### Birkheadfiled a p re tr ia l mo tionfor a mental evalu ationat the M ississipp i State 1 

### Hospi ta l at Whit fi el d, whic h wa s grante d. A neuropsyc hologi st opined that Birkhe ad wa s mildlymentallyretarded . Th e Mississip pi S tate H osp ital staff disag reed withth at diag no sis

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 6 6 6 - S CT RICHARD EARL B I

RKHEAD
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON M OTI ON F OR RE HEAR I NG
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 08/ 2007 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. M AR GAR E T CA RE Y- M CC RA Y COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W ASHI NGTON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F I ND I GEN T APPEALS BY : LESL I E S. LEE J US T I N T AYL OR CO OK 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 : J OY CE CH I LES 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 - 02/ 17/ 2011 M O T I O N FO R R E H E A R I N G FI L E D : 03/ 05/ 2009 M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . R ich a rd E a rl B irk h e a d ’s m o tio n fo r re h e a ri n g is d e n ie d . T h e p re v io u s m a jo rity
o p inion o f th is C o u rtis w ith d raw n an d this op inion is sub sti tuted there for. ¶2. O n N ovember21, 2003, B i r khead w as i ndi ct ed f orthe c a pi t a l mur derof

W al t er L ani er w hi l e e ng a ge d i n a r ob be r y. A f ou r - da y j ury tr i a l was c on du c t e d i n the Ci r c ui tC our tof 1

### and de te rm ine d that Birkhe ad was not me nta lly re tarde d. Thetria l c ourt , c iting Atki ns v . Virginia , 536 U. S. 304, 122 S. Ct . 2242, 153 L . E d. 2d 335 (2002), grante d Bir khea d’s motion t o pre clude the St at e f rom se eking the death pena lt

y. The tri alcourt’ s order

granting the mo tionto p reclud e the d eath p enaltyis no t at issue inthis ap peal. 2 W as hi ngt on C ounty. A f t erthe St at e r es t ed, B i r khead moved f ordi r ect ed ver di ct , w hi ch the tr i al courtdeni ed. B i r khead di d nott es t i f y and of f er ed no w i t nesses. T he j ury f ound B irk h e a d g u ilty o f ca p ital m u rd e r. B irk h e a d th e n re n e w e d h is m o tio n fo r d ire c ted v e rd ict,
ori n the al t ernat i ve, s oughta new tr i al
. T he tr i al courtden i ed hi s m ot i on. B i r khead w as s ent ence d as a habi tual of f enderand w as or der ed t o s erve l i f e w i thoutpar ole i n t he M iss iss ip p i D e p a rtm e n t o f C o rre c tio n s. B irk h e a d a p p e a ls fro m th is ju d g m e n t. ¶ 3 . B irk h e a d p re se n ts th e fo llo w in g iss u e s fo r a p p e a l: I . W het her t he tr i a l c ou r t e rr e d w he n i t de t e r mi ne d the de f e ns e ha d not es t abl i s hed a pr i m a f

aci e cas e of

di s cr i m i nat i on i n the St at e’ s s el ect i on of j ury m em bers and u se of perem ptory st ri kes. II. W h e th e r th e tri al co u rtab u sed i ts d isc re tio n in a llo w in g th e d e a th c e rt if ic a te in to e v id e n c e w h e n it s h o w e d a p u rp o rt e d tim e o f i n ju ry . I I I . W hetherBi r khead’ s c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o conf r ont at i on w as vi ol at ed by the admi s s i on of

the vi ct i m ’ s death cert i f i cat e i nt o evi dence
. IV . W h ethe r th e tri al co u rterred in n o t dism issi n g a slee p ing juro r. V . W h ethe r th e tr ial co u rterred i n no t d ec lari n g a m istri al aft er a w itn ess’s c o m m e n t re g a rd in g B irk h e a d ’s e x e rc ise o f h is rig h t to re m a in sile n t. V I . W hetherthe tr i al cour ter r ed i n gi vi ng J ury I ns truct i on C R - 12 r egar di ng at t orney’s notes . V II. W h e th e r th e re w a s c u m u lativ e e rr o r w h ic h d e p ri v e d B irk h e a d o f h is ri g h t to a fu n d a m e n ta lly fa irtr ia l. FACTS ¶4. O n July 12, 2003, e i ghty- one- year - ol d W al t er Lan i er l eftH am bu rg, A rkansas, b e tw e e n 3 :0 0 a n d 4 :0 0 p .m ., to g o to a g a m in g b o a t (c a sin o ) in G re e n v ill e , M iss iss ip p i.

### 3

Sur vei l l ance t apes f

r om the J ubi l ee C as i no s how the vi ct i m , Lani er , e nt er i ng the casi no at 9 : 0 0 p . m. o n J u l y 1 2 , 2 0 0 3 , a n d e x i t i n g th e s a me c a s i n o o n J u l y 1 3 , 2 0 0 3 , a t2 : 1 7 a . m. ¶5 . T he St a t e ’ s f

i r s tw i tne s s w a s Lan i e r ’ s da ug ht e r . She t e s t i f i e d tha t“ [ a ] f

t e rm y m om pas s ed aw ay, . . . I don’ tthi nk [ L ani er ] l i ked s t ayi ng i n the hous e very m uch. A l otof t i m es h e wo u l d j u s ts i ti n th e c a ra n d d r i n k h i s b e e r , s mo k e a c i g a r e t t e , a n d l i s t e n t o th e r a d i o . He di d thata l ot . ” In tera lia , s he f ur thert es t i f

i ed thatLani erha d s m oked M on t cl ai r - br and ciga rett es a n d g en era ll y d ran k B u d w eiser b ee r. ¶6 . O ffi ce r Jeffery P arso n s, w h o w as a p atrolm an w ith the W ash ing ton C o u n ty S h eriff’s O f f i ce, t es t i f i ed he he ar d on hi s s canne rthatther e w as a di s turbance as the ni ght cl ub w as cl os i ng atthe J ubi l ee Casi no. W hi l e O f f i cerP ar s ons w as dr i vi ng thr ough the parki ng l otof the ca s i no, he not i ced a gr ay C adi l l ac w i th a w hi t e mal e seat ed i n the f r onts eatand an A f r i can- A m er i can mal e s eat ed i n the bac k s eat , w hi ch r ai s ed hi s s us pi ci on. M om ent ar i l y, O f f i ce rPa r s on s was f

l a gg e d do w n by a n un kn own f e mal e , who d i r e c t e d hi m ba c k t o t he
s ame C adi l l ac. ¶7 . W hen O f

f i cerPar s on s r e turne d t o the Cad i l l a c , h e s a w the d e f e nd a nte xi tt he r ear pas s engerdoorand w al k r api dl y t ow ar d the ca s i no. O f f i cerPar s ons r adi oed an of f i cerof t he G r eenvi l l e Pol i ce D epart m entw ho w as al s o i n the parki ng l ot , a nd advi s ed thatthe def endant
s houl d be det ai ned
. O f f i cerPar s ons then exi t ed hi s patr ol car , pur s ui ng and mai nt ai ni ng vi s ual cont actw i th the def endant
. O f

f i cerPars on s t es t i f

i ed the l i ght i ng w as good and that
n o o th e r p e o p le w e re w a lk in g in th a t ar e a o f th e p a rk in g lo t. ¶ 8 . Of

f i c e rP a r s o n s tr a i l e d th e d e f e n d a n tu n t i l h e s a w Of

f i c e rRo d S h a n n o n d e t a i n h i m. A bo utf i ve t o s i x s t e ps f

r om w he r e the de f

e nd a ntw a s de t a i ne d, O f f i c e rPar s ons found a

### 4

k n if e. O ffi ce r P arso n s d id n o t t o u ch the k n if e, bu t i n ste a d n o ti fi ed a su p erv isi n g o ffi ce r. O f f i cerPar s ons conf

i r m ed thatthe def

endantw as the s ame m al e w hom he had s een exi tt he back s eatof

the C adi l l ac. T he man i dent i f i ed hi m sel f as R i char d B i r khead. A s upervi s i ng o ffic e r c o llec ted B irk h e a d ’s r e d -sta in e d sh irt, a lo n g w ith th e k n ife , w h ich h a d b lo o d o n its bl ade, and gave them t o I nves t i gat orM i s ty L i t t on as evi dence
. ¶9. A f

t erB i r khea d was pl a c e d i n the c us t od y o f the G r eenvi l l e Pol i ce D epart m ent , O f f i cer Par s on s r e turned t o the C adi l l ac. T her e, O f f i cerPar s ons f

ound G r eenvi l l e Pol i ce D epart m ent of f i c e r s a nd p a r a medi c s f r om D e l t a Reg i on a l M e di c a l Cen t e r( “ D RM C”) , w ho
uns ucce s s f

ul l y t r i ed t o r es us ci t at e the vi ct i m , l at eri dent i f i ed as L ani er , i n the ca r . L ani erw as tr ans por t ed t o D R M C , w her e he w as of f i ci al l y pr onounced de ad by D r. M ari l yn M cLeod. O ffi ce r Pa rson s did n o t rec all th e ti m e h e arri v ed at the sc en e, n o r did h is rep o rtrefl ec t a t i m e. ¶ 1 0 . Ju st ou tsi d e L an ier’s ve h icl e, i n v esti g ators c o ll ec ted s ev era l M o n tcl air-bran d cig a re tte b u tts a n d o n e S ta r- b ra n d c ig a re tte b u tt, a lo n g w ith fo u r e m p ty B u d w e is e r b e e r c a n s . 

### From thebac k se at , inves ti gators colle ct ed a sm al l blue i ceche st

and a Budwei se r twelve- pac k cartoncontainin g eig ht uno pen ed can s. ¶11 . O ff

i cer B ri an P ayn e t est i fi ed t hat w hen he had arr i ved atL anier ’s veh i cl e, i n res po nse t o O f f i cerPar s ons ’ s cal l , O f

f i cerScot tSt ew artand O f f i cerJ as on J enki ns al r eady w er e ther e. A cc o rdin g to O ffi ce r P ay n e, th ere w ere n o sign s o f force d en try into the ca r. O ffi ce r S tew art advi s ed hi m that“the s ubj ecti n the ca rw as bl eedi ng an d i s poss i bl y dece as ed. ” O f f i cer Payne att empt ed t o t ake Lani er ’ s pul s e and f ound none. Lani ere xhi bi t ed no others i gns of l i f e. N onethel es s , O f

f i cerPayne be gan per f

or m i ng ches tcompre s s i ons on L ani er . H e f ound

### Off ic er Paynevolunt ee re d that hepre vious ly ha d worke d w i th a n ambul anc e s er

vic e, 2 

### and anothe r wi tne ss te stif ie d that Of

fi ce r Payne ha d se rve d as an Ar my m edi c. Wh ile Bo x 2 9c o f the d eath certificate, “H our of Injury,” read s “3:3 8 a.m.,” sep arate 3 

### section s of B ox25 are left blank reg ardin g th e “[i]nterval b etweenon set anddeath .” 5 the vi ct i m “w arm t o the t ouch[ , ] ” w i th hi s bl ood notyetc oagul at ed, i
. e. , “ the bl ood had not
s t art ed t o cl ot. . . . ” O f

f i cerPayne obs erved thatthe bl ood w as “s t i l l f r es h, ” and opi ned the
s t abbi ng h ad “hap pened w i thi n t he l as tf i ve t o t en mi nut es . ” Shor t l y af t erO f f i cerPayne 2
arr i ved, par amedi cs w er e on the s cene . O f f i cerPayne r ode w i th the par amedi cs i n t he
am bul ance tr ans port i ng L ani ert o the hos pi t al
. O f f i cerPayne t es t i f

i ed thatD r . M cLeod p ro n o u n c e d L a n ier d e a d a t th e h o sp ital. ¶12. Fol l ow i ng O f

f i cer Pa yn e’s tes t i m on y, the St at e moved t o have a cert i f i ed copy of L ani er ’ s death cert i f

i cat e adm i t t ed i nt o evi dence
. W hen the dea th cert i f i cat e w as of

f er ed, t he f ol l ow i ng excha nge t ook pl ace : C our t : I s ther e any obj ect i on? D ef ens e C ouns el : Y ourH onor , m ay w e appr oach? C o u rt : Y e s . (C o n fe re n c e a t th e B e n c h , o u t o f t h e h e a ri n g o f t h e ju ry ). D ef ens e C ouns el : O n the r eport they have the hour of i nj ury as be i ng 3: 38

a .m .[ ] I d o n ’t k n o w th a t th e y h a v e e sta b lish e d th a t. 3 T h ey h av e the h o u r of d ea th a s b eing 3 :50 a.m . I do n ’t th in k th e y h a v e e sta b lish e d th a t. W e w ill o b jec t to it bei ng i ntr oduced. St at e C ouns el : I t ’ s a s t at e of f i ci al r ecor d, Y ourhonor , cert i f i ed under the la w s o f t h e S ta te o f M is s is s ip p i. C o u rt : I w ill a llo w it. D ef ens e C ouns el : I have a ques t i on. I s anybody comi ng t o t es t i f y about that death cert i f

i cat e? S ta te C o u n s e l: It ’s a c e rt if ie d c o p y . It ’s a d m is s ib le u n d e r t h e ru le s .A s t hi s col l oquy re f l ect s , B i r khead m ade ne i thera C onf r ont at i on C l aus e obj ect i on, 4 nora hea r s ay obj ect i on, t o the tr i al court . I ti s unc l eari f the obj ect i on pr es ent ed pert ai ned to a u th e n ticity o r a d m iss ib ili ty . O u t o f a n a b u n d a n c e o f c a u tio n , h o w e v e r, th is C o u rt w ill a d d re s s a ll. See Issu es II an d III supra . 

### 6 D e fe n s e C o u n s e l: O k a y .[ ] 4 ¶13. O f

f i cerSt ew artt es t i f

i ed t hat he had recei ved a dis patch call at“3: 38 [ a. m . ] by paperw or k. ” W hen he a r r i ved on the s cene al ong w i th O f f i cerJ enki ns , he opene d t he pas s engers i de doorand uns ucce s s f ul l y tr i ed t o r ous e Lani er . H e then chec ked t he vi ct i m f or m o v em en t, b rea thing , a p u lse, o r an y o ther sign s o f l if e, an d fou n d n o n e. O ffi ce r S tew art
corr obor at ed O f

f i cerPayne’ s t es t i m ony thatO f f i cerPayne had arr i ved s hor t l y ther eaf t erand had begu n adm i ni s t er i ng C PR on L ani er . O f f i cerSt ew artdi d notknow w hatt i m e Lani er di ed. ¶14. G r eenvi l l e Pol i ce w arr ant of f i cer J i m m y M yr i ck t es t i f i ed he had arr i ved on the s cene a t3 : 3 8 a . m. Of

f i c e rM y r i c k tr a n s p o r t e d Bi r k h e a d t o th e Gr e e n v i l l e p o l i c e s t a t i o n . He obs erved no s cr at ches orbrui s es on B i r khead ors i gns thatBi r khead had bee n i nvol ved i n any phys i cal al t er cat i on. O n t he w ay t o the st at i on, O f f i cerM yr i ck r ece i ved a c al l f r om O f f i cer Payne, w ho w as a tthe hos pi t al w i th Lani er , thatLani erha d be en pr onounced de ad. H e w as a d v ise d th e tim e o f d e a th w a s 4 :0 1 a .m ., a lth o u g h O ffic e r M y ric k “ c o u ld n o t ad v ise a s to
w hetheri tw as pos s i bl e thatL ani erdi ed bef or e 4: 01. ” ¶15. A tthe G reenvi l l e p oli ce st at i on, O f f i cerM yr i ck f

ound $29. 09 of bl ood- s pl at t er ed
m oney on Bi r khead. O f f i cerM yr i ck cal l ed I nves t i gat orLi t t on and w ai t ed w i th the money
a t th e b o o k in g c o u n ter fo r h e r to p ro c e ss it. A fte r O ffic e r M y ric k , se v e ra l o th e r G re e n v ill e

### 7

Pol i ce D epart m entof

f i cer s t es t i f

i ed. O ne of

f i cer , Russ el l Fr azi er , t es t i f i ed t o the pr es ence o f blo o d o n B irk h ea d ’s blu e jea n s (w h ich a lso w ere take n for e v iden ce at bo o k ing ). ¶ 1 6 . F o re n sic D N A a n a ly s t H u m a N a s ir te s tif ie d th a t th e b lo o d o n th e m o n e y fo u n d in B irk h ea d ’s po ck et, o n B irk h ea d ’s j ea n s, an d o n the k n if e b elo n g e d to the v ict im , L an ier. N as i rt es t i f

i ed thatB i r khead’ s D N A w as on a w as hcl oth f ound i n L ani er ’ s carand, bas ed on a part i al D N A pr of

i l e, B i r khead’ s D N A al s o w as on a bas ebal l cap f ound i n the ca r . K en G i l l , a l at entf

i ngerpr i ntexami ner , t es t i f i ed thatB i r khead’ s f

i ngerpr i nt s w er e f

ound on t he
car ’ s r earpas s engerdooras w el l as on the s i l vers tr i p above the doorhandl e. ¶17. L ani er ’ s aut ops y r evea l ed a brui s e on hi s f or ehea d and a s t ab w ound t o hi s ches t . T he pathol ogi s tt es t i f

i ed t hat , w hi l e he coul d notdet erm i ne L ani er ’ s exac tpos i t i on atthe t i m e of the att ack, the w ound t o the f r ontof Lani er ’ s body coul d ha ve been m ade by a per s on s eat ed in th e b a c k se a t o f th e v e h icle a s L a n ier s a t in th e fro n t se a t. T h e p a th o lo g ist tes tified h e d id notdet erm i ne a t i m e of death, as “I w as notas ked t o, and I di d notdo t hat, an d w oul d not h a v e h a d th e re q u is ite in fo rm a tio n a t th a t tim e to c o m e to a c o n c lu s io n .” ¶ 1 8 . N u m e ro u s o th e r w itn e ss e s te stifie d b e fo re th e S tate re ste d . In to tal, tw e lv e G re e n v ill e Pol i ce D epart m entoff

i cer s t es t i f

i ed. A f t ert he St at e r es t ed, t he def ens e moved f

ora di r ect ed verdi ct . W hen that m oti on w as denied, the d efense off ered no w i tnesses. ¶19. B i r khead’ s def

ens e t eam s tructur ed i t s argum ent s i n openi ng s t at ement and cl os i ng ar gum entar ound the l aps e of t i m e betw een w hen the vi ct i m , L ani er , l ef tt he cas i no at2: 17
a.m . u n ti l his bo dy w as di scovered at 3: 38 a. m . In open i ng st at em ent, on e of B i rkhea d ’s att orneys r epea t edl y s tr es s ed thatLani erw as unacc ount ed f ori n the one- hour
- and- tw entyone- m i nute i nt er i m . D ef ens e couns el theor i zed thatB i r khead ha d been on hi s w ay t o t he

### 8

cas i no w hen he ha d s een Lani ers l um ped overi n the ca rand bel i eved Lani erw as sl eepi ng ori nt oxi cat ed. D ef

ens e couns el ar gued B i r khead s aw pr operty on the back s eatand t ook the oppor tuni ty t o s t eal i t . D ef ens e couns el mai nt ai ned Lani erw as dead be f or e B i r khead e nt er ed the vehi cl e. N o w i tnes s es w er e ca l l ed t o s uppor tthi s theory. ¶ 2 0 . 

### Th e exact “time of injury” (apart from the date it occurred, wh ich is un disp ute d ) is not an es se nti alel em ent

of the crim e for

whi ch Bir

khea d wa s indi ct ed, and the St at e ne ver atte mpt ed t o es ta

bli sh an exa ct

“tim e of inj ury. ” The Stat e pr es ent ed e vide nceand argum ent to sup po rt each essential element of the crime. Un der pro per instru ctionof the trial co urt, it was for thejur y to de te rm inewhethe r to ac cept or re je ct the St at e’ s c as e and def

endant’ s the ory. A f

t erde l i ber at i on, the j ury f ound B i r khead gui l ty of capi t al m ur der
. A f

t erdeni al of h is m oti on f

or j ud gm ent no tw i thst and i ng the verdi ct( “JN O V ”), or i n the al t ernat i ve, f o r a n ew tr ial , B irk h ea d ap p ea led h is co n v ict ion to this C o u rt . A b sen t r ev ersible e rror, this C o u rt is d u ty -b o u n d to a ffirm th e ju ry ’s v e rd ict. A N A L Y S IS I . W het her t he tr i al court err ed w hen i t det erm i ned t he def ens e had not es t abl i s hed a pr i m a f

ac i e c as e of

di s c r i m i nat i on i n t he St at e ’ s s e l e c t i on of j ur y m e m be r s and u s e o f p e r e m p to r y s tr ik e s . ¶ 2 1 . A c c o rd in g to th is C o u rt: [a ] B at s on c h a llen g e to a p e re m p to ry strik e sh o u ld p ro c e e d as fo llo w s. F irst, t he def endantm us tes t abl i s h a pr i m a f aci e ca s e of

di s cr i m i nat i on i n the s e le c tio n o f j u ry m e m b e rs . B e rr y v. S ta te , [ 7 0 3 S o . 2 d 2 6 9 , 2 9 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 )] ( ci t i ng B at

s on v. K entucky , 476 U . S. 79, 106 S. C t . 1712, 90 L . E d. 2d 69 ( 1986) )
. T he pr os ecut i on t hen has the bur den of s t at i ng a r aci al l y neutr al r eas on f orthe cha l l enged s tr i ke. I f the S t at e gi ves a r aci al l y neutr al ex p lana ti o n , the d efe n d an t can reb u t th e e x p lana ti o n . F inally, th e tri al co u rt m u st m a k e a fa c tu a l fin d in g to d e ter m in e if th e p ro se c u tio n e n g a g e d in pu rposef ul di scr i m i nati on . I f the defend ant fai l s t o rebut, the tr i al j ud ge m ust

### Although theAme ri can Comm unit y Surve y (ACS) produc es populati on, 5 

### dem ogra phic , and housing-uni t e stim at es , the Census Bure au’ s Popul ation Es timate s Progr amprod

uc e s and di s s e m i nat e s theof

f i c i a le s t i m at e s of

thepo pu l at i onf

or thenati on, states, counties, cities an d to wn s, andestimates of h ou singun its for states an d co unties. 9 b a s e h is d e c is io n o n th e re a s o n s g iv e n b y th e S ta te . T h o rs o n v. S ta te , 721 So. 2 d 5 9 0 , 5 9 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). B e rr y v. S ta te , 8 0 2 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 3 , 1 0 3 7 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ). A d d iti o n a lly , th is C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t: [o] n ap p ell ate rev iew , a tri al co u rt ' s d eterm ination s u n d er Bat s on ar e ac cor ded gr eatd efer ence beca us e they ar e l ar gel y bas ed on cr edi bi l i ty. McG il ber r y v. S ta te , 7 4 1 S o . 2 d 8 9 4 , 9 2 3 (M is s . 1 9 9 9 ) . . . . T h is C o u rt w ill re v e rse o n ly w h e n su c h d e c isio n s a re c lea rly e rro n e o u s . W o o dw a rdv. S ta te , 726 So. 2d 5 2 4 , 5 3 0 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ); L o c k e tt v. S ta te , 51 7 S o. 2d 13 46 , 13 49 -50 (M i ss. 1 9 8 7 ). B erry , 802 So. 2d at1037. ¶22. T hi s c as e w as tr i ed i n W as hi ngt on Count y i n 2007. A ccordi ng t o the 20 05 -2007 A m er i can Com m uni ty Sur vey Thre e- Y earE s t i m at es , the es t i m at ed t ot al popul at i on of 5 W as hi ngt on C ounty w as 56, 605. T he es t i m at ed popul at i on of bl acks orA f

r i can- A m er i cans i n the county w as 37, 119, 66. 5 per centof the t ot al popul at i on. U . S. C ensus B ure au – W as hi ngt on C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi – FactSheet , ht tp: // fa ct f i nder
. cens us . gov ( l as tvi s i t ed F eb rua ry 1 4 , 2 0 1 1 ). ¶23. D ur i ng j ury s el ect i on, both part i es m ade Bat s on c h a lle n g e s . See B at s on , 476 U . S. at 7 9 . T h e S tate b a se d it s c h a llen g e o n the d e fe n se ’s s trik in g a ll th e w h ite ju ro rs to a rriv e a t a predom i natel y A fr i can-A m eri can pan el
. T he co urtfound the reasons given b y the defense to b e ra c e -n e u tra l. ¶24 . T he d efense then rai sed i t s Bat s on chal l enge, s t at i ng that al l the j urors st ruck ( thus f ar ) i n the s el ect i on by the St at e w er e A f r i can- A m er i can. A tt hatst age of t he pr ocee di ng, t he

### 10

j ury w as composed of

one A f r i can-A m er i can mal e, s even A f r i can- A m er i can f

emal es , one w hi t e f emal e, a nd tw o j ur or s w hos e r ace a nd ge nderar e notm ade know n i n the r ecor d. T he
r ace and ge nd e rof

the tw o a l t e r na t e s a l s o a r e no tmade kn own i n the r e c or d. The r a c i al
m ak eu p o f th e v en ir e, of the juro rs w h o u lt im ately w ere ch o sen , an d o f o ther p o tential juro rs s truck by the St at e l i kew i s e i s noti n the r ecor d. T her ef or e, the pr es um pt i ve conc l us i on m ade by the di s s entof

a Bat s on vi ol at i on and an e rr orby the tr i al j udge i s unsupp ort ed by t he
rec o rd. (D issen ti n g O p inion at ¶ 6 7 -68 ). W e c an n o t ov erride th e tri al co u rtw h en this C o u rt d o e s n o te v e n kn o w the r aci al m akeu p of the veni r e orthe j ury. T he tr i al courti s acc or ded g re a t d efe ren ce b ec au se itu n iqu ely is in a p o sit ion to o b serv e w h at a b lank rec o rd fa il s to
re v e a l. See B erry , 802 So. 2d at1037. ¶ 2 5 . A fte r th e trial c o u rt q u e stio n e d th e ra c ial m a k e u p o f th e ju ry , th e d e fe n s e sta ted its b e lief th a t Bat

s on w as bas ed on the pot ent i al j ur or s s truck r atherthan the r es ul t antpanel composi t i on. T he tr i al courtr es ponded, “[ i ] t ’ s al s o bas ed on t he com pos i t i on of the j ur y as we l l
. Yo u t a k e a l l o f

th a ti n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n . An d I ’ m n o tg o i n g t o f i n d th a tth a t ’ s a p r i ma f aci e ca s e. ” B i r khead a r gues the t r i al courtm i s i nt erpr et ed B a ts o n . H o w e v e r, th is C o u rt, ci t i ng B a ts o n , has hel d: [i] n o rd e r to e sta b lish a p rim a fa c ie c a se , [D e fe n d a n t] m u st sh o w th a t th e fa c ts and ci r cumst ance s gi ve r i s e t o the i nf er ence t hatt he pr os ecut orexer ci s ed the p e re m p to ry c h a lle n g e s w ith a d is c ri m in a to ry p u rp o s e . S tric k la n d v . S ta te , 980 S o . 2 d 9 0 8 , 9 1 5 (M iss . 2 0 0 8 ); T a n n e r v. S ta te , 76 4 S o. 2d 38 5, 39 3 (M i ss. 2000) ( ci t i ng B u sh v. S ta te , 5 8 5 S o . 2 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 6 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 1 )); R andall v. S ta te , 716 So. 2d 584, 587 ( M i s s . 1998) ( ci t i ng B at s on , 4 76 U. S. a t9 4, 10 6 S. C t . 1712). “I n deci di ng w hethert he def endanthas m ade the r equi s i t e s how i ng, the tri al co u rtsh o u ld co n side r a ll r el evantci r cumst ance s . ” [ Bat s on, 47 6 U. S. a t 9 6 ]. Ch a m b e rlin v. S ta te , 9 8 9 S o . 2 d 3 2 0 , 3 3 7 (M is s . 2 0 0 8 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ).

### 11

¶ 2 6 . B irk h e a d su b m its to th is C o u rt th a t t h e f a c t t h a t th e S tate h a d n o t ex h a u ste d its p e re m p to ry c h a llen g e s o r th a t it le ft A fric a n -A m e ric a n s o n th e ju ry d id n o t re liev e th e S tate fr om i t s Bat

s on b u rde n . B irk h ea d asse rt s tha t th e S tat e’s u se o f i ts f ir st f ive p ere m p tory ch all en g es a g ains t A fri ca n -A m erican s m erit s an inferen ce o f discrim ination
. H o w ev er: [ i ] n deci di ng w hethert he def endanthas m ade the r equi s i t e s how i ng, the tr i al courts houl d cons i deral l r el evantci r cumst ance s . Fore xampl e, a “patt ern” of strik e s a g a in st b lac k ju ro rs in c lu d e d in th e p a rticu lar v e n ire m ig h t g iv e rise to an i nf er ence of dis cr i m i nat i on. Si m i l ar l y, the pr os ecut or ' s ques t i ons and s t at ement s dur i ng voi rdi r e exa m i nat i on and i n exer ci s i ng hi s chal l enges m ay su p p o rto r refute a n inferen ce o f discrim inato ry p u rpo se. T h ese ex am p les are m e re ly ill u stra tiv e . W e h a v e c o n fid e n c e th a t trial ju d g e s, e x p e rie n c e d in s upervi s i ng voi rdi r e, w i l l be abl e t o deci de i f the ci r cumst ance s conce rni ng the pr os ecut or ' s us e of

p er empt ory chal l enges cr eat es a pr i m a f aci e ca s e of d is c ri m in a tio n a g a in s t b la c k ju ro rs . B a ts o n , 476 U . S. at96- 97. T he r ecor d does notai d t hi s C our ti n di s cerni ng s uch a pa t t ern. A ddi t i onal l y, al l t he cas es re l i ed upon by B i r khead i n hi s br i ef s t at e the r aci al m akeup of t he f i na l j ury orthe r a c e o f

the o the rp ot e nt i a l j ur or s s truc k by the St a t e . W e a r e notpr ovi ded
w i th s uf f i ci enti nf or m at i on i n thi s cas e t o overturn J udge C are y- M cC r ay’ s tr i al deci s i on.

“ T h e b u rd e n fa lls u p o n a n a p p e lla n t to e n su re th e re c o rd c o n tain s ‘s u ffic ien t ev id e n c e to
s uppor thi s as s i gnm ent s of err oron appea l
. ’ ” H

a n se n v. S ta te , 5 92 S o. 2 d 11 4, 12 7 (M i ss. 1 9 9 1 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). ¶27. Fur therm or e, “[ t ] her e i s a pr es um pt i on that the j udgm ent of the tr i al court i s corr ect
a n d th e b u rd e n is o n th e A p p e lla n t to d e m o n s tr a te s o m e re v e rs ib le e rr o r t o th is C o u rt .” J u a rez v . S ta te , 9 65 S o. 2d 1061, 1065 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. W hen the B at s on chal l enge w as m ade, ei ghtof ni ne j ur or s w hos e r ace i s know n t o thi s C our tw ere A f r i canA m er i can. A s t he r ecor d i s devoi d of i nf or m at i on r egar di ng the r aci al m akeup of the veni r e,

### See Mis s. Code Ann. § 41-57- 9 (Re v. 2009) (r egarding a death certi fi cate , “ [a ] 6 

### fa cs im il e si gnat

ureof the[s tatere gis trar

of vi ta l s tati stic s] sha llbe s uff ic ie nt f or c erti fi cati on when the c erti fi catesha llhave im pre ss ed the re on these alof the Mi ss is sippi Departm ent of Publi c He alth. ”)
. 12 the f i nal composi t i on of the j ury sel ect ed, and t he r ace of the addi t i onal j ur or s s truck by the S tat e, B irk h ea d h as fa il ed to es tablish a rec o rd o f Bat s on vi ol at i ons . W e ca n di s cern no rever si ble errorby the tr i al cou rti n the j uror- sel ect i on process. II. W h eth er th e tr ial co u rt a b u sed it s d iscre ti o n in a ll o w ing th e d ea th ce rtifi ca te into evi dence w hen i t s how ed a purport ed t i m e of i nj ury. ¶28. “The s t andar d of r evi ew governi ng the admi s s i bi l i ty of evi dence i s w hetherthe tr i al
courtabu sed i t s di s cr et i on. ” H a rr is v . S ta te , 970 So. 2d 151, 154 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t at i ons o m itted). ¶29. T he authent i ci ty of the dea th cert i f

i cat e i s e s t a bl i s he d b y M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 90 2(4), w hich st at es: E x trin sic e v id e n c e o f a u th e n ticity a s a c o n d iti o n p re c e d e n t to a d m iss ib ili ty is n o t r e q u ir e d w ith re s p e c t to th e fo llo w in g : . . . (4) C e r t i f

i e d C opi e s of

P ubl i c R e c or ds . A co p y of an offi cial rec o rd o r rep o rt orentr y ther ei n, orof a documentaut hor i zed by l aw t o be r ecor ded orf i l ed and actual l y r ecor ded orf

i l ed i n a publ i c of

f i ce, i ncl udi ng dat a compi l at i ons i n any f or m , cert i f

i ed as corr ectby the cus t odi an orotherper s on author i zed t o m ake th e c e rt if ic a tio n . . . . M iss
. R . E v id
. 9 0 2 (4 ). T h e c e rtified c o p y o f th e d e a th c e rtifica te p re se n ted in th is c a se fits 6
w ith in the p rov isi o n s o f R u le 90 2 (4). ¶30. N o l egi t i m at e debat e can be m ade thata c ons i derabl e am ou nt of t he i nform at i on c o n tain e d w ith in a n y d e a th c e rtific a te is h e a rsa y . S im ilarly , n o d e b a te e x ists th a t a d e a th
c e rt if ic a te is a v ita l s ta tis tic
. See M iss . C o d e A n n . § § 4 1 -5 7 -1 to 4 1 -5 7 -2 (R e v . 2 0 0 9 ) (d e a th

### Rule803(9) , ve ry s im il ar to Fe deralRuleof Evi denc e 803( 9), was adopt ed on 7 

### Sept em ber 24, 1985, to “ gover

n al l proce edings in any a ction ha d on or af te r Januar y 1, 1986

. . . . ” See Orde r Adopting t he Mi ss is sippi Rul es of Evi denc e; Fed. R. Evi d. 803( 9). Mississip pi C od e Sectio n 4 1-5 7-1 pro vid es that “ [a ] bureau o f vital statistics sh all 8 

### be e st abl is hed by the St at e Board of Hea lt h, whi ch s hal l providean a dequatesys te m f or the registratio n o f . . . death s andpreserv ationof v ital statistics onforms p res cr ib edbysaid Bo ardo f H ea lth. . . .” M iss. Co de Ann . § 4 1-5 7-1 (Rev . 20 09 ). Th e deathcertificate pre se nte d in t

his ca secom

port ed wi th t

he c erti fi cationstandards provide d in Mi ss is sippi Co de S ection41 -57 -9. See footnote6 sup ra . 13 c e rtifica tes a re g o v e rn e d b y th e b u re a u o f v ital sta tistics a n d a re a v a ilab le to “ a n y p e rso n w ith a l egi t i m at e and t angi bl e i nt er es ti n s uch r ecor ds
. . . . ”)
. M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 80 3(9) pr ov i des a he ars ay ex cepti on regar ding records of vit al s t at i st i cs. See M i s s . R . E vi d. 7 8 0 3 (9 ). T h a t ru le p ro v id e s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt, th a t: T he f ol l ow i ng ar e note xcl uded by the hear s ay rul e, even though the dec l ar ant is a v a ila b le a s a w itn e s s : . . . (9) R ecor ds of

V i t al St at i s t i cs . R ecor ds or dat a compi l at i ons of vi t al s t at i s t i cs , i n any f

or m , i f the r eportther eof

w as m ade t o a publ i c of f i cer p u rs u a n t to re q u ir e m e n ts o f l a w .[ ] 8 M is s . R . E v id . 8 0 3 (9 ). See al s o S h e ll v. S ta te , 5 5 4 S o . 2 d 8 8 7 , 8 9 8 ( M is s . 1 9 8 9 ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds by Shell v. Mis s is s i

ppi , 498 U . S. 1, 111 S. C t . 313, 112 L . E d. 2d 1 ( 1990) ( “[ a] death cert i fi cat e cl ear l y f al l s underthe l anguage of ” R ul e 803( 9) )
. A s m y col l eague Pr es i di ng J us t i ce Car l s on has poi nt ed outpr evi ous l y, “[ a] rul e w hi ch i s notenf or ced i s no rul e atal l
. ” Alle n v. N at ’l R. R. Pas s e nge rCorp. , 9 34 So. 2d 1006, 1011 ( M i s s . 2006) ( quot i ng Salt

s v. G ul f N at ’l L i f e I ns. Co. , 8 7 2 S o . 2 d 6 6 7 , 6 7 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 )). U n lik e R u le 8 0 3 (8 ) re g a rd in g p u b lic re c o rd s a n d re p o rts, R u le 8 0 3 (9 ) p ro v id e s n o e x c lu sio n s to its hear s ay exc ept i on.

### 14

¶ 3 1 . 

### Bir

khea d and the di ss ent

re ly upon t

he pr e- Rule s c as e of Flowers v. State , 243 So. 2d56 4 (M iss. 19 71 ), for th e pro po sitionthat “d eath ce rt if ic at es co uldbe introducedinto evi denc e but

use d only t o s how ‘ thephys ic alc aus e of death. ’” (Di ss enting Opini on at ¶ 81)
. But evenBirkheadackn ow ledg es that Flo wersis “ol d law . . . .”The “ Orde r Adopting t he Mis si ss ippiRule s of

Evide nce ” s tate s that theMi ss is sippi Rule s of Evide nce“ sha llbe , and

. . . are ado pte d as rul es of e vide ncegover ning proce edings in thecourts of the St at e of Mississip pi to the extent an d wit h theex ce

pti ons provided in said rules. . . . ” Order Adopting theMis si ss ippiRule s of Ev idence ( em phas is adde d). Rule803(9) inc lude s no Flo wers -l ikequal if

ic ation. Moreove r, Rul e 1103 a dds that “ [a ] llevi dentiary r ule s, whether pro vid ed bystatute, court de ci si on or c ourt r ule , whic h areincons is te nt with the Mi ss is sippi Rule s of Evidenc e ar e her eby repea le d.” Mis s. R. Evid. 1103 (em phas is added) . The re for e, tod ay’s decisio n do es not create any newrule of evid ence, as Rule 8 03 (9) h as app lied to “all ac ti ons and proc ee dings in t he c ourt s of

theState of Mis si ss ippi ” s inc e J anuary 1, 1986. Mis s. R. Evid. 1101(a) ; Order Adopting t he Mi ss is sippi Rul es of Evi denc e. In e ss enc e, the dis se nt f aults both t

he tri alcourt and theMaj ori ty f or e nforcing a r

ulewhic h it

di sf avor s, as oppose d t o s ee king an am endm ent vi a the Rul es Comm itte e. T h e trial c o u rt s ub j udi ce i s not i n err orf orf ol l ow i ng the rul es of

evi dence and ourpr ece dentthata dea th cert i f i cat e and the

“ [r ]e c o rd s . . . o f v ita l s ta tis tic s ” c o n ta in e d th e re in a re a d m is s ib le
. See M iss. R . E v id. 80 3 (9); M iss . C o d e A n n . § 4 1 -5 7 -2 (R e v . 2 0 0 9 ); S h e ll , 554 So. 2d a t898. T hus , thi s i s s ue i s w i thout
m e rit.T he S t at e ar gues thatB i r khead i s pr ecl uded f r om now ar gui ng aboutthe “t i m e of 9 in ju ry ” en try o n a p p e a l w h e n , afte r h is o b jec tio n w a s o v e rru led , B irk h e a d n e ith e r so u g h t to excl ude nort o redactt he hour
- of
- i nj ury/ death entr i es , nort o as k the tr i al j udge t o gi ve a l i m i t i ng i nst ruct i on regar ding t he en tri es. 

### The S tatema de no r ef

er enc e t o the“tim e of

inj ury”in i ts opening st at em ent or 10 

### closin g arg ument. 15 ¶32. B uteven i f

w e w er e t o i gnor e R ul e 803( 9) , the pr ece dentes t abl i s hed i n S h e ll , and the St at e’ s w ai verar gum ent , and as s um e ar guendo thatthe t ri al j udge err ed i n perm i t t i ng t he 9 “t i m e o f i njur y” ent r y t o go bef or e the j ury, w e conc l ude s uch a pr es um ed err orw oul d be harm l es s . T hi s Courtha s hel d, “the i nqui ry i s notw hetherthe j ury cons i der ed the i m pr oper 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 a t er ro r w a s ‘ u n im p o rta n t in re latio n to
ev ery thing else the jury co n side red o n the issu e in q u esti o n , as re v ea led in the re co rd.’” T h o m a s v . S ta te , 711 So. 2d 867, 873 ( M i s s . 1998) ( quot i ng Y a tes v. E v a tt , 500 U . S . 391, 4 0 3 , 1 1 1 S . C t. 11 8 4 , 1 1 8 7 , 1 1 4 L . E d . 2 d 4 3 2 , 4 4 9 (1 9 9 1 ))
. T h e ju ry w a s p re se n ted w ith
o v erw h elm ing ev iden ce o f B irk h ea d ’s gu il t. E v en the d issen t ack n o w ledg es th at “the S tat e’s evi dence w as str ong . . . . ” ( D i s s ent i ng O pi ni on at¶ 72)
. M or eover , i n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , the pr os ecut i on di d nots eek t o us e the “t i m e of i nj ury” entry t o sat i s f

y even one of

the
es s ent i al el ement s of

i t s cas e, f

or“t i m e of

i nj ury” w as nots uch an el ement . I ndeed, i tw as def ens e couns el w ho r epea t edl y i nt er j ect ed t he t i m e of

3: 38 a. m . t o ai d the def

ens e, i ni t i al l y, in its o p e n in g sta tem e n t an d , fin a lly , in it s c lo sin g arg u m e n t. T h e ju ry w a s p re se n ted w ith 10 B i r khead’ s att empt t o cr eat e doubtvi a a l aps e- of
- t i m e ar gum ent , w hi ch the St at e count er ed
w ith ciga rett e b u tt s an d em p ty b ee r ca n s o u tsi d e the v ict im ’s ca r; the testi m o n y o f L an ier’s d au g h ter; an d the c ir cu m stan ce s su rrou n d ing B irk h ea d ’s ex itfrom the v eh icl e a n d rec o v ery of the bl ood- s t ai ned w eapon, m oney, cl othi ng, et c.

### 16

¶ 3 3 . T h u s, this C o u rt alte rn a tiv e ly co n c lu d e s th a t i n this case t h e f a i l u r e t o r e d a c tth e “ t i me of i njury” fr om the v i ct i m ’s death cert i fi cat e w as “unim po rt ant i n rel at i on t o ev erything el se the j ury cons i der ed on t he i s s ue i n ques t i on, as r evea l ed i n the r ecor d. ” Id . A c c o rd in g ly , this
a rg u m e n t li k e w ise is w ith o u t m e rit. I I I . W he t he r Bi r khe ad’ s c ons t i t ut i ona l r i ght t o c onf r ont at i on was v i ol at e d by t he adm i s s i on of

t he vi ct i m ’ s deat h cert i f i cat e i nt o evi dence. ¶34. “Thi s C our tr evi ew s de novo a Confr ont at i on Cl aus e obj ect i on. ” Sm ith v. S ta te , 986 So. 2d 290, 296 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. T he Si xth A m endmentt o the U ni t ed St at es C o n s titu tio n p ro v id e s th a t “ in a ll c ri m in a l p ro s e c u tio n s , th e a c c u s e d s h a ll e n jo y th e ri g h t . .

. to b e c o n fron ted w ith the w itn esse s ag ains t him
. ” U . S . C o n st. a m en d V I (em p h asis ad d ed ). See al s o Cr aw f or d v. W as hington , 541 U . S. 36, 51, 124 S. C t . 1354, 1364, 158 L . E d. 2d 1 7 7 , 1 9 2 (2 0 0 4 ) (th e C o n fro n tatio n C lau se “ a p p lies to ‘w itn e ss e s’ a g a in st th e a c c u se d – in otherw or ds , thos e w ho ‘ beart es t i m ony. ’ 2 N . W ebs t er , A n A m er i can D i ct i onary of t he E n g li sh L an g u ag e (1 8 2 8 ). ”). ¶ 3 5 . T h u s, in tro d u c tio n o f e v id e n c e a d m itt e d v ia a h e a rsa y e x c e p tio n d o e s n o t n e c e ss a rily fo re c lo s e C o n fr o n ta tio n C la u s e s c ru tin y . Cr aw f or d hel d that“[ w ] her e t es t i m oni al evi dence i s ati s s ue . . . the Si

xth A m endm ent

d e m a n d s w h a t th e c o m m o n law re q u ire d : u n a v a ilab ili ty and a pr i oroppor tuni ty f orcr os s - exami nat i on. ” Craw ford , 541 U . S. at51- 52. T he U ni t ed St at e Supr eme C our tha s s i nce s t at ed that“ t es t i m oni al s t at ement s ” ca n “ca us e the dec l ar ant t o be a ‘ w i tnes s ’ w i thi n the m eani ng of the C onf

r ont at i on Cl aus e. . . . Iti s t he tes t i m oni al char act erof

the s t at ementthats epar at es i tf r om ot herhear s ay t hat , w hi l e subj ectt o tr adi t i onal l i m i t at i ons upon h ears ay evide nce, i s nots ubj ectt o the C onf r ont at i on C l aus e. ” D avis v.

### In Cra wfo rd, the Cour t ove rr ule d Ro berts ins ofar as it

st ood for thepropos ition t

hat 11 

### theadmis sibil it

y of hears ay evi denc e depe nds upon whethe r “i t fa ll s under a ‘firm ly roote d hears ay exc eption’ or bear s ‘partic ulari ze d guarante es of trus twor thines s. ’” Cra wfo rd, 541 U.S. at 60, 67- 68 (quoting Ro berts , 448 U. S. at 66)
. In Da vis , two ca se s wer e cons ide re d f or thepur

poseof de te rm inin g “when 12 

### st at em ent s m adeto l aw e nforce me nt pe rs onnelduring a 911 ca llor at a crim e s ce ne are ‘t es timoni al ’ . . . .” Da vis , 547 U. S. at 817. 17 W as hington , 5 4 7 U .S . 8 1 3 , 8 2 1 , 1 2 6 S . C t. 2 2 6 6 , 2 2 7 3 , 1 6 5 L . E d . 2 d 2 2 4 (2 0 0 6 ). See a l so Craw ford , 541 U . S. a t68 ( “[ w ] her e nont es t i m oni al he ar s ay i s a ti s s ue, i ti s w hol l y cons i s t ent
w i th the Fr amer s ’ de s i gn t o a f f or d the St at es f

l exi bi l i ty i n thei rdevel opm entof hear s ay l aw – as do es [ O h io v. R o b e rts , 448 U . S. 56, 100 S . C t . 2531, 65 L . E d. 2d 597 ( 1980) ] , [ ] and 11
a s wo u l d a n a p p r o a c h th a te x e mp t e d s u c h s t a t e me n t s f r o m C onf

r ontat i on C laus e s crut i ny alt o g ethe r. ”). ¶36. A s t o w hati s “t es t i m oni al , ” Craw ford pr ovi ded: 

### [v]ariou s formu lation s of th is core class of “testimon ial” statements ex ist: “ ex pa rtein- court t es timony or i ts f unctiona l equi val ent

– that i s, mate ri alsuc h as af fi davi ts , c ust odia l e xam inati ons, pri or tes timony t hat thedefendant

was un able to cro ss-examin e, o r similar pretrial statements that d eclarants w ou ld reason ablyexp ect to b e usedpro secuto rially[;]” “extraju dicial statements . . . containedinfo rmalized testimon ial materials, suchas affid avits, d epo sition s, pri or t es timony, or c onfess ions [; ] ” “ st at em ent s that wer e m adeunder circ ums tance s whi ch woul d le ad an objectivewitnes s rea sona bly t o bel ie ve that th e statement w ou ld b e availab le for u se at a later trial[.]” Cra wfo rd, 541 U. S. at 51- 52 (inte rna l c it ations omi tt ed)
. TheUnit ed St at es Supre meCourt has sincema de addi ti ons to the“cor e cl as s”of te stim onia l s tate me nts . In Da vis , the Cour t made th e limited h old ing , for th e purpo se of d ecidin g “th e present cases[,]” that: 12 

### [s ] tate me nts ar e nont es timoni alwhen m adein t he course of police interrogationsunder c ircum st anc es obje ctive ly indic ating t hat thepri mary purpos e of the inte rrogation i s t o ena blepoli ceas si st anc e t o me et an ongoing

### Howeve r, theCourt adde d that “ one who obt ains the abs enc e of a wi tne ss by 13 

### wrongdoing for fe it s the c onstit uti onalri ght t o conf

ront ation. ” Da vis , 547 U. S. at 833. 18 emergen cy. Theyare testimon ial whenthe circumstances o bjectiv ely in dicate that t her e i s no s uch ongoing em ergenc y, and that t he prim ar y purposeof the int er rogati on is to e st abl is h or provepas t e vent s pot entia lly re le vant to l at er crim ina l prose cution. Da vis , 54 7 U.S . at 82 2 (emph asis ad ded ). Basedth ereon , th e C ourt co nclu dedth at a 9 11 call is gene ra lly nonte stim onia l a s i t “ is ordinarily not de si gned pri mari ly t o ‘e st abl is [h] or pro v[e]’ some p ast fact, but to d escribe curr ent circumstan ces requirin g po lice assistance[,]” but t hat an a ff idavit obtaine d by an inte rrogating of fi ce r inthe abs enc e of

em ergenc y circumstan ces was testimo nial. Id . at 827, 829- 30 , 83 4. I n Melendez-D iazv. 13 Ma ss a c h u se tts , 1 2 9 S . C t. 2 5 2 7 , 1 7 4 L . E d
. 2 d 3 1 4 , 7 7 U . S . L . W . 4 5 7 4 (20 0 9 ), li k e this C o u rt i n i t s 1985 rul i ng i n B a rn ette v . S tate , 4 81 S o. 2 d 788 ( M i s s . 1985) , the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tf

ound thata cer t i f

i cat e of anal ys i s pert ai ni ng t o the natur e of the s ubs t ance ( i
. e. , cocai ne, a nec es s ary el ementf orthe cr i m e of

di s tr i but i ng and tr af

f i cki ng i n coca i ne)
w a s te s tim o n ia l a n d , th e re fo re , w a s e rr o n e o u s ly a d m itte d
. See Melendez-D iaz , 1 2 9 S . C t. at2527; B a rn e tte , 481 So. 2d at791. ¶37. I n Melendez-D iaz , the C our tal s o not abl y st at ed t hat“[ b] us i nes s and publ i c r ecor ds
ar e gene r al l y admi s s i bl e abs entconf r ont at i on notbeca us e they qu al i f y underan exc ept i on t o the hear s ay rul es , butbeca us e – havi ng been cre a ted for th e a dm inistra ti o n o f an en ti ty’s af f ai rs and notf

orthe pur

pos e of es tabl is hi ng orpr ovi ng s om e f act attr i al– they ar e not t es t i m oni al
. ” Id . a t 2 5 3 9 -4 0 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). See al s o U n ited S tates o

f A m erica v. Lo

pezMor e no , 420 F. 3d 420, 437 ( 5th C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng Craw ford , 541 U . S. at51, 56)

### No doct or s igne d thedeath c erti fi cate . 14 

### Acc ording to t

he re cord be for e us, the only poli ceof fi ce r at the hospi ta l was Off

ic er 15 

### Payne , who not

only wa s avai la

blefor examination, but who t es ti fi ed at leng th. Thus, no Co nfro ntatio n C lause issu e exists as to him. Birkheadalso ov erloo ks th e presen ce of emerg encyrespo nse p ersonnel at th e crime 16 

### scene an d th e ho spital. O f f i cerPayne, how ever , bas ed on hi s pr i orexper i ence w or ki ng f oran ambul ance 17 serv ice a n d serv ing as a n arm y m ed ic, test if ied L an ier co u ld n o t hav e b ee n d ea d for m o re 

### 19 ( “bus i nes s r ecor ds , w hich a r e ana l ogous t o publ i c r ecor ds , ar e ‘ by thei rnatur e . . . not test im o n ial ’ an d n o t subject t o the re q u ir em en ts of the C o n fron tat ion C laus e.”). ¶38. B i r khead ar gues “[ p] ol i ce w er e w el l aw are t hat they had a s ubj ect i n cus t ody att he t i m e M r . L ani erarr i ved atthe hos pi t al
. ” Bi r khead of f er s a r gum ent , w i thoutpr oof , thatt he “t i m e of i nj ury” entr y mustha ve been s uppl i ed by the pol i ce “ w i th an eye t ow ar d bei ng us ed i n a f utur e cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng against[hi m ] . ” See Craw ford , 541 U . S. at56 (“[i ] n v o lvem en t of g o v ern m en t officers in the p rod u cti o n o f testi m o n y w ith a n e y e tow ard tr i al pr es ent s uni que pot ent i al f orpr os ecut or i al abus e. . . . ”)
. I n s o ar gui ng, B i r khead a s ks th is C o u rt to in d u lg e in a tw o -fo ld a ss u m p tio n w ith o u t an y su p p o rtin g e v id e n c e . F irst, B i r khead ass um es thatthe “t i m e of i nj ury” of

3: 38 a. m . “l i kel y” w as gi ven t o “the doct or s i gni ng t he death cer t i f

i cat e” by pol i ce of

f i cer s att he hospi t al , despi t e the abs ence of any 14 15 evi dence t o s uppor tthi s i ndul gen ce. T w o of f i cer s ( O f f i cerSt ew artand O f

f i cerM yr i ck) 16
r ef er enced 3:38 a. m . , i n r es pondi ng t o an ongoi ng emer gency. N ei therthey norany other
w i tnes s es obt ai ned the t i m e f r om an i nt err ogat i on of

a n una vai l abl e decl ar ant . Bot h t es t i f i ed
an d w ere su b

ject t o co n fron tat ion
. O u t o f th e n u m ero u s o ffi ce rs w h o test if ied, no t on e sw o re thathe ors he knew the “t i m e of i nj ury. ” S econd, B i r khead a s ks thi s C our tt o as s um e that

17than f

i ve ort en mi nut es beca us e ther e w as no coagul at i on of hi s bl ood. 

### Lik ewise, w e declin e to in du lge th e con jecture o f the d issent whicheng ages inits 18 

### own h andwritin g an alysis to sug gest th at th e “C ause of Death ” sectionof th e deathcertificate was com ple te d by the pathologi st . (Dis se nting Opinion at ¶ 82). As sum ing argue ndo that thepat hologi st was thesourceof the “ timeof injur y” e ntr y, hewas at

trial, avai la

blefor con frontation , suchthat n o C on frontationClau se issue w ou ld ex ist as to h im. 20 the t i m e w as provi ded by pol i ce of f i cer ( s ) “w i th an eye t ow ar d tr i al [ , ] ” w i thoutexami ni ng a s i ngl e of

f i ceri nvol ved as t o w hetherhe ors he pr ovi ded a t i m e of i nj ury ordeath t o any of th e p e rs o n s in v o lv e d in p re p a ra tio n o f t h e d e a th c e rt if ic a te . Id . A s B i r khead of f er s no evi dence t o s uppor tei theras s um pt i on, w e dec l i ne his i nvi t at i on t o i ndul ge i n s uch conj ectur e. 18 ¶ 3 9 . 

### In aprope r c as e , s ho ul d e vi de nc e b ed e ve l op e d that “ t i m e o f injury,” “c aus e of death, ” and/or

othe r r el evant de ath-c erti fi cateentri es wer e included or inf lue nce d by poli ce off ic er s or pros ec utor s wi th an eye to wardp rose cution, a tri aljudgewould not be in er ror for red acting such
. See Mis s. R. Evid. 1 02 (“[t ] hes e r ule s s hal l becons tr

ued t o se cur e fa ir nes s in administration
. . . of the l aw of evi denc e t o theend t

hat thetr uth m ay be as ce rt aine d and

proc e e ding s j us t ly d e t e rm i ne d. ” )
. Ho we ve r , that i s no t thec a s e be f

ore us today. ¶40. T he j ury w as pre s ent ed w i th evi dence t hatO f f i cerPar s ons arr i ved on the s cene as the
n igh tcl u b w as c losing an d , w h il e d ri v ing thro u g h the p ark ing l o t, saw B irk h ea d ex itL an ier’s vehi cl e. O f

f i cerPayne t es t i f

i ed he “ w as nots ur e w hatt i m e he c ame t o t he s cene ”; O f f i cer M yr i ck t es t i f

i ed he di d notarr i ve atthe s cene unt i l 3: 38 a. m . O f f i cerM yr i ck t es t i f

i ed O f f i cer Payne acc om pani ed L ani ert o t he hospi t al
. A ddi t i onal l y, O f f i cerPayne t es t i f

i ed “he had no

### 21

e v id e n c e to su g g e st [L a n ier ] w a s n o t alre a d y d e a d a t th e ti m e [B irk h e a d ] go t in to h is
v e h ic le .” ¶41. W hi l e t he death cer t i f i cat e i s a re cor d of

vi t al s t at i s t i c, nota bus i nes s orpubl i c r ecor d, thi s C our tf

i nds the s ame sound r eas oni ng of the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our ti n Melen dezD iaza nd the Fi f

th Ci r c ui ti n Lopez -Mor e no appl i es t o the ca s e s ub j udi ce . U ndert he circu m stan ce s o f this ca se, w e co n clud e that the d ea th c erti fi ca te is a n o n test im o n ial rec o rd of vi t al st at i st i cs, “creat ed for the ad m i nis trat i on of an en t i ty’s af fai rs and no tf

or the p urpose of es t abl i s hi ng orpr ovi ng s om e f actattr i al [ , ] ” and, ther ef or e, nots ubj ectt o a C onf r ont at i on C la u s e a n a ly s is
. Melendez-D iaz , 1 2 9 S . C t. a t 2 5 3 9 -4 0 . 

### In so ho ldin g, th is Co urt d oes not find that t es timoni alst atement s, subj ec t t o there quirem ent s of theConfrontati on Cla

use , may neve r befound wi thin a nonte stim onia l busines s or publi c r ec ord. As the Uni te d State s Supre meCourt

st at ed in Mel

ende z- Diaz , “ that i s not

thecase if the regul arly c onduct ed busines s ac tivit

y i s the production of

evi denc e f

or us e at t ri al .” Id . at 2538. For e xam ple , an a ff idavit cont ained wi thin a public rec ord m ay bedee me d te stim onia l and, ther ef ore , subj ec t t o there quirem ent s of theConfrontati on Cla

use . ¶42. Fur therm or e, “ t i m e of i nj ury” w as not an essenti al el em ent of t he ch arge here, f a c tu a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h i n g th i s c a s e f r o m Melendez-D iaz , D a v is , and B a rn e tte . See Melen dezD iaz , 1 2 9 S . C t. at 2 5 2 7 ; D a v is , 547 U . S. a t829- 34 ( the vi ct i m ’ s w r i t t en s t at eme nts i n t he
a ffid a v it g iv e n to p o lice w e re v ital to th e S tate ’s d o m e stic -b a ttery c a se ); B a rn e tte , 481 So. 2d at791 ( err oneous l y admi t t ed ce r t i f i cat e of anal ys i s pert ai ned t o t he natur e of the
su b stan ce , i. e., co ca ine, a n ec essa ry e lem en t f o r th e c ri m e o f sale o f a c o n tr o ll ed su b stan ce ).

### 22

¶43. F i nal l y, even a s s um i ng ar guendo thateither on e o f the i nv est i gati ng p oli ce off i cers orthe pathol ogi s tpr ovi ded the “t i m e of i nj ury” and/ or“t i m e of death” entr i es w i th an eye t ow ar d tr i al ( of

w hi ch ther e i s no pr oof

i n the r ecor d) , the put at i ve s our ces f orthe i nf or m at i on t es t i f i ed l i ve attr i al
. T he r ecor d r ef l ect s thatB i r khead ha d opportuni t i es t o cr os s - exami ne the pol i ce of

f i cer s and pathol ogi s tt o e s t abl i s h hi s a l l egat i on thatthe “t i m e of i nj ury” and/ or “t i m e of de ath” w as pr ovi ded by one of them. T hus , Bi r khead “enj oy[ ed] the r i ght
. . . t o be conf r ont ed w i th the w i tnes s es agai ns thi m ” and, abs enthi s uns uppor t ed ass ert i on, no C o n fron tat ion C laus e v iolati o n is prese n t i n this case
. U . S . C o n st. am en d
. V I. ¶ 4 4 . A c c o rd in g ly , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I V . W het her t he t ri al court err ed i n not di s m i s s i ng a sl eepi ng j uror. ¶45. D uri ng the t est i m on y of Invest i gat orL i t t on, couns el f orthe St at e not i ced a j ur or sle e p in g . C o u n se l ap p ro a c h e d th e b e n c h a n d m a d e th e ju d g e , as w e ll as d e fe n se c o u n se l,
aw ar e of the sl eepi ng j ur or . W hi l e thi s excha nge w as t aki ng pl ace , the j ur oraw oke. J udge C a re y -M c C ra y sta ted sh e w o u ld h a v e th e b a ili ff g e t th e ju ro r a g las s o f w a ter a n d “ sh e w o u ld
w at ch hi m closel y. ” I ti s notcl earw hetherdef ens e couns el w as pr es entdur i ng t he
c o n fe re n c e a t th e b e n c h , a s h e m a d e n o re m a rk o r o b je c tio n . ¶46 . W hil e a sl eeping j uror i s a ca use for con cern, B i rkhead g oes too farin arguing his case i s anal ogous t o Ch u r c h v. Ma s s e y, w h e re a ju ro r s le p t t h r o u g h “ m o s t o f t h e p ro c e e d in g s .” Ch u r c h v. Ma s s e

y, 697 So. 2d 407, 4 13 (M i s s . 1997)
. T he r ecor d i n thi s cas e i ndi cat es no furthe r pro b lem s w ith this j u ror, or an y o ther. ¶47. Fur therm or e, as the St at e poi nt ed out , B i r khead f ai l ed t o ra i s e t he i s s ue of the s l eepi ng j ur orattr i al , nordi d he r ai s e i ti n hi s m ot i on f ornew tr i al
. “Fai l ur e t o r ai s e an i s s ue att r i al

### 23

bar s consi der at i on on an appe l l at e l evel
. ” W a lk e r v . S ta te , 913 So. 2d 198, 217 ( M i s s . 2005) (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). V . W h eth er th e tr ial co u rt e rr ed in n o t d ec larin g a m ist rial a fter a w it n ess’s co m m en t re g a rd ing B irkh ea d ’s ex er cise o f h is ri g h t to r em a in sil en t. ¶ 4 8 . “ T h e s ta n d a r d o f re v ie w fo r d e n ia l o f a m o tio n fo r m is tr ia l is a b u s e o f d is c re tio n .” D o ra v. S ta te , 9 8 6 S o . 2 d 9 1 7 , 9 2 1 (M is s . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). ¶4 9. O n di r ectexami nat i on, I nves t i gat orL i t t on t es t i f i ed s he t oo k B i r khead t o t he in v e stig a tio n a re a . T h e fo llo w in g e x c h a n g e to o k p lac e in c o u rt: St at e’ s C ouns el : Forw hatpurpos e? I nves t i gat or L i t t on: H e w as advis ed o f hi s Miranda r i ght s , and he re fu s e d to g iv e a s ta te m e n t o r s a y a n y th in g . . . . D ef ens e C ouns el : Y ourH onor , m ay w e appr oach? C ou rt : Y es. ( C onf er ence atthe B ench, outof the hea r i ng of

the j ury) D ef ens e C ouns el : T he w i tnes s has j us tt es t i f i ed, I m ean in di r ectvi ol at i on o f th is D e fe n d a n t’s c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to re m a in sile n t. C our t : I don’ tknow w hy i tw as nece s s ary t o el i ci tthat

t es t i m on y. . . . W el l , I don’ tthi nk i tw oul d r equi r e a m i s tr i al , butI don’ tunder s t and w hy you w oul d el i ci tthat te s tim o n y . S tat e’s co u n sel: I w asn ’t eli cit ing it , I w as ac tually ask ing as f ar as th e -- I tho u gh the w as there w hen they t oo k the pi ctures. T he r e ’ s pi c tur e s of

hi m t ha t ’ s i n the i nv e s t i ga t i on divi s i on w her e they t ook a pi ctur e of hi s pant s and they sa w the b loo d o n h is pa n ts. T h at’s w h y I w as a ctua lly l ooki ng f ort he pi ctur e so I can t ake herw her e I ’ m tryi ng to g o . . . . C our t : I don’tr emem berthe ques t i on, butI don’ tthi nk the

q u e s tio n le a d [s ic ] th e re . D efense C ou nsel : Y ou r H on or, j ust for the recor d, w e obj ect t o the w i tness

m a k in g th a t s ta te m e n t a n d w e a s k fo r a m is tr ia l. C our t : I ’ m notgoi ng t o gr anta mi s tr i al , butI ’ m goi ng t o gi ve an

i nst ruct i on ri gh tno w rem i nd i ng them that there i s a cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o r emai n s i l entand t hatthatappl i es

### 24 atany ki nd of

cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng and thati s nott o be used agai ns tthe def

endantorcons i der ed aga i ns tthe def endanti n any w ay. D ef ens e C ouns el : O kay. ¶50. T he tr i al j udge then gave the f ol l ow i ng i ns truct i on: [t] h is w itn e ss h a s ju st te stifie d a b o u t th e d e fe n d a n t’s e x e rc ise o f h is c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h tt o r e ma i n s i l e n t . I t ’ s a r i g h tth a ta l l o f u s wo u l d h a v e i f

we w er e cr i m i nal de f

endant s i n a c as e, and thati s nott o be cons i der ed aga i ns tthe def endanti n any w ay. It ’s a r i ghtthathe has thathe ca n exer ci s e. So I w ant you t o di s r egar d thats t at ementent i r el y and ce r t ai nl y notgi ve i tany c o n s id e ra tio n o r w e ig h t in th is c a s e . ¶51. B i r khead ass ert s t o thi s C our t that hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght t o s el f
- i ncr i m i nat i on w as vi ol at ed by the i nves t i gat or ’ s comm enton hi s choi ce t o r emai n s i l ent . “I n al l cr i m i nal p ro s e c u tio n s th e a c c u s e d s h a ll . . . n o t b e c o m p e lle d to g iv e e v id e n c e a g a in s t h im s e lf . . . .” M iss . C o n st. a rt. 3 , § 2 6 ; s ee al s o U . S. Const . a m end. V ( “[ n] o pe r s on . . . s hal l be compel l ed in an y crim inal c ase to b e a w itn ess a g ains t him self.
. . . ”). B irk h ea d furthe r asse rt s the jury instruction g iven b y the tri al co u rto n ly em p h asize d the c o m m en t by the in v esti g ator. ¶52. “O n i s s ues of

c om m ent s c oncerni ng a de f endant ' s f

ai l ur e t o t es t i f

y, e ach c as e s hal l be
cons i der ed on an i ndi vi dual bas i s . ” W e e ks v . S ta te , 804 So. 2d 980, 993 ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng L og a n v. S ta te , 773 So. 2d 338, 348 ( M i s s . 2000) ( ci t i ng Co n w a y v. S ta te , 397 So. 2d 1095, 1099 ( M i s s . 1980) ) )
. T hi s C our tr ecogni zes the nee d t o pr ot ectthe cons t i tut i onal r i ght s of
e v e ry citize n , a n d this C o u rt ac c e p ts its c h a rg e to p re se rv e th e se rig h ts. R e g a rd in g c o m m e n ts on the f ai l ur e of a def endantt o t es t i f

y ort o r emai n s i l ent , thi s C our thas s t at ed i t s pos i t i on w hen an i ns truct i on i s gi ven by t he t r i al cour tt o cur e thi s def ect . I n B lu e v. S ta te, this C o u rt h eld th at th e e ffect of a co m m en t b y the p rose cu tor o n the fa il u re o f th e d efe n d an t t o test if y “w as corr ect ed by the j ury i ns truct i ons . ” B lu e v. S ta te , 67 4 S o . 2d 1 1 8 4 , 1 2 1 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ),

### 25

over r ul ed on othergr ounds by K in gv. S ta te , 7 8 4 S o . 2 d 8 8 4 , 8 8 9 -90 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). In S tr a h a n v. S ta te, this C o u rtruled the e rror o f th e p rose cu tor’s co m m en t on the d efe n d an t’ s r i ghtt o r emai n s i l entw as notr ever s i bl e, as an i ns truct i on w as gi ven t o the j ury t o i gnor e the
c o m m e n t. See S tra h a n v. S ta te , 72 9 S o. 2d 80 0, 80 7 (M i ss. 19 98 ). “T his is a very close i s s ue, w hi ch i nvol ves a f undament al r i ght
. . . . H ow ever , gi ven the cont extof the comm ent and the cont entof

the w r i t t en i ns truct i ons , ther e i s no r ever s i bl e err or . ” Id . Blue a d d iti o n a lly sta ted , “In stru cti o n C R -1A clea rl y p roh ibit s the jury fro m c o n sid e rin g c o m m e n ts
m ade b y c ou ns e l a s e vi de nc e . I ti s g e ne r a l l y pr e s umed tha tj ur or s wi l l o be y a nd a ppl y t he i ns truct i ons of

the court . ” Blue , 6 7 4 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 1 5 (M is s . 1 9 9 6 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). ¶ 5 3 . B a s e d o n th e p re c e d e n t o f th is C o u rt, th e trial c o u rt g a v e a c u ra tiv e in stru c tio n , to
w hi ch t he def

e ns e di d n otob

j e c t . The r e f

or e , the r e w a s no a bu s e of di s c r e t i on by the t r i al
c o u rt re s u ltin g in a re v e rs ib le e rr o r. V I . W he t he r t he t ri al court err ed i n gi vi ng Jury Ins t ruct i on C R - 12 r e ga r di ng att orn ey’s notes. ¶54 . “W hen w e revi ew a cl ai m of tri al cou rt err or i n grant i ng or den ying j ury i nst ruct i on s, w e a re re q u ire d to re a d a n d c o n sid e r a ll o f th e ju ry in stru c tio n s to g e th e r a s a w h o le .” R i char ds on v. N

or f ol k S. R y. Co. , 923 So. 2d 1002, 1010 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng B u rr v. Miss. B ap tist Med. Ctr. , 909 So. 2d 721, 726 ( M i s s . 2005))
. “N o i ns truct i on shoul d be t aken out of c on t e xtorr e a d a l on e i n i s ol a t i on. ” P ier ce v. Cook , 992 So. 2d 612, 625 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng R ic h a r d

s o n , 9 2 3 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 1 0 ). ¶55. B as ed o n t he tr ans cr i pt , duri ng t he cour s e of t r i al , counse l forB i r khead m ade not es o n w itn e ss tes tim o n y a n d d isp lay e d th e se n o te s o n a n e a se l b e fo re th e ju ry . T h e S tate

### 26

obj ect ed t o def

ens e couns el di s pl ayi ng the not es , beca us e the St at e f el tdef ens e couns el w as notw r i t i ng dow n t es t i m ony verbat i m , butw as onl y “hi ghl i ght i ng” s peci f i c port i ons of t es t i m ony. T he tr i al courts t at ed i tf ound the i s s ue tr oubl i ng, as the courtal r eady ha d gi ven a n in stru c tio n to ju ro rs n o t to lo o k a t each other’s not es . T he cou rttook the mat t erunder advi s ementf

orf ur therr evi ew , and the St at e aga i n r ei t er at ed i t s obj ect i on. ¶5 6. T he nextmorni ng , c ou ns e l f orb oth pa r t i e s meti n c ha mber s w i t h t he t r i al j udge
r egar di ng thi s i s s ue. T he tr i al j udge s t at ed: [ t ] hi s i s s ue of

couns el m aki ng not es du ri ng t he t es t i m ony, the courtbel i eves th a t, at a m in im u m , itn e e d s to g iv e a n in stru c tio n to th e ju ry c o n c e rn in g it. B ec au se itrea ll y is f

rau g h t w ith the s am e ty p es o f da n g ers tha t th e c o u rt w arn ed them ab o u t i n loo k ing at ea ch o ther’s n o tes , o r sha ri n g ea ch o ther’s not es , exce ptthatthi s i s m or e pow er f ul beca us e i t ’ s done r i ghtt her e w hi l e the t es t i m ony i s comi ng outand coul d be mi s t aken a s evi dence
. A f t erf ur therext ens i ve di s cour s e, J udge C arey- M cC r ay s t at ed s he w oul d gi ve the l i m i t i ng instru c tio n w h en sh e g av e the o ther instruc ti o n s, “b ec au se I d o n ’tw an t i t t o see m li k e I’m
a d m o n is h in g a tto rn e y s o n e ith e r s id e .” ¶57. T he tr i al courtthen i ns truct ed the j ury as t o the f ol l ow i ng: I nst ruct i on C R - 12 : N o tes o f a n att o rne y are n o t evid en ce . A n att o rne y ’s not es cannotbe used t o subs t i tut e f oryouri ndepende ntr ecol l ect i on or j udgement[ s i c] of

the evi dence
. W h en y o u co n side r th e w eigh t, im p o rt an ce o r be li ev ab il ity o f a n y p art of a w i tnes s es ’ [ s i c] t es t i m ony, you m us tnotbe i nf l uence d by the not es t aken a nd d i s p l a y e d t o th e j u r y b y a n a t t o rn e y d u r i n g th a twi tn e s s ’ s t e s t i mo n y . An att o rne y ’s no tes tak en a n d d isplay ed to y o u d u ri n g a w itn ess’s testi m o n y are nota verbat i m r ecor d of the f ul l t es t i m ony and m ay exc l ude evi dence you gi ve l i t t l e i m por t ance t o or f

i nd unbel i evabl e and m ay excl ude i nf or m at i on thatyou gi ve gr eat erw ei ghtand f i nd t o be cr edi bl e. T h u s, do no t assu m e sim p ly be ca u se so m ethin g w as w ri tt en i n a n a tto rne y ’s not es thati tneces s ar i l y t ook pl ace i n cour t ; nor thatsomet hi ng di d notoccur o r w a s n o t s a id s im p ly b e c a u s e a n a tto rn e y d id n o t w ri te in h is o r h e r n o te s .

### 27

¶ 5 8 . O n ap p e a l, B irk h e a d o b jec ts to this ins tru c tio n a s g iv in g im p ro p e r p ro m in e n c e to p a rt ic u la r p o rt io n s o f e v id e n c e . See S a n de rs v. S ta te, 5 8 6 S o . 2 d 7 9 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 ). B i r khead t akes i s s ue w i th the por t i on, “ you may exc l ude i nf or m at i on thatyou gi ve gr eat er w ei ghtand f

i nd to b e credi ble , ” and s t at es the tr i al courts houl d have s t at ed “s om e of t he thi ngs def

ens e couns el had w r i t t en dow n could be c re d ib le .” ¶59. H ow ever , dur i ng the i ns truct i on conf er ence , the f

ol l ow i ng excha nge t ook pl ace : Def e n s e Cou n s e l : A nd w e di dn’ t h a ve a ny o bj ect i ons t o your ot her

i nst ruct i on s. T r i al C our t : N o obj ect i ons t o t he no t es or anythi ng, the i ns truct i ons

on the n otes ? D efe n se C o u n sel: N o , y o u r ho n o r. ¶ 6 0 . T h e firs t tim e B irk h e a d ra ise d a n o b jec tio n to th is in stru c tio n w a s o n a p p e a l. “W ith f ew exce pt i ons , thi s C our thas enf or ced the rul e thatpr ovi des , w her e no obj ect i on i s m ade
a t tria l to a n a s s e rt e d e rr o r, a p a rt y is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d fr o m a s s e rt in g th e e rr o r o n a p p e a l.” B ro w n v. S ta te , 965 S o. 2 d 10 23 , 1029 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng Flem in gv. S ta te , 604 So. 2d 280, 294 ( M i s s . 1992) )
. A ddi t i onal l y, “[ i ] ti s i ncumbenton t he party as s ert i ng err ort o m ake a cont empora neous obj ect i on and obt ai n a rul i ng i n or dert o pr es erve the obj ect i on. ” I d. (c ita tio n o m itte d ). T h u s , B ir k h e a d is n o w p ro c e d u ra lly b a rr e d fr o m ra is in g th is is s u e . V I I . W het her t here w as c um ul at i ve er ror wh i ch depri ved Bi rkhead of hi s r i ght t o a fu n d a m e n ta lly fa ir tr ia l. ¶61. A c c o rd in g to th is C o u rt: [t] h e c u m u lat ive e rror d o ctri n e stem s from the d o ctri n e o f ha rm less erro r, codi f i ed underM i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l P r ocedur e 61. Ithol ds thati ndi vi dual erro rs, w h ich a re no t rev ersible i n th em selv es, m ay co m b ine w ith othe r errors t o m ake up r ever s i bl e err or , w her e the cumul at i ve ef f ectof al l err or s depr i ves th e d e fe n d a n t o f a fu n d a m e n tally fa ir trial.

### 28

R o ss v. S ta te , 954 So. 2d 968, 1018 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng B y ro m v . S ta te , 863 So. 2d 836, 847 (M is s . 2 0 0 3 ))
. ¶ 6 2 . T h e o n ly e rro r B irk h e a d id e n tified w a s In v e stig a to r L itt o n ’s c o m m e n t, a d d re ss e d in I s s u e V supra , w hi ch w as cur ed by t he cour t ’ s i ns truct i on. A s t hi s er r orw as cur ed, i tdoes
n o t co n stitu te a b a sis fo r re v e rsa l. T h is C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t: upon appel l at e r evie w of cas es i n w hi ch w e f

i nd harm l es s err ororany err or w hi ch i s nots peci f

i cal l y f ound t o be r ever s i bl e i n and of i t s el f , w e s hal l have the di s cr et i on t o det erm i ne, on a ca s e- by- cas e bas i s , as t o w hethers uch err or orerr or s , al though notr ever s i bl e w hen s t andi ng al one, m ay w hen cons i der ed cumul at i vel y r equi r e r ever s al be caus e of the r es ul t i ng cumul at i ve pr ej udi ci al e ff e c t. B e n n e tt v. S ta te , 990 So. 2d 155, 161 (M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng B yr om , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d at 84 6 -47 )). T hus , the i s s ue of

the cumul at i ve ef

f ectof e rr oron the f

ai rnes s of

Bi r khead’ s tr i al i s w i thout
m e ri t. CO NC L US I ON ¶63. A ccor di ngl y, thi s C our tconcl udes thatB i r khead’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence s houl d be
a ff ir m e d
. ¶64. C O N V I CT I O N O F CA PI TA L M UR DE R A ND SENTE NC E O F LI FE I M P RI S ON M E NT , W I T HOU T P AR OL E , AS A HAB I T UA L OF F E ND E R, I N T HE C U STO D Y O F T H E M I SSI SSI PPI DE PA R TM EN T O F C O R R EC TIO N S, AFF I RM ED . C A R L S O N , P .J ., D I C K I N S O N , L A M A R , C H A N D L E R A N D P I E R C E , J J ., CO NCU R. W ALLER, C. J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND I N RESULT W I TH SE P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N JO I N E D I N P A R T B Y K I T C H E N S, J. KI TCHEN S , J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED BY G R A V E S , P .J . W A L L E R , C H IE F J U S T IC E , C O N C U R R IN G IN P A R T A N D IN R E S U L T :

### 29

¶65. I agr ee t hat B i r khead’ s convi ct i on and sent ence s houl d be af f i r m ed. B ut I di s agr ee w ith th e m a

jo rity ’s d e c isio n to a d d re ss th e a d m iss ib ility o f c e rta in c o n ten ts o f th e d e a th
cert i f i cat e. T hati s s ue i s proc edur al l y bar r ed becaus e of B i r khead’ s f

ai l ur e t o obj ectt o t he t i m e of i nj ury ort i m e of

death; i ts houl d be pr es ent ed t o thi s C our tonl y as an i nef f ect i veas s i s t ance - of

- couns el cl ai m i n a pet i t i on f orpos t - convi ct i on r el i ef . I agre e w i th J us t i ce K i t chen s’ s dis senti nsofaras he fi nd s the sam e. I do no tj oin hi s di ssent , ho w ever, becau se I di s agr ee w i th hi s anal ys i s of the B at s on is s u e . ¶ 6 6 . F o r t h e s e re a s o n s , I r e s p e c tf u lly c o n c u r i n p a rt a n d in re s u lt. KI TCHEN S , J . , J OI NS T HI S OPI NI ON I N PART. KI T CH E NS , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶ 6 7 . T h e ju d g m e n t o f th e trial c o u rt sh o u ld b e re v e rse d d u e to th e trial ju d g e ’s fa ilu re to
r ecogni ze thatdef

ens e couns el es t abl i s hed a pr i m a f aci e B at s on ch all en g e d u ri n g v o ird ir e and du e t o the tri al j ud ge’s f ai l ure t o d ecl are a m istri al aft er a pr osecuti on w i tness comm ent ed on B i r khead ’s const i tut i onal l y pr ot ect ed s i l ence . B eca us e the maj or i ty hol ds
o therw ise, I resp ec tf

u ll y d issen t. I a lso w ri te to e x p ress m y d isag ree m en t w ith the m ajority ’s anal ys i s o f

the a dmi s s i bi l i ty of

the c on t e nt s o f

the d e a th c e r t i f

i c a t e . W hi l e I f

i nd the i s s ue p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d , the tim e o f d e a th a n d th e ti m e o f in ju ry listed o n th e c e rtifica te
c o n stitu te h e a rsa y th a t als o q u a lifies a s te stim o n ial e v id e n c e u n d e r o u r fe d e ra l an d sta te
c o n s titu tio n s ’ c o n fr o n ta tio n c la u s e s . U .S . C o n s t. a m e n d . V I; M is s . C o n s t. a rt . 3 , § 2 6 . B at s on ¶6 8 . B irk h ea d ’s ap p ea l d o es n o t p rese n t the u lt im ate q u e stio n o f w h ethe r the tr ial co u rt
v iolated h is co n sti tuti o n al r ig h ts un d er B at s on v. K entucky , 476 U . S. 79, 106 S. C t . 1712,

### The m aj ority incor re ctly c onte nds that

thi s c onclusi on cannot bedrawn without 19 

### more in formatio n ab out the mak eup of th e ven ire. Th is arg ume nt fund amentally mi sc onstrue s the Bats on proce ss . Al l that nee d initia lly be s ubmi tt ed t o thetria l c ourt is “a prim a fa ciesh ow ing th at a peremp torychallen ge h as beenexercisedonthe b asis of race.” Snyder , 552 U. S. at 476. If a c hanc e exi st s that, as the m aj ori ty impl ie s, thera ci almakeup of the ve nire indic at es ra ci al ly neutralre as ons f or thechal le nged stri kes , the n that is a fa ct to besubm itte d to t

he c ourt by thenon-c hal le nging party in t he second s ta ge of

a Bats on inquiry . To day ’s case do es no t ask u s to reachthis seco ndpro ng . 30 90 L . E d. 2d 69 ( 1986)
. R ather , w e m eetonl y the pr el i m i nary ques t i on of w hether“al l of

t he ci r cumst ance s thatbe arupon the i s s ue of r aci al ani m os i ty, ” Sny de rv. Louis iana , 552 U . S. 47 2, 47 8, 12 8 S. Ct . 12 03 , 17 0 L. Ed. 2d 17 5 ( 20 08 ) ( ci t i ng Mil ler-E l v. D r et ke , 54 5 U. S. 231, 239, 125 S. Ct . 2317, 162 L . E d. 2d 196 ( 2005) ) , cons t i tut ed “a p rim a fa c ie s how i ng t hat
a per empt ory c hal l enge has be en exe r ci s ed on the bas i s of r ace , ” I d . at476 ( quot i ng Mil

lerEl , 54 5 U . S . at27 7, (Th om as, J. , dis sent i ng ))
. S uch d eterm i nati on s ar e nece ssar i l y case s p e c if ic a n d w ill n o t b e o v e rt u rn e d o n a p p e lla te re v ie w , a b s e n t c le a r e rr o r. W oodw ar d v. S ta te , 7 2 6 S o . 2 d 5 2 4 , 5 3 0 (M is s . 1 9 9 8 ). ¶ 6 9 . B u t th e fa c ts o f th is c a se e a sily c lea r th a t h ig h h u rd le. W h e n B irk h e a d lo d g e d h is B at s on chal l enge, the pr os ecut i on had exer ci s ed f i ve of i t s tw el ve per empt ory s tr i kes , and al l f i ve had b een use d agai ns tA f r i can A m er i cans . I f

thi s does notdemonstr at e the s or tof

“‘ patt ern’ of

s tr i kes agai ns tbl ack j ur or s i ncl uded i n the part i cul arv enir e [ that ] m i ghtgi ve ri s e to a n in fe re n c e o f d is c ri m in a tio n ,” B at s on , 4 7 6 U. S . a t9 6 , th e n o n e h a s a h a r d t i me i m agi ni ng a s etof

f act s thatw oul d. See Flo w e rs v. S ta te , 947 So. 2d 910 ( M i s s . 20 07) 19 ( r ever s i ng on B at

s on gr ou nd s w he r e pr os ecut or s us ed 100 per centof thei rper empt ory s t r i kes ag ains t A fri ca n A m erican s).

### 31

¶70. I n thi s cas e, the pr os ecut orvery w el l m ay hav e b een a bl e t o art i cul at e r eas onabl e, r ace - neutr al r eas ons f

orhi s per empt ory s tr i kes in accor dance w i th the s econd pr ong of t he B at s on p ro c e ss , an d in lig h t o f su c h e x p lan a tio n s, th e tri a l j u d g e co u ld h a v e b e e n w ith in h is di s cr et i on t o deny B i r khead’ s c hal l enges . H ow ever , thati s notthe ques t i on bef or e us . T he ques t i on i s w hetherB i rkhead p res ent ed a p rim a fa c ie s how i ng of r aci al l y m ot i vat ed p ere m p tory str ikes
. I w o u ld fi n d that the S tat e’s u se o f ea ch o f i ts f ir st f ive p ere m p tory chal l enges agai ns tA f

r i can A m er i cans s uf

f i ci ent l y demonstr at ed s uch a s how i ng. C om m ent

on D ef endant ’s Si l ence ¶71. B oth the Fi f

th A m endment t o the U . S. C ons t i tut i on and A r t i cl e 3, Sect i on 26, of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on cl ear l y f orbi d s el f

- compul s i on, a pr ohi bi t i on that“has been
cons trued by t hi s C our tt o have been vi ol at ed, notonl y w hen a di r ects t at ementi s m ade by th e p ro se c u tio n a s to th e d e fe n d a n t’ s n o t t e stify in g , b u t als o b y a c o m m e n t w h ich c o u ld
r eas onabl y be cons trued by a j ury a s a c om m enton the def endant ’ s f

ai l ur e t o t es t i f

y. ” G riffin
v. S ta te , 557 So. 2d 542, 552 ( M i s s . 1990) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. “Si m pl y put , t he governm ent
c a n n o t u s e a n a c c u s e d ’s e x e rc is e o f a C o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t a s a w e a p o n t o c o n v ic t h im .” E m e ry v. S ta te , 869 So. 2d 405, 409 ( M i s s . 2004) ( quot i ng P u c k e tt v. S ta te , 737 So. 2d 322 (M is s . 1 9 9 9 )). In th e c a se a t b a r, th e p ro se c u tio n w itn e ss ’s r e fe re n c e to B irk h e a d ’s p o stM ir an d ized sil en ce c learly c o m m en ted o n the e x erc ise o f th at ri g h t i n v iolati o n o f B irk h ea d ’s ri g h t to s ile n c e u n d e r t h e U .S . a n d M is s is s ip p i c o n s titu tio n s . See Mir anda v. Ari z ona , 384 U . S . 4 3 6 , 8 6 S . C t. 1 6 0 2 , 1 6 L . E d
. 2 d 6 9 4 (19 6 6 ). ¶ 7 2 . S o m e c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o r s , in s o m e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , m a y b e d e e m e d h a rm le s s . See Fahy v. Connec ti c ut , 3 7 5 U . S . 8 5 , 8 6 -87 , 8 4 S . C t. 2 2 9 , 1 1 L . E d
. 2 d 1 7 1 (19 6 3 ). B u t i f a

### 32

r evi ew i ng courtdi s cover s a const i tut i onal err or , coupl ed w i th a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i ty that th e e rr o r c o u ld h a v e c o n tr ib u te d to th e c o n v ic tio n , th e n th e e rr o r i s n o t h a rm le s s . Chapm an v. Ca lifo rn ia , 386 U . S. 18, 23, 87 S. Ct . 824, 17 L . Ed. 2d 705 ( 1967)
. Phr as ed anotherw ay, in o rd e r to id e n tify h a rm les s e rro r, an a p p e llate c o u rt m u st d e ter m in e “ b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubtthatthe err orc om pl ai ned of di d notcontr i but e t o the ver di ctobt ai ned. ” D el as hm it v. S ta te , 991 So. 2d 1215, 1223 ( M i s s . 2008)
. Such a det erm i nat i on nece s s ar i l y r equi r es cas eb y - c a s e re v ie w . R iddley v. S ta te , 7 77 So . 2 d 31 , 3 5 ( M i s s . 2 00 0)
. I n thi s c a s e , t he t r i al
r ecor d s i m pl y doe s notr evea l the “ove rw hel m i ng evi dence ” thats us t ai ns a convi ct i on i n the fa c e o f a c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o r. See W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 9 9 1 So . 2d 59 3 , 60 6 ( M i s s . 20 0 8 )
. To b e s u re , th e S ta te ’s e v id e n c e w a s s tr o n g , b u t its e v id e n c e w a s p u re ly c ir c u m s ta n tia l. ¶ 7 3 . F u r th e r mo r e , th i s c a s e i s e a s i l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m S tra h a n v. S ta te , 729 So. 2d 800 (M i ss. 19 98 ), up on w hich the m aj ori ty rel i es. M aj
. O p. at ¶52 . In t hat case, the “very cl ose i s s ue, w hi ch i nvol ves a f undament al r i ght , ” w as notw het herthe St at e’ s r ef er ence t o a d efe n d an t’ s si lenc e w as cu red by a li m it ing instruction , b u t r athe r w h ethe r th e p rose cu tor’s sta tem e n t a c tu a lly w a s a n a lleg a tio n th a t th e d e fe n d a n t h a d n o t p re se n ted ju ro rs w ith a v iab le
c a s e . Str ahan , 7 2 9 S o . 2 d a t 80 7 . In the p rese n t case , n o su ch co n fusio n ex ist s. T h e re co rd l eave s no r oom f

ordoubtt hatthe def

endant ’ s cons t i tut i onal l y pr ot ect ed s i l ence w as a d d re ss e d , a c lea r v io latio n o f o u r ru le th a t “a d ire c t re fe re n c e to th e d e fe n d a n t’s fa ilu re to t es t i f y i s s t r i ct l y pr ohi bi t ed. ” I d. D e a th C e rtifica te

### The m aj ori ty opinion devot es two s ec ti ons of it s di sc uss ion t o thedeath c erti fi cate ; 20 

### but be ca usethe y ar e s o cl ose ly rel at ed, I c ombine thes e argum ent s into t his one s ec ti on. The m aj ori ty ref

er s m ainly t o thetimeof inj ury in it s dis cus si on, but theobje ction 21 

### conc er ned both thetimeof injur y and the tim e of

death l is te d on thedeath c erti fi cate . 33 ¶74. M y deepe s t m i s gi vi ng i n thi s cas e, though, s t ems f r om the m aj or i ty’ s anal ys i s of t he ad m issi b il ity o f th e d ea th ce rt if icate. I ag ree that this po int of e rro r d o es n o t r eq u ir e 20
re v e rsa l, bu t n o t b e c a u s e it lac k s m e rit, a s th e m a jo rity h o ld s. W e m a y n o t re v e rse o n th is i s s ue, notbeca us e i ti s m er i t l es s , butbeca us e the def endant ’ s tr i al couns el f

ai l ed t o m ake a pr operobj ect i on t o the evi dence and al s o fa i l ed t o obj ectt o pr os ecut i on w i tnes s es ’ t es t i m ony r egar di ng the obj ect i onabl e evi dence – the t i m e of i nj ury and/ orthe t i m e of death. 21 ¶75. A s t oday ’s m aj ori t y opi ni on r ecogni zes , w hen the pr os ecut i on m oved t o admi tt he death cert i f

i cat e, t he def

ens e couns el m ade the f

ol l ow i ng obj ect i on: “ O n the r eportthey have the hourof i nj ury as bei ng 3: 38 a. m . I don’ tknow thatthey have es t abl i s hed that
. T hey have the hourof

death as bei ng 3: 50 a. m . I don’tt hi nk t hey have es t abl i s hed that
. W e w i l l obj ect t o i tb e i ng i ntr od uc e d. ” A tn o po i ntd i d the d e f e ns e a t t orne y ob

j e c tt o the c ont ent s of

t he d e a th c e rtifica te a s h e a rsa y o r ra ise an y o b jec tio n th a t th e a d m iss io n o f th e c e rtifica te w o u ld vi ol at e the def

endant ’ s c ons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o conf r onthi s acc us er s . T hi s C our thas hel d that th e fa ilu re to a rticu late a s p e c ific re a so n fo r a n o b jec tio n to th e in tro d u c tio n o f e v id e n c e w ill
w a iv e th e is s u e o n a p p e a l. D u p la n tis v . S ta te , 708 So. 2d 1327, 1346- 47 ( M i s s . 1998) ( quot i ng N

o rm a n v. S ta te , 3 0 2 S o . 2 d 2 5 4 , 2 5 9 (M iss. 1 9 7 4 )). ¶76. T her e i s , of cour s e, a “pl ai n er r or ” anal ys i s , underw hi ch thi s C our tm ay r ever s e on an i s s ue notot herw i s e pr es erved f orappeal i f

t her e w as an er r ort hati nvol ved a f undament al ri gh tand res ult ed in a “m anif estm i scarri age of j ust i ce” o r “ser i ou sl y aff ect [ ed] the fai rness ,

### The m aj ori ty f inds in paragraph 20 that “ theStateneve r att em pte d to e st abl is h an 22 

### exa ct ‘tim e of inj ury, ” but

there cord cl early dem onstrate s that theStatewas stri ving t o show that th e victim’s in

juryandresultin g d eath o ccurredwh ile Birkheadwas inthe v ehicle. 34 i nt egr i ty orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” B ro w n v . S ta te , 995 So. 2d 698, 703 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. H ow ever , thr oug houtthe tr i al , the pr os ecut i on el i ci t ed si gn i fi cant t est i m on y regardi ng the v i ct i m ’s t i m e o f d ea th w i tho ut obj ect i on fr om defense
cou nsel
. F or exam ple, O ff i cer Pay ne, tho ug h n ot qual i fi ed as an e xp erti n such m at t ers , 22 t es t i f i ed thatL ani erhad di ed “f i ve t o t en m i nut es ” bef

or e O f f i cerPayne arr i ved atthe s cene . A nd, al though the pathol ogi s t , D r . St even H ayn e, tes t i f i ed atone poi ntthathe coul d not det erm i ne a t i m e of

death, he a l s o t es t i f

i ed that“ther e w as obvi ous m edi cal i nt ervent i on on the dece dentpl ace d a ta boutthe t i m e of de ath. ” D r . H ayne al s o t es t i f i ed, i n r es pons e t o a l i ne o f q u e stio n in g fro m th e d e fe n se a tto rn e y , tha t th e v ictim ’s e x ter n a l b o d y tem p e ra tu re w o u ld h a v e d ro p p e d ra p id ly fo llo w in g d e a th , co rro b o ra tin g O ffic e r P a y n e ’s o p in io n th a t th e v ictim had di ed r ece nt l y beca us e the body w as s t i l l w arm . G i ven def ens e couns el ’ s f

ai l ur e t o obj ect t o the evi dence r egar di ng the t i m e of i nj ury and/ orde ath, a nd the def ens e att orney’ s havi ng e licite d s u c h in fo rm a tio n fro m D r. H a y n e , the a d m iss ib ili ty o f th e c o n ten ts o f th e d e a th
c e r t i f i c a t e c o u l d b e p r e s e n t e d t o th i s Co u rto n l y a s a n i n e f f e c t i v e - a s s i s t a n c e - o f

- c o u n s e l c l a i m. W e ar e notpr es ent ed w i th s uch an argum ent , and thi s C our thas hel d thati nef f ect i veassistan ce -of-co u n sel claim s are b ett er p rese n ted in p etiti o n s for p o st- co n v ict ion reli ef. A rc h e r v . S ta te , 9 8 6 S o . 2 d 9 5 1 , 9 5 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶77. T he m aj or i ty does not m ake an expl i ci t f i ndi ng that the i s s ue i s pr ocedur al l y barr ed, b u t in ste a d a n a ly z e s th e m e rits o f B ir k h e a d ’s a rg u m e n t. I res p e c tfu lly d isa g re e w ith th is

### 35

a p p ro ac h , an d w o u ld fi n d th at th e ti m e o f i n jury an d th e ti m e o f dea th l ist ed on th e d e a th cert i fi cat e con st i tute obj ect i on able hearsay subjectt o a st at e and feder al con fr on t at i on cl ause a n a ly s is
. ¶78 . U n d o u b tedly , as th e m ajorit y ri g h tl y asse rt s, the d ea th c e rti fi ca te i s a selfa u th e n tic a tin g d o c u m e n t u n d e r M is s is s ip p i R u le o f E v id e n c e 9 0 2 (4 ). See M aj
. O p. at¶30. T he m aj or i ty a l s o i s c orr ectthatthe dea th cert i f i cat e itse lf

is e x c e p ted fr o m th e h e a rsa y ru le
a s a r e c o rd o f a v ita l s ta tis tic u n d e r M is s is s ip p i R u le o f E v id e n c e 8 0 3 (9 ). See M aj
. O p. at ¶ 3 1 . B u t th ese rules e stab li sh o n ly tha t th e d ea th ce rt if icate is prec isel y that: a de a th
cert i f i cat e. W hen the s t at e r egi s tr arcert i f i es a copy of

a dea th cert i f

i cat e, s he i s cert i f

yi ng o n ly “ th a t th e a b o v e is a tru e a n d c o rr e c t c o p y o f t h e c e rt if ic a te o n fi le in th [a t] o ff ic e .” A uthent i ci ty i s notthe pr i m e conc ern her e. A dm i s s i bi l i ty i s. T he c o n ten ts o f th e d e a th
cert i f i cat e, how ever , s t i l l ar e s ubj ectt o the rul es of evi dence
. M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of E vi dence 8 0 5 p ro v id e s, “ [h ]ea rsa y in c lu d e d w ith in h e a rsa y is n o t ex c lu d e d u n d e r th e h e a rsa y ru le if
e a c h p a rt o f th e c o m b ined stat em en ts co n form s w ith an ex ce p ti o n to the h ea rsay rule p rov ided in thes e rules.” U n li k e, for ex am p le, the d ec ea sed ’s n am e an d a d d ress w h ich a re l i s t ed on the dea th cert i f i cat e, the t i m e of

death and t i m e of

i nj ury ar e “ass ert i on [ s] ” bei ng “off ered i n ev i den ce t o p rove the truth of t he m at t er ass ert ed. ” M . R . E . 80 1. T heref ore, t hese “as s ert i ons ” ar e hear s ay and ar e “nota dm i s s i bl e exc eptas pr ovi ded by l aw . ” M . R . E . 802. ¶79. T he m aj ori t y rel i es on S h e ll v. S ta te , 55 4 So . 2d 88 7, 89 8 ( M i s s . 19 89 ) , t o r e j ect B i r khead’ s hear s ay ar gum ent . B ut , unl i ke t oday’ s cas e, t he def endanti n S h e ll di d notm ake an obj ect i on t o the c o n ten ts o f th e d e a th ce rt if icate; he m ere ly arg u ed that the e n ti re

### 36

d o c u m e n t w a s in a d m is s ib le
. I d . T he C our tcorr ect l y hel d thatthe dea th cert i f i cat e i t s el f

w as n o t hea rsay u n d er M issi ssipp i R u le of E v iden ce 8 0 3 (9). ¶80. T he maj or i ty opi ni on al s o r ej ect s B i r khead’ s r el i ance on Flo w e rs v. S ta te , 243 S o. 2d 564 ( M i s s . 1971) , beca us e Flow ers i s a “pr e- R ul es cas e” a nd “ol d l aw . ” M aj
. O p. at¶ 31. H ow ever , nothi ng i n Rul e 803( 9) abr ogat es the Flow ers d e c isio n . In d e e d , the c o m m e n t to R u le 8 0 3 (9 ) sp e c ifica lly re c o g n ize s th a t th e ru le w a s a co d ifica tio n o f e x istin g law : “T h is ru le is si m il ar to p re-ex ist ing M issi ssipp i law
. F o r ex am p le, [M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n ] 4 1 -57 -9 f or m er l y pr ovi ded f

orthe admi s s i on of

cert i f i ed copi es of

bi r th and dea th .
. . . ” ¶81. W hen thi s C our thel d i n Flow ers , 243 So. 2d at565, thatde ath c ert i f i cat es c oul d be
r ece i ved i nt o e vi dence butus ed onl y t o s how the “phys i cal caus e of death, ” thi s C our tw as a n a ly z in g th e s a m e s e c tio n o f th e C o d e m e n tio n e d in th e c o m m e n t to R u le 8 0 3 (9 ). See M i ss. C ode A nn. § 41- 57- 9 ( R ev. 2009) ; M i s s . C ode § 7064 ( 1942) ( “A ny copy of the r ecor ds of bi r th, si ckn ess or death, w hen pr oper l y cert i f i ed t o [ s i c] by the s t at e r egi s tr arof vi t al
s t at i s t i cs , t o be a true copy ther eof , s hal l be pr i m a f

aci e evi dence i n al l court s and pl ace s of th e fa c ts th e re in sta ted .”) T h is s tatu te h a s e x iste d fo r n e a rly a c e n tu ry , a n d e a rly o n th is C our tr i ght l y r ecogni zed, des pi t e the s t atut e’ s br oad l anguage , thatnoteverythi ng l i s t ed on the ce r t i f

i cat e w as compet entevi dence
. I n Mas s achuse tt s P r otecti ve Ass ociati on v. Cran ford , 1 3 7 M iss . 8 7 6 , 1 0 2 S o . 1 7 1 , 1 7 2 (1 9 2 4 ), th is C o u rt h e ld in a d m is s ib le a d e a th
cert i f i cat e w hi ch s t at ed thatthe caus e of death w as “s ui ci dal
. ” The C our tr eas oned thatthe death cert i f

i cat e coul d notbe us ed t o pr ove the i ns ur ed had c om m i t t ed sui ci de, a f actt hat
w o u ld h a v e re lie v e d th e in s u ra n c e c o m p a n y o f i ts o b lig a tio n to p a y th e c la im
. I d . at173- 74. Speci f i cal l y, thi s Courthe l d “ w e do notthi nk the s t atut e w as i nt ended t o au t ho ri ze

### 37

cert i fi cat es t o b e i ntr od uced as pri m a faci e evidence e x ce p t as t o the pri m e ph ysi cal cause of death. ” I

d. at 17 3 . O b v io u sly, th e C o u rtw as n o t prep are d to g ive v ali d ity to ev ery as s ert i on cont ai ned i n a dea th cert i f i cat e, and w e s houl d notdo s o t oday. W hi l e R ul e 803( 9) p ro v id e s a n e x c e p tio n fo r th e d e a th c e rtifica te itse lf, R u le 8 0 5 , g o v e rn in g h e a rsa y w ith in h e a rs a y , c le a rl y is a p p lic a b le to th e c o n te n ts o f t h e d e a th c e rt if ic a te . ¶8 2 . H a v in g e sta b lish e d th e c o n tents o f th e d o cu m en t as h ea rsay , w e a lso a re a sk ed to determ i ne w hetheradm i ssi on of the con t ents of the do cum ent, w i tho ut a s up po rt i ng w i t ness, v io late d B irk h e a d ’s r ig h t t o co n fro n t his ac c u se rs. U .S . C o n st. a m e n d . V I; M iss . C o n st. a rt. 3, § 26. A s an i ni t i al m att er , w e do notknow w ho s uppl i ed the t i m e of de ath orthe t i m e of i nj ury i ncl uded i n the dea th cert i f i cat e. T he cor onersi gned t he docum entt o cer t i f y onl y that “on the bas i s of

exam i nat i on and/ ori nves t i gat i on, i n [ hi s ] opi ni on, death occurr ed due t o the cause(s) and m ann er as st at ed.” H o w ever, his si gn ature app ears above the s ect i on l abel ed “ca us e of death. ” Thats ect i on w as c om pl et ed by ha ndw r i t t en entr i es ; a nd w hi l e w e ca nnot be ce r t ai n w ho compl et ed thi s por t i on of the document , the handw r i t i ng ap pears t o be the
s ame as t haton D r . H ayne’ s aut ops y r eport . T he “hourof i nj ury” i s typed as 3: 38 a. m . , and the “hourof

death” i s t yped as 3: 50 a. m . C oi nci dent al l y, m or e than one of f i cert es t i f i ed that h e a rr iv e d o n th e s c e n e a t e x a c tly 3 :3 8 a .m ., th e p re c is e tim e lis te d a s th e “ h o u r o f i n ju ry .” ¶83. T he m aj or i ty s eems t o say t hat B i r khead m us t pr ovi de t hi s C our t the i dent i ty of t he p e rso n w h o su p p lied the inf o rm a tio n in o rd e r to su c c e e d o n a S ix th A m e n d m e n t cla im . M a j. O p. at¶¶ 38- 39. W hil e w e cannotknow w ho pr ovi ded the obj ect i onabl e i nf or m at i on, our i gnor ance of

thatpe r s on’ s i dent i ty doe s notc hange the anal ys i s . U nderours t at e and f eder al
c o n s titu tio n s , th e a c c u s e d h a s th e ri g h t “ to b e c o n fr o n te d w ith th e w itn e s s e s a g a in s t h im .”In d e e d , q u ite re c e n tly , th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fo r th e D istric t o f C o lu m b ia 23 hel d that , pur s uantt o Melendez-D iaz , admi t t i ng a dea th cert i f i cat e w i t ho uta s uppor t i ng w itn e s s w o u ld v io la te a d e fe n d a n ts ’ r ig h ts u n d e r t h e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. U. S. v. Wil lia ms ,

__ F . S u p p . 2 d _ _ , 2 0 1 0 W L 4 0 7 1 5 3 8 (D .D .C . O c t. 1 8 , 2 0 1 0 ). T h e c o u rt h e ld th a t th e “ d e a th c e rtifica te th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t se e k s to in tro d u c e in e v id e n c e in th is m a tter f it[ s] sq u a re ly w i thi n the def

i ni t i on of t es t i m oni al s t at ement s . ” Id a t * 2 . 

### 38 U . S. C ons t . amend. V I ; M i s s . C ons t . art . 3, § 26. T hatthe i dent i ty of the w i tnes s orw i tnes s es r emai ns unknow n i n thi s case m er el y hi ghl i ght s the pr i m ary purpos e of the cons t i tut i onal guar ant ees of

the r i ghtt o conf

r ontone’ s a ccus er ( s ) : the oppor tuni ty t o t es tthe val i di ty of t he
e v id e n c e a g a in s t th e a c c u s e d
. ¶84. T he maj ori t y ho l ds thatco ntent s of t he death cert i fi cat e are n ots ubj ectt o a C onf r ont at i on C l aus e ana l ys i s beca us e the ce r t i f i cat e w as “cr eat ed f

orthe admi ni s tr at i on of
a n e n tity ’s a ff

a ir s a n d n o t f

o r t h e p u rp o s e o f e s ta b lis h in g o r p r o v in g s o m e fa c t a t tr ia l.” Melen dez-D iaz v. Mass. , __ U .S . __ , 1 2 9 S . C t. 2 5 2 7 , 2 5 3 9 -40 , 1 7 4 L . E d
. 2 d 2 1 4 (20 0 9 ). I r es pect f ul l y and s tr enuous l y di s agr ee. T he very exi s t ence of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 41- 5 7 -9 a n d M iss iss ip p i R u le o f E v id e n c e 8 0 3 (9 ) le a v e s n o ro o m fo r d o u b t t h a t t h e d e a th
cert i f i cat e “w oul d be ava i l abl e f orus e ata l at ertr i al
. ” Cr aw f or d v. W as hington , 54 1 U. S. 3 6 , 5 2 , 1 2 4 S . C t. 1 3 5 4 , 1 5 8 L . E d
. 2 d 1 7 7 (20 0 4 ). 23 ¶85. T he m aj ori t y al so fi nds i tnot ew or thy thatthe t i m e of i nj ury “w as notan es s ent i al el ementof

the char ge. ” M aj
. O p. at¶ 42. I f ai l t o s ee how thi s i s r el evantt o a C onf r ont at i on C l aus e ana l ys i s . B y est abl i s hi ng t hatL ani erw as fa t al l y i nj ur ed ata t i m e w hen B i r khead w as i n Lan i e r ’ s c a r , the St a t e was a bl e t o s ho w tha tBi r kh e a d ha d the o pp ortun i ty a nd was t he onl y per s on w ho coul d have ki l l ed Lani er . W i thouta conf es s i on oran eye w i tnes s t o the

### The tri alcourt properly instruc te d thejur y on circ ums tanti alevi denc e. 24 

### 39 m ur der , the St at e’ s cas e w as ent i r el y ci r cumst ant i al
. T hus , i f the i nj ury occurr ed att he 24
s ame t i m e B i r khead w as i n L ani er ’ s car , then, logi cal l y, ei therB i r khead s t abbed Lani eror L a n ie r s ta b b e d h im s e lf

. ¶86. I n s um , had the def endant t i m el y and pr oper l y obj ect ed, the “hour of death” and the

“ h o u r o f in

ju ry ” c o n tain e d in th e d e a th c e rtifica te w o u ld h a v e b e e n in a d m iss ib le h e a rsa y w ith f undament al co nst i tut i onal i m pl i cat i ons . T he rul e enunc i at ed i n Flow ers has notchange d
w ith the p ron o u n ce m en t of o u r ru les of ev ide n ce o r w ith the U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt ’s l at es tde ci s i ons c oncerni ng the Si xth A m endment ’ s Confr ont at i on C l aus e. St atut es s i m i l ar to M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 4 1 -5 7 -9 c a n b e fo u n d o n th e b o o k s in m a n y sta tes , b u t th e c o u rts in th o se sta tes , li k e o u rs , h isto ric a lly h a v e re fu se d to h o ld th a t th e c o n ten ts o f a d e a th
cert i f i cat e qual i f

y as compet entevi dence m er el y beca us e they ar e pres ent ed i n an of f i ci al document
. A s m or e than one c our thas s ai d: T he coupl i ng of

hear s ay and c oncl us i onar y el ement s i n a s i ngl e pi ece of evi dence ar ous es t he m or e f undament al probl em of fa i rnes s t o the def

endant i n a cr i m i nal cas e. T he ca us e of death entry m ay emanat e f r om a compl ex val ue j udgm entdr aw n by a medi cal expert . W hen i tr i des i nt o the f r ay m o u n ted o n a sa d d le o f a p u b lic d o c u m e n t, i t is u n a c c o m p a n ied b y th e e x p e rt. T he l att erappea r s i n courtonl y i n the f or m of the document
. H e hi m s el f i s not avai l abl e f

orcr os s - exami nat i on by the def ens e. State v. W

at s on , 188 S. E . 2d 289, 232 ( N . C . 1972) ( quot i ng P eople v. Holder , 40 C al. R p tr . 6 5 5 (C a l. C t. A p p . 1 9 6 4 ))
. C oncl us i on

### 40

¶8 7. W hi l e I a gr e e w i th t he maj or i ty, f or di f f e r e nt r e a s on s , tha t w e c a nn ot r e ve r s e ba s ed
o n th e a d m iss io n o f th e d e a th c e rtifica te, I d isa g re e w ith th e o p in io n ’s a n a ly sis a n d w o u ld
r ever s e the ca s e on othergr ounds
. The tr i al courtcomm i t t ed cl earerr orw hen i tf ound t hat B i r khead ha d notm ade a pr i m a f aci e B at s on sh o w in g . In a d d iti o n , th e tria l c o u rt a b u se d its d iscreti o n in fail ing to d ec lare a m istri al a ft er a w itn ess fo r th e S tat e b lurt ed o u t, in the jury ’s presence, that the acc used h ad ex erci sed his const i tuti on al r i gh tt o rem ai n si l ent. Fo r these
re a so n s, I w o u ld re v e rse th e ju d g m e n t o f th e trial c o u rt an d rem a n d the ca se fo r a n e w trial. B e c a u se th e m a

jo rity h o ld s d iffe re n tly , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. GRAVE S , P . J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.