever s i bl e E rror W hen i t D eni ed W ill ia m s’s M o tio n in L im in e to P r o h ib it th e S ta te fro m R e fe r r in g to H is A r r e s t i n a S to le n V e h ic le . ¶2. W e fi n d the tri al c o u rte rred reg ardi ng Is sues I and II I, bu tthat the err ors w ere harm l es s cons i der i ng the overw hel m i ng evi dence of gui l t . W e al s o f

i nd thatW i l l i ams w as abl e t o pr es enthi s theory of def ens e t o t he j ury and ac cor di ngl y w as notpr ej udi ced. W e f i nd
n o m e ri t in Is s u e s II a n d IV . W e a ff ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f t h e tr ia l c o u rtin to to . F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶3. O n Janu ary 31 , 2 00 5, M i chael W ayne W i l l i ams appr oache d C ur t i s J ohns on at the Spr i ntM artG as St at i on on W atki ns D r i ve i n J acks on. W i l l i ams m ade sm al l t al k and eventual l y as ked i f

J ohns on w oul d l i ke t o s ee s om e D V D s . J ohns on m ade a p urc has e and l eftthe st ore. In the p arki ng l ot, W i l l i am s m oti on ed for John son to com e see the D V D s. J o h n s o n wa l k e d o v e rt o th e wh i t e L e x u s s p o r t s u t i l i ty v e h i c l e W i l l i a ms wa s d r i v i n g . As J ohns on opened the bac k pas s engerdoor , W i l l i ams poi nt ed a gun a thi m a nd t ol d hi m t o get i n the veh i cl e. John son co m pli ed. T hen W i l l i am s t old Johnso n to em pty hi s pock et s. J ohns on gave W i l l i ams hi s c el l phone a nd $600 i n c as h. A s econd m an w as i n the ca ri n the fro n t p a ss e n g e r se a t. Jo h n so n a sk e d to b e re lea se d , b u t W ill iam s le ft th e sto re a n d d ro v e o n to H an g ing M o ss R o ad
. E v en tually, W il li am s slow ed the v eh icl e a n d u n lock ed the b ac k d o o r.

### 3

Jo h n so n ju m p e d fro m th e v e h icle a n d ra n b a c k to th e g a s s tatio n . Jo h n so n th e n g o t in to h is vehi cl e and dr ove t o hi s hous e, w her e he as ked hi s w i f e t o c al l the pol i ce. A n audi o t ape of the ca l l w as pl ayed f

ort he j ury, s how i ng thats he t ol d pol i ce thatJ ohns on had bee n r obbed b y s o m e o n e in a L e x u s . ¶4. J acks on P ol i ce O f f i cerA nthony R egi nal w as di s pat ched t o J ohns on’ s hom e. W hen h e a rriv e d , h e in ter v iew e d Jo h n so n a n d th e n d ro v e h im b a c k to th e S p rin t M a rt to v iew its
s ur vei l l ance vi deo. T he vi deo t ape w as unavai l abl e atthatt i m e, butpol i ce l at err ecove r ed i t . T he s ur vei l l ance vi deo w as pl ayed f orthe j ury and s ubs t ant i at ed J ohns on’ s acc ountof the
e v e n ts th a t to o k p la c e a t th e S p ri n t M a rt . ¶5. O n February 8, 2005, J acks on Pol i ce O f f i cerD onal d M cC l us key not i ced a s us pi ci ous
w hi t e Lexus. H e s ubm i t t ed a c om put err eques tt o det erm i ne i f t he t ag w as thatof

a s t ol en vehi cl e, butthe N at i onal Cri m e I nf or m at i on Cent er( N C I C ) s ys t em w as dow n. O ff i cer M c C lu sk e y w ro te d o w n th e tag n u m b e r a n d to o k n o tice o f th e d riv e r, W ill iam s, a n d a fe m a le pas s enger . L at erthatda y, w hen the N C I C s ys t em w as w or ki ng, O f f i cerM cC l us key r an the tag a n d d e ter m in e d th a t th e w h ite L e x u s w a s s to len . T w o d a y s la ter , M c C lu sk e y a g a in
e n c o u n ter e d W ill iam s d riv in g th e sto len w h ite L e x u s a n d p lac e d h im u n d e r a rre st. ¶ 6
. J acks on Pol i ce D et ec t i ve Pe r r y Tat e i nc l ud e d W i l l i a ms’ s phot ogr aph i n a phot ogr aphi c l i neup f

orJohns on. J ohns on i dent i f i ed W i l l i ams as the man w ho r obbed and k idn ap p ed h im at gu n p o int, an d h e sig n ed h is na m e to v erify this un d er W il li am s’s p h o to g ra p h . T h e p h o to lin e u p w a s e n te re d in to e v id e n c e a n d p u b lis h e d to th e ju ry . ¶7. W i l l i am s w as tr i ed and convi ct ed of arm ed r obbery, ki dnappi ng, and pos s es s i on of
a fire a rm b y a c o n v icte d fe lo n . W ill iam s w a s s e n ten c e d to tw e n ty -fiv e y e a rs o n C o u n t I

### 4

(arm ed rob b ery ); tw en ty y ea rs on C o u n t I I (kidn ap p ing ); an d three y ea rs on C o u n t I II (co n v ict ed felon in p o sses sion o f a fir ea rm ), all to b e se rve d co n cu rren tl y w ith C o u n t I
. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶8. T he s t andar d of r evi ew governi ng the admi s s i on or excl us i on of evi dence i s abus e of d is c re tio n . B ro w n v. S ta te , 969 So. 2d 855, 860 (M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng P oo le v. A vara , 908 So. 2d 716, 721 ( M i s s . 2005) )
. T hus , “[ a] tr i al j udge enj oys a gr eatde al of di s cr et i on a s t o the
r el evanc y and adm i s s i bi l i ty of evi dence
. U nl es s t he j udge abus es t hi s di s cr et i on so as t o be pr ej udi ci al t o t he acc us ed, t he C our tw i l l notr ever s e thi s rul i ng. ” S h a w v. S ta te , 915 So. 2d 4 4 2 , 4 4 5 (M is s . 2 0 0 5 ). L E G A L A N A L Y S IS I . W he t her a T r i alC our t ’ s R e f us alt o Al l ow a N on- t e s t i f yi ng D e f e ndant to D i s pl ay H i s Tee t h Bef or e t he Jur y Vi ol at e d t he D ef endant’ s R i ght t o P res ent a D ef ens e. ¶9
. T h e iss u e is w h e ther the e x h ib iti o n o f th e d e fe n d a n t’s te e th b e fo re a ju ry is t es t i m oni al , ther eby s ubj ect i ng the per s on t o cr os s - exami nat i on. A l s o i n ques t i on i s w hether
a ju d g e ’s p ro h ib itio n o f s u c h a d is p la y v io la te s a d e fe n d a n t’ s ri g h t to p re s e n t a d e fe n s e . ¶10. W i l l i ams cont ends thathe w as de ni ed an opportuni ty t o pr es enta meani ngf ul def ens e, vi ol at i ng hi s r i ght s underthe Si xt h and Fourt eenth A m endment s t o the U ni t ed St at es C o n stitu tio n . A t trial, W ill iam s ra ise d th e d e fe n se o f m isi d e n tifica tio n . A s p a rt o f th is d e fe n se , W ill iam s a ttem p ted to in tro d u c e in to e v id e n c e , b y w a y o f e x h ib iti o n to th e ju ry , h is gol d t eeth decor at ed w i th carved i ni t i al s . W i l l i ams ar gues t hatsuch an exhi bi t i on w oul d have
s how n the j ury thathi s gol d t eeth w er e pr om i nent . T he ci r cui tcourtrul ed thats uch an exhi bi t i on w oul d be t es t i m oni al and w oul d t her ef or e subj ectW i l l i ams t o cr os s - exami nat i on.

### 5

W i l l i ams had el ect ed nott o t es t i f y. W i l l i ams ar gues thats uch an e xhi bi t i on i s nott es t i m oni al and, ther efor e, the tr i al court ’ s rul i ng pr ohi bi t ed hi m f r om pr es ent i ng hi s def ens e of
m is id e n tif

ic a tio n . ¶ 1 1
. T h e S tate a rg u e s th a t th e c irc u it ju d g e a c ted w ith in h is w id e d isc re tio n in re fu sin g to al l ow W i l l i ams t o di s pl ay hi s t eeth t o t he j ury. T he St at e poi nt s outthatthe j ury w as in fo rm e d th a t W ill iam s h a d g o ld tee th . T h e S tate a ss e rts th a t W ill iam s w a s n o t d e n ied h is
r i ghtt o pr es enta meani ngf ul def ens e, as he pr es ent ed thi s def ense to t he j ury thr ough the
c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n o f n u m e ro u s w itn e s s e s a n d d u ri n g c lo s in g a rg u m e n ts . ¶12. B eca us e r ever s al i s w arr ant ed onl y w her e an admi s s i on of evi den ce prej udi ced the
acc us ed, the overr i di ng i s s ue i s w hetherthe cir cuitj ud ge’s pr oh i bit i on of W i l l i am s di spl ayi ng h is te e th b e fo re th e ju ry v io la te d W illia m s ’s r ig h t t o p re s e n t a d e fe n s e . Shaw , 915 So. 2d at 4 4 5 . D u rin g th e trial, W ill ia m s w a s a b le to su p p o rt h is d e fe n se o f m isid e n tifica tio n w ith evi dence of

hi s gol d t eeth. Fi r s t , t he vi ct i m t es t i f i ed thatW i l l i ams had gol d t eeth. D ur i ng
cr os s - exami nat i on of

the vi ct i m , de f

ens e couns el as ked, “D o you r emem berthe per s on w ho
ro b b e d y o u h a v in g g o ld b u c k e d tee th ? ” T h e v ictim re sp o n d e d , “Y e s. I k n o w h e h a s a c o u p le
o f g o l d s i n h i s mo u th i n t h e f r o n t , b u te x a c t l y whe r e I d o n ’ tk n o w, b u tI d o k n o w i twa s s o me gol ds i n hi s m outh though. ” ¶ 1 3
. S e c o n d , a p o lice o ffic e r sta ted th a t th e v ictim n e v e r m e n tio n e d h is a ss a ilan t’s g o ld t eeth. D ur i ng cr os s - exami nat i on of a pol i ce of

f i cer , def ens e couns el as ked , “W as he [ the vi ct i m ] abl e t o gi ve you any de s cr i pt i ons of anythi ng uni que aboutthe man .
. . w hatabout b u c k g o ld tee th ? ” T h e o ffic e r a n s w e re d , “N o .” C o u n se l fo r W ill iam s a sk e d , “G o ld tee th
w ith in itia ls ? ” T h e o ff

ic e r r e s p o n d e d , “ H e d id n ’tte ll m e a n y th in g lik e th a t.”

### 6

¶14. Fi nal l y, def

ens e couns el hi ghl i ght ed thes e s t at ement s i n cl os i ng ar gum entf or the j ury,
as s ert i ng W i l l i ams’ s def ens e of m i s i dent i f

i cat i on t o the j ury. I n cl os i ng, def ens e couns el
a rg u e d : No w, h e [ th e v i c t i m] s a y s h e t o l d th e p o l i c e th e r o b b e r– o rg a v e h i m a d e sc rip tio n o f th e ro b b e r. S a id h e ’s g o t th e se g o ld tee th , b u t it’s n o t in h is w ri t t en st at em ent, and O ff i cer R eginal den i ed h eari ng this
.

. . . N extO f

f i cerR egi nal came t o t est i f y. A nd you m i ghtr emem berone of the f i r s tthi ngs I as ked hi m aboutw as w hatki nd of de s cr i pt i on C ur t i s J ohns on [ the vi ct i m ] w as abl e t o gi ve hi m the day thi s happene d. A nd he j us tkepts ayi ng, u n k n o wn , u n k n o wn , u n k n o wn , u n k n o wn h e i g h t , u n k n o wn we i g h t , u n k n o wn h a i rc o l o r . Co u l d n ’ tg i v e a n y i n f o r ma t i o n a b o u ta m u s t a c h e o rg o l d t e e th , two th in g s I s p e c ifica lly a sk e d h im a b o u t.

. . . N ow , l adi es and gent l emen, you’ ve hea r d al l of the i ncon si st ency and the i ns uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence i n thi s cas e, a nd w e f eel thatyou s houl d have a re a so n a b le d o u b t as to M ich a e l W ill iam s’[s ] gu ilt
. ¶15. A s W i l l i ams w as abl e t o i ntr oduce evi dence of hi s gol d t eeth and w as abl e t o ar gue h i s mi s i d e n t i f

i c a t i o n th e o ry b e f

o r e th e j u ry , t h e c i r c u i tj u d g e ’ s ru l i n g p r o h i b i t i n g W i l l i a ms fro m d isp lay in g h is g o ld tee th fo r th e ju ry u n le ss h e tes tified d id n o t v io late h is rig h t to p re s e n t a m e a n in g fu l d e fe n s e . ¶16. Fur therm or e, W i l l i ams ha d othermechani s m s f ori ntr oduci ng evi dence of hi s bucked g o ld tee th . H e c o u ld h a v e tes tifie d , d u ri n g w h ich th e d e fe n se c o u ld h a v e p o in ted o u t th is f eatur e. W i l l i ams coul d have pr es ent ed a w i tnes s t o t es t i f y abouthi s pr om i nentt eeth, dur i ng
w h ic h W illia m s c o u ld h a v e s o u g h t to in tr o d u c e a p h o to o f W illia m s ’s te e th
. Is an exh ibition of teeth testim on ial, t h ereby sub

jectin g the person to crosse xa m ination? ¶ 1 7
. T h e u n d e rl y in g is s u e is w h e th e r th e f o rm a l ex h ib iti o n o f te e th b e fo re th e ju ry is “t es t i m oni al , ” ther eby s ubj ect i ng t he per s on t o cr os s - exami nat i on. T he ci r cui tcourthel d that

### 7

s uch a di s pl ay w as t es t i m oni al and ther ef or e opene d the doort o cr os s - exami nat i on . T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tand thi s C our tm ake c l earthatthe mer e di s pl ay of a physi cal bo dy parti s no ttes t i m on i al an d theref ore do es no t , in and of i t sel f, op en the do or t o crosse x a m in a tio n . ¶18. I n S c h m e rb e r v . Ca lifo rn ia , 384 U
. S. 757, 86 S. Ct
. 1826, 16 L
. E d. 908 ( 1966) , the U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rtd iscu ssed th e rea ch of th e F if th-A m en d m en t ri g h t aga inst self
in c ri m in a tio n . S ch m erber deal tw i th the w i thdr aw al of bl ood f r om a D U I s us pect , and the Supr eme C our thel d thats uch w i thdr aw al di d notvi ol at e the s us pect ’ s Fi f th- A m endment p ri v ile g e . I

d . at772. I n B u rn s v. S ta te , 729 So. 2d 203, 216 ( M i s s . 1998), thi s C our ts t at ed that“[ a] m er e handw r i t i ng ex empl ar. . . l i ke the voi ce orbody i t s el f , i s an i dent i f

yi ng char act er i s t i c out s i de [ the] pr ot ect i on [ of the Fi f th A m endment ]
. ” ¶ 1 9
. B e c a u se th e d isp lay o f a p h y sic a l ch a ra c ter istic is o u tsid e the p ro tec tio n o f th e F ifth A m end m ent, it s exh i bit i on to t he j ury w ou l d n ot i nter fer e w i th a d efendan t ’s ri gh t s agai nst
s el f
- i ncr i m i nat i on. A s such, a def endantw oul d be abl e t o exhi bi tordi s pl ay phys i cal char act er i s t i cs w i thoutw ai vi ng hi s ri ght s agai ns tsel f
- i ncr i m i nat i on. T he ci r cui tcourterr ed i n s t at i ng thats uch a di s pl ay w as t es t i m oni al and onl y al l ow abl e upon w ai verof the def endant ’ s r i ght s agai ns ts el f
- i ncr i m i nat i on. ¶20. W hen f

ace d w i th an err or , thi s C ou rt m ust re vi ew the r ecor d de novo t o det erm i ne
w h e th e r r e v e r s a l i s w a rr a n te d
. T ra n v. S ta te , 9 6 2 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 7 , 1 2 4 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 7 ). “H arm l es s - err or s ar e thos e w hi ch i n t he se t t i ng of a pa r t i cul arcas e ar e s o uni m por t antand i nsi gn i fi cant that they m ay, con si st ent w i th the Fed eral C o n sti tuti on , be d eem ed h arm l ess, notr equi r i ng the aut om at i c r ever s al of the convi ct i on. ” I

d.

### In hi s brie f, Wi ll iams s tate s, “the tri alcourt s hould have e it her grante d the reques ted 1 

### continu ance o r refusedto p ermit pro secuto rs to g o fo rwardwiththe ev iden ce.” (Emp hasis adde d.) The rec ord however , doe s not cont ain a requ est

for a co ntinuan ce. Def ens e c ounse l als o argued, contemp oran eous ly, that t he t apeshoul d not be 2 

### adm itte d into evi denc e be ca usethe Statelac ked a proper authe nti cating witne ss . This i ss ue 8 ¶21
. B ased on the record before us, w e fi nd the t ri al cou rt ’s err on eou s ruli ng t o b e harm l ess
err orw hi ch di d notr enderthe tr i al funda m ent al l y unfa i r . A s pr evi ous l y not ed, W i l l i ams w as abl e t o i ntr oduce e vi dence of hi s gol d t eeth and ar gue hi s def ens e of m i s i dent i f

i cat i on t o the j ury. W i l l i ams w as notpr ej udi ced by the tr i al court ’ s rul i ng, and r ever s al i s notw arr ant ed. II. W h ether the T ri al C ou rt C om m i tt ed R ev ersi b l e E rror W h en It A dm i t t ed P ros ecut i on E vi dence N ot P roduced D uri ng D i s cover y . ¶22. W i l l i ams cl ai m s thatthe tr i al co urterr ed w hen i tadmi t t ed an a udi ot ape of a 911 tele p h o n e c a ll to p o lice re p o rtin g th e ro b b e ry , w h ich p ro se c u to rs f a iled to d isc lo se p re -tria l. W i l l i ams ar gues thatthe ci r cui tcourts houl d have e i ther grant ed a c ont i nuance orbarr ed
a d m iss io n o f th e e v id e n c e . T h e S tate p o in ts o u t th a t a th irty -m in u te r e c e ss w a s g ra n ted to 1 al l ow the def

ens e t o r es ear ch the i s s ue, and anothert en- m i nut e r ece s s w as gra nt ed t o al l ow the def ens e t o conf

erw i th the pr es ent i ng w i tnes s . T he St at e mai nt ai ns thatthe admi s s i on of the t ape w as perm i s s i bl e, as the ci r cui tcourtf ol l ow ed the r equi r ement s of U ni f or m R ul e of C ir c u it C o u rta n d C o u n ty C o u rtP ra c tic e 9 .0 4 (I ). ¶ 2 3
. O n th e m o rn in g o f th e se c o n d d a y o f tria l, t h e S ta te a n n o u n c e d th a t itin ten d e d to intr o d u ce a 9 1 1 tap e into ev iden ce . D efe n se co u n sel o b jected a n d a rgu ed to the tr ial co u rt thatthe t ape s ho uld no tbe adm i t t ed bec aus e the def ens e w as puton not i ce of i t s exi s t ence onl y the day be f

or e and i tw as nota l l ow ed t o l i s t en t o the t ape unt i l the day the St at e s ought its a d m iss io n . “ It’s n o t re a lly g iv e n u s s u ffic ie n t ti m e to d e a l w ith th e tap e .” T h e S tate 2

### was n ot raisedonapp eal. 9

r es ponded thati thad gott en the t ape j us tthe day bef or e. W i l l i ams count er ed, s ayi ng, “they
m ay have j us tgot t en i tyes t er day, butobvi ousl y t hey knew abouti tbef or e yes t er day s i nce they s ubpoenae d i t . ” The St at e mai nt ai ned thatci r cumst ance s r ai s ed a “ s i m pl e B ox di s covery i s s ue” and thatthey “gave the di s covery as s oon as [ they] gotthe t ape. ” See B ox
v. S ta te , 4 3 7 S o . 2 d 1 9 (M is s . 1 9 8 3 ). ¶24. W i l l i am s’ s dis cov ery r eques t s s ought“[ a] ny phys i cal evi dence
. . . w hi ch may be of f er ed i n evi dence
. ” A ttr i al , def ens e couns el ar gued thatthe t ape w as not pr oduced, nor
w as i ti ndi cat ed i n the evi dence l og. T he St at e ar gued that i t s dis covery r es pons es put W i l l i am s on not i ce of

the exi s t ence of

the t ape be caus e i ts ai d “the pol i ce of f i cerw hi l e he
w as on patr ol h e re cei ved a c al l t o r es pond t o the hous e. T hatl et s [ s i c] them know that
s om ebody mustha ve cal l ed the pol i ce and s ai d, he y w e nee d an of f i cert o come t o the hous e. So i t ’ s notl i ke they di dn’ tknow ther e w as a ca l l m ade t o the pol i ce. ” ¶25. D ef

ens e couns el ul t i m at el y r eques t ed t i m e t o r es ear ch the t ape’ s admi s s i bi l i ty. T he ci r cui tcour tas ked W i l l i ams’ s att orney how m uch t i m e s he w oul d need. W i l l i ams’ s att orney
r es ponded, “W e coul d pr obabl y f i nd w hatw e nee d i n hal f an hour
. ” The c our tthen gr ant ed a thirty -m inu te rece ss. W h en d eli b era ti o n s resu m ed , W ill iam s’s att o rne y req u ested m o re t i m e, w hi ch w as deni ed. The c i r cui tc our tf ound thatW i l l i ams w as puton not i ce the f i r s tday of tr i al w hen the v i ct i m tes t i f i ed thathi s w i f

e ca l l ed 911. T he ci r cui tcourtdi d gr antan add i t i on al , t en-m i nu t e recess so defense c o u n sel c ou l d co nferw i th the present i ng w i tness. T h e trial c o u rt h e ld :

### 10

I b e liev e w h ile it tec h n ica lly w a s a d isc o v e ry v io latio n , I b e liev e , b e c a u se it w as nott i m el y f

urni s hed t o the def

ens e aboutthe vi deot ape [ s i c - audi ot ape] thatthe C our ti s of the opi ni on t hatt her e’ s no unf ai rpr ej udi ce t o the def

ens e, thatthey’ ve had r eas onabl e oppor tuni ty t o t al k w i th the purpor t ed w i tnes s as t o t he authent i ci ty of the t ape and thatthey’ ve al s o had an opportuni ty t o l i s t en t o the t ape a t8: 30 t hi s m orni ng and w er e puton not i ce l at e yes t er day af t ernoon o f t h e e x is te n c e o f t h e ta p e ,

. . . [T ]h e C o u rtd o e s d e n y th e m o tio n a s it r e la te s to d is c o v e ry v io la tio n . . . . W hetherW

il liam s W ai ved This I

s s ue B y Failing to Seek a Continuan ce. ¶ 2 6
. U n ifo rm R u le o f C irc u it an d C o u n ty C o u rt P ra c tice 9 .0 4 (I) s tate s in p e rtin e n t p a rt:

. . . . I f dur i ng t he cour s e of

t r i al , t he pr os ecut i on at t empt s t o i ntr oduce e vi dence w hich has no tbeen ti m el y dis cl osed t o the defense as requ i red by these rules , and the def

ens e obj ect s t o the i ntr oduct i on f orthatr eas on, the courts hal l act as f oll ow s: 1 ) G ra n t th e d e fe n se a re a so n a b le o p p o rtu n ity to in ter v iew th e n e w ly di s cover ed w i tnes s , t o exami ne the new l y di s cover ed w i tnes s , t o exami ne the new l y pr oduced doc um ent s , phot ogr aphs orotherevi dence ; and 2) I f , af t ers uch opportuni ty, the def ens e cl ai m s unf

ai rs urpr i s e orundue pr ej udi ce a nd s eeks a continuan ce orm is tr ial , the co urtshall , in t he int eres t of j us t i ce and a bs entunus ual ci r cumst ance s , excl ude the evi dence orgr ant a c o n tin u a n c e fo r a p e rio d o f ti m e rea so n a b ly n e c e ss a ry fo r th e d e fe n se to m e e t th e n o n -d is c lo s e d e v id e n c e o r g ra n t a m is tr ia l. U R C C C 9 .0 4 (I ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶ 2 7
. D e fe n se c o u n se l w a s in fo rm e d a b o u t th e e x iste n c e o f th e tap e o n th e e v e n in g p rio r to i t s adm i s s i on, w as al l ow ed t o l i s t en t o the t ape the f ol l ow i ng m orni ng bef

or e court , w as al l ow ed s uf

f i ci entt i m e t o i nt ervi ew the w i tnes s cal l ed t o pre s entthe t ape, and w as al l ow ed the r eques t ed hal f

hourt o do l egal r es ear ch. U R C C C 9. 04 (I ) ( 1) re qui r es t he courtt o gr ant the def ens e an opportuni ty t o exami ne the new evi dence
. W i l l i am s’ s cou ns el al r eady ha d b e e n g iv e n a n o p p o rt u n ity to e x a m in e th e ta p e e a rl ie r t h a t m o rn in g .

### 11

¶28. I n or derf

orthe r equi r ement s of

Rul e 9. 04 ( I ) ( 2) t o be i nvoked, the def ens e m us t( 1) af t ersuch an oppor tuni ty, cl ai m unf ai rs urpr i s e and (2 ) se e k a c o n tin u a n c e o r m istria l. W h ile W ill iam s d id c laim u n fa ir s u rp rise , h e fa iled to s e e k a c o n tin u a n c e o r m istria l. W ill iam s d id
s eek a r ece s s , w hi ch w as gr ant ed. ¶ 2 9
. “ R u le 4 .0 6 is d e s ig n e d to a v o id ‘a m b u s h ’ o r u n fa ir s u rp ri s e to e it h e r p a rt y a t tr ia l.” Mc Ca in e v. S ta te , 5 9 1 S o . 2 d 8 3 3 , 8 3 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 1 ) (d e c id e d u n d e r a p rio r v e rsio n o f th is
rul e)
. I n thi s cas e, how ever , the tr i al j udge no t ed t hatdef ens e w as puton not i ce of the exi s t ence of

a 911 cal l by w ay of

an i nt err ogat ory ans w erdur i ng the di s covery phas e of the
cas e. T he def

ens e ar gues thatthe “u nfai r s urpr i s e” w as the i ntr oduct i on of a s t at ement
co n tai n ed in the tape n o t th e tap e it self. T h e tap e inc lud es a statem en t m ad e b y th e v ict im ’s
w if e tha t Joh n so n w as k idn ap p ed i n a L ex u s. W h il e this statem en t did c o rrob o rate Jo h n so n ’s t es t i m ony, evi dence thata Lexus w as us ed t o pe rpetr at e the cr i m e w as f ound thr oughoutthe
r ecor d. J ohns on t es t i f

i ed thatW i l l i ams w as dr i vi ng a w hi t e Lexus w hen he ki dnapped a nd
r obbed hi m atgunpoi nt . T he pr os ecut i on i ntr oduc e d as urve i l l ance vi deo w hi ch corr obor at ed Jo h n so n ’s te stim o n y . O ffic e r R e g in a l tes tified th a t Jo h n so n w a s ro b b e d b y an ind iv id u a l in
a w h ite L e x u s. O ffic e r M c C lu sk e y tes tified th a t h e a rre ste d W ill iam s in a sto len w h ite L exu s. ¶30. D ef

ens e couns el re ques t ed a r ece s s and nota cont i nuance as r equi r ed by R ul e 9. 04, and ther ef

or e w ai ved ar gui ng thi s i s s ue on a ppeal
. See U R C C C 9. 04. E ven i f W i l l i ams had
r eques t ed a c ont i nu ance, the tr i al court ’ s gr antof tw o r ece s s es compl i ed w i th the req u ir em en ts of the ru le. A d m issi o n o f th e 9 1 1 au d iotap e w as n o t error. F u rth erm o re, th ere
w as no unf

ai rs urpr i s e thatther e w as a 911 t ape orthati tm i ghti dent i f y a Lexus. T her e w as

### 12

ampl e evi dence thata w hi t e Lexus w as us ed t o perpetr at e the cr i m e. Even w i thoutthe 911
c a ll, th e re w a s a m p le e v id e n c e to su p p o rtW il li am s’s co n v ictio n , inc lu d in g th e v ictim ’s p h o to l i ne- up i dent i f

i cat i on, the vi ct i m ’ s t es t i m ony, and the corr obor at i ng ga s s t at i on s ur vei l l ance
v id e o . I I I . W he t he r t he Tri alCourt Abuse d I t s D i s c r e t i on W he n I t Deni e d a

M o tio n to S e v e r C o u n ts A g a in st th e D e fe n d a n t, o r A lte r n a tiv e ly , in R ef usi ng t o A l l ow t he D ef

endant t o St i pul at e t o a P ri or C onvi ct i on o f A r m e d R o b b e r y . ¶ 3 1
. F o ri s s u e s o f

s e v e r a n c e , th i s C o u r ta p p l i e s a n a b u s e - o f
- d i s c r e t i o n s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w. R u s h in gv. S ta te , 9 11 So
. 2 d 52 6, 5 32 ( M i s s . 2 00 5)
. Thi s Courtf ul l y di s cus s ed the appl i cabl e ca s e l aw i n Rushing . M i ssi ssi pp i l aw al l ow s f or both m ult i -count i nd i ct m ents and m ult i -of fense tr i al s undercer t ai n ci r cumst ance s . I n tr i al s conce rni ng m ul t i
- count i ndi ctm ent s , s ever ance i s unneces s ary i n M i s s i s s i ppi i f the ac t s ortr ans act i ons ar e conne ct ed t ogetheras partof a comm on s cheme orpl an and i f the i ndi ctm entw as otherw i s e pr oper . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99-7- 2 ( R ev. 2000) s t at es in p e rtin e n t p a rt: (1) T w o (2 ) o r m o re o ffen ses w h ich a re tri ab le i n the s am e c o u rt m ay be c har ged i n the s ame i ndi ctm entw i th a s epar at e countf or each of f ens e i f: ( a) the of

f ens es ar e bas ed on the s ame actor tra n sa c tio n ; o r (b ) th e o ffe n se s a re b a se d o n tw o (2 ) o r m o re a c ts o r tran sa c ti o n s co n n ec ted to g ethe r or c o n sti tuti n g p arts of a comm on s cheme orpl an. (2 ) W h e re tw o (2 ) o r m o re o ffe n se s a re p ro p e rl y c h a rg e d in s epar at e count s of

a si ngl e i ndi ctm ent , al l s uch cha r ges m ay be tr i ed i n a s i ngl e pr ocee di ng. T he M i s s i s s i ppi U ni f

or m R ul es of

C i rcui tand C ounty C our tPr act i ce ( U R C C C ) l i kew i s e addr es s m ul t i -count i ndi ctm ent s . T he pr ovi s i ons of U R C C C 7 .0 7 (A .) & (B .) a re id e n tic a l to th e a b o v e s ta tu to ry la n g u a g e . R u sh in gv. S ta te , 9 1 1 S o . 2 d 5 2 6 , 5 3 2 -33 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ).

### 13

¶3 2
. In the p rese n t ca se, W il li am s pre sen ted a m o ti o n t o sev er or in th e a ltern a tiv e to
s t i pul at e t o a pr i orconvi ct i on on the f i r s tday of

tr i al , out s i de the pr es ence of the j ur or s and pr i ort o openi ng s t at ement s . W i l l i ams’ s i ndi ctm enti ncl uded thr ee c ount s : ( 1) a rmed r ob be ry, (2 ) k id n a p p in g , an d (3 ) c o n v icte d fe lo n in p o ss e ss io n o f a fire a rm . W ill iam s a rg u e d in h is
m oti on thatcountthr ee s houl d be s ever ed bec aus e hi s pr i orconvi ct i on w as one of arm ed
r obbery. W i l l i ams as s ert ed thati f the St at e w er e r equi r ed t o pr es entpr oof beyond a
re a so n a b le d o u b t o f th is p rio r c o n v ictio n , su c h w o u ld c o n stitu te p re ju d ice “ so g re a t as to af f ectthe f ai rdet erm i nat i on of

the gui l tori nnocenc e of the def endant
. ” ¶ 3 3
. T h e iss u e w a s d isc u ss e d a t trial a s fo llo w s: B Y M S. G I B SO N [ D E FE N SE C O U N SE L ] : Y our H on or, the def ens e has tw o m o tio n s . T h e fi rs t m o tio n is a m o tio n to s e v e r.

. . . M i chae l W ayne W i l l i ams i s i ndi ct ed i n 06- 0- 072 w i th thr ee c ount s , countone arm ed rob b ery , co u n t tw o kidn ap p ing an d co u n t th ree p o sses sion o f a fir ea rm b y a c o n v ic te d fe lo n . In o rde r for the S tat e to b e a b le t o pro v e tha t h e h as a p o sses sion o f a fir ea rm b y a c o n v ic te d fe lo n , th e y o b v io u s ly h a v e to p ro v e h e is a c o n v ic te d fe lo n . H is p rio r fe lo n y c o n v ictio n is fo r a rm e d ro b b e ry , a n d o u r c o n ten tio n is th a t to al l ow them t o go f

orw ar d w i th countthr ee i n the s ame tr i al as countone and tw o w oul d be extr emel y pr ej udi ci al beca us e he’ s convi ct ed of arm ed r obbery, a n d h e ’s o n tr ia l f

o r a rm e d ro b b e ry in th is c a s e . W e’re m o v ing u n d er R u le 9.03 o f th e U n if o rm C ir cu itan d C h an ce ry C o u rt R u les , an d , as I h a v e sa id p re v io u sly , I d o n o t k n o w w h a t th e in terp lay is b etw ee n M issi ssipp i C o d e 9 9 -7-2 an d U n if o rm C ir cu itan d C h an ce ry C o u rt R ul e 7. 07
. O f

c ou r s e , tho s e a r e the rul e s tha ta l l ow f ormul t i
- c ou nt in d ic tm e n ts . A n d w e are notsayi ng that this i nd i ct m ent i s defect i ve in any w ay. I do n ’t t hi nk w e eve n need a Cor ley heari ng . W e adm i tthat these t ransact i on s are in te rw o v e n .

### 14

I c o u ld n o t fin d a sin g le c a se w h e re o u r S u p re m e C o u rt o r C o u rt o f A p p e a ls has m ade a ny pr on ou nc e menta bo utho w 9. 03 i s t o i nt e r a c tw i th 9 9- 7- 2 a nd 7. 07. B u t R u le 9 .0 3 sa y s th a t th e C o u rt m a y g ra n t a s e v e ra n c e o f o ffe n se s w h e n if bef or e tr i al i ti s deemed appr opr i at e t o pr om ot e a fai r de t erm i nat i on of the d e fe n d a n t’ s g u ilt o r i n n o c e n s e o f e a c h o ff e n s e . A nd ourcont ent i on i s thatthe j ury w i l l notbe a bl e t o f ai r l y det erm i ne w hether he i s g ui l ty of

a r med r ob be ry i n thi s c a s e when the y he a rtha th e h a d a pr i or a rm e d ro b b e ry c o n v ic tio n . I f the s t at e deni es ourr eques tt o s everc ountthr ee, w e w oul d l i ke t o go on and of f ert o s t i pul at e t o the f

actthathe has a pr i orf

el ony convi ct i on, and w e have a s tip u la tio n p re p a re d
. B Y T H E C O U R T : A l l r i ght
. R es pons e by the St at e. B Y M S
. M A N S E L L [ C O U N S E L F O R T H E S T A T E ] : Y o u r H on or, as I ar gued pr evi ous l y, bo t h t he C our tof A ppeal s and the Supr eme C our thave r epea t edl y s ai d i n Ca rte r v . S ta te , w hi ch w as r eheari ng deni ed A ugus t15, 2006, thatw hen a pe r s on has been c onvi ct ed of a f el ony and they’ r e cha r ged w i th pos s es s i on of

a f i r earm by a convi ct ed .
. . f el on, i ti s cl earw hen a pr i or convi ct i on i s an el ementof the cr i m e, the St at e i s authori zed t o i ntr oduce e v i d e n c e o f

th e c o n v i c t i o n a n d i s n o tl i mi t e d i n i t s m e th o d o f p r o o f i n th a twe do nothave t o s t i pul at e. W e ca n putthatpri orconvi ct i on i n or putt es t i m ony in to p ro v e th a t h e is a p ri o r c o n v ic tio n fe lo n . I n E v a n s v. S ta te , 8 02 So
. 2 d 13 7, a ga i n i tc l e a r l y s a ys the s t a tut e d oes not l i m i tthe St at e t o pr ovi ng a s i ngl e pr i orf el ony convi ct i on orm ethods by w hi ch it m a y p ro v e th e p ri o r c o n v ic tio n . T he onl y di f

f er ence i s t hat they ar e as ki ng f ora l i m i t i ng i ns truct i on. O b v iou sly, w e w o u ld n o t object t o that, an d c a se la w is cl ea r th at w e’re e n title d to p ro v e th e p ri o r c o n v ic tio n s a s p a rto f t h e e le m e n ts o f t h e c ri m e . B Y T H E C O U R T : A ll righ t. A n y re p ly b y th e d e fe n d a n t? B Y M S . G IB S O N [D E F E N S E C O U N S E L ]: Y o u r H o n o r, o n ly th a t I ce rt ainly d o n ’td isag ree w ith that. T h a t is w h a t th e c ase law say s, an d that’s w h y w e ’r e tr y in g to s e v e r c o u n t th re e .

### 15

I f w e’ r e notal l ow ed t o s evercountthr ee a nd the St at e w i l l notagr ee t o a s t i pul at i on, then I c ert ai nl y a gr ee that ’ s how they ar e abl e t o pr ov e i t , and that’s w h en w e w o u ld li k e to o ffer ou r l im it ing m o ti o n instruction to the C o u rt if o u r m o tio n is d e n ie d
. B Y T H E C O U R T : A l l r i ght
. W el l , cons i s t entw i th thi s C our t ’ s pr evi ous rul i ng l as tw eek, the C our ti s goi ng t o deny thi s m ot i on on the partof the d efend ant based up on the case autho ri ty ci t ed by the S t at e, w hich i s ve ry s tr o n g s u p p o rto f t h e S ta te ’s p o s itio n in o p p o s in g th is m o tio n . A n d , als o , this C o u rt u n d e r R u le 9 .0 3 is giv e n d isc re tio n to s e v e ra n c e o r n o t. T he C our tdoesn’ tbel i eve thatther e i s any unf ai rpr ej udi ce unde rthe circu m stan ce s an d , also , in the interes t o f ju d ici al ec o n o m y , b u t, m o re i m port antl y, the C our tdoes notbel i eve i t ’ s unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al under ci r cumst ance s , and even m or e i m por t antt han that , the ca s e author i ty ci t ed by the St at e i s qui t e per s uas i ve thatthe corr ectrul i ng of the C our ti s t o deny the m o tio n o f th e d e fe n d a n t. S o a lim iti n g o rd e r o r in stru c tio n w ill b e g iv e n if re q u e s te d b y th e d e fe n d a n t. ¶34. T he bel ow l i m i t i ng instruct i on w as gi ven f ol l ow i ng t es t i m ony of

W i l l i ams’ s pr i or
arm ed r obbery convi ct i on: B Y T H E C O U R T : M e m b e rs o f th e ju ry , I am g o in g to re a d y o u w h a t is k n o w n a s a lim itin g in s tru c tio n a t th is tim e . Y ou ha ve he a r d t e s t i mony tha tthe de f e nd a ntM i c ha e l W a yn e W i l l i a ms h as been c onvi ct ed of

a f el ony. Y ou m ay onl y us e thi s t est i m ony t o det erm i ne w hetherornotM r . W i l l i ams i s a c onvi ct ed f el on f orpurpos es of

c ountthr ee o f t h e in d ic tm e n t, p o s s e s s io n o f a fi re a rm b y a c o n v ic te d fe lo n . T he C our ti ns truct s you thatthi s te s t i m ony m us tnotbe us ed as evi dence of gui l tas t o count s one and tw o of the i ndi ctm ent, arm ed robbe ry and k id n a p p in g . ¶35. I n l i ght of the f

act that the count s are i nt erw oven, a l i m i t i ng i ns truct i on w as gi ven. G i vi ng the tr i al c our tthe def er ence i ts houl d be af

f or ded, w e f

i nd i tact ed w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on
w h en itd en ied W il li am s’s M o ti o n to se v er c o u n t th ree , co n v ict ed felon in p o sses sion o f a f i r e a r m.

### 16

¶36. W i th r egar d t o W i l l i ams’ s m ot i on t o s t i pul at e t o hi s pr i orconvi ct i on, W i l l i ams ar gued th at i n tr o d u cti o n of his prior arm ed rob b ery t o pro v e co u n t three of th e ind ictm e n t w o u ld unf ai r l y pr ej udi ce the j ury t o convi cthi m on the curr entarm ed r obbery char ge, countone. W ill iam s c ited n o c a s e la w b e fo re th e trial c o u rt, b u t o n a p p e a l ar g u e s th a t O ld Chi ef v. U nited States , 519 U
. S
. 172 , 117 S. C t . 644 , 136 L
. E d. 2d 5 4 7 (19 9 7 ) ( O ld Ch ief I ) is d is p o s itiv e o f t h e is s u e . ¶37. T he St at e ar gued bef or e the tr i al court that “w her e a pr i or convi ct i on i s an el ementof the cr i m e, the St at e i s a uthor i zed t o i ntr oduce evi dence of the convi ct i on and i s notl i m i t ed i n i t s m ethod of

pr oof
. ” The St at e ci t ed Ca rte r v. S ta te , 941 So. 2d 846, 854 (M i s s . C t . A pp. 2006) and E v a n s v. S ta te , 8 0 2 S o . 2 d 1 3 7 , 1 4 0 (M iss
. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) as su p p o rt fo r its
a r g u me n t . Th e S t a t e i n c o rr e c t l y a r g u e d a ttr i a l th a tth e s e c a s e s we r e M i s s i s s i p p i S u p r e me C our tcas es . O n appea l , the St at e corr ect l y i dent i f i ed the ca s es as havi ng been he ar d by the C o u rto f A p p ea ls. T h e S tat e d id n o t r esp o n d in an y w ay to the cit ati o n o f O ld Ch ief I
. ¶38. I n denyi ng W i l l i ams’ s m ot i ons t o s everori n the al t ernat i ve t o s t i pul at e, the tr i al j udge
s t at ed, T he C our tdoes n’ tbel i eve thatther e i s any u nf ai rpr ej udi ce unde rthe circu m stan ce s a n d also , in the interest of jud ici al ec o n o m y , b u t, m o re i m port antl y, the C our tdoes notbel i eve i t ’ s unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al underthe ci r cumst ance s , and eve n m or e i m por t antthan that , t he cas e author i ty ci t ed by the S t at e is q ui t e per s uas i ve thatthe C our ti s t o deny the mot i on of the d e fe n d a n t. ¶39. I n O ld Ch ief I, the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t r ever s ed and r emanded the cas e f or furthe r pro ce ed ing s w h ere a d istri ct co u rt h a d a ll o w ed the S tat e to in tr o d u ce ev iden ce o f a def endant ’ s pr i orconvi ct i on overthe def end ant’ s obj ect i on and w her e the def endanthad

### 17

o ff e re d to s tip u la te to h is p ri o r c o n v ic tio n . O ld Ch ief I, 5 19 U
. S. at172. O n r emand, the N in th C ir c u it C o u rto f A p p e a ls s ta te d , R e g a rd les s o f th e d e fe n d a n t' s o ffe r to stip u late , the g o v e rn m e n t is e n tit led to pr ove a pr i orfe l ony off ens e thr ough i ntr oduct i on of pr obat i ve evi dence
. See U n itedS ta tes v. B re itk re u tz , 8 F .3 d 6 8 8 , 6 9 0 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). U n d e r N in th C i r cui tl aw , a s t i pul at i on i s notpr oof , and, thus , i thas no pl ace i n the FR E 403 balanci ng process.

. . . T hus , w e hol d t hatt he di s tr i ctcour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on by al l ow i ng the pr os ecut i on t o i ntr oduce e vi dence of O l d C hi ef

' s pri orconvi ct i on t o pr ove that el ementof

the unl aw f

ul pos s es s i on char ge. U nited States v. O ld Chi ef , 1 2 1 F
. 3 d 4 4 8 , 4 4 9 (9th C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ) ( O ld Ch ief I I ) ( r emanded f

or
rese n tenc ing o n u n related g rou n d s)(i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). ¶40. T hi s C our tdi s cus s ed O ld Ch ief I i n R ig b y v. S ta te , 8 2 6 S o . 2 d 6 9 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 ). T h is Co u r twa s f

a c e d th e r e i n wi th a n o f

f e rt o s t i p u l a t e t o p r i o rDUI c o n v i c t i o n s i n a f e l o n y DUI
c a se . T h e C o u rt a ffirm e d the co n v ictio n an d h e ld th a t “P rio r D U I c o n v ictio n s a re e lem e n ts of a fe l ony D U I char ge and a r e r equi r ed t o be s ubm i t t ed t o a j ury. ” R i gby , 826 So. 2d at702. R i gby expr es s l y di s t i ngui s hed O ld Ch ief I bas ed on t he char ged of f ens e, opi ni ng that , “the natur e of convi ct i ons thatar e el ement s of f el ony D U I i s i m por t ant . ” I d. T he C our ts t at ed, O ld Ch ief i s e s s ent i al l y t he Sup rem e C ourt ' s i nt erpre t at i on of t he F ederal R ul e s of Evi de nc e . Thus, i n t he ve r y s pe c i f i c i ns t anc e of

a de f e ndant c har ge d as a f

e l on i n pos s e s s i on o f

a f i r e ar m , t he C ourt found t hat t he unde r l yi ng f

e l ony , whi l e an e l e m e nt of t he c r i m e , was i r r e l e va nt . I n a fe lo n y D U I c a se , th e n a tu r e o f th e u n d e r ly in g fe lo n ie s is e x tr e m e ly rel eva n t as only pr i or D U I c on vict i on s w i l l just i fy t h e ch arg e. T h u s, R i gby ' s s ugg e s t i on t hat we e xt e nd O ld Ch ief' s r e a so n in g to D U I c a se s is m or e l i ke at t e m pt i ng t o f i t a s i z e s i x s hoe on a s i z e t e n f oo t . I t c an no t be done!

. . . D es pi t e thi s f

i ndi ng, cert ai n pr ocedur al s af eguar ds ar e w a rr a nt e d i f a de f endant of f er s t o s t i pul at e t o pr evi ous D U I convi ct i ons . T he tr i al courts houl d acc ept

### 18

s uch s t i pul at i ons , a nd they s houl d be s ubm i t t ed t o the j ury w i th a p roper l i m i t i ng i ns truct i on. T he i ns truct i on s houl d expl ai n t o t he j ury t hatthe pr i or D U I convi ct i ons s houl d be cons i dered f orthe s ol e purpos e of

det erm i ni ng w h e th e r th e d e fe n d a n t is g u ilty o f fe lo n y D U I a n d th a t su c h e v id e n c e sh o u ld n o t b e c o n sid e re d in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e d e fe n d a n t ac ted in c o n fo rm ity w ith su c h c o n v ictio n s in th e p re se n tly c h a rg e d o ffe n s e . See U nited States v. Munoz , 150 F. 3d 401 ( 5th C i r . 1998).
. . . [ T ] he i m pactof the evi dence of

pr i or bad ac t s m us tbe l i ght ened a s m uch as pos s i bl e. T hus , i f a de f endants t i pul at es to th e p ri o r D U I c o n v ic tio n s , a lim itin g in s tru c tio n a c c o m p lis h e s th is g o a l. R i gby , 826 So. 2d 700- 03 (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l)
. W h e re e v id e n c e o f a p rio r c o n v ictio n is
a nec es s ary el em ent of t he cr i m e f orw hi ch the def

endanti s on tr i al ( i
. e. , pos s es s i on of f i r earm by a convi ct ed f

el on) , butevi dence of

the s p e c i f i c n a t u r e o

f th e c r i me f

orw hi ch the def endantw as pr evi ous l y convi ct ed ( i
. e. , arm ed r obbery) , i s notan es s ent i al el ementof the
cr i m e f orw hi ch the def

endanti s on tr i al , a s i ti s i n D U I cas es , the tr i al courts houl d acc ept a def endant ’ s of

f ert o s t i pul at e and gr anta l i m i t i ng i ns truct i on. ¶41. T he count t o w hi ch W i l l i ams s ought t o s t i pul at e w as , f or al l pr act i cal pu rpose s , the
s ame as thati n O ld Chief , p o s s e s s io n o f a f

ir e a rm b y a c o n v ic te d fe lo n . O ld Ch ief I, 5 1 9 U. S . a t 1 7 4 . F u rt h e rm o re , Carter and Evans , the ca s es cit ed by t he St at e and r el i ed upon by the tr i al court , w here h anded dow n pr i ort o R i gby
. M ore i m po rt antl y, i n n ei ther of tho se
cas es di d the def

endant s of

f era st i pul at i on. I n the pr es entcas e, the tr i al courtgave W illia m s ’s lim itin g in s tru c tio n , b u t d e n ie d h is m o tio n to s tip u la te . In li g h t of th is C o u rt ’s interpre tat ion o f O ld Ch ief I i n R i gby , the tr i al c our terr ed w hen i tdeni ed W i l l i ams’ s of f er to s tip u la te to h is p ri o r c o n v ic tio n . ¶42. I t i s es peci al l y i m por t ant t o al l ow a s t i pul at i on w hen a def endant i s bei ng pr os ecut ed
on m ul t i pl e of

f ens es . W hen a pr os ecut ori s f ace d w i th a s cena r i o l i ke t hi s one, w her e the under l yi ng convi ct i on s uppor t i ng a c har ge of pos s es s i on of

a f i r earm by f

el on i s the s ame or

### 19

sim ilar to o n e o f th e o th e r o ffe n se s c h a rg e d , th e n the p ro se c u to r m u st a rticu late a re a so n to j us t i f y denyi ng a def

endant ’ s of

f ert o s t i pul at e. T he r eas on m us ti l l us tr at e w hy the pr obat i ve
v a lu e is n o t s u b s ta n tia lly o u tw e ig h e d b y th e p o te n tia l p re ju d ic e . ¶43
. H ow ever, “[ f] ew , i f any , prosecuti on s hav e b ee n p erfect , and there can be err ors –
e v e n e rr o rs o f c o n s titu tio n a l p ro p o rt io n s – w h ic h d o n o t r e q u ir e r e v e rs a l o f a c o n v ic tio n .” T r an , 9 6 2 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 4 6 . W h e re a n e rr o r i s d e e m e d h a rm le s s , re v e rs a l is n o t w a rr a n te d
. I d. at1247. In the pr es entcas e, w e f i nd t he deni al of W i l l i ams’ s off ert o st i pul at e t o hi s pr i or
arm ed r obbery convi ct i on t o be harm l es s err or . W i l l i ams’ s convi ct i on i s s uppor t ed by
o v erw h elm ing ev iden ce inclu d ing the v ict im ’s ph o to li n e-u p iden ti fi ca ti o n , the v ict im ’s t es 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, and 911 audi ot ape. A l though the tr i al courterr ed i n denyi ng the of f ert o s t i pul at e, i n l i ghtof the overw hel m i ng
e v id e n c e , th e e rr o r i s h a rm le s s . IV . W h e th e r th e T r ia l C o u r t C o m m itte d R e v e r sib le E r r o r W h e n it D eni ed W i l l i am s ’ s M ot i on i n L i m i ne t o P rohi bi t t he St at e f rom R e fe r r in g to H is A r r e s t i n a S to le n V e h ic le . ¶4 4
. “[A ] m o ti o n in lim ine sh o u ld b e g ran ted o n ly w h en the tr ial co u rt fi n d s tw o fac tors
ar e pr es ent( 1) the m at er i al ore vi dence i n que s t i on w i l l be i nadmi s s i bl e ata tr i al underthe
rul es of evi dence ; and ( 2) the mer e of f er , r ef er ence , ors t at ement s m ade dur i ng tr i al
conce rni ng the mat er i al w i l l t end t o pr ej udi ce the j ury. ” He rs ick v. S ta te , 904 So. 2d 116, 127 (M is s . 2 0 0 4 )( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). ¶45. W i l l i ams ar gued at tr i al that r ef er ence t o the f

act that the veh i cl e i n w hich he w as
arr es t ed w as al l egedl y “ s tolen ” w a s irre lev a n t t o the ch a rg e s b ro u g h t by th e S tate a n d sh o u ld notbe admi t t ed as i tw as “extr emel y pr ej udi ci al
. ” W i l l i ams cont ends thatany r ef er ence

### 20

s houl d have be en exc l uded underM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 403 as i rr el evantor under R u le 4 0 4 (b ) a s e v id e n c e o f a n o th e r b a d a c t. ¶ 4 6
. T h e S tate re sp o n d e d a t trial th a t th e in tro d u c tio n o f e v id e n c e re fe rrin g to th e v e h icle as “ s tolen , ” w as a d m issi b le un d er a n ex ce p ti o n to M issi ssipp i R u le of E v iden ce 4 0 4 (b),
s peci f i cal l y i dent i ty; thatW i l l i ams’ s arr es ti n the s t ol en vehi cl e l ed t o the i dent i f i cat i on of hi s i nvol vementw i th the cr i m es char ged, and the St at e has a r i ghtt o t el l a cont i nuous s t ory. ¶47. T he tr i al court , i n denyi ng W i l l i ams’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne, s t at ed, [ I] ti s the C our t ’ s opi ni on thatthi s w as i nt er l i nked w i th the i dent i f i cat i on of thi s runni ng the t ag on thi s L exus , w hi t e Lexus, and runni ng t he t ag l ed di r ect l y t o the i dent i f

i cat i on of

thi s defenda nti n connec t i on w i th the s ubj ect cr i m e thathe’ s char ged w i th thatw e’ r e i n tr i al t oday. ¶48. T he gener al rul e i s that evi dence of a cr i m e, other than the one f or w hi ch the ac cus ed is b e in g tr ie d , is n o t a d m is s ib le
. P a lm e r v . Sta te , 9 3 9 S o . 2 d 7 9 2 , 7 9 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). H ow ever , ther e ar e exc ept i ons t o thi s gener al rul e as p r ovi ded by M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E v iden ce 4 0 4 (b): E vi dence of

othercr i m es , w r ongs , oract s i s notadm i ssi bl e t o pr ove the char act erof

a per s on i n or dert o s how thathe ac t ed i n conf or m i ty ther ew i th. I tm ay, how ever , be admi s s i bl e f orotherpurpos es s uch as pr oof of m ot i ve, oppor tuni ty, i nt ent , pr epar at i on, pl an, know l edge, i dent i ty, orabs ence of m ista k e o r a c c id e n t. ¶49
. E vidence of oth er crim es o r bad act s al so is ad m i ssi ble t o t el l the co m plet e st ory so
a s n o t to c o n fu s e th e ju ry . P al m er , 9 3 9 S o . 2 d a t 7 9 5 ; B a llen g e r v. S ta te , 667 S o. 2d 1242, 1257 ( M i s s . 1995)
. “[ T ] he St at e has a l egi t i m at e i nt er es ti n t el l i ng a r at i onal and cohe r ent sto ry o f w h a t h a p p e n e d . W h e re s u b sta n tially n e c e ss a ry to p re se n t to th e ju ry th e c o m p lete st ory of the cri m e, evidence o r t est i m on y m ay be given ev en thoug h itm ay reveal orsugg est

### 21

othercr i m es . ” P al

m er , 9 3 9 S o . 2 d at 79 5 (i n terna l ci tat ion s an d q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). ¶50. “Even w her e evi dence of other cr i m es i s admi s s i bl e under M
. R
. E
. 404( b) , i t can not be admi t t ed unl es s i tal s o pas s es m us t erunderM
. R
. E
. 403. T hati s , the r i s k of undue pr ej udi ce m us tnots ubs t ant i al l y outw ei gh i t s pr obat i ve val ue. ” B allenger , 667 So. 2d at 1257. I n the pr es entcas e, evi dence of W i l l i ams’ s arr es ti n a st ol en vehi cl e w as i ntr oduced t o expl ai n w hy he w as a rr es t ed, how hi s pi ctur e ca m e t o be partof the phot ogr aph l i neup, and how he ul t i m at el y w as l i nked w i th the cr i m es char ged. Fur therm or e, thi s evi dence w as
esse n tial t o p rov ide th e jury w ith a “ co m p let e sto ry” o f th e e v en ts th at l ed to W il li am s’s bei ng i dent i f

i ed as the per s on w ho perpetr at ed the cr i m es char ged. E vi dence of the s t ol en
v e h i c l e wa s a d mi s s i b l e u n d e rMi s s i s s i p p i Ru l e o f E v i d e n c e 4 0 4 ( b ) a n d M i s s i s s i p p i c a s e l a w. I n ad di t i on , s a i d e vi de nc e was p r ob a t i ve t o s ho w W i l l i a ms w a s i nv ol ve d i n the ar m ed
r obbery, ki dnappi ng, and pos s es s i on of a f i r earm by a convi ct ed f

el on. T he pr obat i ve val ue
o f t h is e v id e n c e w a s n o t s u b s ta n tia lly o u tw e ig h e d b y th e d a n g e r o f u n fa irp re ju d ic e . CO NC L US I ON ¶ 5 1
. F o r th e r e a s o n s s t a t e d a b o v e , we f i n d a l l a s s i g n me n t s o f e rr o r t o b e me r i t l e s s , a n d we
a ff ir m th e c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . ¶ 5 2
. CO UN T I : CO NVI CT I ON OF ARM ED ROB B E RY AN D S E NT E NC E OF TW EN TY - F I VE ( 2 5 ) YE ARS I N T HE CU S TODY OF M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M EN T OF CO RRECTI ON S , AFF I RM ED
. COUNT I I : CONVI CT I ON OF KI DNAP P I NG AN D S E NT E NC E OF T W E NT Y ( 2 0 ) YE ARS I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M ISS ISS IP P I D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T IO N S , A F F IR M E D . S E N T E N C E IN C O U N T II SH A L L R U N C O N C U R R E N T L Y W IT H T H E S E N T E N C E IN C O U N T I. CO UNT I I I : CO NVI CT I ON OF P OS S ES S I ON OF A HANDGUN B Y A CO NVI CTED F E L ON AN D S E NT E NC E OF T HR E E ( 3 ) YE AR S I N THE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M ISS ISS IP P I D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T IO N S , A F F IR M E D . S E N T E N C E IN COUNT I I I S HALL RUN CONS EC UT I VE LY W I TH T HE S EN TE NCE I N COUNT I.

### 22 W AL LE R, P . J . , E AS LE Y, CA RL S ON, DI CKI NS ON, RA NDOL P H A ND LAM AR, J J . , CO NCU R. GR AV ES, J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y D I A Z, P . J.
GR AV E S , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶ 5 3
. T o d a y , the m a

jo rity o ffe rs a fu ll a n a ly sis o f th is C o u rt’s d e c isio n in R i gby , penned by C hi ef J us t i ce Smi th, as i tr el at es t o one of the i s s ues r ai s ed by W i l l i ams on appe al : W hether th e trial c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g a m o tio n to se v e r co u n ts a g a in st th e d e fe n d a n t,
oral t ernat i vel y, i n r ef

us i ng t o al l ow the def

endantt o s t i pul at e t o a pr i orconvi ct i on of a r m ed
ro b b e ry . R ig b

y v. S ta te , 826 So. 2d 694 (M i s s . 2002). T he m aj or i ty fi nds that“[ i ] n l i ghtof this C ou rt ’s i nterpret at ion o f O ld Ch ief I i n R i gby , the tr i al courterr ed w hen i tdeni ed W i l l i ams’ s of

f ert o st i pul at e t o hi s pr i orconvi ct i on. ” U l t i m at el y, how ever , the maj or i ty f i nds th a t th e d e n ial o f W ill iam s’s o ffe r to stip u late to h is p rio r a rm e d ro b b e ry c o n v ictio n a m o u n ts to h arm less erro r. W h il e I a g ree w ith the m ajority ’s i n terpretati o n o f R i gby a s it ap p lies to th e in sta n t ca se , I re sp e c tfu lly d isa g re e th a t th e trial c o u rt’s d e n ial o f W ill iam s’s o ffe r to sti p u lat e to h is prior co n v ict ion is m ere h arm less erro r. ¶54. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our ti n O ld Ch ief I c a m e to its h o ld in g a fte r th o ro u g h ly anal yzi ng F edera l R ul es of E vi dence 403 and 404( b) , as w el l as the comm on l aw . I n O ld Ch ief I the C our thel d: G i ven thes e pec ul i ar i t i es of the el ementof

f el ony- convi cts t atus and of a d m iss io n s a n d th e lik e w h e n u se d to p ro v e it , th e re is n o c o g n iza b le di f f er ence betw een the evi dent i ary s i gni f i canc e of an admi s s i on and of

the leg iti m a tely p ro b a tiv e co m p o n e n t o f th e o ffic ial re c o rd th e p ro se c u tio n w o u ld pr e f e rt o p l a c e i n e vi de nc e . Forpu rpo s e s of the Rul e 40 3 wei gh i ng of the p rob ati v e a g ains t th e p rejud ici al, the fu n cti o n s of th e co m p eti n g ev iden ce are di s t i ngui s habl e onl y by the r i s k i nher enti n the one a nd w hol l y abs entf r om the

### 23

other
. I n t his cas e, as i n any otheri n w hi ch the pr i orconvi ct i on i s f oran o ffe n se lik e ly to su p p o rt c o n v ictio n o n so m e im p ro p e r g ro u n d , the o n ly re a so n a b le c o n c lu sio n w a s th a t th e risk o f u n fa ir p re ju d ice d id su b sta n tially outw ei gh the di s count ed pr obat i ve val ue of t he r ecor d of

convi ct i on, and i tw as an abus e o f di scr et i on t o admi tthe r ecor d w hen an a dm i s s i on w as avai l abl e. O ld Chi ef

v. U nited States , 5 1 9 U
. S
. 1 7 2 , 1 9 1 , 1 1 7 S
. C t. 6 4 4 , 1 3 6 L
. E d
. 2 d 5 7 4 (19 9 7 ). W hi l e O ld Ch ief I i nterpret s the F ederal R ules of E vidence, this C ou rthas foun d thatbecau se the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of Evi dence ar e gener al l y t he sa m e as t he Feder al R ul es of E vi dence , i ti s pr opert o cons true ourevi dent i ary rul es us i ng f eder al cas e l aw i nt erpr et i ng
c o rr e s p o n d in g fe d e ra l ru le s . See H a ll v. S ta te , 6 9 1 S o . 2 d 4 1 5 , 4 2 0 n . 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). F u r th e r mo r e , a s r e c o g n i z e d b y th e ma j o r i ty , th e Co u r ta p p l i e d th e ru l e f r o m O ld Ch ief I

in R i gby, fin d in g “ th a t w h e re ev id e n c e o f a p rio r c o n v ictio n is n o t an e ss e n tial e lem e n t, as it i s in D U I ca se s, tha t a trial co u rt sh o u ld ac c e p t a d e fe n d a n t’s o ffe r to stip u late an d g ra n t a l i m i t i ng i ns truct i on. ” ¶55. “I n T

h o m a s v . S ta te , 7 1 1 S o . 2 d 8 6 7 , 8 7 2 (M iss
. 1 9 9 8 ), th is C o u rt d isc u ss e d th e b a sic t es tf orharm l es s e rr or , w her ei n w e s t at ed, ‘ the i nqui ry i s notw hetherthe j ury cons i der ed the im p ro p e r e v id e n c e o r la w a t all, b u t ra th e r, w h e th e r th e e rro r w a s u n im p o rta n t in re latio n to
everythi ng e l s e the j ury cons i der ed on the i s s ue i n ques t i on. ’ ” T a n n e r v . S ta te , 764 S o. 2d 385, 399- 400 ( M i s s . 2000)
. T he m aj or i ty of f er s no r eas onabl e expl anat i on as t o how s uch abus e of di s cr et i on coul d be cons i der ed harm l es s err orexce ptt o s ay, “W i l l i ams’ s convi ct i on i s s uppor t ed by overw hel m i ng evi dence , i ncl udi ng t he vi ct i m ’ s phot o l i ne- up i dent i f i cat i on, th e v ic tim ’s te s tim o n y , c o rr o b o ra tin g g a s s ta tio n s u rv e illa n c e v id e o ta p e , a n d 9 1 1 a u d io ta p e .” A bs enta s peci f

i c i nqui ry t o eac h j ur oras t o w hatf act s l ed t o hi s orherdeci s i on t o f i nd W i l l i ams gui l ty, the maj or i ty i s m er el y s pecul at i ng thatthe otherf act s l ed the j ury t o r eac h

### 24

a gui l ty ver di ctr atherthan the “i m pr opergr ound, ” the admi s s i on of W i l l i ams’ s pr i orarm ed
ro b b e ry c o n v ic tio n . O ld Chi ef , 5 1 9 U .S . a t 1 9 1
. ¶56. T her ef

or e, I r es pect f

ul l y di s s ent and w oul d r evers e and rem and the cas e f or a new tr ia l. DI AZ , P . J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.