I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 1 - KA- 0 1 9 1 1 - S CT C H R IS TO P H ER K . T A Y L O R a /k /a CHR I S TOP HER T AY L OR a / k / a CHR I ST AY L OR a/k/ a C H A IN
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 15/ 2011 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . R O B E R T P . C H A M B E R L IN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: DES OTO COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F I ND I GEN T APPEALS BY : GEO RG E T. HO LM ES 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 : J EFFR EY A
. K LI N G FU SS DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: J OHN W
. CH AM P I ON NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 04/ 11/ 2013 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E R A N D O L P H , P . J. , P I E R C E A N D K I N G , JJ. KI NG , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. C hr i s t opherT ayl orw as convi ct ed i n the C i r cui tC our tof D eSot o C ounty of

one count of bur gl ary and one c ountof l ar ceny. A ggr i eved, T ayl orappea l s hi s convi ct i on and
se n ten c e , rais in g th re e iss u e s: I . W hethert he t r i al cour ter r ed by al l ow i ng the St at e’ s i m peac hm entevi dence
. II . W hetherthe ev i den ce w as l egall y suff i ci ent t o sup po rthis con vict i on s.

### Mr. and Mr s. Thornt on’s firs t name s areabs ent from t he r ec ord. 1 

### 2 I I I . W hetherthe ver di ctw as agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence
. T he C our tf

i nds no err orand af

f i r m s T ayl or ’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence . F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. O n the af

t ernoon of J anuary 24, 2011, I s aac and A ni t a W al l ace ’ s hom e i n H ernando, M iss iss ip p i w a s b u rg lar ize d . A n ita re p o rte d th e fo llo w in g ite m s m iss in g fr o m h e r h o m e : a f l at - s cr een t el evi s i on, a l apt op, herhusband’ s j ew el ry, a j arof change , and a c l earbackpa ck
w h ich c o n tai n ed a p air of clipp ers a n d tw o fl at i ron s. A cc o rdin g to A n it a, th e it em s w ere
w o rt h m o re th a n $ 3 ,0 0 0
. ¶3
. D et ect i ve Sem che Pi e h o f the H e rna nd o Po l i c e D e pa r t menti nv e s t i ga t e d the cas e. A ccor di ng t o D et ect i ve Pi eh, the as s ai l antbr oke a w i ndow and ent er ed t he hom e thr ough t he k itch e n . D e tec tiv e P ieh o b se rv e d m u d d y fo o tp rin ts in sid e th e h o m e , a n d h e n o tice d a tra il of f oo tpri nts w hich l ed fr om the k i t chen w i nd ow t o an otherho m e b eh i nd the W al l aces’
r es i dence
. T he home bel onged t o the T hornt on f ami l y. D et ect i ve Pi eh vi s i t ed the home and

1 i nf or m ed M r . T hornt on of

the bur gl ary and the f

ootpr i nt s l eadi ng t o hi s hom e. M r . T hor nt on d e n ied h a v in g a n y k n o w led g e o f th e b u rg lar y a n d su g g e ste d D e tec tiv e P ieh re tu rn late r to i nt ervi ew hi s gr ands on, D err i ck A l exande r , w ho w as nothom e atthe t i m e. ¶ 4
. D e tec tiv e P ieh late r in ter v iew e d A lex a n d e r. A lex a n d e r to ld th e d e te c tiv e th a t h is fri en d , C h risto p h er T ay lor, h ad v isi ted h is ho m e the d ay o f th e b u rglary
. T h e tw o w ere
s u p p o s e d to h a n g o u t, b u t T a y lo r le ft a ft e r A le x a n d e r to o k to o lo n g to g e t d re s s e d
. D et ect i ve Pi eh t es t i f

i ed thatA l exande rgave hi m conf l i ct i ng t i m es T ayl orw as athi s hom e – once

### The de te ctivehad t ake n photographs of and ske tc hed thefoot prints found out si de the 2 

### Wal la ce s’ home . Heuse d thephotographs an d ske tc hes to c ompareto Al exander ’s and Tayl or’ s s hoes . Al exander ’s shoe s di d not m at ch the f ootprint s e xac tly, but

the y wer e similar. Tay lor’s sh oes w ere no t a match. Th e tipster’s id entityis no t revealedin th e record . Detectiv e Piehtestified that Anita 3 

### advi se d him

to di sc uss theburgl ar

y with a local busines s owne r. The bus ine ss owner intro du ced th e detectiv e to anemplo yee, who pro vid ed th e info rmation
. To dd c l a i m e d s heand

T ayl or w e r e j us t f ri e nd s at theti m e o f

thei nc i de nt . Th e two 4 

### no w h aveac hi l d t og e the r . H ow e ve r , t e s t i m ony i s i nc on s i s t e nt r e gar dingwh e the r

thetwo wer e dating at

thetimeof tri al . Todd c laim ed that she and Taylor

wer e e ngage d. But

Tayl or st at ed that

the y wer e on ba d te rm s and not s peaking. Taylor

eve n ins inuate d that Todd ha d a gru dg e again st him. A n ita la ter id e n tified th e c lip p e rs a s h e rs, w h ich s h e re c o g n ize d b y a c o rd s h e re c e n tly 5 h a d re p la c e d
. 

### 3 s ayi ng T ayl orw as ther e b et w een 12: 00 p. m . and 12: 30 p. m . , and l at ers ayi ng T ayl orw as th e re b e tw e e n 2 :0 0 p .m . a n d 4 :0 0 p .m . ¶5. A f

t ers peaki ng w i th A l exande r , D et ect i ve Pi eh at t empt ed t o l ocat e T ayl or , w ho l i ved
w i th hi s gr andpar ent s . T ayl orw as outof t ow n w i th hi s gra ndm other , butD et ect i ve Pi eh w as abl e t o s peak w i th Tayl or ’ s gr andf ather
. T ayl or ’ s gr andf

atherdeni ed havi ng any know l edge
o f t h e c ri m e . T he gr andf atheral l ow ed D et ect i ve Pi eh t o sea r ch t hei rhom e, and the det ect i ve
s peci f i cal l y a s ked t o s ee Tayl or ’ s s hoes
. T he gr andf athert ol d the det ect i ve thatT ayl orhad 2 tak e n a p a ir o f sh o e s w ith h im . B e fo re lea v in g , D e tec tiv e P ieh req u e ste d th e g ra n d fa th e r te ll T a y lo r t o c o n ta c t h im u p o n h is re tu rn . ¶ 6
. On a t i p , De t e c t i v e P i e h l e a rn e d s o me o f th e s t o l e n i t e ms
– th e c l e a r b a c k p a c k , t wo 3 f l ati r ons , and hai rcl i pper s – w er e atthe home of T aylor ’ s gi r l f

r i end, K amesha T odd. 4 D et ect i ve Pi eh vi s i t ed Todd, and s he al l ow ed hi m t o s ear ch herapart m ent . H e r ecove r ed A ni t a’ s hai rcl i pper s . A s the St at e’ s w i tnes s , T odd t es t i f i ed thatT aylorgave he ra cl ear 5

### Acc ording to Todd, Mrs . Thornt on said he r ne ighbor ’s homewas burgl ariz ed, and 6 

### the items came fro m Mrs. T ho rnto n’s h ome. Wh en D etective P ieh v isited T od d, th e flat iron s were n o lo ng er at her ap artment. 7 P re v io u s ly , th e C o u rt h a s s ta te d th a t “ h it a lic k ” is c o llo q u ia lis m fo r r o b b e ry . D a v is 8 v. S ta te , 4 0 S o. 3 d 525, 527 ( ¶6) n. 6 ( M i s s . 2010)
. T oday, the C our tnot es thi s phr as e ca n be u sed i n an y inst ance w here a p erso n recei ves a sub st anti al sum of m on ey o r good s, w hetherobt ai ned l egall y ori l l egal l y. Forexampl e, you can “ hi ta l i ck” a tthe ca s i no by w i nni ng a l ar ge s um of

m oney. T hus , “hi ta l i ck” does nota l w ays r ef ert o cr i m i nal act i vi ty. 

### 4 backpa ck, w hi ch cont ai ned h ai rcl i pper s and tw o f l ati r ons . A l l egedl y, M r s . T hor nt on, A l exan der’s g randm other , w arned T od d thatthe it em s w ere s t olen. U po n learning t his , 6 T odd as ked Tayl ort o r emove t he i t ems f r om he rhome. A ccor di ng t o T odd, T ayl ors ai d t hat 7 A l exande rhad com m i t t ed t he bur gl ary, and Tayl ordeni ed any pa r t i ci pat i on i n the bur gl ary. D ur i ng herdi r ectexami nat i on, T odd den i ed t el l i ng the det ect i ve thatT ayl orw as pr es ent dur i ng the bur gl ary. She al s o deni ed s ayi ng t hatT ayl orhad t hr ow n aw ay a pa i rof s hoes “he hi tthe l i ck i n. ” T he St at e i m peac hed Todd w i th hers t at ement . A f t erw ar d, T odd admi t t ed 8 t el l i ng the det ect i ve thatT ayl orhad thr ow n hi s s hoes aw ay, buts he deni ed ment i oni ng
a n y th in g a b o u t th e fo o tp ri n ts fo u n d o u ts id e o f t h e W a lla c e s ’ h o m e . ¶7. T he S t at e recal l ed D et ect i ve Pi eh t o i m peac h T odd’ s t es t i m ony. A ccor di ng t o t he det ect i ve, T odd had s ai d thatT ayl oradmi t t ed bei ng atthe W al l aces’ h om e dur i ng t he b u rglary
. B u t T o d d sa id T ay lor d id n o t co m m itthe b u rglary ; she claim ed T ay lor w as th ere onl y t o hel p di s pos e of

t he s t ol en i t ems. T he det ect i ve al s o l earned f r om T od d that , af

t er T a y lo r h e a rd a b o u t th e fo o tp ri n ts , h e d is p o s e d o f h is s h o e s . ¶8. D et ect i ve Pi eh w as c ont act ed by Sherry D al e, Tayl or ’ s mot her
. She w as conce r ned
a b o u t h e r y o u n g e st s o n , C h a d , w h o w a s a p p ro a c h e d b y p o lice re g a rd in g sto len item s. D a le

### Miranda v. Ari zona , 384 U. S. 436, 86 S. Ct . 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966)
. 9 

### To ddandTay lor testifiedregard ing ho w and when Tayl or vi site d Alexand er’s ho me 10 

### the day of the burglary. Acc ording to Taylor , Todd dropped hi m of f at hi s grandm othe r’ s homethat m orning. Taylor ’s grandmot her lives near A le xande r’ s hom e. Tayl or s ai d he spe nt theday “walking and chi ll ing”in t he ne ighbor

hood. Todd got

off work around 4: 00 p. m . Af t e r w or k, T od d pi c ke d Tayl or

u p f r om a f ri e nd ’ s h ou s e , the y r e t

ur ne d to Todd’ s apartme nt, and Taylor

late r bor rowe d Todd’s car t o vis it

Ale xande r. Tayl or s tate d thi s wa s theonly tim e hehad vi si te d Ale xande r that day. Todd te stif

ie d to s im il ar

eve nts . Howe ver , shest at ed that

Tayl or ha d borrowed he r c ar to go t o his grandmo ther’s ho use. When he return ed, h e hada clear backpackwh ich co ntain ed tw o flat iro ns. 5 t es t i f i ed f orthe St at e. D al e s t at ed thatC had had a l apt op i n hi s pos s es s i on w hi ch s he had not p u rc h a se d . W h e n D a le q u e stio n e d T a y lo r a b o u t th e lap to p , h e s tate d th a t h e h a d re c e iv e d it f r om T od d. D a l e the n a s ke d Ta yl ort o r e move the l a pt op f r om he rho me, a nd he di d. D e te c tiv e P ie h d id n o t r e c o v e r t h e la p to p in h is in v e s tig a tio n . ¶9
. T a y lor also t esti fi ed at tr ial
. T ay lor co n tac ted D e tec tiv e P ieh a fte r re tu rn in g to H ernando. D et ect i ve Pi eh i nt ervi ew ed Tayl oratthe pol i ce s t at i on, an d T aylors i gned a
w ai ver of hi s Mir anda r i ght s. D et ect i ve Pi eh i nf or m ed Tayl orthatA l exande rhad 9 i m pl i cat ed hi m i n the bur gl ary of the W al l ace s ’ r es i dence
. T ayl orw as s tunned and de ni ed
a n y k n o w le d g e o f t h e b u rg la ry . ¶10. A t tr i al , T ayl or deni ed bur gl ar i zi ng the W al l ace s ’ hom e and t es t i f i ed thatA l exande r
a c tu a lly h a d c o m m itt e d th e b u rg lar y . A c c o rd in g to T a y lo r, h e h a d re c e iv e d sto len p ro p e rty 10 f r om A l exande r– a cl earbackpa ck, tw o f l ati r ons , hai rcl i pper s , and a l apt op. B eca us e the pol i ce ha d been t o A l exande r ’ s hom e ea r l i erthatda y, Tayl ors t at ed thatA l exande rhad as ked h im to “ h o ld ” th e item s. T o p ro tec t A lex a n d e r, w h o w a s h is frie n d a t th e tim e , T a y lo r d id notr evea l A l exande r ’ s part i ci pat i on i n t he bur gl ary duri ng hi s i nt ervi ew w i th D et ect i ve Pi eh. T ayl orf el tbetr ayed a f

t erl earni ng t hatA l exande rhad i m pl i cat ed hi m i n the cr i m e. W hen

### 6

a sk e d w h e re th e sto len it e m s w e re , T a y lo r te stifie d th a t h e h a d re tu rn e d th e lap to p to A le x a n d e r a n d h a d th ro w n th e o th e r i te m s in a d u m p s te r. ¶11. O n N ovember15, 2011, T ayl orw as convi ct ed of one countof

bur gl ary and one count of l ar ceny. O n countone ( bur gl ary) , he w as s ent ence d t o f i f t een ye ar s i n the cus t ody of the M issi ssipp i D ep artm en t of C o rrecti o n s (M D O C ), w ith th ree y ea rs t o serv e a n d tw elve y ea rs
o f p o s t- re le a s e s u p e rv is io n , w ith fi v e y e a rs re p o rt in g . O n countt w o (l arc eny) , he w as
sen tenc ed to ten y ea rs i n th e cu stod y of th e M D O C , w ith th ree ye ars t o serv e a n d sev en y ea rs
o f p o s t- re le a s e s u p e rv is io n , w it h f iv e y e a rs re p o rt in g . T he tr i al cou rtordered t ho se
s e n te n c e s to ru n c o n c u rr e n tly
. T h e tri al co u rtalso o rde red T ay lor t o pa y a $ 1 , 0 0 0 fi n e, co u rt
cos t s , $100 t o the M i s s i s s i ppi Cri m e V i ct i m ’ s Com pens at i on Fund, a nd $2, 650 i n r es t i tut i on. ¶ 1 2
. T h e r e a f

t e r , T a y l o rf

i l e d a m o t i o n f

o ra j u d g me n tn o twi th s t a n d i n g th e v e r d i c t ( JNOV)
a n d a m o tio n fo r a n e w trial. T h e trial c o u rt d e n ied b o th m o tio n s. T a y lo r tim e ly filed h is
n o tice o f a p p e a l w ith th is C o u rt. A N A L Y S IS I . I m peachm ent E vi dence ¶ 1 3
. T a y lo r a rg u e s th a t th e S tate w a s a llo w e d to o ffe r u n sw o rn , o u t- o f- c o u rt s tate m e n ts at tri bu t ed to T od d thr ou gh D et ect i ve P i eh’s t est i m on y, w i tho ut prov ing thatT od d w as a hos t i l e w i tnes s . T ayl orcont ends thatthe s t at ement s w er e extr emel y damagi ng beca us e they cont ai ned t he onl y evi dence connect i ng hi m t o t he sc ene of t he cr i m e. T ayl oral s o compl ai ns thatthe tr i al courtf

ai l ed t o of

f era l i m i t i ng i ns truct i on t o the j ury. T he St at e ar gues thatthe p rio r in c o n sis ten t sta tem e n t w a s u se d p ro p e rly to im p e a c h T o d d
. B u t th e S tate ’s a rg u m e n t,
w hi ch ci t es cas el aw r egar di ng t he St at e’ s i m peac hm entof a def ense w i tnes s , i s of

no

### In i ts brie f, the Stateci te s a ca sere li ed upon by t

he tri alcourt – Ta te v. Sta te , 20 So. 11 

### 3d 623, 635 ( Mis s. 2009). In Ta te , the Court he ld that thetria l c ourt

did not er r in al lowing thepros ec utor

to cross -e

xamine thedef

endant’ s wi fere garding a pri or incons is te nt statement. Tate is distin gu ishab le. Here, th e State was allow ed to imp each its o wnwitn ess with a prior

inc onsi st ent

st at em ent

without s howing that it w as s urpris ed by Todd’ s testimony o r that T od d w as a ho stile witn ess. The de fe nsera is ed oneobje ction t o thefor m of a que stion, but

the de fe nsedid not 12 

### raise a sub stantiv e ob

jectionto th e State’s imp eachment of T od d.

7 as s i s t ance her e. 11 ¶14
. In order t o i m peach i t s ow n w i tness w i th a pri or i nco nsi st ent st at em ent, a party m ust p ro v e it w a s s u rp ri s e d b y th e w itn e s s ’s te s tim o n y o r t h a t th e w itn e s s is h o s ti le
. W il kins v. S ta te , 603 So. 2d 309, 322 ( M i s s . 1992)
. A pr i ori ncons i s t ents t at ementmay be a dm i t t ed f or im p e a c h m e n t p u rp o s e s o n ly ; it c a n n o t b e a d m itte d a s s u b s ta n tiv e e v id e n c e . Id
. ¶15. T ayl ordoes notchal l enge the St at e’ s i m peac hm entof T odd; he cha l l enges onl y t he
e v id e n c e e licite d th ro u g h D e tec tiv e P ieh ’s tes tim o n y . A s p re v io u sly m e n tio n e d , T o d d sa id T ayl ordeni ed com m i t t i ng t he bur gl ary and T odd deni ed s ayi ng thatT ayl orhad thr ow n aw ay hi s s hoes
. T he St at e i m peac hed T odd w i th a pr i ori ncons i s t ents t at ementgi ven t o D et ect i ve Pi eh. A f t erthi s , T odd admi t t ed t el l i ng the det ect i ve T ayl orha d thr ow n hi s s hoes aw ay, but
s he deni ed ment i oni ng the f ootpr i nt s f

ound out s i de the W al l ace s ’ hom e. T he def ens e di d not
o b jec t to T o d d ’s te stim o n y a n d , o n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , p ro c e e d e d to q u e stio n a n d e licit tes tim o n y fro m T o d d re g a rd in g th e sta tem e n t. 12 ¶1 6
. A ft er T o d d ’s t esti m o n y , the S tate re c a lled D e tec tiv e P ieh a n d q u e stio n e d h im reg ard ing th e s u b stan ce o f T o d d ’s st atem en t. T h e d efe n se o b jected to D etec ti v e P ieh’s t es t i m ony on t he gr ounds of l eadi ng and “i m pr operques t i oni ng conce rni ng i m peac hm entof the S tat e’s o w n w itn ess.” T h e tri al co u rtsu stai n ed as to lea d ing b u t ov erru led th e im p rop er-

### Th e Co urt h as stated th at: 13 

### A def endant who f

ai ls to make a con te mporane ous obj ec ti on mus t rely on plainerror to raise th e as si g nment onapp eal. Th is Co urt ap plies th e plain er ror rul e only when a

def endant’ s s ubst antiveri ghtsar e a ff ec te d. Mo rga n v. S

tate , 793 So. 2d 615, 616 (¶6) (Mi ss . 2001)
. The Cour t of Appea ls has re ver se d a c as e r ec ogniz ing a s pl ain er ror theState ’s 14 

### failure to lay the pro per found ationto impeachits own w itness. See King v. State , 994 So. 2d 890 (Mi ss . Ct . App. 2008). 8 i m peac hm entobj ect i on. T her eaf t er , the det ect i ve t es t i f

i ed thatT odd s ai d: ( 1) T ayl or had admi t t ed bei ng atthe W al l ace s ’ hom e dur i ng the bur gl ary, (2) T ayl ordi d notactual l y br eak i nt o the home, buthe w as ther e t o hel p A l exande rdi s pos e of the s t ol en i t ems, and ( 3) T ayl or h a d d is p o s e d o f h is s h o e s a ft e r l e a rn in g p o lic e h a d fo u n d fo o tp ri n ts o u ts id e th e h o m e . ¶17
. T he record cl earl y sho w s that the S t at e w as al l ow ed to i m peach T od d, i t s ow n w i tness,
w ith o u t p ro v in g (1 ) th a t itw a s s u rp rise d b y h e r te stim o n y , o r (2 ) th a t sh e w a s a h o stile
w i tnes s . B utT ayl orf

ai l ed t o obj ectt o the St at e’ s i m peac hm entof T odd at t ri al , w hi ch
w a iv e s th e a rg u m e n t f

o r a p p e lla te re v ie w . B o v e v. S ta te , 185 M i s s . 547, 188 So. 557, 558 ( M i s s . 1939)
. T ayl oral s o has f ai l ed t o r ai s e a pl ai n- err orc l ai m on a ppeal
. A l t ernat i vel y, 13 the C our t , on i t s ow n vol i t i on, m ay r ecogni ze thi s as pl ai n err or . T he C our tdecl i nes t o do 14
s o a n d d e t e r mi n e s th e i s s u e h a s b e e n wa i v e d f o ra p p e l l a t e r e v i e w. ¶ 1 8
. D e fe n se c o u n se l o b jec ted to D e tec tiv e P ieh ’s tes tim o n y re g a rd in g T o d d ’s s tate m e n t, and the tr i al courtoverrul ed the obj ect i on. T hi s w as e rr or . B ut , atthatpoi nt , the damage had been done
. T odd h ad adm i t t ed maki ng the s t at ement s dur i ng herdi r ectexami nat i on; t he

### Failure to request a limitin g instru ctionw aives the issue onapp eal. Ru ssell v. Sta te , 15 

### 607 So. 2d 1107, 1117 (Mi ss . 1992)
.
9 def ens e had f

ai l ed t o obj ectt o thi s t es t i m ony and t o a r eques ta li m i t i ng j ury i ns truct i on. 15 T h u s, an y erro r th e tri al co u rtco m m itted b y o v erru li n g the o b jecti o n to D etec tive P ieh’s tes tim o n y re g a rd in g T o d d ’s s tate m e n t is h a rm les s. T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I I . L egal Suff

i ci ency ¶ 1 9
. T a y l o rc h a l l e n g e s t h e l e g a l s u f f i c i e n c y o f

t h e e v i d e n c e . A m o t i o n f o r J NOV
c h a lle n g e s th e le g a l s u ff ic ie n c y o f t h e e v id e n c e . K n ig h t v. S ta te , 72 So. 3d 1056, 1063 ( ¶24) (M iss . 2 0 1 1 ). W h e n ru lin g o n a m o tio n fo r JN O V , the tria l c o u rt m u st v iew a ll cre d ib le
e v id e n c e c o n s is te n t w ith th e d e fe n d a n t’ s g u ilt in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e S ta te . Id
. T he C our tw i l l notdi s turb the tr i al court ’ s rul i ng i f “the evi dence s how s ‘ beyond a
r eas onabl e doubtthat[ the] acc us ed comm i t t ed the actchar ged, and thathe di d s o unders uch ci r cumst ance s t hatevery el ementof the of f ens e exi s t ed; a nd w her e the evi dence f ai l s t o m eet th is te s t it is in s u ff

ic ie n t to s u p p o rt a c o n v ic tio n [,]’” a n d re v e rs a l is re q u ir e d
. Id
. (quot i ng B u sh v. S ta te , 895 So. 2d 836, 84 3 (¶16) (M i s s . 2005) )
. T hus , the C our tm us tdet erm i ne
w hether , af

t ervi ew i ng t he evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the St at e, any r at i onal t r i er
o f fa c t co u ld h a v e fo u n d th e e ss e n tial e lem e n ts o f th e c rim e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t.

A . B urgl ary ¶2 0. T ayl orw a s c ha r ge d wi th tw o c r i mes – b ur gl a ry a nd l a r c e ny . Rega r di ng bu r gl ar y, M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 9 7 -1 7 -2 3 (1 ) p ro v id e s th a t: E very p e r s on w ho s ha l l be c on vi c t e d o f br e a ki ng a nd e nt e r i ng the dwel l i ng

### 10

hous e ori nnerdoorof

s uch dw el l i ng hous e of a nother , w hetherarm ed w i th a deadl y w eapon ornot , and w hetherther e s hal l b e at t he t i m e s om e human bei ng i n s uch dw el l i ng hous e ornot , w i th i nt entt o com m i tsome cr i m e ther ei n, s hal l b e puni s hed by comm i t m entt o the cus t ody of the D epart m entof C orr ect i ons f

ornotl es s than t hr ee ( 3) year s norm or e than tw enty- f i ve ( 25) years. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 17- 23( 1) (Rev. 2006). T ayl orcl ai m s thathe had r ece i ved s t ol en goods fro m A lex a n d e r, an d h e d id n o t b u rg lar ize th e W a llac e s’ h o m e . T a y lo r c o n ten d s h is pos s es s i on of

the s t ol en goods i s i ns uf f i ci entevi dence of bu rgl ar y. T ayl ors t at es t he i m peac hm ente vi dence i s the onl y e vi dence w hi ch pl ace s hi m a tthe s cene of the cr i m e and, sin c e it w a s a d m itt e d im p ro p e rly , itc a n n o t b e u se d a s s u b sta n tiv e e v id e n c e o f h is g u ilt
. ¶2 1. T ayl or a l s o c l a i ms thi s c a s e i s ba s e d on c i r c ums t a nt i a l e vi de nc e, and t he evi dence does nots at i s f

y t he ci r cumst ant i al
- evi dence t es t . T he C our tfi nds t hatT ayl or ’ s convi ct i on i s b a s e d u p o n mo r e th a n c i r c u ms t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . Ho we v e r , we a d d r e s s Ta y l o r ’ s c l a i m. U nderthe ci r cumst ant i al
- evi dence t es t , the C our tm us tcons i derthe f ol l ow i ng: 1. T he t empora l pr oxi m i ty of the pos s es s i on t o the cr i m e t o be i nf err ed; 2. T he numberorper cent age of the f rui t s of the cr i m e pos s es s ed; 3. T he natur e of

the pos s es s i on i n t erm s of w het her t here i s an att empt at conce al m entorany otherevi dence of gui l ty know l edge; 4 . W h e th e r a n e x p lan a tio n is g iv e n a n d w h e th e r th a t ex p lan a tio n is p lau sib le ordemonstr abl y f

al s e. S h ields v . S ta te , 7 0 2 S o . 2 d 3 8 0 , 3 8 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). ¶22. T ayl or cl ai m s the evi dence i s i ns uf f i ci ent beca us e he never conce al ed hi s pos s es s i on of the i t ems, and he pr ovi ded an e xpl anat i on f orhi s pos s es s i on. W e di s agr ee. B as ed on T odd’ s t es t i m ony, ther e i s e vi dence thatTayl orpos s es s ed f rui t s of the bur gl ary the s ame day

### 11

i toccurr ed. T ayl oradmi t t ed pos s es s i on of the l apt op, hai rcl i pper s , a nd tw o f l ati r ons . B ut bas ed on D al e’s tes t i m ony, T ayl orconce al ed the true or i gi n of the l apt op gi ven t o her y o u n g er so n . A lth o u g h T ay lor c lai m s h e is gu il ty o n ly o f rece iving stolen p rop erty, T o d d ’s tes tim o n y ra ise s a n in fe re n c e o f g u ilta s to b u rg lar y . It i s w ith in th e ju ry ’s p ro v in c e to d e te rm in e th e c re d ib ility o f t h e w itn e s s e s . Kni ght , 72 So. 3d at 1064 ( ¶32)
. B as ed on the evi dence , a r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d have de t erm i ned thatT ayl orbur gl ar i zed the home. ¶ 2 3
. V iew in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e S tate , a ra tio n a l ju ro r c o u ld h a v e fo u n d th e S tate h a d p ro v e d th e e ss e n tial e lem e n ts o f b u rg lar y b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. B. Larc e ny ¶24. G r and l ar ceny i s “taki ng an d carrying aw ay, f el oni ous l y, the per s onal pr operty of
a n o th e r, o f t h e v a lu e o f F iv e H u n d re d D o lla rs ($ 5 0 0 .0 0 ) o r m o re . . . .” M is s . C o d e A n n . § 9 7
- 1 7
- 4 1 ( 1 ) ( Re v . 2 0 0 6 )
. Ta y l o ra r g u e s t h a tt h e St a t e f a i l e d t o p r o v e h e h a d s t o l e n th e i t e ms
a n d , i f a n y th i n g , h e i s g u i l t y o f r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n p r o p e r ty . Bu t , “ [ u ] n d e rM i s s i s s i p p i l a w, p o sses sion o f rece n tl y stolen p rop erty is a c ir cu m stan ce w h ich m ay b e c o n side red b y the ju ry and f r om w hi ch, i n the abs ence of a r eas onabl e expl anat i on, the j ury may i nf ergui l t . ” See S e a les v. S ta te , 9 0 S o . 3 d 3 7 , 4 2 (¶2 5 ) (M iss. 2 0 1 2 ). A s pr evi ous l y st at ed, ther e w as
s uf f i ci entevi den ce f

orthe j ury t o det erm i ne thatT ayl orcomm i t t ed bur gl ary beyond a
r eas onabl e doubt
. T hi s w as a j ury que s t i on, a nd the j ury r es ol ved any conf l i ct s i n the
e v id e n c e in fa v o r o f T a y lo r’ s g u ilt. See id at 41 -43 (¶¶ 2 0 -30 ). ¶25. T ayl or al s o ar gues that the St at e f ai l ed t o pr ove the f

ai r - m arket val ue of the i t ems he had r ece i ved. W e di s agr ee. T es t i m ony est abl i s hed t hatT ayl orhad atl eas tf ourof the s t ol en

### 12

i t ems i n hi s pos s es s i on: the l apt op, haircl i pper s , and tw o f l ati r ons . A ni t a t es t i f

i ed t o t he
a p p r o x i ma t e c o s to f

th e s e i t e ms : th e l a p t o p c o s t$ 4 0 0 , th e h a i rc l i p p e r s c o s t$ 6 0 , a n d th e t wo f l ati r ons w er e $100 e ach. T he val ue of the i t ems equa l ed $660, m or e than the s t atut e’ s $500
re q u ir e m e n t. T h u s , th e C o u rt fi n d s th a t th e S ta te m e t th is e le m e n t o f t h e o ff e n s e . ¶26. V i ew i ng t he evi dence i n the l i ghtmostf avor abl e t o the St at e, a ny r at i onal tr i erof f act coul d have f

ou nd tha tthe St at e had pr oved the es s ent i al el ement s of l ar ceny be yond a
rea so n ab le do u b t. A cc o rdin g ly, th e C o u rtfi n d s th e tr ial co u rtdid n o t err by d en y ing T ay lor’s
m o tio n fo r J N O V . I I I . W ei ght of

t he E vi dence ¶27
. T ayl or al so argues t hat the v erdi cti s agai nstthe o verw helm i ng w ei gh tof the evi dence
. Speci f i cal l y, T ayl orm ai nt ai ns thatthe i m peac hm ente vi dence i s i ns uf f i ci entt o s uppor tt he g u ilty v e rd ic t. ¶ 2 8
. A m o tio n fo r a n e w tr ia l c h a lle n g e s th e w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e . Kni ght , 72 So. 3d at 1064 ( ¶31)
. T he C our tw i l l notdi s turb the tr i al court ’ s deni al of a mot i on f

ora new t r i al unl es s “[ the ver di ct ] i s so contr ary t o t he overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence thatt o al l ow i tt o s t and w oul d s anct i on an uncons ci onabl e i nj us t i ce. ” Id
. ( quot i ng B u sh , 895 So. 2d at844 (¶1 8 )). ¶29. T ayl ordeni ed bu rgl ari zi ng the W al l ace s ’ hom e, and Todd cont i nual l y s t at ed that T ayl orhad nothi ng t o do w i th the bur gl ary. B utTodd’ s i m peac hm entt es t i m ony cal l ed the
cre d ibil ity o f bo th T ay lor an d T o d d into q u esti o n . T ay lor fail ed to o b ject t o the S tat e’s im p ea ch m en t of T o d d an d fail ed to req u est a li m it ing ins tru c ti o n . Itis w ith in the jury ’s p ro v in c e to d e ter m in e th e w e ig h t an d c re d ib ili ty to g iv e to th e e v id e n c e , res o lv in g a ll

### 13

c o n fl ic ts in th e e v id e n c e . Kni ght , 72 So. 3d at1064 ( ¶32)
. V i ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ght
m os tf avor abl e t o the ver di ct , the j ury r es ol ved any co nfl i ct s i n the evi dence i n f avorof T ayl or ’ s convi ct i on. T he C our tf i nds thatt he ver di cti s notagai ns tt he overw hel m i ng w ei ght of the evi dence , a nd w e cannotpr es enta ny r eas on t o c al l the j ury’ s j udgm enti nt o ques t i on. A c c o rd in g ly , th e tr ia l c o u rt d id n o t e rr b y d e n y in g T a y lo r’ s m o tio n fo r a n e w tr ia l. CO NC L US I ON ¶30. T ayl orf

ai l ed t o obj ectto t he S t at e’s im peach m entevi dence dur i ng T odd’ s di r ect exami nat i on, and Tayl orf ai l ed t o r eques ta l i m i t i ng instruct i on . T hus , any err orthe tr i al
co u rtco m m itted b y o v erru li n g the o b jecti o n t o D etec ti v e P ieh’s testi m o n y reg ard ing T o d d ’s
s ta te m e n t is h a rm le s s . ¶31. V i ew i ng the ev i den ce in t he l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the St at e, s uf f i ci ent evi dence exi s t s upon w hi ch a j ury coul d have f ound beyond a r eas onabl e doubtt hatT ayl orbur gl ar i zed th e W a llac e s’ h o m e a n d c o m m itt e d lar c e n y th e re in . B e c a u se th e e v id e n c e w a s le g a lly
su ffi cien t t o su p p o rtT ay lor’s co n v ict ion , the tri al co u rtd id n o t err by d en y ing T ay lor’s
mo t i o n f o ra JNOV. ¶32. T he j ury is ch arged w i t h deter m i ning the w ei ghtand cr edi bi l i ty t o gi ve t o the evidence, res olvi ng al l con fl i ct s i n the evi den ce. V i ew i ng the ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost fav o rab le t o the v erd ict , the jury res o lved a n y c o n fl ict s in the ev iden ce in fav o r o f T ay lor’s convi ct i on, and w e f

i nd no r eas on t o di s turb the j ury’ s ve r di ct . T hus , the tr i al courtdi d not
e rr b y d e n y in g T a y lo r’ s m o tio n fo r a n e w tr ia l. ¶ 3 3
. B a s e d o n th e fo re g o in g , th e C o u rt a ff ir m s T a y lo r’ s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . ¶ 3 4
. COUNT I : CONVI CT I ON OF B URGL ARY OF A DW EL LI NG AND

### 14

SENTE NC E O F FI FTEEN ( 1 5 ) Y EA RS I N TH E C USTO DY O F TH E M I SS I SS I PPI D E P A R T M E N T OF C O R R E C T I O N S , W I T H T H R E E ( 3 ) YE ARS I NCARC ER AT I ON, CREDI T FOR TW EN TY - ONE ( 2 1 ) DAYS TI M E S ER VE D, AND TW EL VE ( 1 2 ) YE ARS P OS T- RE LE AS E S UP ER VI S I ON W I TH F I VE ( 5 ) YE ARS RE P ORTI NG, AF F I RM ED . COUNT I I : CONVI CT I ON OF GRAND L ARCE NY AN D SEN TEN CE O F TEN ( 1 0 ) YE AR S I N T H E C USTO DY O F TH E M I SS I SS I PPI D E P ART M E N T O F CORR E C T I ONS , W I TH THRE E ( 3 ) YEARS I NCARC ER AT I ON, CRE DI T FOR TW ENTY- ONE ( 2 1 ) DAYS TI M E S ER VE D, AND S EV EN ( 7 ) YE ARS P OS T- RE LE AS E S UP ER VI S I ON W I TH F I VE ( 5 ) YE ARS RE P ORTI NG, AF F I RM ED . AP P EL LA NT S HALL P AY A F I NE OF $ 1 , 0 0 0 , COURT COS TS , $ 1 0 0 TO THE M I S S I S S I P P I CRI M E V I CT I M COM P EN S AT I ON F UND AND $ 2 , 6 5 0 . 0 0 I N REST I TUTI ON , W I TH CO NDI TI ON S . S ENTENCES S HA LL RUN CONC URRE NT LY . W A LL ER , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D R A N D O LP H , P . JJ. , L A M A R , K I TC H EN S, CHANDL ER , P I ER CE AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.