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 8 - KA- 0 0 2 9 9 - S CT I S S AC J ER M AI NE NEL S ON
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 01/ 24/ 2008 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. M AR CU S D. GOR DON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: S COTT COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N T : E D M U N D J . P H IL L IP S , J R
. P
. S H A W N H A R R IS 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 : W
. G LEN N W A TTS DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: M AR K S HE L DON DU NC AN NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY DI S P OSI TI ON: COUNT I : CONVI CTI ON A ND SE NTE NCE AF F I RMED ; CO UR T I I : CO NVI CT I ON AF F I RMED ; S E NT E NC E VAC AT E D AND RE M ANDE D F OR RE S E NT E NC I NG - 04/ 23/ 2009. M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
B E F O R E C A R L SO N , P . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D P I E R C E , JJ. PI ERCE, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. I s s ac J er m ai ne N e l s on ( N e l s on ) w a s i nd i c t e d f orCountI , mur de rof

Sha nnon L ee T orr ence ( Shannon) w hi l e enga ged i n the c omm i s s i on of a r obbe ry i n vi ol at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97- 3- 19( 2) ( e) , and C ountI I , ki dnappi ng of Shannon i n vi ol at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C o d e S e c tio n 9 7 -3 -5 3 . O n J a n u a ry 2 2 -2 4 , 2 0 0 7 , N e lso n w a s tried in th e S c o tt C o u n ty C irc u it C our t , J udge M ar cus D
. G or don pr es i di ng, for t he capi t al m ur derand ki dnappi ng of

### 2

Shannon. T he j ury convi ct ed N el s on of s i m pl e murde r , a l es s erof f ens e, and ki dnappi ng. N e lso n w a s s e n ten c e d in C o u n t I to life im p riso n m e n t fo r m u rd e r a n d in C o u n t II to fo rty y e a rs fo r k id n a p p in g , to ru n c o n s e c u tiv e ly w ith C o u n t I
. FACTS ¶2. M ary C arpent er , Shannon’ s m other , t es t i f i ed t haton February 23, 2007, Shannon w as
a t h o m e w h e n s h e le ft fo r w o rk a t 6 :1 5 a .m . W h e n S h a n n o n d id n o t c a ll h e r a t 1 2 :1 5 p .m ., as h e d i d e a c h da y, Carpe nt e rb e c a me c on c e rne d a bo uth e rs on . Carpe nt e rthen ca l l ed S h a n n o n a t th e ir h o m e tele p h o n e n u m b e r a n d a t h is c e ll-p h o n e n u m b e r, an d c a lled h is s c h o o l, Scot tCent r al H i gh School
. T he s chool i nf or m ed herthatShannon ha d notatt ended s chool thatday. B y 3: 00 p. m . , C arpent erhad l ef tw or k and ar r i ved hom e t o l ook f orShannon. She not i ced thatShannon’ s cl othes w er e s t i l l i n t he dr yer , hi s cel l phone w as on the count er , and h is c a r w a s m is s in g . ¶3. A t 11: 00 a. m . on February 23, B etty L ew i s , a cook at Scot t C entr al H i gh School , s aw N el s on dr i vi ng a ca rthatw as l at eri dent i f i ed as bel ongi ng t o Shannon nearthe M i dw ay
comm uni ty. L ew i s knew Shannon and N el s on f r om s chool
. Sever al days af t erShannon d is a p p e a re d , L e w is re p o rt e d to th e p o lic e th a t s h e h a d s e e n N e ls o n d ri v in g th e c a r. ¶4
. T h e fo llo w in g M o n d a y , o n F e b ru a ry 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 , B il ly P atrick , a S c o tt C o u n ty inv esti g ator, pa rt ici p ated in the se arc h fo r S h an n o n . H e sea rch ed a ro ad w ay n ea r N elso n ’s hous e and not i ced t i r e t r acks goi ng i nt o t he w oods
. Patr i ck parked hi s vehi cl e and w al ked in to th e w o o d s , w h e re h e d is c o v e re d a b o d y w ith a p la s tic b a g a ro u n d th e h e a d
. ¶5. St even C r otw el l , a Scot t C ounty i nves t i gat or , t es t i f i ed that he al s o w as i nves t i gat i ng th e m iss in g -p e rso n re p o rt o n S h a n n o n . O n F e b ru a ry 2 6 , C ro tw e ll sa w S h a n n o n ’s b o d y in

### Miranda v. Ari zona , 384 U. S. 436, 86 S. Ct . 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966)
. 1 

### The e xac t wording of

thenot e s tate d “Ihavere ques te d to talk to S/A Danny Kni ght 2 

### & S cott C o. S .O. Inv. S tevenCro twell w/o myattorn ey p resent.” 3 the w oods w i th a bl ack garbage bag s ecur ed w i th ductt ape a r ound hi s head. N el s on and C ra ig M c B e a th , an o th e r frie n d , b o th w e re p re s e n t a t S h a n n o n ’s h o u se o n th e d a y o f h is di s appea r ance . C r otw el l had spoke n w i th N el s on and M cB eath the pr evi ous day aboutthe di s appea r ance of

Shannon. Fol l ow i ng the di s covery of Shannon’ s body on February 27, an
a rr e s t w a rr a n t w a s is s u e d fo r N e ls o n . ¶6. O n F ebruary 27 , 20 07 , C rot w el l and D ann y K night , an invest i gatorw i t h the M i s s i s s i pp i B ureau o f I nv est i gati on s, i nterview ed N el son. P ri or t o the i nt ervi ew , K ni ghtr ead N el son h i s Mir anda r i ght s . N el s on puthi s i ni t i al s be s i de hi s r i ght s a nd s i gned the w ai ver 1 f or m . A tthe i nt ervi ew , N el s on t ol d C r otw el l thatShannon had br oughthi m hom e ar ound 1 1 :0 0 a .m . o n F e b ru a ry 2 3 , h o w e v e r, h e h a d n o th in g to d o w ith S h a n n o n ’s d e a th
. ¶7. A f

ew days l at er , C r otw el l w as i nf or m ed thatN el s on, w ho w as i n j ai l , w ant ed t o s peak t o hi m . T he nextm orni ng, on M ar ch 2, 2007, C r otw el l and K ni ghtm etw i th N el s on. Pr i or t o the i nterview , K nightrer ead N el son h i s Mir anda r i ght s . N el s on i ni t i al ed ea ch s t at ement
o f ri g h ts an d sign ed the w aive r fo rm . K n igh t w rote a n o te at th e b o tt o m o f th e w aive r form
a n d N e lso n sig n e d it. T h e sig n e d n o te s tate d : “I h a v e re q u e ste d to talk to [S p e c ial A g e n t] D a n n y K n ig h t [ a n d ] S c o tt [C o u n ty S h e riff’s O ffic e In v e stig a to r] S tev e n C ro tw e ll [ w ith o u t]
m y att orney pr es ent . ” C r otw el l t es t i f i ed thatno thr eat s , use of vi ol ence , orpr om i s es of 2 len ien c y w e re m a d e to N e lso n . N e lso n n e v e r re q u e ste d a la w y e r. In a d d iti o n , C ro tw e ll
s t at ed thatN el s on di d notappeart o be undert he i nf l uence of drugs or al cohol and appe ar ed

### 4

t o under s t and hi s r i ght s . T he i nt ervi ew w as di gi t al l y recor ded and t r ans cr i bed, and w as pl ayed f orthe j ury. C r otw el l t es t i f i ed thatthe tr ans cr i pt i on a ccur at el y r ef l ect ed the di gi t al
r ecor di ng of

N el s on’ s conf

es s i on. K ni ght ’ s t es t i m ony corr obor at ed C r otw el l ’ s t es t i m ony. ¶ 8
. N e lso n c o n fe ss e d to th e fo llo w in g , in p a rt: N el son: I don’tkn ow w here t o st art . Y ou go tt o ask m e qu est i on s. K ni ght : O k. W el l , le t ’ s s t artuh the 23r d of uh, of uh February, w as on Fr i day. A nd w e’ l l , w e’ l l go back t o t he, st at ementyou thatyou gi ve me and you gi ve uh St eve [ C r otw el l ] uh and I ’ l l j us tr ecap i ta l i t t l e bi tthatyou s ai d thaty’ al l had uh, uh, thatuh, Puddy a guy name Pu dd y had ta ken you and uh, uh, C r ai g N el s on ( s i c) o v er t o S h an n o n T o rran ce ’s ho u se the m o rnin g of F eb rua ry 23r d. N elso n : Y es, si r. K ni ght : A nd y’ al l w er e overther e and you uh , y’a l l w as s m oki ng

m a riju a n a , sm o k in g b lu n ts a n d u h a n d ju st, ju st h a n g in g o u t.

. . . N el s on: W el l w hen w e w entovert o Shannon’ s hous e l i ke I s ai d w e w as

j us thangi ng outs m oki ng w eed, w at chi ng T V doi ng al l that
. B ut itca m e a ti m e w h e n I g o t m ad for so m e re aso n . I st il l do n ’t know t o thi s day w hy I gotm ad atShannon. B ut I d i d. A nd w h e n S h a n n o n c a m e o u t th e b a th ro o m I sta rte d c h o k in g h im u n til h e g o t re d in th e fa c e , o r w h a tev e r. B u t I a in ’t k ill h im though. I j us tkeptchoki ng hi m m an. I don’ tknow w hy. A nd then w hen I l etgo he w as s t i l l a l i ve butCra i g w as l i ke “man you can’ tdo thi s and don’ tg o al l the w ay w i th i t . ” So he gr abbed h im an d start ed c h o k in g h im u n ti l he w as d ea d
. (cries) I’ m s orr y.

. . . N elso n : L ike I said th o u g h m an I d o n ’tev en k n o w w h y I did ith e d idn ’t

do nothi ng t o m e. H e di dn’ tm ake m e m ad. I t ’ s j us ts om ethi ng goti n m e man t hat ’ s w hy I s t art ed choki ng hi m f orno r eas on. A n d th e n w h e n I w a s c h o k in g h im h e w a s b e g g in g m e p lea se to

### 5 s t op. A nd that ’ s w hen I l ethi m go. A nd C r ai g t ol d m e “man you done di d t hi s and you ai n’ tgoan fi ni s h i t [
. ] ” H e w as l ayi ng on the f l oor . H e w as gaspi ng forai rt ryi ng t o getai r . A nd then C r a i g w e nta he a d a nd h e c ho ke d hi m unt i l h e d i e d. W e w ent and gotgarbage ba gs . I gave them t o C rai g I w entout s i de on th e p o rc h
. I g u e ss , g u e ss C ra ig h e ti e d h im u p o r w h a tev e r w ith t he b a gs a nd p utthe t a pe a r ou nd h i s f a c e . W e p uth i m i n t he tru n k I to o k h im o u t to M id w a y w e d ro v e h im o u t to M id w a y in his car. A nd w e t hrew him i n the w oo ds. ¶ 9
. B o th N e lso n a n d M c B e a th c laim e d th a t th e y w e re sc a re d th a t S h a n n o n w a s g o in g to t el l s om eone w hathad occ urr ed. M cB eath then choke d S han no n and punche d hi m i n t he head t o try to kno ck S han no n u nco nsci ou s. A ft er this , N el son st at ed that“S han no n w as j ust l aying t here he w eren ’tm ov i ng or nothi ng . S o w e j ustkn ew he w as dead
. ” N evertheles s, N el s on w entt o fi nd garbage bags and t ape on M cB eath’ s i ns truct i ons . A ccor di ng t o N el s on, M cB eath pl ace d t he garbage bag ar ound S hannon’ s f ace and N el s on t i ed the ductt ape a r ound Shannon’ s f

ace . M cB eath g ot a s heetand puti tar ound Shannon’ s body. N el s on and M c B e a th th e n p u t S h a n n o n in th e tru n k o f t h e c a r a n d d u m p e d th e b o d y . ¶10. N el s on dr ove Shannon’ s car t o E as t C entr al J uni or C ol l ege and parked the car . Soon ther eaf t er , M cB eath r emem ber ed thatthe ductt ape w as i n t he t runk of the carand he as ked N el son forthe key s t o S han no n’s car. M cB eat h sai d he nev er retri eved the tap e, be ca u se ther e w er e t oo m any peopl e neart he carand he di d notw antanyone t o s ee hi m getthe t ape. ¶1 1. G er al d G r eer , a Scot tC oun ty i nv e s t i ga t ora tthe t i me o f the m ur der , r ecove r ed S h a n n o n ’s v e h icle fr o m E a st C e n tra l Ju n io r C o lleg e . S tac y S m ith , a fo re n sic sc ien tist w ith the M issi ssipp i B u rea u o f Inv esti g atio n , test if ied th at a b lue b lank et an d d u ct t ap e w ere
a m o n g th e ite m s re c o v e re d fr o m S h a n n o n ’s v e h ic le
.

### 6

¶1 2. D r . St even H ayne, t he S t at e’ s pat hol ogi s t , t es t i f i ed t hatt he combi nat i on of
s tr angul at i on and s uf

f ocat i on caus ed Shannon’ s death. H ow ever , D r . H ayne s t at ed that“the
s tr angu l a t i on w a s i ncompl et e and s uf f ocat i on w as the t erm i nal event . ” D r . H ayne de t erm i ned thatShannon w as s tr angl ed, butt hathe had di ed f r om the s ubs equents uf

f ocat i on caus ed by the obs truct i on ar ound hi s mout h a nd nos e by the pl as t i c bag a nd t ape. D r . H ayne a l s o s t at ed thata per s on coul d geta sm al l am ountof ai rt hr ough t he pl as t i c bag. N onethel es s , D r . H ayne t es t i f i ed thathe di d notthi nk thata per s on w oul d have a s i gni f i cantai rf

l ow goi ng i n and out of the p l ast i c bag
. In h is op ini on , a person co uld survive only a few m i nu t es und er tho se ci rcum st ances. ¶13. D uri ng h i s t est i m on y, D r . H ayne a l s o s t at ed thatShannon had l i nearabr as i ons or
s cr apes and brui s es on the s ki n on hi s back. I n D r . H ayne’ s opi ni on, the l i near scr apes on Shannon’ s back w er e made w hi l e he w as al i ve. D r . H ayne bas ed hi s opi ni on on the f actt hat ther e w as bl eedi ng u nd erne ath t he s ur f ace of the s ki n w hi ch i ndi cat ed thatShannon “w as p u m p in g b lo o d in to th e in ju re d a re a s.” D r. H a y n e e x p lain e d th a t a d e c e a se d v ictim w o u ld have pal e l i nearm arks w i th no brui s es . D r . H ayne al s o t es t i f i ed t hatt he l ong, s tr ai ght , l i near
m a rk s w e re c o n s is te n t w ith a d ra g g in g o r s lid in g m o tio n . DI S CU S S I ON I . W he t he r t he Tri alC our t Se nt e nc e f or K i dnapp i ng Exce e de d t he St at ut ory M axi m um P enal t y. ¶14
. N elso n a rgu es that the tr i al cou rti m po sed a sentence that exceeded the st atuto ry
m ax im u m p en alty for k idn ap p ing
. T h e jury fo u n d N elso n g u il ty o f k idn ap p ing
. H o w ev er, th e ju ry d id n o t im p o s e a lif e s e n te n c e .

### 7

¶15
. M i ssi ssi pp i C od e A nn otat ed S ect i on 97 -3- 53 st at es: A n y p e rso n w h o , w ith o u t la w fu l au th o rity a n d w ith o r w ith o u t in ten t to se c re tly c o n fin e , sh a ll fo rc ib ly s e iz e a n d c o n fin e a n y o th e r p e rso n , o r sh a ll i nvei gl e orki dnap any otherper s on w i th i nt entt o caus e s uch per s on t o be c o n fin e d o r im p riso n e d a g a in st h is o r h e r w ill , o r w ith o u t law fu l au th o rity sh a ll forc ibly se ize, i n v eigle o r kid n ap an y ch il d u n d er the ag e o f si x teen (16 ) ye ars agai ns tt he w i l l of the par ent s or gua r di an orper s on havi ng the l aw f ul cus t ody of the chi l d, upon convi ct i on s hal l be i m pr i s oned f orl i f e i n the cus t ody of

the D e p a rtm e n t o f C o rre c tio n s if th e p u n ish m e n t is so fix e d b y th e ju ry in its v e rd ict. I f the j ur y f ai l s to agr ee on f

i xi ng the penal t

y at i m pr is onm ent

f orl i f e, th e c o u rt s h a ll fix th e p e n a lty a t n o t le ss th a n o n e (1) ye a r n o r m o re th a n th irty ( 30 ) years i n the cust od

y of the D epa rtm ent of

C orrect i on s. T hi s s ect i on s hal l notbe hel d t o re peal , m odi f y oramend any othercr i m i nal s t atut e of thi s s t at e. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-5 3 (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶1 6. T he r ecor d r e f

l e c t s tha t J ud ge G or do n ba s e d t he f orty- ye a r ki dn a pp i ng s e nt e nc e on a mort al i ty t abl e w hi ch i ndi cat ed t he expec t ed l i f e spa n fors om eone N el s on’ s age. H e s t at ed th a t “ I m u s t s e n te n c e y o u to a te rm o f y e a rs le s s th a n y o u r r e a s o n a b le lif e e x p e c ta n c y .” N e lso n m a d e n o o b

jec tio n to h is s e n ten c e . F u rt h e r, N e lso n fa iled to ra ise th is iss u e in h is
m o tio n fo r n e w trial. ¶17. N otw i ths t andi ng N el s on’ s f ai l ur e t o obj ectorr ai s e the s ent enci ng i s s ue i n hi s m ot i on f ornew tr i al , the l ang uage of the s t atut e s t at es that“I f the j ury f

ai l s t o agr ee on f

i xi ng t he penal ty ati m pr i s onm entf orl i f e, the courts hal l f

i x the pena l ty atnotl es s than one ( 1) year
norm or e than thi r ty (30) year s i n t he cus t ody of the D epart m entof

C orr ect i ons . ” M i s s . C ode A n n . § 9 7 -3 -5 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e ju ry d id n o t im p o se a life s e n ten c e . T h e re fo re , the sta tu te p e rm itt e d th e trial c o u rt to im p o se a se n ten c e o f n o t les s th a n o n e y e a r n o r m o re th a n th irty y ea rs. T h e trial c o u rt i m p o sed a se n tenc e o f fo r ty y e a rs , w h ich e x ce ed ed the s tatu tory

### 8

m axi m um . W e f

i nd thatN el s on s houl d be r es ent ence d i n acc or dance w i th M i s s i s s i ppi C ode S e c tio n 9 7 -3 -5 3 o n h is k id n a p p in g c o n v ic tio n o n ly
. I I . V oi r D i re of

D r. H ayne. ¶1 8
. N elso n argu es tha t the tri al co u rterred by refu sin g to p e rm it h im to v o ir d ir e D r. H a y n e , the S tate ’s p a th o lo g ist. T h e S ta te a rg u e s th a t th e trial c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its dis cret i on by accept i ng D r. H ayn e as an ex pert . F urther, the S t at e argues t hat N el son ch ose nott o voi rdi r e D r . H ayne on hi s opi ni on aboutthe phys i cal f i ndi ngs , and N el son had an oppor tuni ty t o cr os s - exami ne D r . H ayne on t he caus e of death. A f

t era r evi ew of

the r ecor d, thi s C our tagr ees w i th t he St at e. ¶ 1 9
. N e lso n first o b

jec ted to D r. H a y n e ’s q u a lifica tio n s a fte r D r. H a y n e tes tified a b o u t h is educa t i onal and w or k backgr ound. H i s obj ect i on re l at ed t o w hetherD r . H ayne w as qual i f i ed t o gi ve ce r t ai n opi ni ons ba s ed on the s peci al l y c oncurr i ng opi ni on a uthor ed by f or m erJ us t i ce O l i verD i az i n E dm o n d s v . S ta te , 9 5 5 S o . 2 d 7 8 7 (M iss
. 2 0 0 7 ). S in c e D r. H a y n e h a d y e t to pr ovi de hi s opi ni on i n N el s on’ s cas e, the tr i al court overrul ed the obj ect i on. T he f ol l ow i ng excha nge occ urr ed: B y [D efe n se]: W e ll, Y o u r H o n o r, I u n d e rsta n d h e ’s te stifie d to [h is

educa t i on and expe r i ence ] , butI al s o under s t and he ha s b e e n d e n ied – u h – to g iv e c e rt a in o p in io n s in c e rta in cas es , and I bel i eve mostr ece nt l y i n E dm o n d s v . S ta te . B y the C our t : I ’ m f ami l i arw i th thatcas e. I ’ m f ami l i arw i th J udge D i az, t oo. B y [D e fe n s e ]: Y e s , s ir
. By the Cour t : A nd I ’ m f ami l i arw i t h w ha t[ J us t i c e Di a z ] s ays and

– and the l aw i s thatthatdoes notdi s qual i f y a per s on f

r om

### 9 b e in g – g iving an ex p ert op inion
. Ito n ly g o es to h is cr edi bi l i ty. B y [D e fe n se ]: I u n d e rsta n d th a t. B y th e C o u rt: W e ll, w h a t d o y o u w a n t to g o a t? B y [ D ef ens e] : Y ourH onor , I w oul d l i ke t o – B y th e C o u rt : H e ’s n o t g iven an y o p inion in this

– in th is c a se y e t fo r y o u to

cr os s - e xa mi ne hi m on, a nd un t i l he s t a r t s gi vi ng a n o pi ni on, you’ r e overrul ed. ¶20. A f

t er D r . H ayne t es t i f

i ed abou t his phys i cal f i ndi ngs conce rni ng the vi ct i m , the tr i al
co u rtg av e N elso n an o p p o rtu n ity to v o ird ir e D r. H ay n e o n h is qu ali fi ca ti o n s. H o w ev er, def ens e couns el decl i ned t o voi rdi r e hi m atthatt i m e. D r . H ayn e t hen t es t i f i ed aboutt he
caus e of death. D r . H ayne ul t i m at el y de t erm i ned thati n hi s opi ni on, Shannon w as s tr angl ed, how ever , he di ed bec aus e of s uf f ocat i on by the bag a nd t ape a r ound hi s head. ¶21. L at er , N el s on agai n obj ect ed t o D r . H ayne’ s t es t i m ony. W hen the j ury w as excus ed, th e tr ia l c o u rt in q u ire d w h e th e r d e fe n se c o u n se l w a n ted to v o ir d ire D r. H a y n e a b o u t h is qual i f i cat i ons . D ef

ens e couns el r es ponded and s t at ed: N o, si r. I’ m v oirdi r ei ng – w hatI w antt o di s cus s w as – i t ’ s bas ed on the au top sy rep o rtw e h a v e b ee n p rov ided that w e a n ti cipa te D o ctor H ay n e’s t es t i m ony i s goi ng t o be the dr ag m arks i ndi cat e thathe w as al i ve w hen he w as dr agged f

r om the hous e, w hi ch w oul d be evi dence of ki dnappi ng. A ft er m ore di scussi on , the tr i al cou rtasked de fense cou nsel w hat he propo sed t o do
. D efense
couns el s t at ed, “W el l , w hatpr ocedur e I’ m s ugges t i ng i s f orthem t o f

i ni s h el i ci t i ng the t es t i m ony f

r om hi m r egar di ng w hatthatopi ni on i s . ” ¶2 2
. T h ere after, th e ju ry re tu rn e d a n d th e S tat e c o n ti n u ed q u esti o n ing D r. H ay n e. D r. H ayne t es t i f

i ed aboutthe l i near , s tr ai ght
- l i ne abr as i ons on the vi ct i m ’ s body. D r . H ayne

### 10

tes tified th a t, i n h is o p in io n , the c o n tu sio n s a n d b ru ise s o n the v ictim ’s b a c k w e re m a d e w h ile S h an n o n w as a li v e. In a d d it ion , D r. H ay n e testi fi ed th at th e lon g , li n ea r m ark s o n S h an n o n ’s b o d y w e re c o n s is te n t w ith d ra g g in g o r s lid in g th e b o d y . ¶23. D ef

ens e couns el cr os s - exami ned D r. H ayn e ab ou tthe cau se of d eat h. D r . H ayne
ex p lai n ed the m ed ical differen ce s b e tw e en str an g u lat ion an d su ffoc ati o n . In a d d it ion , D r. H a y n e te s tif

ie d th a t th e b a g a ro u n d S h a n n o n ’s fa c e w a s re la tiv e ly tig h tly ta p e d , h o w e v e r, a
s m al l amount of

ai rc oul d ha ve ent er ed the bag. W hen as ked w hethera per s on w oul d s ur vi ve
m or e than a “c oupl e m i nut es ” af t ert he bag w as pl ace d overhi s f ace , D r . H ayne t es t i f

i ed that a p erso n co u ld su rviv e “ [m ] ay b e a m inu te l o n g er – c o u p le m inu tes l o n g er, bu t certai n ly, i t’ s
a very s hor tper i od of

t i m e, couns el or . ” C ouns el al s o br i ef l y ques t i oned D r . H ayne a bout p h o to g ra p h s w h ic h h e s ta te d s h o w e d e v id e n c e o f d e fe n s iv e w o u n d s o n th e v ic tim
. ¶ 2 4
. F o llo w in g c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , the trial c o u rt a g a in g a v e N e lso n th e o p p o rtu n ity to v o ir d ire D r. H a y n e . H o w e v e r, d e fe n se c o u n se l d e c id e d th a t h e n o lo n g e r w a n ted to p u rsu e h is f or m err eques tt o ques t i on D r . H ayne. ¶2 5. I n E dm onds , t hi s C our tre ver s ed and r emanded E dmond s ’ s mur de r c on vi ct i on. E dm onds , 955 So. 2d at799. D r . H ayne t es t i f i ed t o a t w o- s hoot ert heory w her ei n he st at ed th a ti twa s mo r e t h a n l i k e l y t h a tt wo p e o p l e f i r e d t h e s h o tth a tk i l l e d th e v i c t i m, J o e y F u l g h a m. E dm onds , 955 So. 2d at791. T he m aj or i ty opi ni on de t erm i ned thatD r . H ayne w as “qual i f i ed t o pr of f erexpertopi ni ons i n f

or ens i c pathol ogy” how ever“a cou rts houl d notgi ve s uch an expertcart e bl anche t o pr off er any opi ni on he choos es . ” Id . at 7 9 2 . T h e m a jo rity h e ld , in p a rt , th a t D r. H a y n e ’s tw o -s h o o te r t h e o ry w a s n o t a d m is s ib le
. Id
.

### 11

¶ 2 6
. Ju stic e D iaz ’s sp e c ially c o n c u rrin g o p in io n c riticiz e d D r. H a y n e o n tw o iss u e s. F irst, th e s e p a r a te o p in io n q u e s tio n e d D r. H a y n e ’s c e rt if ic a tio n s . E dm onds , 9 5 5 S o . 2 d a t 8 0 2
. ( D i az, P. J
. , s peci al l y concurr i ng)
. Second, the s epar at e opi ni on ques t i oned the numberof
a u to p s ie s p e rf

o rm e d b y D r. H a y n e . Id
. W hi l e the s peci al l y concurr i ng opi ni on ques t i oned D r. H a y n e’s c red en ti als, the m ajority h eld th at “D r. H ay n e is q u ali fi ed to p roffer e x p ert opi ni ons i n f

or ens i c pathol ogy. ” Id . a t 7 9 2
. ¶27. W e f

i nd that the tr i al court di d not err by not al l ow i ng N el s on t o voi r di r e D r . H ayne. A s the rec o rd re fl ec ts, th e tr ial co u rtinit ial ly d en ied N elso n ’s objecti o n to D r. H ay n e’s qual i f i cat i ons beca us e he ha d notyett es t i f i ed t o hi s opi ni on i n t he ca s e. T her eaf t er , the tr i al
co u rtg av e N elso n nu m ero u s op p o rtu n it ies t o vo ird ir e D r. H ay n e o n h is op inion s. H o w ev er, N el s on decl i ned t o voi rdi r e D r . H ayne on a f ew occa s i ons , and f

ol l ow i ng cr os s - exami nat i on of the doct or , N el s on w i thdr ew hi s r eques t . A ccor di ngl y, t hi s ass i gnm entof e rr ori s w i thout
m e rit. III . W h ether the E viden ce W as S u ff i ci en t t o S u p p ort t h e C on vict i on s. ¶28. N el s on chal l enges both the s uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence a nd the w ei ghtof the evi dence
. I n hi s s t at ementof

t he i s s ue, N el s on chal l enges both count s of the i nd i ctm ent , how ever , he ul t i m at el y r eques t s r el i ef f r om the ki dnappi ng convi ct i on. T he C our tw i l l addr es s t he
s uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence and the w ei ghtof the evi dence f

orboth the murde rconvi ct i on and the ki dnappi ng convi ct i on. N el s on al s o ar gues thatthe ki dnap ping oc curr ed as partof t he
m ur dera nd, ther ef

or e, doubl e j eopar dy ba r s pr os ecut i on f orboth murde ra nd kidnapp i ng. N el son ar gues thatthe ki dnappi ng convi ct i on s houl d be overturned bec aus e the al l eged

### 12

ki dnapping occur

r ed af t er t he vi ctimw as dece as ed and t he re f ore no t s us ceptibl e to being ki dnapped. A . Suff

i ci ency of

t he E vi dence. ¶29. M ot i ons f

ora di r ect ed ver di cta nd j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ctchal l enge the l egal s uf f i ci ency of

the evi dence , and the s t andar d of r evi ew f

ora di r ect ed verdi ctand ju d g m e n t n o tw ith s ta n d in g th e v e rd ic t a re id e n tic a l. Cro ft v. S ta te , 992 So. 2d 1151, 1157 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. I n J o n e s v. S ta te , 9 0 4 S o . 2 d 1 4 9 , 1 5 3 -1 5 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ), th is C o u rt sta ted : T o det erm i ne w hetherthe evi dence i s s uf f i ci entto sus t ai n a convi ct i on i n the f ace of a mot i on f

ordi r ect ed ver di ctorf orj udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the v e rd ict, th e c ritica l in q u iry is w h e th e r th e ev id e n c e sh o w s “ b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubtthatacc us ed comm i t t ed the ac tchar ged, and thathe d i d so u nd ers uch ci r cum st ances t hat every el em ent of the o ff ense ex i st ed; and w here the ev i dence f ai l s t o m eetthi s t es ti ti s i ns uf f i ci entt o supporta convi ct i on. ” Ca rrv. S ta te , 208 So. 2d 886, 889 ( M i ss. 1968)
. T he r el evantques t i on i s w hether , af t er vi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the pr os ecut i on, any r at i onal tr i erof f actcoul d have f

ound the es s enti al el ement s of the cr i m e beyond a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. J

a c kso n v. V

irg in ia , 443 U
. S. 307, 315, 99 S. C t . 2781, 61 L
. E d
. 2 d 5 6 0 (19 7 9 ). Jones , 9 0 4 S o . 2 d at 153-15 4. T he jury d et erm i nes t he w ei gh tand credi bil i ty o f w i tness te s tim o n y . Mo o re v. S ta te , 9 3 3 S o . 2 d 9 1 0 , 9 2 2 (M is s . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶30. N el s on w as i ndi ct ed f or capi t al m ur der pu rs uan t t o M i ssi s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97- 3- 19( 2) (e ) bas ed on al l eged mur derand the under l yi ng cr i m e of r obbery. N el s on al s o w as in d ic te d fo r t h e c ri m e o f k id n a p p in g p u rs u a n t to M is s is s ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 9 7 -3 -5 3
. ¶3 1
. A ft er th e S tat e rested , N elso n argu ed his m o ti o n for directed v erd ict
. T h e tri al co u rt hear d a r gu ment s f

r om bo th N e l s on a nd the St a t e . The tr i a l c ou r td e ni e d tha tmot i on and
s t at ed:

### 13

W e have tw o cr i m es char ged, thatof capi t al m ur der, w e have thatof ki dnappi ng. I , havi ng h eard t he t es t i m ony of D oct orH aynes [ s i c] , havi ng vi ew ed the exhi bi t s thatha s be en of f er ed i nt o evi dence , and havi ng hear d the sta tem e n t o f th e d e fe n d a n t, fin d c e rta in ly th a t th e re is e v id e n c e fo r th e ju ry to acc eptthatthe vi ct i m w oul d – had bee n ki dnapped. I as ked the ques t i on, and I still ca n n o t co n c e iv e o f a n y re a s o n th a t th e tw o d e fe n d a n ts w o u ld h a v e to pl ace a garbage ba g overa man’ s head an d use ductt ape t o s eal i tof f i f they bel i eved hi m t o be dea d. T o m e t hat ’ s an i ndi cat i on thatthey bel i eved thathe w as al i ve and i f

they tr ans por t ed hi m f

r om thathous e as t es t i f i ed t o, then that is th e c rim e o f k id n a p p in g . W ith th e c rim e o f r o b b e ry , I – I a t o n e tim e c o u ld re c a ll c e rta in c a se s th a t w o u ld b e re lev a n t to th is iss u e , b u t I – I k n o w th e re is su c h a c a se w h e re –a c a p ital m u rd e r ca se , a n d I th in k it h a p p e n e d u p in n o rth M i s s i s s i ppi back i n t he 70' s , w her e ther e w as a ki l l i ng and then the def endant t oo k the vict i m ’s carand l efti n it , and the S up rem e C ou rtcon si dered t hat as a c rim e o f ro b b e ry a n d u p h e ld th e d e a th p e n a lty . In th is c a se h e re , ac c o rd in g to the t es t i m ony or the s t at ementof the def endant , af

t erthe – uh – ki l l i ng ther e, thatthey l ef

tw i th the vi ct i m i n the trunk of the car , di s po sed of hi s body, carri ed t he cart o E as tC entr al C om m uni ty C ol l ege i n an ef f or tt o conce al the c a r. I th in k th o s e a re c e rta in iss u e s th a t th e ju ry c a n re so lv e . I th in k th e S tate h a s m a d e o u t a p ri m a fa c ie c a s e o f g u ilt. Y o u r m o tio n ’s o v e rr u le d
. ¶3 2. N el s on chos e t o r e s t hi s c a s e w i tho ut pr e s e nt i ng a ny e vi de nc e . The j ury r e turne d a
ver di ctand convi ct ed N el s on of the l es s erof

f ens e of s i m pl e murde r , notcapi t al m ur der
. T he j ury al s o c onvi ct ed N el s on of ki dnappi ng Shannon. Fol l ow i ng the j ury ver di ct s , N el s on f i l ed a mot i on f

ornew tr i al , w hi ch the tr i al courtdeni ed. ¶33. C ons i der i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the St at e, a r at i onal tr i erof f act coul d have f

ound beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatN el s on com m i t t ed t he es s ent i al el ement s of the murde rand ki dnappi ng. I n r egar d t o the murde r , N el s on conf es s ed t o choki ng Shannon. W h e n S h a n n o n b e g g e d Ne l s o n t o s t o p c h o k i n g h i m, M c Be a th b e g a n t o c h o k e S h a n n o n . At M cB eath’ s r eques t , N el s on f ound a pl as t i c garbage bag and ductt ape. M cB eath pl ace d t he bag ar ound Shannon’ s f ace and N el s on t aped the bag a round S hannon’ s head. D r . H ayne t es t i f i ed thatthe caus es of

Shannon’ s de ath w er e tw of ol d, s tr angul at i on a nd s uf f ocat i on, and

### 14

that the s u ffoc ati o n w as th e “term inal ev en t” th at ca u sed S h an n o n ’s de ath. In a d d it ion , D r. H a y n e sta ted th a t S h a n n o n h a d su ffe re d lin e a r a b ra sio n s a n d b ru ise s o n h is b a c k . In h is opi ni on, S hannon w as al i ve w hen thes e mar ks w er e made on hi s back, beca us e the bl eedi ng th a t o c c u rr e d u n d e r t h e s k in in d ic a te d th a t b lo o d s till w a s p u m p in g in to th e in ju re d a re a . ¶ 3 4
. A s fo r th e k id n a p p in g , th e e v id e n c e p re se n ted to th e ju ry w a s su ffic ien t to su p p o rt a convi ct i on of

ki dnappi ng. N el s on conf es s ed t o choki ng S hannon and t hen t api ng the ductt ape
ar ound Shannon’ s head. I n hi s conf es s i on, N el s on s t at ed thataf t erM cB eath choked Shannon, he “j us tknew ” thatSh ann on w as dead. D es pi t e N el s on’ s cl ai m thathe “j us tknew ” that Shannon w as dead, N el s on compl i ed w i th M cB eath’ s r eques tand f ound a garbage bag and ductt ape. M cB eath pl ace d the bag on Shannon’ s f ace , a nd N el s on s t at ed thathe w r apped the ductt ape a r ound Shannon’ s head. N el s on conf es s ed t o r emovi ng Shanno n fr om h i s home,
w i th the hel p of

M cB eath, pl aci ng Shannon i n the trunk of Shannon’ s c ar, and du m pi ng S han no n’s body i n the w oo ds. ¶3 5
. D r. H ay n e testi fi ed th at th e su ffoc ati o n w as the t erm inal ev en t that en d ed S h an n o n ’s li fe. It w as d eterm ined tha t a s m all a m o u n t of air co u ld flow thro u g h a p last ic ba g . H o w ev er, D r. H ayn e t est i fi ed thata person co uld survive only a shortperi od of t i m e un der tho se ci r cumst ance s . Fur therm or e, D r . H ayne t es t i f i ed thatShannon had s us t ai ned l i nears cr apes
on his back w hich si gn i fi ed a d ragging o r s l i ding m ov em ent. T he scrapes and brui ses al so
s i gni f i ed t hat Sh annon w as al i ve atthe t i m e he s us t ai ned the i nj ur i es bas ed on the type of bl eedi ng . D r. H ayne expl ai ned that , i n contr as t , a dec eas ed vi ct i m w oul d have pa l e l i near
m ark s w ith n o b ruises. A cc o rdin g ly, w e find that there w as su ffi cien t evid en ce for th e jury to c o n v ic t N e ls o n o f m u rd e r a n d k id n a p p in g .

### 15

¶36. Fur therm or e, N el s on’ s cont ent i on that the ki dnappi ng oc curr ed as pa r t of the murde r and ther ef

or e, doubl e j eopar dy bar s the pros ecut i on of m ur derand ki dnappi ng, i s w i thout
m e ri t. M u rd e r a n d k id n a p p in g h a v e s e p a ra te s ta tu to ry e le m e n ts , re q u ir in g d if fe re n t f a c ts . ¶37. I n B a n n iste r v . S ta te , 731 So. 2d 583, 586 ( M i s s . 1999) , thi s C our thel d:

A lth o u g h th e sta te m a y fre e ly d e fin e c rim e s a n d a ss ig n p u n ish m e n ts, it is no t al low ed to p u n ish a d efe n d an t for a crim e c o n tai n ing elem en ts w h ich a re c o m p lete ly e n v e lo p e d b y a n o ffe n s e f o r w h ich a d e fe n d a n t w a s p re v io u sly c o n v ic te d
. See B lockbur gerv. U nited States , 284 U
. S. 299, 76 L
. E d. 306, 52 S. C t . 180 ( 1932)
. “I f

an i ndi vi dual i s char ged w i th tw o of f enses, an d al l the el emen t s of on e are i ncl uded w i thi n and ar e partof a s econd gr eat erof

f ens e, B lockbur

geri nt ervenes . I tchar ges thatw e compar e s t atut ory off enses, as i ndi cat ed, and s ee w hethereac h r equi r es pr oof of a fact w hi ch the otherdoes not . ” Me e ks v . S ta te , 6 0 4 S o . 2 d 7 4 8 , 7 5 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). “E v en tho u g h there m ay be a s ubs t ant i al over l ap i n the pr oof s uppor t i ng the convi ct i ons of the di f f er entcr i m es , the B lockbur gert es ti s metw her e eac h of f ens e r equi r es pr oof of an el ementnotnece s s ary t o the other
. ” Ho ll y v . S tate , 6 71 S o. 2d 32, 44 ( M i s s . 1996) ( ci t i ng B ro c kv. S ta te , 5 3 0 S o . 2 d 1 4 6 , 1 5 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 )). B annis ter , 731 So. 2d at586. ¶38. N el s on w as char ged w i th capi t al m urder pu rs uan tto M i ssi ssi pp i C ode A nnot at ed S e c tio n 9 7 -3 -1 9 (2 )(e ) fo r m u rd e r a n d th e u n d e rly in g c rim e o f ro b b e ry , w h ich p ro v id e s: ( 2) T he ki l l i ng of a hum an bei ng w i thoutthe author i ty of l aw by any means or i n an y m ann er s hall be cap i t al m urder i n the f oll ow i ng cases:

. . . . ( e) W hen done w i th or w i thoutany desi gn t o ef f ectdeath, by any per s on engage d i n the comm i s s i on of the cr i m e of

r ape, bur gl ary, kidnapp i ng , ars on , r ob bery, s exu al batt ery, un natur al i nter cou rs e w i th any chi l d underthe age of t w el ve (12) , ornoncons ens ual u n n a tu ra l in ter c o u rse w ith m a n k in d , o r in an y a ttem p t to c o m m it s u c h fe lo n ie s . . . . M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-1 9 (2)(e) (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ).

### 16

¶39. N el s on al s o w as i nd i ct ed for t he cr i m e of ki dnappi ng pur s uant t o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode S e c tio n 9 7 -3 -5 3 , w h ich p ro v id e s, in p a rt: A n y p e rso n w h o , w ith o u t l a w fu l au th o rity an d w ith o r w ith o u t in ten t to se c re tly conf i ne, s hal l f

or ci bl y s ei ze and conf

i ne any otherpe r s on, ors hal l i nvei gl e or ki dnap any otherper s on w i th i nt entt o caus e such pe r s on t o be conf i ned or im p riso n e d a g a in st h is o r h e r w ill , o r w ith o u t la w fu l a u th o rity sh a ll fo rc ib ly sei ze, invei gle or kidnap a ny chil d u nd er the ag e of si xteen ( 16 ) year s agai nst the w i l l o f t he par ent s orguar di an orper s on havi ng the l aw f ul cus t ody of

the c h ild
. . . . M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -3-5 3 (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶40. T he cr i m es of

capi t al m ur derand ki dnappi ng each requir e pr oof of an el ement not
n e c e s s a ry to th e o th e r. See B annis ter , 731 So. 2d at586 ( quot i ng Ho lly , 671 So. 2d at 44) ( B lockbusteri s m etw hen ea ch cr i m e “r equi r es pr oof of an el ementnotnece s s ary t o t he
o th e r” ). A c c o rd in g ly , this iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. B . W ei ght of

t he E vi dence. ¶4 1
. F o ll o w ing the j u ry ve rdicts, N elso n fi led a m o ti o n for ne w tr ial , w h ich th e tri al co u rt deni ed. I n Jones , thi s C our tal s o addr es s ed the w ei ghtof the evi dence and s t at ed: ¶4 2
. W h e n rev iew ing a d en ial o f a m o ti o n fo r a n ew tri al b ase d o n a n o b jecti o n to the w eigh t of th e e v iden ce , w e w il l on ly d istu rb a v erd ictw h en itis so c o n tr ary to th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e th a t to a llo w it t o sta n d w o u ld s a n c tio n a n u n c o n s c io n a b le in ju s tic e . He rr in gv. S ta te , 691 S o. 2 d 948, 957 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ). T h e e v id e n c e sh o u ld b e w e ig h e d in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e v e rd ic t. Id
. Jones , 9 0 4 S o . 2 d a t 1 5 4
. ¶43. W i thoutr es t at i ng t he f act s pr evi ous l y pr es ent ed, and vi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ght
m os tf avor abl e t o the ver di ct , w e ca nnotsay thatt he ver di ct s convi ct i ng N el s on of m ur derand k id n a p p in g a re so co n tra ry to th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t of the ev id e n c e tha t t o allo w th e m to

### 17

s t and w ou l d s anct i on an uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. N el s on conf es s ed t o choki ng Shannon, pl aci ng a pl as t i c bag ove rhi s he ad, a nd s ecur i ng duc tt ape ar ound Shannon’ s head t o keep the bag i n pl ace notw i ths t andi ng hi s cl ai m t hathe al r eady be l i eved thatShannon had di ed af t er M cB eath choked hi m . D r . H ayne t es t i f i ed thatthe bl eedi ng of

the s ki n underthe l i neardr ag
m arks and the brui ses on S hannon’ s body s i gni f i ed thatShannon w as al i ve atthe t i m e he
s us t ai ned thos e i nj ur i es . H e al s o s t at ed thatthes e l i nearm arks w er e cons i s t entw i th dr aggi ng. ¶44
. T h e jury h ea rd th e c o n fl ict ing test im o n y o f N elson and D r. H ayn e. N elso n ’s
co n fession ind icated that N elso n b eli ev e d th a t M cB ea th h ad ch o k ed S h an n o n to d ea th. I n addi t i on, N el s on s t at ed i n hi s conf es s i on and thathe “j us tknew ” t hatS hannon w as dead pr i or t o s ecur i ng the d uct t ape a r ound Shannon’ s head. T he j ury al s o hear d D r . H ayne’ s opi ni on
o n S h a n n o n ’ s c a u s e o f

d e a th a n d h i s o p i n i o n o n wh e th e rS h a n n o n h a d b e e n a l i v e a tth e t i me he s us t ai ned the l i nearabr as i ons cons i s t entw i th dr aggi ng. A f t erhear i ng al l the evi dence , in c lu d in g th e c o n f

li c tin g e v id e n c e , th e ju ry c o n v ic te d N e ls o n o f m u rd e r a n d k id n a p p in g . A c c o rd in g ly , w e fin d th a t th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I V . W het her t he T ri al C ourt Erred by A dm i t t i ng N el s on’ s C onf es s i on i nt o E vi dence. ¶ 4 5
. Ne l s o n a r g u e s th a t th e tr i a l c o u r t e rr e d b y a d mi t t i n g h i s c o n f e s s i o n i n t o e v i d e n c e . He cl ai ms tha th i s r i gh tt o c ou ns e l a t t a c he d a tthe t i me o f h i s i ni t i a l a pp e a r a nc e . N el s on conf es s ed t o l aw enf

or cementof

f i ci al s tw o days a f

t erhi s r i ghtt o couns el att ache d and w i thout
couns el pr es ent . T he St at e ar gues that , even though couns el w as notappoi nt ed orpr es entat th e tim e o f N e lso n ’s s tate m e n ts, h e g a v e h is s tate m e n ts a fte r v o lu n tar ily a n d in tellig e n tly
w ai ving his Mir anda r i ght s . T he evi dence al s o s how s thatN el s on i ni t i at ed cont actw i t h l aw

### Nelson c laim s that his ini ti alappe aranc e wa s on February 28, 2007. There cord 3 

### do es no t reflect anydo cumentatio nto this effect. T he S tate, ho wev er, do es no t contest it and, in f ac t, makes no argume nt a bout t he dateof the initia l a

ppearance . 18 enf or cementof

f i ci al s bef or e hi s sec ond i nt ervi ew . T her ef or e, the St at e cont ends thatthe tr i al
courtdi d noterrby admi t t i ng N el s on’ s conf es s i on. ¶46. A tthe s uppr es s i on he ar i ng, Crotw el l , the Scot tC ou nty i nv est i gator , t est i fi ed that N elso n w as arres ted o n F eb rua ry 2 7 , 2 0 0 7
. C rotw ell stat ed that h e a n d K n igh t, an inv esti g ator, spo ke to N el son o n F ebruary 27 aft er N el son w as r ead, s i gn ed, and w ai ved his Mir anda
r i ght s . Crotw el l s t at ed thatN el s on t ol d them t hathe s aw Shannon thatday, how ever , he had nothi ng t o do w i th Shannon’ s death. N el son argues thathe had a n i ni t i al appea r ance on February 28, 2007. 3 ¶47. G er al d M aj or , a f or m erj ai l eratthe ScottC ounty D et ent i on C ent er , t es t i f i ed that , about M ar ch 1, 2007, w hi l e N el s on w as out s i de hi s cel l on “yar d cal l , ” he i nf or m ed M aj orthathe
w oul d l i ke t o s peak t o C r otw el l
. M aj orr el ayed thatm es s age thr ough the cha i n of comm and. C ro tw e ll t e stifie d th a t a f e w d a y s a fte r th e in itia l, F e b ru a ry 2 7 in ter v iew , N e lso n a sk e d to
s peak t o hi m . O n M ar ch 2, 2007, C r otw el l and K ni ghts poke t o N el s on agai n. Pr i ort o t he M arch 2 co nv ers at i on , K nightrer ead N el son h i s Mir anda r i ght s , and N el s on agai n s i gned the
w ai verform . I n addi t i on, K ni ghthand- w r ot e and N el s on si gned a not e atthe bott om of t he fo rm , in w h ic h N e ls o n re q u e s te d to s p e a k to th e S c o tt C o u n ty in v e s tig a to rs . ¶48. C r otw el l s t at ed that N el s on’ s M ar ch 2 st at em ent s w er e r ecor ded on a compactdi s c. A ccor di ng t o C r otw el l , N el s on s t at ed t hathe and M cB eath w er e atShannon’ s hous e. N el s on t ol d C r otw el l thathe di d notknow w hy he di d i t , how ever , he bega n t o choke Shannon w hen

### 19

Shannon l ef

tthe bathr oom . N el s on choked Shannon unt i l he w as unconsci ous, l oaded Shannon i nt o the trunk of S hannon’ s car , dum ped Shannon’ s body atM i dw ay, and dr ove the
c a r t o E a s t C e n tr a l J u n io r C o lle g e . ¶49
. T h e p rose cuti on then played the com pact dis c for the tri al cou rt . A gen t K nightal so t es t i f i ed atthe s uppr es s i on heari ng . K ni ghts t at ed thaton February 27, 2007, he r ead the Mir anda r i ght s t o N el s on. N el s on pl ace d hi s i ni t i al s bes i de ea ch s ect i on of the Mir anda
r i ght s f or m and s i gned the w ai veratthe bott om of the page
. A tthatt i m e, N el s on st at ed that he had s t opped by Shannon’ s hous e, thatthey had de ci ded t o s m oke s om e mar i j uana a nd not g o to s c h o o l. N e ls o n s ta te d th a t h e th e n d ro v e S h a n n o n to B ra n d o n . ¶50. T he r es t of K ni ght ’ s t es t i m ony c orr obor at ed C r otw el l ’ s t es t i m ony. T he m os tcr i t i cal p o rtio n o f K n ig h t’s te stim o n y c o rro b o ra ted th a t N e lso n h a d a sk e d to sp e a k to C ro tw e ll; K n ightrer ead N el son h i s Mir anda r i gh t s o n M a r c h 2, 2 00 7, p r i ort o a ny s t a t ement s by N e ls o n ; a n d N e ls o n c o n fe s s e d to th e c ri m e s . ¶51. A f

t erthes e thr ee w i tnes s es t es t i f i ed, N el s on obj ect ed t o hi s conf es s i on bei ng admi t t ed i nt o evi dence beca us e i tw as nota s t at ementof hi s f r ee a dm i s s i on, f

r ee w i l l , orf

r ee t es t i m ony, and he w as unde rdur es s a tthe t i m e of the s t at ement . T he tr i al c our tde t erm i ned thatN el s on know i ngl y, i nt el l i gen t l y, and vo l un t ari l y h ad w ai ved his Miranda r i ght s w i thoutany coe r ci on, i nt i m i dat i on, orpr om i s es of r ew ar ds
. T he tr i al courts t at ed: T he C our tf

i r s thavi ng hear d the s t at ementmustcons i derthe Mir anda w arni ngs thatw as gi ven t he def endanton the t w o occa s i ons t o w hi ch t es t i m ony has been s ubm i t t ed. U h – pur s uantt o the Mir anda cas e, the State of Ari z ona vs . Mir anda , t her e m us tbe a rul i ng re gar di ng t he adm i s s i bi l i ty of the s t at ement a s to w h e th e r o r n o t h e w a s p ro p e rly in fo rm e d o f h is rig h ts, a n d th a t w ith know l edge of

hi s con st i tuti onal r i ght s he then know i ngl y and f r eel y and vol unt ar i l y w ai ved t hos e r i ght s and m ade a s t at ement , notthe r es ul tof coer ci on,

### 20

i nt i m i dat i on, pr es s ur e, pr om i s es of hope of r ew ar d. I ’ ve hea r d the t es t i m ony – I ’ ve – I ’ ve r evi ew ed thos e Mir anda w arni ngs . I ’ ve hea r d the t es t i m ony of the of f i cer s . I am of the opi ni on t hat t he def endant s w as gi ven the w arni ng as re q u ire d b y law , tha t h e u n d e rsto o d h is rig h ts, w ith k n o w led g e o f th is rig h ts h e ’s w a iv e d th e m , th e w a iv e r w a s fr e e a n d v o lu n tar y a n d u n d e rsta n d in g ly m a d e , an d th e o b

jec tio n to th e a d m iss ib ili ty o f th e sta tem e n ts, o n b o th occa s i ons , ar e overrul ed. ¶52. T hi s C our ti n H a y n e s v . S ta te , 9 34 S o. 2 d 98 3, 9 88 (M i ss. 2006) , has hel d that

“ [w ]he th e r a c o n fe ss io n is a d m iss ib le is a fa c t-fin d in g fu n c tio n fo r th e trial c o u rt, an d its de c i s i on w i l l no tbe ov e r turne d u nl e s s the tr i a l c ou r ta pp l i e d a n i nc orr e c tl e ga l s t a ndar d,
comm i t t ed mani f

es terr or , orm ade a deci s i on agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei gh to f t he evi dence
. ” H

aynes , 9 3 4 S o . 2 d a t 9 8 8 ; s ee al s o Mo o re v. S ta te , 9 33 S o. 2 d 91 0, 9 18 (M i ss. 2 0 0 6 ); Ma rtin v. S ta te , 8 7 1 S o . 2 d 6 9 3 , 7 0 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ).

F o r a c o n fe ss io n to b e a d m iss ib le, it m u st h a v e b e e n g iv e n v o lu n tar ily and no tgiven as a res ultof prom i ses, threat s or i nd ucem ents . " R i char ds on v. S ta te , 722 So. 2d 481, 487 ( M i s s . 1998) ( ci t i ng Mo rg a n v. S ta te , 681 S o. 2d 82, 8 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ); Ch a se v. S ta te , 6 4 5 S o . 2 d 8 2 9 , 8 3 7 -3 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 4 ); Lay ne v. S ta te , 5 4 2 S o . 2 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 )). In d eterm ining w h ethe r a s t at ementi s vol unt ary, t he tr i al j udge mustf i r s tdet erm i ne w hetherthe ac cus ed, pr i ort o the conf

es s i on, un ders t ood the cont entand s ubs t ance of the Mir anda w a rn in g a n d th e n a tu re o f t h e c h a rg e s o f w h ic h h e w a s a c c u s e d
. N e a l v. S ta te , 4 5 1 S o . 2 d 7 4 3 , 7 5 5 (M is s . 1 9 8 4 ). Ma rtin v. S ta te , 8 7 1 S o . 2 d 6 9 3 , 7 0 1 (M is s . 2 0 0 4 ). ¶53. I n G en ry v . S ta te , 73 5 S o. 2d 186, 195 ( M i s s . 1999) , thi s C our t det erm i ned w hether the def end ant’ s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o couns el w as vi ol at ed w hen he ga ve an i ncr i m i nat i ng st at ement . L i ke N el s on, G enry r el i ed upon Mi chi gan v. Jacks on , 475 U
. S. 625, 106 S. Ct
. 1404, 89 L
. Ed. 2d 631 ( 1986)
. G enry a r gued thathe gave hi s f i r s ts t at ementt he day af t erthe as s aul t ; how ever , he s ai d hi s s econd s t at em ent vi ol at ed the Si xth A m endment
s in c e p o lic e o b ta in e d it a ft e r h e h a d b e e n a p p o in te d c o u n s e l. G en ry , 735 So. 2d at195. “A

### 21

d efe n d an t’ s S ixth A m en d m en t r igh t to c o u n sel att ac h es u p o n the in it iat ion o f ad v ersa ry pr ocee di ngs . ” Id
. ( ci t i ng Mi chi gan , 4 7 5 U .S . a t 6 3 5 ). ¶54. T hi s C our tanal yzed w hetherG enry’ s Si xth A m endmentr i ght s w er e vi ol at ed bas ed on a numberof

f act s . Pr i ort o and dur i ng ques t i oni ng, G enry neverr eques t ed the p res ence of
c o u n s e l. G en ry , 735 So. 2d a t196. Thi s C our thel d thatG enry’ s f ai l ur e t o “as s ertori nvoke hi s r i ghtt o s i l ence ori n a ny w ay as s erthi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o c ouns el , hi s ar gum ent
on thi s po i nti s w i tho utmer i t . ” Id
. ( ci t i ng W ilch e r v . S ta te , 69 7 S o. 2d 10 87 , 10 97 (M i ss. 1997) )
. T hi s C our tf

ur thers t at ed: [T ]he e v id e n c e in d ica tes th a t, up o n b e in g g iv e n h is F ifth A m e n d m e n t/ Mir anda w arni ngs , G enry w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o couns el bef or e ea ch i ncul pat ory s t at ement w as gi ven. A s a gene r al rul e, a def endantm ay w ai ve hi s Si xth A m endment ri g h t to c o u n s e l w h e n h e w a iv e s h is F if th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . Cra w f or d v. S ta te , 716 So. 2d 1028, 1038 ( M i s s . 1998) ( ci t i ng W ilch e r v . S ta te , 697 So. 2d 1 0 8 7 , 1 0 9 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 )). T h e re fo re , this a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit. G en ry , 735 So. 2d at196. ¶ 5 5
. S ig n if

ic a n tly , G e n ry in itia te d c o n ta c t w ith la w e n fo rc e m e n t. G en ry , 735 So. 2d a t 196. T hi s C our thel d that“[ o] nce the r i ghtt o couns el h as at t ache d, and the ac cus ed as s ert s t he
r i ght , h e i s pr ot ect ed f r om f ur therpol i ce- i ni t i at ed i nt err ogat i on. E ven i f the ac cus ed has pr ocur ed an a t t orney, the ac cus ed may st i l l w ai ve the r i ghtt o have t he l aw yerpre s entdur i ng any pol i ce que s t i oni ng. ” Id
. ( quot i ng Mettetal v. S ta te , 60 2 S o . 2 d 8 6 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 )). H ow ever , i n G en ry , thi s C our tf ur thera ddr es s ed ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch a def endantdeci des t o i ni t i at e cont actw i th l aw enf or cementaf

t erhi s or herS i xth A m endmentri ght s ar e i n pl ace . T h is C o u rt sta ted :

N o th in g in th e S ix th A m en d m e n t p re v e n ts a su sp e c t ch a rg e d w ith a cr i m e and r epr es ent ed by couns el f r om vol unt ar i l y choos i ng, on

### 22 hi s ow n, to spea k w i th pol i ce i n the abs ence of an att orney. A lth o u g h a d e fe n d a n t m a y so m e tim e s la ter re g re t h is d e c isio n to s peak w i th po l i ce, the Si xth A m endmentdoes notdi s abl e a c rim in a l d e fe n d a n t fro m e x e rc isin g h is fre e w ill
. Mettetal , 6 0 2 S o . 2 d a t 8 6 8 (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). See al s o Hu n terv. S ta te , 684 So. 2d 625, 632 ( M i s s . 1996) ( “The l aw i s w el l est abli shed t hatan ac cus ed per s on c a n w a i ve h i s r i gh tt o c ou ns e l b y i ni t i a t i ng c on ve r s a t i on wi th l aw e n fo rc e m e n t.”). T h is fu rth e r su p p o rts th e S tate ' s c o n ten tio n th a t th is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. Id
. See a l

so B r ew erv. W

il liam , 430 U
. S. 3 87 , 405- 06, 97 S. C t . 1232, 1243, 51 L
. E d. 2d 4 2 4 , 4 4 1 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ( u n d e rth e c i r c u ms t a n c e s o f th e c a s e , th e S u p r e me Co u r th e l d th a tW i l l i a ms d id n o t w aive h is r igh ts un d er the S ixth a n d F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en ts)
. ¶5 6. The f

actual ci r cumst ance s her e ar e s i m i l art o t hos e i n G en ry . A f t erhi s i ni t i al appea r ance , N el s on vol unt ar i l y a s ked t o s peak t o C r otw el l
. Pr i ort o m aki ng hi s conf es s i on, N el son w as r eread his Mir anda w arni ng. H e i ni t i al ed ea ch port i on of hi s ri ght s and s i gned underneath the w ai verof r i ght s , w hi ch s t at ed: I h a v e r e a d th is s ta te m e n t o f m y ri g h ts a n d I u n d e rs ta n d w h a t m y ri g h ts a re . I am w i l l i ng t o make a s t a t e menta nd a ns w e rq ue s t i on s . I d o no twanta l aw yer a t th is tim e . I u n d e rsta n d a n d k n o w w h a t I a m d o in g . N o p ro m ise s o r th re a ts have be en made t o m e and no pr es s ur e orcoer ci on of any ki nd ha s be en us ed agai ns tm e. F u rth erm o re, K n igh t w rote an d N elso n si g n ed a st atem en t at th e b o tt o m o f his w aive r form th a t sta ted “ I h a v e re q u e ste d to talk to [S p e c ial A g e n t] D a n n y K n ig h t [an d ] S c o tt [ C o u n ty S h e riff’s O ffic e In v e stig a to r] S tev e n C ro tw e ll [w ith o u t] m y a tto rn e y p re se n t.” B o th C ro tw e ll and K ni ghtt es t i f

i ed thatN el s on w as notpromi s ed a r ew ar d orl eni ency, norw as he thr eat ened
w i th vi ol ence . N el s on neveras ked f ora l aw yer . A l s o, C r otw el l and K ni ghtt es t i f i ed that

### 23

N el s on di d notappea rt o be underthe i nf l uence of drugs oral coho l an d appear ed t o know
w h a t h e w a s d o in g . ¶57. T he tr i al courtdi d noterrby admi t t i ng N el s on’ s M arch 2 , 2 00 7, co nfe s s i on. L aw enf or cementof

f i ci al s a dvi s ed N el son h i s Mir anda r i ght s . N el s on i ni t i al ed the r i ght s and sig n e d th e w a iv e r fo rm . N e lso n a lso sig n e d a n o te s tatin g th a t he h a d in iti a ted c o n tac t w ith l aw enf or cementof

f i ci al s . B oth l aw enf

or cementof

f i ci al s t es t i f

i ed thatN el s on neveras ked fo r a law y e r, th a t no p ro m ise s o r th re a ts w e re m a d e to N e lso n , an d th a t N e lso n a p p e a re d to k n o w w h a t h e w a s d o in g . A c c o rd in g ly , this C o u rt f in d s th a t th is a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is
w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶5 8. For t he f

or e go i ng r e a s on s , the j ury c on vi c t i on s o f m ur derand ki dnappi ng by t he C i r cui tC our tof

Scot tC ount y ar e af

f i r m ed. H ow ever , thi s C our tr ever s es and r emands the
sen ten c e o f forty y ea rs for the k idn ap p ing co n v ict ion for rese n tenc ing w ith in the statu tory gu i deli nes. ¶ 5 9
. CO UN T I : CONVI CT I ON OF CAP I TA L M URDE R AND S E NT E NC E OF LI F E I M P RI S ONM EN T I N T HE CUS TODY OF THE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M EN T OF CO RR E CT I ON S , AF F I RMED . CO UN T I I : CO NV I CT I ON OF KI DN AP P I NG , AFF I RM ED. SENTENCE O F F OR TY ( 4 0 ) YEARS VACATED A ND R EM AND ED T O T HE CI RC UI T CO UR T OF S CO T T CO UN T Y F OR RE S E NT E NC I NG . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON, P . J . , DI CKI NS ON, RANDOLP H, LA M AR, AND CHANDL ER , J J . , CONCUR. GRAVES , P . J . , CONCURS I N RE S UL T ONL Y. K I TC HEN, J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND DI S S ENTS I N PART W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.

### 24

K IT C H E N S , JU S T IC E , C O N C U R R IN G IN P A R T A N D D ISS E N T IN G IN PART: ¶60. I concur w i t h t he m aj ori t y’ s deci s i on t o af f i r m N el s on’ s convi ct i on f or the cr i m e of
m u rde r, b u t I p art co m p an y w ith m y learn ed co ll ea g u e s in th eir affi rm an ce o f N elso n ’s
con vict i on f

or ki dn app i ng , w hich I f i nd t o be barr ed by our const i tuti on al prohibi t i on against doubl e j eopar dy. ¶61. T hi s i s a m ur der cas e and nothi ng m or e. W hi cheve r of N el s on’ s act i ons can f ai r l y be
s ai d t o ha ve gi ven r i s e t o ki dnappi ng c har ges c l ear l y w er e s ubs um ed w i thi n hi s m urderous conductand ca nnot , cons i s t entw i th the pr ot ect i ons of t he F i f th A m endmentt o the U ni t ed S tate s C o n stitu tio n an d A rticle 3 , S e c tio n 2 2 , o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o n stitu tio n , fo rm th e b a sis of a pr os ecut i on f

ora s epar at e of

f ens e. ¶62. Sect i on 97- 3- 19 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode r equi r es that pr os ecut or s s how both an actof k il li n g an d “d eli b era te de sign to effec t th e d ea th” in o rde r t o g arn er a c o n v ict ion for m u rde r. M i s s . Code A nn. § 97- 3- 19 ( R ev. 2006)
. B y compar i s on, M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 97- 3- 53 def i nes ki dnappi ng as a n i nt ent i onal , f or ci bl e s ei zur e and conf i nement . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3 -5 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 6 ). O b v io u sly , th e se tw o s tatu tes a re fa c ially d istin c t, an d th e re fo re , I re a d ily
conce de thata def

endantm ay be gui l ty of both ki dnappi ng and m ur der , as i ti s el ement ary t hat “[ a] s i ngl e actmay be an of f ens e agai ns ttw o s t atut es . . . . ” B lockbur gerv. U nited States , 284 U
. S
. 2 9 9 , 3 0 4 , 5 2 S
. C t. 1 8 0 , 7 6 L
. E d
. 3 0 6 (19 3 2 ). ¶63. B utthe f

act s s etbef

or e us pr ovi de no basi s forsuch a conc l us i on. T he s ei zur e and conf i nement i n thi s c a s e wer e mer e l y i nc i de nt a l t o the a c to f mur de r , n a mel y, t a pi ng a bag
ar ound Shannon T orr ence ’ s head, dr aggi ng hi s dyi ng body t o the car , a nd dr i vi ng hi m t o t he

### 25

w oods w her e the bod y w as dum ped. T hi s unbr oken cour s e of conductby N el s on, w hi ch br oughtaboutthe dea th of h i s vict i m , const i tut ed the das t ar dl y actof m ur derf

orw hi ch he pr oper l y w as convi ct ed. B utno m or e ca n i tform t he bas i s fora val i d ki dnappi ng char ge than can the actof a gunm an w ho backs hi s vi ct i m i nt o a cornerbef or e s hoot i ng hi m , orthe ac tof
a stra n g ler w h o se ize s h is q u a rry ’s th ro a t u n til th e p o o r so u l b re a th e s h is la s t b re a th . W e
w o u ld n o t h o ld th a t ac ts s u c h a s th e se , in c id e n tal to th e v e ry a c t o f m u rd e r itse lf, are a lso a c ts of ki dn a pp i ng . N e i the r , the r e f or e , s ho ul d we ho l d tha tN e l s on ’ s de s pi c a bl e a nd mal i ci ous
c o n d u c t c o n s titu te d a n y c ri m e b u t m u rd e r. ¶6 4. I nde e d, the c r i me of mur de r ne c e s s a r i l y i nc l ud e s s ome de gr e e of s ei zur e, no m at t er ho w bri ef orho w sl i gh t . If w e declar e such i ncident al s ei zure i s a f actsuff i ci ent t o g i ve ri se t o a s epar at e cha r ge of

ki dnappi ng, t hen t he pr act i cal ef f ectw oul d be t hatevery actof m ur der i s capi t al m ur der , w i th ki dnappi ng as the under l yi ng f el ony. I f r eadi ngs of

the ki dnappi ng and
m u rd e r s ta tu te s e v in c e a leg isla tiv e in ten t to p e rm it su c h a re su lt, th e n th a t in terp re tatio n is l os ton m e. ¶65
. M or e f

undamen t a l l y, tho ug h, ou rdo ubl e- j eopar dy j ur i s prudence r ecogni zes that “w hen the im p u lse i s sing le, b u t on e [ch arg e] l ies, n o m att er h o w lon g the a cti o n m ay co n ti n u e. If
s ucce s s i ve i m pul s es ar e s epar at el y gi ven, even though al l uni t e i n s w el l i ng a comm on s tr eam of act i on, s epar at e [ char ge] s l i e. ” I d. a t 3 0 2 . N o su c h se p a ra tio n o f im p u lse s c a n re a so n a b ly be gl eane d f

r om the f act s of thi s tr agi c ca s e; and t o the ext entt hatt hi s par t i cul arm ur der ous acts ugges t s the pr opr i ety of a s epar at e cha r ge of

ki dnappi ng, s uch a s ugges t i on l i es i n conf l i ct
w i th the s t at e and f

eder al cons t i tut i onal guar ant ees of pr ot ect i on f

r om doubl e j eopar dy.

### 26

¶66. A ccor di ngl y, I w oul d af f i r m the convi ct i on f

ormurde rbutr ever s e and r enderon the
c h a rg e o f k id n a p p in g . T h e re fo re , I co n c u r in p a rt a n d d iss e n t in p a rt.