I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 1 9 9 8 - DP - 0 1 0 3 8 - S CT CH AR LES W

AY N E R O SS

v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 04/ 1997 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. R. KE NNE T H C OL E M AN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: TI P P AH COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F CAPI TAL D EFENSE COU NSEL BY: ALI S ON R. S TE I NER ANDR E DE GR UY 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 B Y : M A R V IN L . W H IT E , J R . DI S TRI CT AT TORNEY: BENJ AM I N F. CRE EKM ORE NATURE OF THE CAS E: CRI M I NAL - DEATH P ENALT Y - DI REC T AP P E AL D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 04/ 26/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. W ALLER, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. C har l es W ayne R os s w as convi ct ed of the capi t al m ur der of H er s hel R ay Y ance y by th e C irc u it C o u rt o f T ip p a h C o u n ty an d se n ten c e d to d e a th . F in d in g err o rs in b o th th e g u ilt
a n d se n ten c in g p h a se s o f th e trial, w e re v e rse a n d re m a n d fo r a n e w trial. FACTSG r ey’ s daught ert es t i f i ed thatshe s aw a gr een, ear l y- s event i es m odel C hevr ol ettruck 1 parked i n fr ontof

Y ance y’ s r es i dence betw een 9: 30 p. m . and 10: 00 p. m . N o one f r om the Sher i f f’ s D epart m entcont act ed G r ey’ s daught erf orany fol l ow - up i nves t i gat i on aboutw hat s he had s een. 

### 2 ¶2 . T he vi ct i m , H er s he l l Ray Yanc e y, was a c on s truc t i on wor ke rwho l i ved i n rur al T i ppah C ou nty. O n F ri day, J une 28, 1996, he w as dr opped of f athi s r es i dence by a cow o rk e r b e tw e e n 7 :0 0 p .m . a n d 7 :1 0 p .m . ¶3. B et w een 7:00 an d 9:30 thatni ght , a nea rby nei ghbor , L i nda G r ey, not i ced a l oud veh i c l e d r i vi ng u p a nd d own the r oa d ou t s i de h e rh ome. Betw e e n 9: 30 a nd 1 0: 00, w hat
s ounded t o herl i ke the s ame vehi cl e turned i nt o heryar d, appr oxi m at el y 100 t o 150 f eetf r om herhous e. G r ey w al ked out s i de t o i nves t i gat e and s aw a da r k- col or ed carw hos e m ake a nd
m odel s he coul d nots peci f y. She s aw a s hor tper s on w or ki ng underthe hood of the vehi cl e, and, as the ca rdr ove aw ay, s he not i ced thatt he r i ghtt ai l l i ghtw as br oken. G r ey t es t i f i ed that t he c a rd r ov e a w a y i n the d i r e c t i on o f Yanc e y’ s r e s i de nc e , a nd tha ts he b e l i e ve d the ca r s t opped nea rthe r es i dence and l ef ti t s engi ne runni ng. 1 ¶4. Y ance y’ s m other , M ar i e Y ancey , l i ved i n a tr ai l er acr os s the r oad f r om hi m . T hat ni ght , s he had pr epar ed di nnerf orhers on and as ked hi m t o w ai tatherres i dence unt i l s he
r eturned. Y ance y w as nott her e w hen she re turned home ar ound 9: 10 p. m . , buts he s aw that h e h a d ea ten d in n e r an d lef t th e lig h ts o n . Y a n c e y ’s m o th e r a lso n o tice d th a t all o f th e lig h ts i n Y ance y’ s r es i dence w er e on, butther e w er e no vehi cl es i n the dr i vew ay. She as s um ed Ya n c e y h a d g o n e h o me t o t a k e a s h o we ra n d d i d n o tg o t o h i s r e s i d e n c e t o c h e c k o n h i m. ¶5. Shor t l y af

t er 9: 10 p. m . , Y ance y’ s m other hear d a l oud vehi cl e comi ng dow n the r oad goi ng s outh and pas s i ng both h ou ses. Itw as t oo dark f orY ance y’ s m othert o det erm i ne

### 3

w he the rthe v e hi c l e was a c a ro ra truc k orh ow m a ny p e op l e wer e i n i t . A t9 : 28 p . m . , s he h e a rd w h a t so u n d e d li k e the sa m e v e h icle sta rt u p a t Y a n c e y ’s r e sid e n c e . S h e th e n w e n t to herki t chen w i ndow , and s aw a vehi cl e dri ve aw ay t ow ar ds D um as . She di d nothearthe car’ s engine betw een 9 : 10 and 9:28 p.m . N ei ther Y ancey ’s m otherno r any o ther w i tness r emem ber ed hea r i ng any gunshot s or a ny otherl oud noi s es thatm i ghthave mas ked the s ound of guns hot s . M ar i e Y ance y f ound hers on’ s body i n hi s r es i dence the nextm orni ng af t erhe fa iled to c o m e o v e r fo r b re a k fa st. ¶6. A n aut ops y s how ed that Y ance y had been f at al l y shot four t i m es w i th a . 22 cal i ber
w eapon. T he i ni t i al i nves t i gat i on conduct ed by the Ti ppah C ou nty Sher i f f’ s O f f i ce det erm i ned thatY ance y’ s w al l et , t el evi s i on, and V C R w er e mi s s i ng and t hatther e w er e no s i gns of a f or ced e ntry ors truggl e. T he deput i es f ound an uncas hed payr ol l chec k f or $438. 64 i n t he r es i dence . T hey al s o col l ect ed beercans , a br oken el ectr i cal cor d, and s har ds
o f r e d p la s tic c o n s is te n t w ith a n a u to m o b ile ’s ta il lig h ts fr o m Y a n c e y ’s re s id e n c e . ¶7 . T hough not broughtout att r i a l , the i nv e s t i ga t i on i ni t i a l l y d e t e r mi ne d tha ton the af t ernoon of

J une 28, an i ndi vi dual i dent i f yi ng hi m s el f

as C har l es R os s [ her ei naf t er“R os s ”] had cal l ed a l ocal s t or e as ki ng f orY ance y and had l ef

tthe phone numberof

a r ent ed tr ai l er occu pied by T om m y H al e, H al e’s gi rl fr i end M argar etJ on es, and Jones’ son, Jerry San ders. R os s and J ones ar e hal f
- s i bl i ngs . R os s ’ a nd J ones ’ ne phew , D onal d R os s , J r . , s t ayed a tthe H a le re s id e n c e o n o c c a s io n a n d w a s a c lo s e c o m p a n io n o f S a n d e rs . ¶8. B as ed on the phone cal l r eport ed by the s t or e ow ner , the s her i f f’ s of f i ce c ont act ed the Ha l e h o u s e h o l d o n S a tu r d a y , J u n e 2 9 . Ha l e a n d J o n e s i n i t i a l l y d e n i e d h a v i n g s e e n Ro s s . On Sunday, J une 30, D onal d R os s , J r . ’ s m othercont act ed the s her i f f’ s of f i ce a nd s ai d thather

### 4

s on w as w i l l i ng t o come t o the pol i ce s t at i on and gi ve a s t at ement . D onal d R os s , Jr . m ade hi s st at ementt o t he deput i es , i n w hi ch he averr ed t hatR os s had ar r i ved atH al e’ s r es i dence on the eve ni ng of

J une 29 w i th a t el evi s i on, V C R , w al l et , and gun, and thathe had a dm i t t ed t o m ur der i ng Y ance y. W hen D onal d R os s , Jr . m ade hi s st at ement , he di d notcl ai m t o have per s onal l y see n R os s ort o have he ar d the purpor t ed conf es s i on. A ttr i al , he admi t t ed thathe had notw i tnes s ed R os s ’ arr i val norhad he he ar d hi s uncl e admi tt o the m ur der , butthathe had bee n t ol d by hi s A untM ar gar etthatR os s had done s o. ¶9. O n the eveni ng of Sunday, J une 30, the s her i f f’ s deput i es came t o the H al e r es i dence t o i n v e s t i g a t e . T h e y t o o k J o n e s a n d Ha l e i n t o s e p a r a t e r o o ms t o t a k e th e i rs t a t e me n t s . At that t im e, Jo n es fi rstst ated th at R o ss ha d t o ld h er tha t he k il led Y an ce y an d stole Y an ce y ’s t el evi s i on, V C R , and w al l et . J ones s ai d thats he s aw Ross t os s a pi s t ol ove rhi s head i nt o a se w a g e d itch b e h in d the H a le re sid e n c e an d b u rn Y a n c e y ’s w a llet o n an o u td o o r g ri ll b e lo n g in g to H a le . ¶ 1 0 . D e p u ties fo u n d th e tele v isio n a n d V C R in S a n d e rs’ b e d ro o m . T h e y fo u n d th e g u n in the s ew age di t ch s i xty- f i ve f eetf r om w her e J ones t ol d the of f i cer s Ross ha d toss ed itov er hi s head. D eput i es di s cover ed an e m pty hol s t eri n D onal d R os s , J r . ’ s B r onco, b utdi d not
s ear ch the vehi cl e f

oram m uni t i on or otherevi dence . J ones and H al e t es t i f i ed t hatH al e’ s s on fo u n d the h o lste r fo r H a le’ s g u n b e h in d the co m m o d e in th e ir tra iler th re e w e e k s la ter . H a le
s ai d he ca l l ed the s her i f

f’ s of f i ce a nd t ol d them t hey di s cover ed the actual hol s t er , butno one fr o m th e s h e ri ff’s o ff

ic e c a m e o u t to e x a m in e it. ¶11. T he deput i es al s o f ound a pi l e of

a s hes on the gr i l l out s i de the H al e r es i dence . O ne of the i nves t i gat or s , D eputy W ayne W i l banks , t es t i f i ed att r i al t hathe bel i eved thatthe as hes

### 5

w e re th e b y p ro d u c t o f a w a llet w h ich h a d b e e n b u rn e d w ith th e a ss ista n c e o f a n a c c e ler a n t. T he St at e di d notconductany f or ens i c t es t s on the as hes t o det erm i ne thei rcomposi t i on. T he phot ogr aph of

the gr i l l and as hes i ncl uded i n the r ecor d i ndi cat e thatw hat everw as burned i n the gr i l l had compl et el y di s i nt egr at ed. ¶1 2. R os s dr ov e a bl a c k, 19 84 For d Couga r w hi c h ha d a mi s s i ng r i gh t t a i l l i gh t and r an lou d ly as a re su lt o f a m iss in g m u ffl er a n d a ra tt li n g m o tor. O n T u esd ay , Ju ly 2 , o ffi ce rs fou n d an d co n fi sca ted R o ss’ v eh icl e, w h ich w as p a rk e d o n the p rop erty o f R o ss’ b roth er, D onal d R os s , Sr . I ns i de the vehi cl e, deput i es f ound s even e m pty B udw ei s ercans and one fu ll B u d w e ise r c a n , thr e e o f w h ich m a tch e d th e m a n u fa c tu re r’s sta m p o f th e b e e r c a n s in Y ance y’ s trai l er . A bouta quart erof a mi l e f r om the ca r , of

f i cer s di s cover ed R os s i n the
w o o d s w ith b e d c lo th e s , c ig a re tte s , fo o d , ru b b in g a lc o h o l, a th e rm o s , a n d $ 5 0 to $ 6 0 . ¶13. T he onl y l at entfi ngerpr i nt s t he of f i cer s f ound atthe murde rs cene w er e on the door of Y ance y’ s tr ai l er . T hos e pr i nt s di d notm at ch R os s ’ f i ngerpr i nt s , and t he sheri f f’ s of f i ce di d notcompar e the pr i nt s t o thos e of J ones , H al e, S ander s , or D onal d R os s , Jr . W hen as ked
w hy he d i d n ot com pare the fi ng erpr i nts on the d oo r t o tho se of t he otherpo t enti al suspect s, D eputy W i l banks s ai d he w as undert he i m pr es s i on t hatdef ens e couns el “w as goi ng t o t ake
car e of that . ” W i th r egar d t o the r eas oni ng be hi nd the dec i s i on nott o i nves t i gat e the other occupa nt s of

the H al e r es i dence , then- Sher i f f G ary M auney e xpl ai ned, “ther e w as no r eas on to su sp e c t an y o f th e m b e c a u se to o u r k n o w led g e a n d a ll, th e y w e re a s s is tin g u s.” D e p u ty W i l banks al s o t es t i f

i ed thatthe pol i ce di d nott es tforgunshotre s i due on t he hands of anyone w ho had st ayed atthe H al e res i den ce t hat ni gh t , i ncludi ng R o ss, even tho ug h such a t est
m i ghthave s how n w hetheranyone ha d f i r ed a gun r ece nt l y.T he s t at ementw as t aken by H erbertW el l s , w ho w as of f er ed as an i nves t i gat orand 2 an ex p ert o n p o li ce p roc ed u res. R o ss p roffere d the statem en t i n to e v iden ce , b u t th e tri al co u rt e x c lu d e d it. 

### 6 ¶1 4. T he w i t nes s e s ’ ac c ou ntof t he ev e nt s i n the ev e ni ng on J un e 28 di f f e rs ub s t a nt i a l l y. J ones t es t i f

i ed thaton the af

t ernoon of

June 28, R os s came t o vi s i theratthe tr ai l erw her e s he l i ved w i th herboyf

r i end, H al e. She s t at ed thatR os s l ef ti n hi s bl ack, 1984 For d C ougar b e tw e e n 8 :3 0 o r 9 :0 0 p .m . a n d re tu rn e d a ro u n d 1 1 :3 0 p .m . J o n e s’ tes tim o n y a t trial c o n flicts
w i th hers econd r ecor ded s t at ementt o R os s ’ i nves t i gat orr egar di ng the i nci dent , i n w hi ch s he st at ed thatR oss cam e ho m e betw een 8 : 30 and 9:00 tha t ev en i ng . H er t est i m on y als o 2 conf l i ct s w i th thatof

H al e, w ho t est i fi ed t hatR os s l ef tthe tr ai l erar ound 8: 00 p. m . and
r eturned s om et i m e betw een 9: 00 and 10: 00 p. m . W hen as ked i f Ross mi ghthave r eturned
a s la te a s 1 1 :3 0 p .m ., H a le in s is te d th a t R o s s h a d re tu rn e d e a rl ie r. ¶15. J ones t es t i f

i ed thatw hen R os s r eturned, onl y s he and H al e w er e home. She s t at ed that Sander s and D onal d R os s , J r . di d notc om e hom e unt i l j us tbef or e 12: 00 p. m . H al e t es t i f i ed that Sand ers and D on al d R oss, Jr . returned b efor e R oss, and that al l w ere pr esentw hen R oss ar r i ved wi th the t e l e vi s i on a nd VC R. A ttr i a l , J on e s t e s t i f i e d tha tRos s t oo k he ri nt o a bed room and show ed her a three- fol d w al l et . T his confl i ct s w i th her s t at em ent t o R oss’ in v e stig a to r, in w h ich sh e sta ted th a t R o ss h a d sh o w n h e r th e w a llet o u tsid e th e tra iler. B o th
s t or i es conf

l i ctw i th H al e’ s t es t i m ony, i n w hich he s ai d he neve rs aw J ones and R os s go out s i de ori nt o a bedr oom al one. I ns i de the w al l et , J ones s ai d s he s aw a $5 bi l l and an i dent i f i cat i on of

s om e s or t . She a l s o s ai d s he w as a bl e t o r ead the name, “R ay Y ance y” on the i dent i f

i cat i on. Jones t es t i f

i ed she di d notknow w hethert he w al l etw as m ade of l eather
o r p la s tic .

### 7

¶16. J ones t es t i f

i ed that R os s then br ought i n a t el evi s i on and a V C R , one of w hi ch w as m i ssi ng part of i t s cord. W hen she asked w here he g ot the it em s, R oss t old her i tw as best th a t sh e n o t k n o w . Jo n e s s tate d tha t aro u n d 1 2 :3 0 o r 1 :0 0 a.m ., R o ss told h e r h e w a n ted to t al k t o herout s i de. A ccor di ng t o J ones , the f ol l ow i ng conver s at i on ens ued: H e t ol d m e , he s a i d, " I w e ntov e rthe r e ; " a nd s a i d, " I s ho ttha ts on of a bi t ch one t i m e r i ghthe r e; " [ i ndi cat i ng be tw een the eyes ] a nd he s ai d, "[ Y ance y] l ooked atme and as ked m e, ‘ W hatdi d you do thatf orChar l es R os s ?' and he s a id it d id n ' t b o th e r h im ; a n d h e s a id , ‘I ju s t k e p t s h o o tin g a n d s h o o tin g .' . . . O h , h e a s k e d m e . . . ‘ D o y o u n o tb e l i e v e th a tI s h o ts o m e b o d y ? ' I s a i d , ‘ I d o n 't know , ' . . . and he s ai d he ha d a gun. H e s ai d, ‘ D o you notbe l i eve thatI ' ve got a gun?' I s ai d, ‘ I don' tknow . ' H e r eac hed dow n unde r . H e goti n hi s carand r eac hed dow n underhi s s eat , and pul l ed a gun out . She [ s i c] s how ed me a gun, you know , he l d the gun up. . . . H e w as s t andi ng w i th [ hi s ] back t o the ca r , and g iv e [s ic ] th e g u n a littl e f lip [i n d ic a tin g h e to s s e d it o v e r h is h e a d b a c k w a rd s ], th ro w e d [s ic ] it o u t d o w n th e h ill. . . . S h e tes tified th a t R o ss th e n to o k so m e p a p e r o u t o f h is c a r, p lac e d it o n th e c h a rc o a l g rill, laid the w al l eton t op of

i t , a nd us ed the papert o burn the w al l et . I n hers t at ementt o W el l s , J ones s ai d R os s t ook the pape r s outof the w al l eta nd us ed them t o s t artthe f i r e. She al s o s t at ed that R os s us ed no a cce l er antw hen burni ng the w al l et . Thi s s t at ementconf l i ct ed w i th the opi ni on of D epu t y W i l banks , w ho t es t i f i ed thata n a cce l er antw oul d ha ve t o be us ed t o r educe a w al l ett o ashes. ¶17. J ones s t at ed that af t er thei r conver s at i on, R os s w ent t o s l eep on the couch. She w oke D o n ald R o ss, Jr. som e ti m e after m idn igh t to t ell him w h at R o ss ha d said. D o n ald R o ss, Jr . g a v e i n c o n s i s t e n ta c c o u n t s o f th e n i g h t , f

i r s tt e s t i f y i n g th a th e wa s a s l e e p wh e n J o n e s c a me t o s peak t o hi m , butl at eradmi t t ed on cr os s - exami nat i on thathe and Sande r s dr ove R os s ’ car s o m e tim e a ft e r m id n ig h t th e n ig h t o f Y a n c e y ’s m u rd e r.

### 8

¶18 . Jones t est i fi ed thatshe t hen w ok e H al e and t old hi m abo ut her con versat i on w i th R oss. S h e sta te d th a t h e r c o n v e rsa tio n w ith H a le o c c u rre d b e tw e e n 1 2 :3 0 a n d 1 :0 0 a .m . H a le t es t i f i ed thatthe conve r s at i on t ook pl ace betw een 11: 00 a nd 11: 30 p. m . J ones s ai d s he as ked H al e i f he knew w her e hi s . 22 cal i berpi s t ol w as . She t es t i fi ed he t hen chec ked the t op dr aw erw her e he ke pti tand di s cover ed thatthe pi s t ol and i t s hol s t erw er e mi s s i ng. W hen
as ked w her e hers on and D onal d R os s , J r . had bee n thatni ghtand w hatvehi cl e they w er e i n, J ones r epl i ed that , al thou gh she coul d notbe ce r t ai n, they w er e s uppos ed t o have be en vi s i t i ng Sa nd e r s ’ g i r l f

r i e nd ’ s h ou s e i n D on a l d Ros s , J r . ’ s Br on c o. H a l e a l s o t e s t i f i e d he
c o u ld n o t b e c e rta in w h a t v e h icle S a n d e rs a n d D o n a ld R o ss , Jr. w e re d riv in g th a t n ig h t. ¶1 9 . O n S aturd ay m o rnin g , Jo n es, S an d ers, an d H ale w en t t o v isi t Jon es’ and R o ss’ m o ther. J ones and Sander s t es t i f i ed they t ol d herm otherR os s h ad con fe s s ed t o m ur der i ng Y ance y and thatherm othercr i ed i n r es pons e t o the new s . H ow ever , H al e t es t i f i ed w hen they vi s i t ed J ones ’ m other , J ones “ nevers ai d nothi ng [ s i c] ” t o herm otheraboutthe murde r . I ns t ead, he
s a y s th e y o n ly to ld h e r h is g u n w a s m is s in g . ¶20. R os s ’ ve r s i on of the event s of

thatni ghtdi f

f er s s ubs t anti al l y fr om t he account s of J ones , S ander s , H al e, and D onal d R os s , J r . A tthe t i m e of the i nci dent , R os s w as u n e m p lo y e d a n d h a d n o p la c e to liv e . H e tes tified th a t so m e tim e s h e sta y e d w ith D o n a ld R oss, S r. , hi s brot her, and abo ut tw o or three ni gh t s a w eek h e st ayed w i th H al e and Jones. Ac c o r d i n g t o Ro s s , h e b e c a me g o o d f r i e n d s wi th Ya n c e y wh e n th e y we r e c o wo r k e r s . He
s ai d he ha d b e e n o utt o Yanc e y’ s tr a i l e rtw o o rthr e e t i mes , a nd a tl e a s ton e of tho s e t i m es D o n a ld R o s s , J r. h a d b e e n w ith h im . T h is c o n flicts w ith D o n a ld R o ss , Jr.’s te stim o n y , in
w h ic h h e s a id th a t h e d id n o t k n o w Y a n c e y a n d d id n o t k n o w w h e re h e liv e d .

### 9

¶21. A r ound 1: 00 p. m . on the day of the m ur der , R os s w ent t o a boot l egger and pur chas ed beer . D ur i ng t he af

t ernoon, R os s dra nk t he beerhe purc has ed and vi s i t ed var i ous fr i ends and f ami l y. H e sa i d he i nt ended t o s pend the ni ghtatD onal d R os s , Sr . ’ s tr ai l er , butdi s cover ed upon hi s arr i val thatthe t r ai l erw as l ocked and no one w as hom e. H e t es t i f i ed thathe then
w entt o H al e’ s tr ai l ert o s ee i f he coul d s pend the ni gh tther e, arr i vi ng ar ound 5: 30 or6: 00 p .m . R o ss m a in tain e d th a t h e lef t th e H a le r e sid e n c e a ro u n d 7 :0 0 p .m . an d re tu rn e d to Do n a l d Ro s s , S r . ’ s tr a i l e rt o s e e i f a n y o n e h a d c o me h o me a n d u n l o c k e d th e h o u s e . He t es t i f i ed t hat , fi ndi ng t he t r ai l erw as s t i l l l ocked, he dec i ded t o go back t o the H al e r es i dence
a n d s l e e p o n Ha l e ’ s c o u c h , a n d a rr i v e d a tth e r e s i d e n c e b e twe e n 8 : 3 0 a n d 9 : 0 0 p . m. ¶22. R os s es t i m at ed that , by the t i m e he r eac hed the H al e r es i dence , he had c ons um ed thr ee s i x- packs of

beer . H e t est i f

i ed he di d notl eave the tr ai l eraf t erthat , and the l as tthi ng he
r emem ber s bef

or e goi ng t o s l eep w as as ki ng Jones t o w ake hi m at7: 00 the nextm orni ng. H e t es t i f i ed thathe di d nots ee the t el evi s i on orV C R bef or e goi ng t o s l eep. R os s s t at ed that h e wo k e u p a n d s a w Sa n d e r s a n d Do n a l d Ro s s , J r . try i n g t o h o o k u p a t e l e v i s i o n a n d VCR. H e s ai d he gotup, w entoutt o hi s cart o get a notherbeer , t ook a dr i nk, puti ton the cof f ee ta b le , a n d w e n t b a c k to s le e p . ¶ 2 3 . He t e s t i f

i e d J o n e s wo k e h i m u p th e n e x t mo rn i n g a n h o u r l a t e r th a n h e h a d a s k e d . He
sa id h e k n e w n o th in g o f Y a n c e y ’s d e a th a t th a t ti m e a n d n e v e r ta lk e d to Jo n e s a b o u t it . DI S CU S S I ON ¶ 2 4 . O n a p p e a l, R o ss ra ise s fifte e n a ss ig n m e n ts o f e rro r, w h ich w e h a v e c o n so lid a ted in to tw el ve: ( I ) thatthe j ury s el ect i on p rocess in his tr i al w as f at al l y f l aw ed; ( I I ) thatthe tr i al
c o u rt m a d e s e v e ra l e rro rs in ru lin g o n th e a d m iss ib ili ty o f e v id e n c e a t tria l; (III) th a t th e S tate

### 10

engage d i n pr os ecut or i al mi s conduct ; ( I V ) thatthe as s i s t ance of couns el dur i ng the tr i al w as i nef f ect i ve; ( V ) thatthe compet ency he ar i ng or der ed by thi s Courtw as def i ci ent ; ( V I ) that hi s s ent ence vi ol at es the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our trul i ng i n A tk in s v . V irg in ia , 53 6 U. S. 304, 122 S. C t . 2242, 153 L . E d. 2d 335 (2002) ; ( V I I ) thatthe tr i al courterr ed i n gr ant i ng the S tat e’s jury instruction s an d in d en y ing h is pro p o sed instruc ti o n s; (V III ) tha t th e tr ial co u rt i m perm i s s i bl y r es tr i ct ed hi s r i ghtt o pr es entm i t i gat i on evi dence ; ( I X ) thatthe i ndi ctm ent
a g a in st h im w a s fa tally fla w e d in se v e ra l re sp e c ts; (X ) th a t th e d e a th p e n a lty is
uncons t i tut i onal as appl i ed t o hi m ; ( X I ) thathi s convi ct i on w as agai nstthe overw hel m i ng w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e ; an d (X II) th a t th e c u m u lativ e e rro rs in h is tria l r e q u ire re v e rsa l. W her e the dea th penal ty has been i m pos ed, the s t andar d of r evi ew i s hei ght ened: W e re a ffirm a t th e o u tse t o u r c o m m itm e n t t o h e ig h ten e d sc ru tin y o n a p p e a l in c a se s w h e re th e se n ten c e o f d e a th h a s b e e n im p o se d . . . T h e p e n a lty o f d e a th di f f er s f r om al l otherf

or m s of c r i m i nal puni s hm ent , noti n degr ee buti n ki nd. I ti s uni que i n i t s t ot al i rr evoca bi l i ty. I ti s uni que in i t s r ej ect i on of re h a b ili tatio n o f th e c o n v ict a s a b a sic p u rp o se o f c rim in a l ju stic e . A n d it i s uni que, f

i nal l y, i n i t s abs ol ut e r enunci at i on of al l thatis embodi ed i n our conce ptof

hum ani ty. T hi s theme, the uni que natur e of the death penal ty, has been r epea t ed t i m e and t i m e agai n. T hi s C our thas r epea t edl y re cogni zed that a p p e lla te re v ie w in c a p ita l c a s e s is d if fe re n t f ro m th a t in o th e r c a s e s . N e a l v. S ta te , 4 5 1 S o . 2 d 7 4 3 , 7 5 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ) (i n terna l citat ion s & q u o tat ion s o m itted). T hi s C our tal s o s t at ed i n N eal “th a t th o ro u g h n e ss an d inte n sity o f re v iew a re h e ig h ten e d in
c a se s w h e re th e d e a th p e n a lty h a s b e e n im p o se d . W h a t m a y b e h a rm les s e rro r in a c a se w ith l es s a ts t ake becomes r ever s i bl e err orw hen the pena l ty i s death. ” I d . at749 ( quot i ng I

r v ing v. S ta te , 361 So. 2d 1360, 1363 ( M i s s . 1970) ( ci t i ng L a n e y v. S ta te , 421 So. 2d 1216, 1217 ( M i s s . 1982) and W

ill ia m s v . S ta te , 4 4 5 S o . 2 d 7 9 8 , 8 1 0 -1 1 (M iss . 1 9 8 4 )). G u id e d b y th is h eigh tene d stan d ard o f rev iew , w e turn to R o ss’ assig n m en ts of erro r.T hi s opi ni on doe s nota ddr es s Ross ’ c l ai m thatthe St at e i m perm i s s i bly excl ud ed 3 Af r i c a n - Ame r i c a n v e n i r e me mb e r s f r o m th e j u ry i n v i o l a t i o n o f th e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C our t ’ s m andat e i n B as ton v. K entucky , 476 U . S. 79, 106 S. C t . 1 71 2, 9 0 L . E d. 2d 69 ( 1 9 8 6 ) and Po wers v

. Ohio , 4 99 U. S. 40 0; 1 11 S. Ct . 1 36 4; 1 13 L. Ed . 2 d 4 11 (19 91 ).



### 11 I . JUR Y SEL EC TIO N PR O C ESS 3 A . T ai nt ed V eni re Panel . ¶2 5. D ur i ng vo i rd i r e , when the tr i a l c ou r ta s ke d i f a ny on e k ne w Ros s , veni r e m ember W a n d a M a rtin d a le sto o d a n d s a id , “I’ v e te stifie d a g a in st h im in fe d e ra l co u rt,” a n d th a t th is factw ou l d p rej ud i ce her againstR oss. D efense cou nsel di d no tr equ esta recess t o ad dress M a rtin d a le’ s s tate m e n t o r h a v e h e r re m o v e d fro m th e p a n e l. L a ter , w h e n th e c o u rt a sk e d if any veni r e mem berhad bee n a vi ct i m of a cr i m e, M art i ndal e i ndi cat ed t hatshe had. T he tr i al j udge not ed thats he had al r eady admi t t ed herbi as , a nd thathe unde r s t ood the r eas on f orthat bi as . D ur i ng def

ens e couns el ’ s chal l enges f orcaus e, the f

ol l ow i ng excha nge occ urr ed: BY TH E C O U RT : W e mi gh ta s w e l l ge tr i d o f [ j ur ornu mbers i xty- s even] r i g h tn o w. B Y M R . K I T C H E N S [ D E FE N SE C O U N SE L ] : I w as w onder i ng aboutthe comm ents he m ade, how be nef i ci al thatw as t o the w hol e panel w hen s he s t ood u p a n d sa id sh e h a d tes tified a g a in st o u r c lien t in fe d e ra l co u rt. BY THE C OURT: I h e a r d h e rs a y s h e t e s t i f i e d a g a i n s th i m. B Y M R . K IT C H E N S : Sh e sp ec if ically d idn ’tm en ti o n that in h er jury ques t i onnai r e. B Y M R . H O O D : W e c h a llen g e [ju ro r n u m b e r se v e n ty -tw o ]. S h e sa id sh e d id n o t b e lie v e in th e d e a th p e n a lty . D ef ens e couns el nei therexpr es s l y obj ect ed t o the j ur or ’ s comm ent , nordi d he reque s tan i ns truct i on t o di s r egar d f r om t he t r i al cour t . M art i ndal e w as subs equent l y re m oved f r om the

### 12

veni r e and di d nots erve on R os s ’ j ury. I n a pos t - tr i al M ot i on f orJ udgm entN otw i ths t andi ng th e V e rd ict o r in th e A ltern a tiv e fo r a N e w T ria l, R o ss a rg u e d th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in fa ilin g to q u a s h th e e n tir e ju ry v e n ir e . ¶26 . T he S t at e con t end s that R oss i s proced ural l y barr ed fr om bri ng i ng this cl ai m becau se h e d i d n ot obj ectt o the t est i m on y o r r equ estan instruct i on . R oss ar gu es that def ense couns el ’ s s t at eme nt s cons t i tut ed an obj ect i on and, i n the al t ernat i ve, thata def endantw ho f ai l s t o m ake a cont empora neous obj ect i on m ay s t i l l pr es erve the i s s ue f orappea l by r ai s i ng it in a m o tio n fo r a n e w tr ia l. A h m a d v. S ta te , 6 0 3 S o . 2 d 8 4 3 , 8 4 6 -47 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 ). ¶27. T he rul e thatf

ai l ur e t o m ake a cont empora neous obj ect i on w ai ves the i s s ue on appea l g e n e ra lly a p p lie s t o d e a th p e n a lty c a s e s . W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 68 4 S o. 2d 11 79 , 11 89 (M i ss. 1996) . A n obj ect i on m us tbe made w i th s peci f i ci ty, and f

ai l ur e t o a r t i cul at e the gr ounds f or o b je c tio n c o n s titu te s a w a iv e r o f t h e a lle g e d e rr o r. See , e. g. , L a tik e r v . S ta te , 918 So. 2d 68, 74 ( M i s s . 2005) ( f

ai l ur e t o s t at e a l egal ba s i s f orobj ect i on w ai ves r i ghtt o a ppeal al l eged
e rro r); Ir b

y v. S ta te , 8 9 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 2 , 1 0 4 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ) (ge n era l objecti o n that jury in stru c tio n is “ p re

ju d icia l,” w ith o u t m o re , is in su ffic ien t to p re se rv e fo r a p p e a l); Craw ford
v. S ta te , 787 So. 2d 1236, 1246 ( M i s s . 2001) ( gener al obj ect i on t hat expertw i tnes s w as “m ist ak en ” ins u ffi cien t t o p rese rve issue for a p p ea l) . ¶28. D ef

ens e couns el ’ s gener al s t at ement that he “w onder ed” about “how benef i ci al ” the
s t at ement s w er e, w i thoutmore , w as nota s peci f i c enough obj ect i on t o pr es erve the i s s ue f or appea l . D ef

ens e counsel d i d no tci t e any l egal pr i nci pl e, di d notr eques ta rul i ng f r om the tr ia l ju d g e , a n d d id n o t o b je c t w h e n th e p ro s e c u tio n m o v e d o n to th e n e x t v e n ir e m e m b e r.

### 13

¶29. T he ques t i on r emai ns w hether R os s m ay pr es erve his ri ght of appea l by r ai s i ng an obj ect i on i n a m oti on fornew tri al . R oss ci t es A h m a d v. S ta te , w hi ch s t at es “i f an appe l l ant rai ses f or r eview an is sue n ot r ai sed in t he pleadi ng s, tr anscri pt, or ruli ng s, the ap pell ant m ust have pr es erved t he i s s ue by ra i s i ng i ti n a m ot i on fornew t r i al . ” A hm ad, 603 So. 2d at846- 47. H ow ever , the pr i nci pl e i n A hm ad an d v irtually all com p ara b le ca ses c o n ce rns th e fa il u re to in c lu d e in a p o s t- tr ia l m o tio n m a tt e r s o b je c te d to d u ri n g th e tr ia l. See I d. at846- 47 ( f ai l ur e t o r ai s e cont empora neous obj ect i on and f ai l ur e t o i ncl ude r ef

er ence s i n m ot i on f

or a n e w tr ia l w a iv e e rr o r o n a p p e a l) . See a l so T o w n se n d v. S ta te , 939 So. 2d 796 ( M i s s . 2006) ( f ai l ur e t o m ove t o dis m i ss i ndi ctm entdur i ng tr i al and f ai l ur e t o r ai s e i s s ue i n m ot i on f or J.N .O .V . w a iv e s th e issu e o n a p p e a l); S h a v e rs v. S ta te , 455 So. 2d 1299, 1302 ( M i s s . 1984) ( f a i l u r e t o r a i s e c o n t e mp o r a n e o u s o b j e c t i o n wa i v e s i s s u e o n a p p e a l ) . T h e o n l y o th e rc a s e we have f ound i n w hi ch an otherw i s e unt i m el y e rr orw as f ound t o be pr es erved s ol el y thr ough
a m oti on fora new tri al w as Ho d g e s v . S ta te , 912 So. 2d 730, 751 ( M i s s . 2005) . I n Hodges , thi s C our texpr es s l y found thatthe def endantw as notpr ocedur al l y barr ed f r om chal l engi ng the pr os ecut i on’ s cl os i ng ar gum entdespi t e the f ai l ur e t o r ai s e a c ont empora neous obj ect i on. Id . T h e C o u rt w e n t o n to c o n s id e r t h e m e ri ts o f H o d g e s ’ c la im a n d d e n ie d re lie f. Id . at751- 55. ¶30. H ow ever , thi s C our t has m or e of t en hel d that “w hi l e cert ai n i s s ues ar e r equi r ed t o be
ra ise d in a m o tio n fo r n e w tr ia l, ra isin g o b jec tio n s in a m o tio n fo r n e w trial w h ich sh o u ld have be en made attr i al has neve r bee n thoughtt o cur e the f ai l ur e t o obj ectatthe pr oper t i m e. ” Sm ith v. S ta te , 797 So. 2d 854, 856 ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng B a rn e tt v. S ta te , 725 So. 2d 7 9 7 , 8 0 1 (M is s . 1 9 9 8 )) . See al s o P in k n e

y v. S ta te , 5 3 8 S o . 2 d 3 2 9 , 3 4 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ),

### 14

vaca t ed on o ther gr ounds by 49 4 U. S. 10 75 , 11 0 S. Ct . 18 00 , 10 8 L. Ed. 2d 93 1 ( 19 90) (no ti n g that issue raised for fir st t im e in m o tio n fo r ne w tr ial w as p roc ed u rall y b arred ); A nders on v. Jaeger , 3 1 7 S o . 2 d 9 0 2 , 9 0 7 ( M is s . 1 9 7 5 ) ( s a m e ). Sm ith and i t s pr ogeny art i cul at e the more appr opr i at e rul e. I n Hodges , n o tw ith sta n d in g th e p ro c e d u ra l b a r, th is C our taddr es s ed the mer i t s of the i s s ue i n or dert o di s m i s s the cl ai m . B eca us e R os s ’ couns el fa iled to o b

jec t to M a rtin d a le’ s s tate m e n t an d fa iled to se e k a c u ra tiv e in stru c tio n , w e w ill
n o t a d d re s s th e is s u e u n le s s th e tr ia l c o u rt c o m m itte d p la in e rr o r. ¶ 3 1 . I n ge n e r a l , a vo i rdi r e i s pr e s u me d s uf f i c i e nt t o e n s u r e a f

a i ra n d i mpa r t i a l j u ry . To
over come t hi s pr es um pt i on, a party m us tpres entevi dence i ndi cat i ng thatthe j ury w as not f ai rand i m part i al and s how thatpr ej udi ce r esul t ed fr om the ci r cui tcourt ’ s handl i ng of the
v o ird ir e . Ma n n in gv. S ta te , 735 So. 2d 323, 336 ( M i s s . 1999) . A tr i al court ' s f i ndi ng that an i m part i al j ury w as i m panel ed w i l l notbe r ever s ed unl es s the courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on. Ho lla n d v. S ta te , 705 So. 2d 307, 336 ( M i s s . 1997) . T hi s Courtw i l l tr eatw i th def er ence a v e n ire p e rso n ' s a ss e rtio n s o f im p a rtial ity . I d . (c i t i ng S c o tt v. B a ll , 595 So. 2d 848, 850 (M is s . 1 9 9 2 )) . ¶32. T hi s C our t has hel d that a def endant f ai l s t o s how the nece s s ary pr ej udi ce w her e the d efe n se c o u n sel fail s to q u esti o n juro rs a b o u t a n ina p p rop ri ate c o m m en t, an d the v en ir e m ember s have m ade ge ner al decl ar at i ons thatthey coul d s etas i de thei rpr ej udi ces and r eac h
a d e c is io n b a s e d o n th e e v id e n c e . Ho lla n d v. S ta te , 7 0 5 S o . 2 d 3 0 7 , 3 3 9 -40 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ); W e st v . S ta te , 463 So. 2d 1048, 1054 ( M i s s . 1985) . I f veni r e mem ber s ar e ques t i oned about
a n im p e rm iss ib le c o m m e n t, th e trial c o u rt m a y strik e th o se w h o h e a rd th e c o m m e n t. B a ldw in v. S ta te , 7 3 2 S o . 2 d 2 3 6 , 2 4 1 -42 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ).

### 15

¶3 3 . R o ss co rrectl y n o tes th a t it is the o b li g ati o n o f the tr ial co u rt to insu re that the ju ry im p a n e le d in a c a s e c a n re n d e r a n im p a rt ia l ju d g m e n t. P u c k e tt v. S ta te , 737 So. 2d 322, 332 ( M i s s . 1999) . T hatobl i gat i on goes t o t he cor e of a def endant ’ s r i ghtt o a f

ai rj ury tr i al under the S i xth and F ou rt eenth A m end m ents of the U nit ed S t at es C on st i tuti on . E vidence of R oss’ pr i orcr i m i nal convi ct i ons w oul d nothave be en admi s s i bl e dur i ng the cul pabi l i t y phas e of the t ri al unl es s i thad f

al l en w i thi n one of

the exc ept i ons t o the pr ohi bi t i on on evi dence of

“ p rio r b a d ac ts” o r h a d b e e n u se d to im p e a c h h is c re d ib ility . See M . R . E . 404( b) & 609. H ow ever , thi s C our thas no bas i s on w hi ch t o det erm i ne the pot ent i al pr ej udi ce c aus ed by M art i ndal e’ s s t at ement s , beca us e the def ens e couns el f

ai l ed t o obj ectt o the comm entand
su b se q u e n tly fa ile d to q u e stio n p o ten tial ju ro rs a b o u t th e e ffe c t o f th e sta tem e n t. W h ile M a rtin d a le’ s s tate m e n ts a re c a u se fo r g re a t co n c e rn , w e w ill n o t f in d p re ju d ice a b se n t a recor d. W hetherdefense cou nsel ’s fai l ure t o rem ov e M art i nd al e fr om the p anel af t er herfi rs t s t at eme ntand i t s f

ai l ur e t o query veni r e mem ber s aboutpos s i bl e pr ej udi ce c aus ed by her
s ta te m e n ts c o n s titu te d in e ff e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l w ill b e c o n s id e re d in S e c tio n IV . B . Q ues t i oni ng of

P ros pect i ve Jurors . ¶34. R os s ar gues t hatt he t r i al courti m perm i s s i bl y r es tr i ct ed hi s r i ghtt o ques t i on pot ent i al ju ro rs o n th e ir a b ili ty to c o n sid e r m iti g a tin g ev id e n c e d u rin g th e se n ten c in g p h a se o f th e trial. T h e S tat e’s c h all en g e to d efe n se co u n sel’s q u esti o n s c am e a t th e b eg inn ing o f th e d efe n se’s voi rdi r e ques t i oni ng r egar di ng the dea th penal ty: Q : [B y d e fe n se c o u n se l K itch e n s] M r. G re e n , are y o u p ro -d e a th a s in m or al l y yo u bel i eve i t , ori n s i t t i ng ar ound the cof f ee s hop i s that s om ethi ng thats ounds l i ke a good i dea?

### 16

A : [M r. D o n n ie G re e n ] I w o u ld sa y I’m fo r th e d e a th p e n a lty if th e fa c ts i n th e c a s e me r i tth e d e a th p e n a l ty a c c o r d i n g t o l a w. Q : T hat ’ s a good s t art i ng po i nt f or w here I w antt o go. W hatf act s and ci r cumst ance s i n yourm i nd w oul d m er i tthe dea th penal ty? ( M r . H ood [ D i s tr i ctA t t orney] s t ood) B Y T H E C O U R T : S u s ta in e d . B Y M R . H O O D : Y o u r H o n o r, I o b jec t. B Y T H E C O U R T : I s us t ai ned the obj ect i on. T hat ’ s nota pr operques t i on. Q : W oul d ther e be a nythi ng thatcoul d be pr es ent ed thatw oul d convi nce you thatthe dea th penal ty i s notnece s s ary? A : Sur e. B Y M R . H O O D : O bj ect i on, Y ourH onor B Y T H E C O U R T : I su sta in th e o b jec tio n . T h o se a re n o t p ro p e r q u e stio n s to as k the j ury on voi rdi r e. Y ou know that , M r . K i t chens . G o ahea d. Q : T hen I have no f ur therques t i ons of

y ou , si r. A l l r i ght , on the s econd r o w, ma ’ a m. D ur i ng the def

ens e’ s voi rdi r e, d efense couns el as ked the f ol l ow i ng ques t i ons w i thout
o b jec tio n : “[ A ] r e you s ayi ng thatyou can’ tl i s t en t o the evi dence pr es ent ed and r eturn a f ai rver di ctei therw ay bec aus e of yourbel i ef

i n the dea th penal ty?” “A r e you t el l i ng m e thatunderno s etof c i r cumst ance s c oul d you r eturn a nondeath penal ty ver di ct ?” “A r e you s ayi ng i f

you di d f

i nd hi m gui l ty, no m att erw hatam ou nt of t es t i m ony w as puton, thatonc e you f ound hi m gui l ty, you w oul d al s o vot e that he nee ds t o di e f

orhi s i nvol vement ?”

“ N o w , w e w ill p re se n t m iti g a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s. I w ill c o m p a re th a t to a b a ll, nota bas e hi tor a hom e run, butproba bl y a bal l . Y ou know i n bas ebal l i f you“In the v o ir d ir e e x am ination o f j u rors, th e a tt o rne y w il l qu esti o n the e n ti re v en ir e 4 onl y on m att er s noti nqui r ed i nt o by the cour t . I ndi vi dual j ur or s m ay be e xami ned onl y w hen p r o p e rt o i n q u i r e a s t o a n s we r s g i v e n o rf o ro th e rg o o d c a u s e a l l o we d b y th e c o u r t . No hypothet i cal ques t i ons r equi r i ng any j ur ort o pl edge a par t i cul arver di ctw i l l be as ked. A t t orneys w i l l notof

f eran opi ni on on the l aw . T he courtm ay s eta r eas onabl e t i m e l i m i tf or voi rdi r e. ” U . R . C . C . C . 3. 05. 

### 17 g et fo u r b a lls, y o u w alk. U n fortun ately, i t’ s n o t l ike th at i n this. I ca n ’t p ro v id e y o u w ith fo u r m iti g a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s a n d h e d o e sn ’t g e t th e d e a th p e n a lty , b u t th o s e a re g o o d th in g s a b o u t h im . T h o s e a re th in g s th a t— w e ll, I s ai d good thi ngs ; butthos e ar e thi ngs abouthi m thaton yo ur con sci ence of w hatyou hear d m i ghtw arr antyou in sa vi ng hi s l i f e; thatm i ghtm ake you thi nk, w el l , w hathe di d w as w r ong; and he s houl d b e puni s hed f ori tbutnot w i th hi s l i f

e. ” “I s t her e anybody i n her e w ho coul d nots i ti n thi s courtr oom i n thi s j ury box and l i s t en t o mi t i gat i ng c i r cumst ance s , w ho coul d notunderany ci r cumst ance s i f a gui l ty convi ct i on w er e r eac hed, c oul d notl i s t en t o anythi ng thatw as good abouthi m thats houl d orcoul d s ave hi s l i f e?” ¶35. M i s s i s s i ppi l aw guar ant ees the r i ghtof ei therparty i n a ca s e t o probe t he pr ej udi ces of pros pect i ve j ur or s and i nves t i gat e t hei rt hought s on m att er s di r ect l y re l at ed t o the i s s ues to b e tr ie d . W

e st v . S ta te , 5 5 3 S o . 2 d 8 , 2 2 (M iss . 1 9 8 9 ). S u c h q u e stio n s e n a b le p a rties to cons ci ent i ous l y chal l enge pr os pect i ve j ur or s f orcaus e and pr ovi de val uabl e cl ues forthe
e x e rc is e o f p e re m p to ry c h a lle n g e s . H a rr is v . S ta te , 5 3 2 S o . 2 d 6 0 2 , 6 0 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). H ow ever , j udi ci al rul es pr ohi bi ta pa r ty f r om as ki ng veni r e mem ber s hypothet i cal ques t i ons o r att em p ti n g to elici t a pled g e to v o te a c ertain w ay if a c e rta in se t of circu m stan ce s are s how n. Q ues t i ons s eeki ng a comm i t m entf r om j ur or s ar e neve rnece s s ary t o acc om pl i s h the 4 b a s ic p u rp o s e o f s e c u ri n g fa ira n d im p a rt ia l ju ri e s . H a rr is , 532 S o. 2d at607. B eca us e the lin e b e tw e e n a p ro p e r an d an im p ro p e r q u e stio n is no t alw a y s e a sily d ra w n , it is m a n ife stly
a p ro c e s s in w h ic h th e tr ia l ju d g e m u s t b e g iv e n c o n s id e ra b le d is c re tio n . Id at606 ( ci t i ng

### 18

Mu rp hy v. S ta te , 2 4 6 S o . 2 d 9 2 0 , 9 2 1 (M iss . 1 9 7 1 )). A n a b u se o f th a t d isc re tio n w ill o n ly be f ound w her e the def

endants how s c l earpr ej udi ce r es ul t i ng f r om undue l ack of

cons tr ai nt o n th e p ro s e c u tio n o r u n d u e c o n s tr a in t o n th e d e fe n s e . E v a n s v . S ta te , 725 So. 2d 613, 650 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). ¶ 3 6 . T h e trial c o u rt’s ru lin g in th e p re se n t c a se w a s w ith in its d isc re tio n . A sk in g ju ro rs to s p e c u l a t e o n wh a ts o r t s o f e v e n t s o rc i r c u ms t a n c e s mi g h twa rr a n tmi t i g a t i o n ma y i n s o me c irc u m sta n c e s b e c o n s id e re d h y p o th e tica l. A re v iew o f c a se law d e m o n stra tes th a t circ u it
cou rt s ar e perm i t t ed to t ake a v ari able approach t o the use of speci fi c ci rcum st ances, ir re s p e c tiv e o f w h e th e r t h e y a re h y p o th e tic a l o r a c tu a l f a c ts in th e c a s e . See , e. g. , Cra w fo rdv. S ta te , 71 6 S o. 2d 10 28 , 10 42 -43 (M i ss. 19 98 ) ( superceded on otherg round s, Miss. T ran sp. Com m '

n v. McL em ore , 86 3 S o. 2d 31 (M i ss. 20 03 )) (f i nd i ng that def

ense c o u n s e l ’ s u s e o f

s p e c i f i c h y p o th e t i c a l f

a c t s a b o u tth e d e f

e n d a n td i d n o tv i o l a t e U. R. C. C. C. 3 .0 5 ); E v a n s v . S ta te , 725 So. 2d 61 3, 6 51 ( M i s s . 1997) ( tr i al j udge pr ohi bi t ed as hypothet i cal a voi rdi r e ques t i on as ki ng w hetheran under l yi ng cr i m e of ki dnappi ng ors exual b a ttery w o u ld ju stify th e im p o sitio n o f th e d e a th p e n a lty ); D a v is v . S ta te , 684 So. 2d 643, 651 ( M i s s . 199 6) (f

i ndi ng thatpr os ecut i on' s voi rdi r e w as w i thi n the perm i s s i bl e r ange of
acc ept abl e ques t i oni ng, w her e t he pr os ecut i on aske d aboutspec i f i c f act s , i ncl udi ng t hatthe vi ct i m w as ki l l ed by a f r i end, thatthe def

endanthad no pr i or fel on y convi ct i ons , and that d e fe n d a n t w a s c h a rg e d w ith o n e m u rd e r); S trin g e r v . S ta te , 500 So. 2d 928, 938 ( M i s s . 1986) ( f i ndi ng thatpr os ecuti on ’s s peci f i c ques t i ons aboutthe f act s of the al l eged c r i m e, as ked dur i ng voi rdi r e and al l uded t o as an oath i n cl os i ng ar gum ent , had t he cum ul at i ve ef f ectof denyi ng def

endantthe r i ghtt o a f

ai rtr i al ) . T he tr i al courtact ed w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on i n rul i ng

### 19

th a t d e fe n se c o u n se l’s a ttem p t to e licit sta tem e n ts f ro m v e n ire m e m b e rs re g a rd in g sp e c ific ci r cumst ance s w arr ant i ng the i m pos i t i on of the dea th penal ty vi ol at ed the pr ohi bi t i on on hy po theti cal qu est i on s. ¶3 7 . R o ss also fa iled to s h o w th a t th e tria l co u rt ’s ruli n g o n the c h all en g ed v o ir d ir e ques t i ons pr event ed def ens e couns el fr om p r obi ng pr os pect i ve j ur or s ’ abi l i ty t o cons i der
m i t i gat i on evi dence . T he r ecor d demonstr at es thatdef ens e couns el as ked a numberof q u e s tio n s p e rt a in in g to m itig a tio n e v id e n c e . T h e a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r i s w ith o u t m e ri t. C. T ri al C ourt ’ s R efusal to In st ru ct t he V eni re Panel t hat C on si d erati on o f P ossi b l e S en tences W as N ot Ind i cati ve o f R oss’ G u ilt . ¶3 8. R os s cont ends tha tthe tr i a l c ou r tc omm i t t e d r e ve r s i bl e e rr ori n r e f us i ng t o gi ve a sp e c ial in stru c tio n to th e v e n ir e m e m b e rs th a t q u e stio n s re g a rd in g th e a p p lica tio n o f th e d e a th p e n a lty d id n o t p e rta in to R o ss ’ g u ilto r in n o c e n c e . In h is b rie f, R o ss co n c e d e s th a t th e re is
n o co n sti tuti o n al ri g h t t o su ch an instruction for p o tential juro rs, b u t argu es th at w h ere there i s a genui ne dangerthata j ury w i l l convi ctbas ed on s om ethi ng otherthan l aw f ul evi dence pr oved bey on d a reas onabl e doubt , s uch an i ns truct i on i s r equi r ed by the U ni t ed St at es S u p re m e C o u rt . See D elo v. L as hley , 507 U . S. 272, 278, 113 S. C t . 1222, 1225, 122 L . E d. 2 d 6 2 0 , 6 2 8 (1 9 9 3 ). ¶ 3 9 . R o ss h a s n o t sh o w n th a t a n y su c h g e n u in e d a n g e r e x iste d in th e p re se n t c a se . W h ile the tr i al cou rtr efused t o give the p roposed i nst ruct i on , i tm ade repeated ref erence t o R oss’ p re su m p tio n o f in n o c e n c e a n d th e b u rd e n th a t th e S tate h a d to c a rry in o rd e r to m o v e o n to the puni s hm entphas e of the tr i al . D ef

ens e couns el w as i n no w ay r es tri ct ed fr om not i ng R os s ’ pr es um pt i on of

i nnocenc e, and i n f

actemphasi zed i ti n hi s voi rdi r e. N othi ng i n the

### 20

r ecor d s ugges t s thatany party conf l at ed cons i der at i on of

the dea th penal ty w i th an
as s um pt i on of

gui l t , orthatve ni r e m ember s m i s under s t ood the s i gni f i canc e of cons i der i ng p o s s ib le s e n te n c e s d u ri n g v o ird ir e . T h is a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r i s w ith o u t m e ri t. I I . EVI DENTI ARY CH ALLENGES A . A dm i s s i on of

H al e’ s . 22 C al i ber Pi s t ol . ¶40. A . 22 cal i ber pis t ol w as foun d i n a d i t ch behi nd H al e’ s r es i dence . I tw as l at er determ i ned t o b el on g to H al e. T he S t at e i ntr od uced the p i st ol as the m urder w eapo n. R oss ar gues thatthe tr i al courterr ed i n r ef us i ng t o hearhi s pr e- tr i al m ot i on t o s uppr es s the pi s t ol and err ed i n eventual l y admi t t i ng the f i r earm i nt o evi dence i n vi ol at i on of M . R . E . 403. T he St at e ar gues t hatt he t r i al cour tw as underno obl i gat i on t o heart he mot i on bef or e tr i al , that R o ss h as fa il ed to p rese rve the issu e fo r ap p ea l bec au se d efe n se c o u n sel fail ed to o b ject to th e a d m iss io n o f th e fire a rm d u rin g trial, an d tha t, in an y ev e n t, its ad m iss io n w a s p e rm iss ib le
un der M . R . E . 40 3. D efense coun sel fi rs trai sed t he i ssue of it s pre- tri al m oti on t o sup press i n the mi ds tof

j ury s el ect i on, dur i ng a br i ef br eak dur i ng w hi ch t he courtas ked t o hear cert ai n p re- tri al m oti on s outs i de the presence of the v enir e m em bers: B Y T H E C O U R T : W hatel s e do w e have ? W e’ l l putthatone on the bac k b u rne r. A RG U M EN T B Y M R. K I TC H EN S: Y ourH onor , i n thi s c as e w e f i l ed a m ot i on t o s uppr es s . T hatw oul d be th e a lle g e d m u rd e r w e a p o n in th is c a se . T h e b a lli stic s re p o rt fro m th e S tate C r i m e Lab i n ourdi s covery came back thatthe w eapon w as no t , i tw as i nconcl us i ve as f

aras bal l i s t i cs and as f aras f i ngerpr i nt s . T here w ere no f i ngerpr i nt s of

the def endantf ound t o be on the w eapon. W e w o u ld h a v e iss u e w ith th a t b e in g in tro d u c e d in to e v id e n c e sin c e it c a n n o t b e c o n c lu siv e ly id e n tifie d a s th e m u rd e r w e a p o n . W e fe e l li k e if it“ It is th e d u ty o f th e m o v a n t, w h e n a m o tio n . . . is fil e d . . . to p u rsu e sa id m o tio n to 5 hear i ng and dec i s i on by the court . Fai l ur e t o pur s ue a pr etr i al m ot i on t o hear i ng and dec i s i on b efo re tri al i s d ee m ed an ab an d o n m en t of that m o ti o n ; ho w ev er, said m o ti o n m ay b e h ea rd af t erthe comm ence m entof tr i al i n the di s cr et i on of the court . ” U . R . C . C . C . 2. 04. 

### 21 w er e al l ow ed t o be i ntr oduced, al l i tw oul d do i s conf us e the j ury as t o the f

act thatthey mi ghtthi nk thatthati s , i n f act , the murde rw eapon; how ever, that cannotbe conc l us i vel y det erm i ned; t her ef or e, I thi nk i tw oul d notbe r el evant evi dence . I tw oul d be more pr ej udi ci al than i tw oul d be pr obat i ve. B Y T H E C O U R T : W e ’ll tak e th is u p w h e n w e g e t to it. W h e n d id y o u file th is m ot i on? B Y M R . K I T C H E N S: I f i l ed i t , i t ’ s been on f

i l e. B Y TH E CO U R T : T hat ’ s w hatI ’ m s ayi ng. T hes e mot i ons haven’ tbeen c al l ed u p . I w as u p h ere all lastw ee k , sat h ere an d ask ed , spe cifi ca ll y ask ed are there m o ti o n s to b e h ea rd; an d th ere w asn ’t[ sic] an y m o ti o n t o be he ard . N o w , I’m notgoi ng t o try thi s c as e l i ke bei ng ni bbl ed t o de ath by a duck. W e’ r e goi ng to d o it a ll a t on e ti m e o r at th e p ro p e r ti m e ; an d a s th e se m o tio n s c o m e u p , if y o u th i n k i t ’ s a n e v i d e n t i a ry o b j e c t i o n , we l l , we ’ l l t a k e i tu p a tth e t i me . I f we h a v e t o s e n d th e j u r y o u t , we ’ l l s e n d th e m o u t ; b u twe j u s td o n ’ th a v e t i me no w . I’ m n ot goi ng t o t ake t i m e w i th the j ury s t andi ng outi n the hal l . T he m o tio n h a s b e e n fi le d a n d h a s n ’t b e e n c a lle d u p . R os s di d notr ai s e the i s s ue of the m ot i on t o s uppr es s a gai n be f or e the tr i al began . D ur i ng the tri al, d efe n se c o u n sel fail ed to m a k e a n y o b jecti o n w h atso ev er, an d the tri al co u rt p e rm itte d its a d m is s io n .

1. R os s ’pr e- tr i alm ot i on t o s uppr es s the pis t ol . ¶41. U nderR ul e 2. 04 of the U ni f

or m R ul es o f C i rcui tan d C ou nt y C our tPr act i ce, the bu rden i s on the m ov ant t o o btai n a rul i ng on a pre- tri al m oti on , and fail u re t o d o so co n sti tutes a p roc ed u ral ba r. See B e rr y v. S ta te , 728 S o. 2d 568, 570 ( M i s s . 1999) ( “I ti s the 5
r es pons i bi l i ty of

the movantt o obt ai n a rul i ng f r om the courton m ot i on s fi l ed by hi m and fai l ure t o do s o con st i tutes a w ai v er o f sam e.”); Ho lly v . S ta te , 67 1 S o. 2d 32 , 37 (M i ss.

### 22

1996) ( f i ndi ng thatthe bur den t o obt ai n a rul i ng on an i n l i m i ne mot i on t o excl ude evi dence
re sts o n th e m o v in g p a rty ); Ma rtin v. S ta te , 354 So. 2d 1114, 1119 (M i s s . 1978) ( s ame) . T he
o rd e rly a d m in istra tio n o f ju stic e d icta tes th a t th e trial ju d g e b e v e ste d w ith a c o n sid e ra b le
a m o u n t o f d isc re tio n w ith re sp e c t t o tri a l ca len d a rin g a n d d o c k e t m a n a g e m e n t, an d w e w ill
n o t o v e rt u rn a tr ia l c o u rt ’s d e c is io n a b s e n t a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . P a lm e r v . S ta te , 427 So. 2 d 1 1 1 , 1 1 4 (M is s . 1 9 8 3 ). ¶4 2 . R o ss’ fail u re to o b tai n a ru li n g o n his pre-tri al m o ti o n w as a d ir ec t r esu lto f his fail u re t o r eques ta rul i ng ata n a ppr opr i at e t i m e. T he tr i al c our te xpr es s l y not ed thati tha d pr ovi ded a t i m e t o hearpr e- tr i al m ot i ons and thatconduct i ng an evi dent i ary hear i ng on the pi s t ol w as i nconveni ents i nce the veni r e mem ber s had bee n convene d and w er e w ai t i ng o uts i de the
courtr oom . Fur ther , t he t r i al cour tdi d notdeny t he m ot i on t o s uppr es s , buti ns t ead r es erved j udgm entunt i l t he St at e m oved t o i ntr oduce the w eapon i nt o evi dence . T her ef or e, the tr i al ju d g e d id n o t e rr in d e c lin in g to ru le o n R o s s ’ p re -t ri a l m o tio n .

2. The adm is s i on of the pis t olattr i al . ¶ 4 3 . R o ss n e x t a rg u e s th a t, b e c a u se h e in iti a lly ra ise d h is m o tio n to su p p re ss b e fo re trial, the tr i al courtdeni ed hi s m ot i on su b silen to b y adm i t t i ng the pi s t ol i nt o evi dence w i thout conduct i ng a hea r i ng, a nd the i s s ue i s c ons equent l y pr es erved f orappea l . A s not ed above , it is in c u m b e n t u p o n th e m o v a n t to o b ta in a ru lin g o n a p ro ff e re d m o tio n . B erry , 728 So. 2d
a t 5 7 0 . F a ilu re to d o s o c o n s titu te s a w a iv e r. Id . No twi th s t a n d i n g th i s p r o c e d u r a l b a r , we w ill c o n sid e r th e m e rits o f R o ss ’ c laim u n d e r th e p lain e rro r d o c trin e in lig h t o f th e g ra v ity
o f t h e c h a rg e . W

a lk e r v . S ta te , 9 1 3 S o . 2 d 1 9 8 , 2 1 6 (M is s . 2 0 0 5 ) . ¶44. T he admi s s i bi l i ty of evi dence r es t s w i thi n the di s cr et i on of the tr i al c our t , and r ever s al

### 23

i s appr opr i at e onl y w hen a tr i al cour tcom m i t s an abuse of di s cr et i on re s ul t i ng i n pr ej udi ce to th e a c c u s e d . Ir b

y v. S ta te , 893 So. 2d 1042, 1047 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng S tu rdiva n t v. S ta te , 745 So. 2d 240, 243 ( M i s s . 1999) ) . R el evanc e i s a thr es hol d r equi r ementof admi s s i bi l i ty. M .R .E . 4 0 2 ; Fo ste r v . S ta te , 5 0 8 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 7 (M iss . 1 9 8 7 ). E v id e n c e is re lev a n t if it has “a ny t endenc y t o m ake the exi s t ence of any f actthati s of

cons equenc e t o the d e te rm in a tio n o f t h e a c tio n m o re o r l e s s p ro b a b le t h a n i t w o u ld b e w ith o u t th e e v id e n c e .” M . R . E . 401. R ul e 401 i s construed br oadl y i n fa vorof admi t t i ng evi dence w i th even s l i ght p ro b a tiv e v a lu e . See M . R . E . 401 cmt . H ow ever , even otherw i s e r el evantevi dence “may be excl uded i f

i t s pr obat i ve val ue i s s ubs t ant i al l y outw ei ghed by t he dange rof unf ai rpr ej udi ce, c o n fu sio n o f th e iss u e s, o r m isl e a d in g th e ju ry , o r b y c o n sid e ra tio n s o f u n d u e d e lay , w a ste of t i m e, orneedl es s pre s ent at i on of cumul at i ve evi dence . ” M . R . E . 403. U nderR ul e 403, the excl us i on of

pr ej udi ci al evi dence i s perm i s s i ve; thati s , i f a tr i al courtdet erm i nes thatthe pr ej udi ci al ef

f ectof evi dence subs t ant i al l y out w ei ghs i t s pr obat i ve val ue, i ti s notobl i gat ed to e x c lu d e th e e v id e n c e , b u t m a y d o s o a t its d is c re tio n . See Fos ter , 508 So. 2d at1117. ¶45 . R oss ci t es Fo ste r v . S ta te for the p rop o sit ion that e v iden ce m u st be ex clud ed w h ere itis n o t ti ed to the all eg ed crim e b y an y fore n sic ev iden ce an d it s introd u cti o n is m o re p re ju d ic ia l th a n p ro b a tiv e to th e d e fe n d a n t. Fo ste r v . S ta te , 50 8 S o. 2d 11 11 , 11 17 (M i ss. 1 9 8 7 ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds , P o w e ll v. S ta te , 8 0 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). H o w ev er, Fos ters t ands f

ora more ci r cumscr i bed pr i nci pl e: w her e ther e i s no f or ens i c evi dence tyi ng a w e a p o n to a m u rd e r o r o th e r v io len t cr im e , w itn e ss e s c a n n o t tes tify th a t th e w e a p o n “ c o u ld b e ” the o n e u se d in th e crim e . In ste a d , w itn e ss e s a re res tricte d to st a tin g th a t f o re n sic evi dence s how ed thatthe w eapon i n evi dence w as “cons i s t ent ” w i th the type us ed i n the

### 24

c ri m e o r t h a t th e w e a p o n c a n n o t b e e x c lu d e d a s th e w e a p o n u s e d in th e c ri m e . See Fos ter , 5 0 8 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 1 7 ; K

o lb e rg v. S ta te , 829 So. 2d 29, 72 ( M i s s . 2002) ( af f i rm i ng t hi s r eadi ng o f Fos ter ) . I n the pr es entcas e, the f or ens i c s ci ent i s tcal l ed by the St at e di d nots t at e thatthe

. 2 2 ca li b er p ist o l i n tr o d u ce d into ev iden ce co u ld h av e b ee n the w ea p o n u sed in Y an ce y ’s
m ur der ; he w as car ef

ul t o not e onl y thatthe w eapon ha d the s ame cal i ber , and thatboth the
w e a p o n in e v id e n c e a n d th e m u rd e r w e a p o n la c k e d d istin g u ish in g c h a ra c ter istics th a t w o u ld
a llo w a p o sitiv e id e n tifica tio n . T h e re fo re , the S tate ’s w itn e ss d id n o t im p e rm iss ib ly
s pecul at e w hetherH al e’ s pi s t ol had bee n us ed i n the cr i m e. ¶46. W e have hel d that tr i al court s s houl d not excl ude conce i vabl y pr ej udi ci al evi dence
so lely b e c a u se fo re n sic te s tin g c a n n o t ti e it t o th e c rim e . W h e n th e re is e v id e n c e th a t a
w eapon c oul d have c aus ed an i nj ury and s om e conne ct i on betw een the def endantand the
w e a p o n e x is ts , th e w e a p o n w ill b e d e e m e d r e le v a n t a n d a d m is s ib le . See R h o de s v. S ta te , 676 So. 2d 27 5, 28 3 ( M i s s . 19 96 ) ( c i t i ng E th r id g e v. S ta te , 418 So. 2d 798 ( M i s s . 1982) and S to k e s v . S ta te , 5 1 8 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 )). H ere , w h il e the p ist o l w as n o t dir ec tl y connec t ed t o R os s thr ough a ny f or ens i c evi dence , otherevi dence i n the ca s e demonstr at ed that the p i st ol w as of the sam e cal i ber as the o ne thatkil l ed Y ancey and that R oss had a ccess to th e w e a p o n . F u rth e r, Jo n e s te stifie d th a t R o ss d isp o se d o f th e p isto l af ter a d m itt in g to Y a n c e y ’s m u rd e r. U n d e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s, th e trial c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n in
a d m ittin g th e p is to l in to e v id e n c e . T h is a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r i s w ith o u t m e ri t. B . T ri al C ourt ’ s R ef usalt o A dm i t t he St at e’ s B al l i s t i cs R eport . ¶4 7 . R o ss arg u es the tri al co u rterred i n refusing t o ad m itth e b all ist ics r ep o rto f th e S tat e’s
e x p e rt in to e v id e n c e . R o ss in iti a lly m o v e d to h a v e th e b a lli stic s r e p o rt su b m itt e d in to

### 25

evi dence dur i ng the St at e’ s cas e: B Y M R . PA N N E L L : Y ourH onor , w e w oul d ask thatthatr eportbe admi t t ed i nt o evi dence . B Y T H E C O U R T : A ny obj ect i on? B Y M R . H O O D : Y es, si r, y o u r H o n o r. W e o bjec t. H is t esti m o n y , ith asn ’t b e e n s u b sta n tially im p e a c h e d . T h e re isn ’t a n e e d to in tro d u c e th e lab re p o rt. B Y T H E C O U R T : W h at do y o u w an t t o intr o d u ce itfor? B Y M R . P A N N E L L : B e c a u s e I w a n t to re fe r t o it in m y c lo s in g a rg u m e n t. I w a n t th e m to h a v e it th e re w h e re th e y c a n re a d it. B Y T H E C O U R T : Y o u c a n h a v e it m a rk e d fo r i d e n tif ic a tio n if y o u w a n t[.] R o ss re n e w e d h is m o tio n to a d m it th e b a lli stic s re p o rt d u rin g h is o w n c a se , m o v in g to a d m it t he r e po r te i the rt o i mpea c h the St a t e ’ s wi tne s s e s o rt o r e f r e s h the i rr e c ol l e c t i ons under M .R .E . 8 0 3 a n d 8 0 4 . ¶48. T he admi s s i bi l i ty of evi dence r es t s w i thi n the di s cr et i on of the tr i al court , and r ever s al i s appr opr i at e onl y w hen a tr i al c our tc om m i t s an abus e of di s cr et i on r es ul t i ng i n pr ej udi ce to th e a c c u s e d . I

rby , 8 9 3 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 4 7 . E v id e n c e m a y b e e x c lu d e d u n d e r M .R .E . 4 0 3 if it i s m e re ly c u m u lativ e . R o ss c o rre c tly n o tes th a t th e b a lli stic s re p o rt w a s a b so lu tely admi s s i bl e as a publ i c r ecor d unde rM . R . E . 803( 8) , a nd thati tdi d have t o be i ntr oduced a s a pr i ors t at ementunderM . R . E . 801. T he tr i al courtdi d nots peci f y the gr ounds f

orexcl udi ng the r eport . G i ven the gr avi ty of the char ge and the s l enderbas i s f orconnec t i ng R os s t o the p ist o l, itis d if

fi cu ltfo r u s to say the tri al c o u rtw as co rrect in e x clud ing the re p o rt . H o w ev er, w e dec l i ne t o r ever s e on thes e gr ounds , s i nce R os s w as abl e t o ext ens i vel y cr os s - exami ne the St a t e ’ s b a l l i s t i c s e xp e r ta nd h i gh l i gh tthe mi ni mal v a l ue o f the e vi de nc e p r ov i de d by t he

### 26

r eport . T he ef

f ectof thi s rul i ng on ourconf i dence i n t he out come of the tr i al w i l l be
a d d re s s e d in S e c tio n X II . C . A dm i s s i on of

G l as s Shards and F ragm ent s of B urnt M at eri al . ¶49. R oss con t end s t hat t he tr i al courterr ed i n admi t t i ng gl as s s har ds cons i s t entw i th a m ot orvehi cl e’ s t ai l l i ghtf ound atY ance y’ s r es i dence and a pi l e of ashe s t hatJ ones t es t i f

i ed
w er e the r emai ns of

Y ance y’ s w al l et . T he r el evanc e of the t ai l l i ghtf

r agment s w as t enuous atbes t . W hi l e R os s ’ carhad a br oken r i ghtt ai l l i ght , al l the t es t i m ony attr i al i ndi cat ed that it h a d b e e n b ro k e n fo r a t lea st s ix m o n th s. T h e re w a s e v e n tes tim o n y th a t th e b ro k e n tail l i ghthad bee n s pr ay- pai nt ed t o di s gui s e the f actthati tw as br oken. L i nda G r ey t es t i f i ed that the cars he s aw i n he rdr i vew ay al r eady had a br oken t ai l l i ght . I ti s undi s put ed thi s epi s ode happene d pr i ort o the murde r . F i nal l y, t he St at e’ s for ens i c expertt es t i f i ed thathe coul d not
m a k e th e tail li g h t frag m e n ts fit m e c h a n ica lly into w h a t rem a in e d o f R o ss ’ ta il l ig h t. D e sp ite the compl et e l ack of

di r ectevi dence connect i ng t he f r agment s t o R os s ’ car , the St at e ar gued thatR os s had br oken outthe t ai l l i ghtaf t erhe s tum bl ed w i th Y ance y’ s t el evi s i on. T he
r el evanc y of

the as hes t aken f

r om H al e’ s gr i l l pr es ent s s i m i l arpr obl ems. J ones t es t i f i ed that R os s had burned a w al l et , us i ng, dependi ng on w hi ch st ory, ei therpaper s t aken f r om the
w a llet o r p a p e rs r e m o v e d fro m h is c a r. T h e as h e s th e n sa t on the g rill fro m F rid a y n ig h t u n til Sunday ni ght , w hen the s her i f f’ s deput i es col l ect ed them. A ttr i al , the St at e made no
s how i ng thatt he as hes had been cover ed orthatthey had r emai ned undi s turbed f orthatf or tye ig h t h o u r sp a n . M o st tr o u b lin g , the S tate c o n d u c ted n o fo re n sic tes ts o n th e a sh e s to d e te rm in e th e irc o m p o s itio n , y e t a t tr ia l a s s e rt e d th a t th e y w e re th e re m a in s o f a w a lle t. ¶5 0. A tt r i a l , Ros s n oto nl y f a i l e d t o obj ectt o t he i nt r oduct i on of t hes e i t ems, but

### 27

af f i r m at i vel y s t at ed f

orthe r ecor d thatther e w as no obj ect i on. Such act i on ef f ect i vel y w ai ves th e iss u e o n a p p e a l. B a llen g e r v . S ta te , 6 67 S o. 2 d 12 42 , 1 26 7 (M i ss. 19 95 ). T ho ug h R oss di d chal l enge the admi s s i on of thes e i t ems i n hi s m ot i on f ora ne w tr i al , a bel at ed cha l l enge to a n e v id e n tia ry ru lin g d o e s n o t r e h a b ilita te a n o th e rw is e u n tim e ly c la im . Sm ith , 797 So. 2 d a t 8 5 6 . N e v e rth e les s, th e h e ig h ten e d sc ru tin y a p p lica b le to th e re v ie w o f d e a th p e n a lty
c a s e s m a n d a te s a r e v ie w o f th e m e ri ts o f R o s s ’ c la im . W al ker , 913 So. 2d at216 ( r el axi ng the c o n tem p o ran eo u s o b jecti o n rule in d ea th p en alty ca ses). ¶ 5 1 . A s n o ted a b o v e , th e ad m iss io n o f ev id e n c e is w ith in the d isc re tio n o f th e trial c o u rt, and court s have be en i ns truct ed t o cons true t he M i ssi ss i ppi R ul es of E vi dence i n f

avorof
a d m is s io n . See I

rby , 8 9 3 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 4 7 ; M .R .E . 4 0 1 c m t. T h o u g h th e tail lig h t fra g m e n ts
m ay have been of

s l i ghtpr obat i ve val ue, R os s had ampl e opportuni ty t o hi gh l i ghtthatthe
s t at e’ s ow n expertcoul d notm echa ni cal l y f i tthe f r agmen t s i nto t he t ai l l i ghtf r ame. Si m i l ar l y, R os s w as abl e t o c hal l enge the pr obat i ve w ei ghtof the as hes by e m phas i zi ng that no f or ens i c t es t s had bee n conduct ed t o det erm i ne the composi t i on of the burntm at er i al . T he tr ia l c o u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in a d m ittin g th e e v id e n c e . I rby , 893 So. 2d at1047. N o r do es th e a d m issi o n o f th e e v iden ce am o u n t t o p lai n erro r, sinc e the ad m issi o n , b y it self, d id n o t c o n s titu te a m is c a rr ia g e o f j u s tic e . G r ay , 549 So. 2d at1321. D . W h e th e r th e B e e r C a n s S e ize d b y P o lice F r o m R o ss ’ C a r W e r e T a k e n in V io la ti o n o f t h e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t. ¶52. T he po l i ce b egan sear chi ng f orR os s af

t erof f i cer s t ook s t at ement s f

r om H al e and J ones on J une 30. O n J ul y 1, they w entt o t he r es i dence of R os s ’ br other , D on R os s , Sr . , and not ed a ve hi cl e i n the yar d mat chi ng the des cr i pt i on of Ross ’ c ar . The pol i ce r adi oed i n the

### 28

t ag numberand w er e t ol d thatt ag on t he carhad been s w i t ched. O f f i cerW i l banks t es t i f

i ed that, w h en the p o li ce ask ed to se arc h the p rem ises, D o n R o ss, Sr. r ep li ed that h e d id n o t care if the p o li ce se arc h ed . T h e p o li ce n o ted th at th e v eh icl e h ad a b rok en tai l l igh t and that there
w er e s ever al beercans , s i m i l art o thos e f ound atthe cr i m e s cene , on the f l oorboar d, and had the ca rt ow ed t o the s her i f f’ s of f i ce. A w arr antf

orR os s ’ arr es thad notyetbeen i s s ued, and the pol i ce di d notobt ai n a s ear ch w arr antf orei therthe ca rorD on R os s , Sr . ’ s r es i dence . T he tri al cou rtcon du ct ed a h eari ng on the adm i ssi bil i ty o f the b eer cans and fou nd that, becau se th e c a r’s tag h a d b e e n s w itc h e d , the c a r w a s in p lain v iew , an d th e o ffic e rs h a d c o n se n t to s e a rc h th e p re m is e s , th e re w a s n o c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n . ¶53. O n appeal , R os s ar gues t hatt he t r i al cour tcom m i t t ed r ever s i bl e err ori n admi t t i ng the beercans i nt o evi dence s i nce the ca rw as s ear ched w i thouta w arr anti n vi ol at i on of the F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. R o ss c o n ten d s th a t th e se a rc h d o e s n o t fa ll u n d e r th e “ a u to m o b ile
exce pt i on” t o the Four th A m endmentbeca us e the ca rw as nots ear ched i nci dentt o a l aw f ul
a rr e s t . He f

u r th e rc o n t e n d s th a tth e c a rc o u l d n o tb e s e a r c h e d u n d e rth e “ p l a i n v i e w”
exce pt i on t o the Four th A m endmentbeca us e the ca rw as on pr i vat e pr operty and w as not vi s i bl e f r om a publ i c r oad. T he St at e r espon ds t hatD on R os s , Sr . gave hi s cons entf or of f i cer s t o s ear ch t he pre m i s es and, i m pl i ci t l y, thatD on R os s , Sr . had author i ty overthe p re m is e s to p e rm it th e s e a rc h . ¶54. T hough w e norm al l y w i l l def ert o a tr i al court ’ s det erm i nat i on on the admi s s i bi l i ty of evi dence abs entan abus e of di s cr et i on, w e revi ew de novo a tr i al court ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of la w . H a rr is v . S ta te , 757 So. 2d 195, 197 ( M i s s . 2000) . C ons entt o s ear ch i s r ecogni zed a s a n e x c e p tio n to th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f a w a rr a n t a n d p ro b a b le c a u s e . U nited States v. Matlock ,

### 29

4 1 5 U . S . 1 6 4 , 9 4 S . C t. 9 8 8 , 3 9 L . E d . 2 d 2 4 2 (19 7 4 ); Hu d so n v. S ta te , 475 So. 2d 156, 158- 59 ( M i s s . 1985) . C ons entt o s ear ch may be pr ovi ded by a thi r d party w ho pos s es s es comm on author i ty overorothers uf f i ci entr el at i ons hi p t o the pr emi s es oref f ect s s oughtt o be in s p e c te d . Id . at158 . A r ent ers uch as D on R os s , Sr . has been r ecogni zed a s pos s es s i ng s u ff ic ie n t a u th o ri ty to c o n s e n t to a s e a rc h o f th e p re m is e s . Id . R o ss h a d n o o w n e rsh ip i nt e r e s ti n the p r e mi s e s a nd the r e f or e c a nn ota r gu e tha ta ny e xp e c t a t i on o f p r i vacy w as v io la te d . C om

pa re S c o tt v. S ta te , 266 So. 2d 567, 569 ( M i s s . 1 972) ( “[ W ] her e the pr oof
s how s thata per s on i s r ent i ng a r oom ori s i n pos s es s i on of a r oom i n a hous e oran apa r t m ent unders uch ci r cumst ance s as t o m ake s uch per s on the ow nerther eof f orthe t i m e bei ng, s uch person i s ent i t l ed to the p rot ect i on aff orded b y S ecti o n 2 3 o f the C on st i tuti on . ”). B ecause D on R os s , Sr . cons ent ed t o a s ear ch of hi s pr emi s es , evi dence col l ect ed p ursuant to that
c o n s e n t w a s c o n s titu tio n a lly a c q u ir e d . T h is a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r i s w ith o u t m e ri t. E . E x c lu sio n o f E x p e r t T e stim o n y o f H e r b e r t W e lls . ¶55. R os s cont ends thatthe tr i al cour ter r ed i n excl udi ng the t es t i m ony and acc om panyi ng i nv est i gati ve repo rtof h is ex perti n invest i gatory techni qu es, H erber tW el l s. W el l s’ pr of f er ed t es t i m ony purpor t ed t o s how the i nad equac y of the pol i ce i nves t i gat i on, the i m pos s i bi l i ty of

burni ng a w al l etunt i l onl y as hes r emai ned, and the contr adi ct i ons betw een Jones’ s t at ementt o hi m and hert es t i m ony attr i al . T he St at e ar gued thatthe pr of f erw as unt i m el y, and thatthe t es t i m ony s houl d be excl uded as a vi ol at i on of the di s covery rul e. T he trial c o u rt h e a rd th e p ro p o se d tes tim o n y o u ts id e th e p re se n c e o f th e ju ry a n d ru led it i nadmi s s i bl e. T hough notent i r el y cl ear , t he t r i al cour tappear s t o have rul ed the t es t i m ony in a d m is s ib le a s a s u b s ta n tiv e m a tte r a n d n o t b e c a u s e it w a s u n tim e ly .

### 30

¶56. A tr i al j udge enj oys a gr eat deal of di s cr et i on as t o the r el evanc y and admi s s i bi l i ty of
e v id e n c e . W

a lk e r v . S ta te , 87 8 S o. 2d 91 3, 91 5 (M i ss. 20 04 ). H ow ever, this dis cret i on m ust b e e x e rc is e d w ith in th e c o n fi n e s o f th e M is s is s ip p i R u le s o f E v id e n c e . Cox v. S ta te , 849 So. 2d 1257, 1268 ( M i s s . 2003) ; M . R . E . 103( a) . R ever s al i s pr operonl y w her e s uch di s cr et i on h a s b e e n a b u se d a n d a su b sta n tial rig h t o f a p a rty h a s b e e n a ffe c te d . Id . T h e tri al co u rt ’s d isc re tio n m u st a lso in su re th e c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t o f th e a c c u se d to p re se n t a f u ll d e fe n se in h is o r h e r c a s e . U

n ited S tates v. S tew art , 3 2 3 1 0 4 F . 3 d 1 3 7 7 , 1 3 8 4 (D . C . C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). ¶57. T he admi s s i bi l i ty of expertt es t i m ony i s eval uat ed i n l i ghtof M . R . E . 702, w hi ch hol ds th a t s u c h te s tim o n y m a y b e in tr o d u c e d w h e n it is f o u n d to b e re le v a n t a n d re lia b le . See Miss. T r ansp. Com m '

n v. McLem ore , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 3 1 , 3 8 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ); s ee al s o M . R . E . 702. T es t i m ony i s r el evanti f i tw i l l as s i s tthe tr i erof f acti n under s t andi ng or det erm i ni ng a f act
a t is s u e . I

d . T o m eetthe r equi r ementof r el i abi l i ty, a n e xpert ’ s t es t i m ony m us tbe bas ed on the met hods and pr ocedur es of s ci ence , and notm er el y on subj ect i ve bel i ef s oruns uppor t ed
s p e c u la tio n . I

d. , at36 ( ci t i ng D auber t v. Mer r el

l D ow P harm s . , I

nc. , 509 U . S. 579, 587, 113 S. C t . 2786, 125 L . E d. 2d 469 ( 1993 )) . R ule 702 expr es s l y al l ow s expertt es t i m ony r egar di ng non- s ci ent i f

i c mat t er s , s o l ong as the w i tnes s ’ s know l edge, s ki l l , exper i ence , tr ai ni ng, oreduca t i on qual i f y hi m as an expe r ti n a gi ven f i el d, and ( 1) the t es t i m ony i s bas ed upon s uf fi ci ent f act s ordat a; ( 2) the t es t i m ony i s the pr oductof r el i abl e pr i nci pl es and
m ethods ; a nd ( 3) the w i tnes s ha s a ppl i ed the pr i nci pl es and met hods r el i abl y t o the f act s of the ca s e. ¶5 8. I n hi s pr of

f er ed t es t i m ony, W el l s ques t i on e d J ones ’ acc ountof R os s des t r oyi ng Y ance y’ s w al l e tby bu rni ng i t . W e l l s s t a t e d tha the ha d a t t e mpt e d t o d e s tr oy a w a l l e tby

### 31

s ett i ng i ton f

i r e w i th a gr eatd eal o f pape runderneath. A f t erthe att empt pr oved
uns ucce s s f

ul , he gave the w al l ett i m e t o cool of f and s atur at ed i tw i t h l i ght erf l ui d. T hat att em p t al so p rov ed u n su cc essfu l, a n d h e b rou g h t th e re m ains o f th e w all et w ith h im as p art o f his p roffere d test im o n y . T h e S tat e o b jected that W ell s h ad n o t bee n p roffere d as a n ex p ert i n i nci ner at i on. T he tr i al courtexclude d thi s t es t i m ony upon f i ndi ng that , w i thoutany evi dence off

er ed as t o the type of

w al l etY ance y ow ned, the ac cur acy of the demonstr at i on c o u ld n o t b e s u b s ta n tia te d . ¶5 9. R ul e 401 of

t he M i s s i s s i pp i Rul e s o f Evi de nc e def

i nes “r el evantevi dence ” as

“ e v id e n c e h a v in g a n y ten d e n c y to m a k e the ex iste n c e o f an y fac t th a t is o f c o n se q u e n c e to the det erm i nat i on of

the act i on more pr obabl e orl es s pr obabl e than i tw oul d be w i thoutthe
ev iden ce . ” W ell s’ ex p erim en t w as in ad m issi b le un d e r R u le 4 0 1 sinc e h e c o u ld n o t verify thatthe w al l ethe burned w as s i m i l ari n composi t i on t o Y ance y’ s orthathe had a t t empt ed to d e stro y it u n d e r sim ilar c irc u m sta n c e s. T h e trial c o u rt d id n o t a b u se its d isc re tio n in
e x c lu d in g W e lls’ te stim o n y re g a rd in g th e e x p e rim e n t. ¶60. W el l s al s o of

f er ed t es t i m ony i n w hi ch he hi ghl i ght ed the s t at ement s M ar gar etJ ones m a d e to h im in a p e rso n a l in ter v iew , w h ic h w e re in c o n sis ten t w ith h e r in iti a l sta tem e n t to p o lice as w e ll a s h e r tes tim o n y at trial. In p a rticu lar , h e d isc u ss e d th e fa c t th a t sh e to ld h im R os s arr i ved atH al e’ s r es i dence betw een 8: 30 and 9: 00 p. m , w hi l e s he t es t i f i ed attr i al that he arr i ved ar ound 11: 30 p. m . H ow ever , i ntr oduct i on of a ny s uch s t at ement s w oul d have be en m er e comm ent ary on the ver aci ty of a w i t ness, w hich i s notappr opr i at e expe r tt es t i m ony u n d e r R u le 7 0 2 . Sm ith v. S ta te , 9 2 5 S o . 2 d 8 2 5 , 8 3 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). T h e tri al co u rtthere fore

### 32

d id n o t e rr in re fu s in g to a llo w W e lls to c o m m e n t o n J o n e s ’ t e s tim o n y a t tr ia l. ¶ 6 1 . F i n a l l y , W e l l s wa s p r o f f e r e d a s a n e x p e r to n p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t o ry t e c h n i q u e s . He t es t i f i ed t o hi s exper i ence i n s ecur i ng cr i m e s cene s and col l ect i ng evi dence , a nd opi ned that i n thos e ar eas the i nves t i gat i on i nt o Y ance y’ s m ur der w as def i ci ent . H ow ever , hi s pr of f er fai l ed to est abli sh t he rel i abil i ty o f hi s t est i m on y u nd er D a u b e rt and McL em ore . C o n se q u e n tly , the trial c o u rt d id n o t er r in e x c lu d in g it. F . E xcl usi on of

P ri or I nconsi s t ent St at em ent of M argare t Jones . ¶62. R os s m ai nt ai ns thatthe tr i al courtr ef us ed t o al l ow hi m t o i m peac h Jones w i th pr i or in c o n sis ten t sta tem e n ts m a d e in h e r sta tem e n t to W e lls a n d th a t i t erre d in re fu sin g to a d m it the st at ementi nt o evi dence . T he r ecor d demonstr at es thatdef ens e couns el l ai d the pr oper fo u n d a tio n fo r th e in tro d u c tio n o f im p e a c h m e n t ev id e n c e : B Y M R . P A N N E L L : S o th a t w o u ld n ’t c o m e a s a n y su rp ri s e to y o u , th a t I w oul d have both a t ape and a t ransc r i ptof w hatyou s ai d atthatt i m e [ i n a S e p te m b e r 1 0 , 1 9 9 7 , s ta te m e n t m a d e to d e fe n s e in v e s tig a to r H e rb e rt W e lls ]? B Y M R . H O O D : Y ourH onor , w e have n’ tbeen pr ovi ded w i th anythi ng l i ke thati n di s covery. B Y T H E C O U R T : A ll righ t, go a h e a d . If th e d isc o v e ry iss u e c o m e s u p , I’ll rul e on i tatthe pr opert i m e. T h e trial c o u rt a llo w e d d e fe n se c o u n se l to u se th e c o n ten ts o f Jo n e s’ s tate m e n t to W e lls to pr obe i ncons i s t enci es betw een he rt es t i m ony attr i al , heri ni t i al s t at ementt o pol i ce, and her sta tem e n t to W e lls. T h e S tate su b se q u e n tly o b jec ted to d e fe n se c o u n se l tes tify in g : B Y M R . PA N N E L L : Y ou s ai d thaty ou s aw [ Y ance y’ s w al l et ] on the i ns i de

### 33

[ of H ale’s r esi den ce] t od ay. Y ou sai d b ack o n July 1 [ , 19 96 , ] [ i n y ou r f i rs t r ecor ded s t at ement ] thatyou s aw i ton the out s i de. Y ou s ai d w hen you t al ked t o M r . W el l s on the 10th of Sept ember[ 1997, ] thatyou s aw i ton the out s i de. B Y M R . H O O D : O b

jec tio n , y o u H o n o r. I o b jec t, nu m b e r o n e , to h im tes tify in g a n d m a k in g a n y sta tem e n t ab o u t a tra n sc rip t. B Y T H E C O U R T : I s us t ai n thatobj ect i on. L i m i ti tt o cr os s - exami nat i on. A f t erthe St at e compl et ed i t s r edi r ectexami nat i on of J ones , def

ens e couns el m oved t o have hers econd r ecor ded s t at ement , m ade t o H ebertW el l s , i ntr oduced i nt o evi dence : B Y M R . PA N N E L L : Y ourH onor , w e m ove t o ha ve hervol unt ary s t at ement [ m ade t o H erbertW el l s ] i nt o e vi dence [ s i c] . I be l i eve ther e ar e contr adi ct i ng s t at ement s i n ther e. B Y TH E CO U R T : Y ou can ha ve i tm arked f ori dent i f i cat i on i f you w antt o, i f you w antt o do thatf

orthe r ecor d.

. . . . B Y M R . H O O D : I f T om w ant s t o m ove i ti n, w e may nothave a n obj ect i on. B Y A J U R O R : C an the j ur or s l ook ati dent i f i cat i on? B Y T H E C O U R T : I t ems of evi den ce thatar e mar ked f ori dent i f

i cat i on, the C our thas notrul ed on i t s admi s s i bi l i ty yet . I t ’ s j us tm arked f ori dent i f i cat i on, a ll righ t. B Y M R . H O O D : Y ourH onor , w e don’ thave a ny obj ect i on t o i tbei ng i ntr oduced i nt o evi dence . B Y T H E C O U R T : L eti tbe m arked as re cei ved as an exhi bi tt o the t es t i m ony of that w i tness.

### 34

[D E F E N D A N T ’S E X H IB IT 1 W A S M A R K E D A S R E C E IV E D .] D esp it e the S tate ’s w ill ing n ess to h av e the stat em en t adm itted in to ev iden ce , the re co rd demonstr at es thati tw as onl y m arked f ori dent i f i cat i on att hatt i m e. T he tr i al courtdi d not el abor at e on i t s gr ounds forre s ervi ng i t s rul i ng. A f t ert he t es t i m ony of D eputy W i l banks and out s i de the pr es ence of

the j ury, de f

ens e couns el a r gued thatW el l s ’ s t at ementf el l underan exce pt i on t o the di s covery rul e, and ther ef or e s houl d have be en admi t t ed: B Y M R . PA N N E L L : Y es t er day w e w er e pr event ed f r om r eadi ng fr om the s t at ementthatw e t oo k fr om M ar gar etA nn J ones on the gr ounds w e had not p rov ided itto [th e S tat e] i n d isco v ery . W e too k a se co n d loo k at th is disco v ery ru le, a n d R u le 9 0 4 (c )(1 ), (2 ), or (3 ) d o e s n o t re q u ire u s to p ro v id e th e m w ith i m peach ed m at eri al no r w ork prod uct, bo th o f w hich this i s. B Y T H E C O U R T : I ’ ve f or got t en w hati tw as you obj ect ed t o. B Y M R . PA N N E L L : T hey obj ect ed t o m e r eadi ng f r om thi s s t at ementand contr adi ct ory s t at ement s thatM ar gar etA nn G r aves J ones had gi ven on the groun ds i thad no tbeen dis cov ered t o them . T his i s w ork prod uct and i s al so f o ri mp e a c h me n t , a n d th e ru l e d o e s n o tr e q u i r e u s t o p r o v i d e th a tt o th e m. B Y M R . L U T H E R : A s I reca ll , h e w as g ran ted -- B Y T H E C O U R T : I s us t ai ned thatobj ect i on on a com pl et el y di f f er entgr ound as I r eca l l . D o you pl an on ca l l i ng a w i tnes s back ors om ethi ng? B Y M R . PA N N E L L : N o, butI w antt o getthi s – B Y T H E C O U R T : Y ou can mar k i tf ori dent i f i cat i on i f you w antt o. [D E F E N D A N T ’S E X H IB IT 4 W A S M A R K E D F O R ID E N T IF IC A T IO N .] B Y M R . H O O D : Y ourH onor , w e s t i l l , j us tf orthe r ecor d, hav e no tbeen

### 35

p ro v id e d w ith th a t co p y o f th a t. B Y T H E C O U R T : I t ’ s up her e i f y’ al l w antt o l ook ati t . I t ’ s be en mar ked f or i dent i f i cat i on. T h o u g h itis un clea r, the o b jecti o n the tri al co u rtsu sta in e d w a s p resu m ab ly the S tat e’s obj ect i on t o de f

ens e couns el t es t i f

yi ng. T he tr i al c our tne i therrul ed thatthe pr oper f oundat i on had notbeen l ai d f orthe i ntr oduct i on of

the s t at ement , norexcl uded the s t at ement
a s a v io latio n o f th e d isc o v e ry ru le. O n a p p e a l, R o ss a g a in a rg u e s th a t Jo n e s’ s tate m e n t to W el l s w as i ntr oduced f

ort he purpos e of

i m peac hm entand re pr es ent ed w or k pr oductand w as th e re fo re e x e m p ted fro m th e d isc o v e ry ru le o r, in th e a ltern a tiv e , th a t th e tri a l co u rt err e d in fa ilin g to o rd e r a c o n tin u a n c e p u rs u a n t to U .R .C .C .P . 9 .0 4 . ¶ 6 3 . P rio r in c o n sis ten t sta tem e n ts u s e d to im p e a c h a w itn e ss n e e d n o t b e d isc lo se d to oppos i ng couns el unl es s oppos i ng couns el has r eques t ed thats uch s t at ement s be di s cl os ed. See M . R . E . 613( a) . H ow ever , i f a s t at ementi s i ntr oduced i nto evi dence notonl y f or i m peac hm ent , butal s o t o bol s t erthe s ubs t ant i ve ca s e of a party, then the admi s s i on of the
s t at ementm ay neverthel es s be subj ectt o t he r eci pr ocal di s covery rul e underR ul e 9. 04 of the U n if o rm C o d e o f C ir c u it a n d C h a n c e ry P ra c tic e (U .R .C .C .P .). See , e. g. , Co a tes v. S ta te , 495 So. 2d 464, 466 ( M i s s . 1986) ( f i ndi ng t hat , w her e st at ementw as i m peac hm entevi dence but al so out l i ned def

endant ’ s s ubs t ant i ve theory of the ca s e, evi dence w as s ubj ectt o the d isc o v e ry ru le, a n d th e tri a l co u rt’s e x c lu sio n o f th e sta tem e n t w a s n o t er ro r); s ee al s o B yr om v. S ta te , 863 So. 2d 836, 869 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng Co a tes v. S ta te an d affirm ing that w h ere the s t at ementw as s ubs t ant i ve evi dence butw as s oughtt o be i ntr oduced as i m peac hm entU .R .C .C .P . 9 .0 4 (B )( 1 ). W ork Product . D i s cl os ur e s hal l notbe r equi r ed of l egal 6 re se a rc h o r o f re c o rd s, c o rre sp o n d e n c e , re p o rts, o r m e m o ra n d a to th e e x ten t th a t th e y c o n tain the opi ni ons , theor i es , orconcl us i ons of the pr os ecut i ng or de f

ens e att orney orm ember s of lega l st aff. 

### 36 evi dence , excl us i on of

the evi dence w as pr operf orf ai l ur e t o a dher e t o the rul es of r eci pr ocal di s covery) . T hi s pr i nci pl e pr event s a party f r om ci r cumvent i ng di s covery rul es by ar gui ng th a t e v id e n c e w a s u s e d m e re ly fo r i m p e a c h m e n t p u rp o s e s . Coates , 495 So. 2d at466. I n the p re se n t ca se , w h ile e lem e n ts o f th e sta tem e n t t a k e n b y W e lls m ig h t ha v e b e e n u se d to i m peach Jones ’ t es t i m ony, i ntr oduct i on of the ent i r e s t at ementas i m peac hm entt es t i m ony w oul d have be en i nappr opr i at e s i nce a cruci al el ementof R os s ’ def

ens e w as underm i ni ng J ones ’ cr edi bi l i ty. T her ef or e, though the pr operf oundat i on w as l ai d f

orthe i ntr oduct i on of i m peac hm entevi dence , W el l s ’ s t at ements houl d nothave be en adm i t t ed as i m peac hm ent evi dence , s i nce i tt ended t o pr ove R os s ’ theory of the ca s e. ¶64. R os s ar gues i n the al t ernat i ve thatthe s t at ementt aken by W el l s w as w or k pr oduct and there fore ex em p ted fro m d isco v ery . U . R . C . C . P . R u le 9.04 (B )(1 ) e x c lud es a tt o rne y w o rk produ ctfr om dis cov ery. “W ork prod uct” encom passes m at eri al s that cont ai n the “op i nions, 6 theo ri es o r co n clus ion s” o f th e a tt o rne y . T h e statem en t, w h il e ind icati v e o f th e d efe n se’s ap p roa ch , d id n o t con tai n o p inion s, theo ri es, or c o n clus ion s, an d w as th ere fore n o t w o rk pr oductf orthe purpos es of

di s covery. B eca us e t he st at ementw as noti ntr oduced s ol el y f or i m peac hm entand di d notcons t i tut e w or k pr oduct , def ens e couns el ’ s f

ai l ur e t o di s cl os e the
s ta te m e n t to th e S ta te w a s a v io la tio n o f t h e d is c o v e ry ru le . ¶65. R os s m ai nt ai ns that , even i f the f ai l ur e t o di s cl os e w as a di s covery vi ol at i on, the tr i al
courterr ed i n concl us i vel y excl udi ng i t , ra therthan al l ow i ng the St at e t o r evi ew the s t at ementU .R .C .C .P . 9 .0 4 (I ). D iscovery . If d u rin g th e c o u rse o f tria l, th e p ro se c u tio n a ttem p ts 7 t o introduce evidence w hich has no tbeen t i m el y dis cl osed t o the defense as r equ i red by these rul es , and the def

ens e obj ect s t o the i ntr oduct i on forthatr eas on, the courts hal l actas fo llo w s: 1 . G ra n t th e d e fe n se a re a so n a b le o p p o rtu n ity to in te rv iew th e n e w ly dis co v ere d w i tness, t o ex am i ne the new l y p roduce d d ocu m ents , phot ogr aphs orotherevi dence ; and 2. I f , af t ersuch oppor tuni ty, t he defe ns e cl ai m s unfa i rsurpr i s e orundue pr ej udi ce a nd s eeks a cont i nuance orm i s tr i al , the courts hal l , i n the i nt er es tof

j us t i ce a nd abs entunus ual ci r cumst ance s , excl ude the e v id e n c e o r g ra n t a c o n tin u a n c e fo r a p e rio d o f tim e re a so n a b ly nece s s ary f

ort he def

ens e t o m eetthe non- di s cl os ed evi dence orgr ant a m is tr ia l. 3. T he court s hal l not be r equi r ed t o gr ant ei ther a cont i nuance orm i s tr i al fo r su c h a d isc o v e ry v io latio n if th e p ro se c u tio n w ith d ra w s its e ffo rts to in tr o d u c e s u c h e v id e n c e . T he courts hal l f

ol l ow the s ame pr ocedur e f orvi ol at i on of

di s covery by the def

ens e. 

### 37 an d req u est a c o n ti n u an ce , if n ec essa ry. R o ss co rre c tly n o tes th at, in m ak ing d isco v ery rul i ngs , tr i al court s musta dher e t o the gui del i nes f i r s tart i cul at ed i n B ox v. S ta te , 437 So. 2d 19 ( M i s s . 1983) , and l at ercodi f i ed i n U . R . C . C . P. 9. 04 (I ). U nderR ul e 9. 04( I ) , evi dence 7 of f er ed by a de f

endant i n viol at i on of

the di s covery rul e ca nnotbe r ej ect ed outof hand. Ca rr a w a y v. S ta te , 562 So. 2d 1199, 1203 ( M i s s . 1990) . I ns t ead, the St at e m us tbe gi ven the
o p p o rtu n ity to m ee t th e e v iden ce an d d eterm ine w h e th er a m o ti o n for a co n ti n u an ce o r a m o tio n fo r a m istria l is n e c e ss a ry . E x c lu sio n o f th e e v id e n c e is a n e x tre m e sa n c tio n a n d is onl y appr opr i at e w her e the def endant ’ s di s covery vi ol at i on w as “w i l l f ul and mot i vat ed by a des i r e t o obt ai n a t act i cal advant age. ” D a rg h ty v . S ta te , 530 So. 2d 27, 32 (M i ss. 1988) ( ci t i ng T a ylorv . Illin o is , 484 U . S. 400, 415, 108 S. C t . 646, 655, 98 L . E d. 2d 798, 814

### 38

( 1988) ) . R el yi ng on T

aylor , w e h a v e h e ld th a t ex c lu s io n “ o u g h t b e re se rv e d fo r c a se s in
w hi ch the def

endantpart i ci pat es s i gni f i cant l y i n s om e del i ber at e, cyni cal s cheme t o gai n a s ubs t ant i al t act i cal advant age. ” Ho u sto n v. S ta te , 5 3 1 S o . 2 d 5 9 8 , 6 1 2 (M iss . 1 9 8 8 ). In a ll di s covery m att er s , w e ar e gui ded by ours t at ementi n Houston v. S ta te : W e mu s tn e v e rf

o r g e t , h o we v e r , th a tth e tr i a l f o rl i f e o rl i b e r ty i s n o ta g a me and thatdi s covery rul es , l i ke ot herrul es of pr ocedur e, ar e notan end i n and of th e ms e l v e s b u ta me a n s t o th e e n d th a twe d a r e c a l l j u s t i c e . T o th a te n d , we ad m inist er o u r disco v ery rules w ith a stron g b ias i n fav o r of the co u rtan d jury re c e iv in g a n d c o n s id e ri n g a ll r e le v a n t a n d o th e rw is e a d m is s ib le e v id e n c e . Hous ton, 531 So. 2d at611. ¶66. In t he presentcas e, the tr i al courterr ed i n f ai l i ng t o cons i derthe admi s s i on of the st at em ent i n acco rdance w i th R ule 9. 04 (I ). N othi ng i n the r ecord i nd i cat es t hat def ense c o u n se l de lib e ra tely atte m p ted to a m b u sh th e S tate w ith n e w e v id e n c e . T h e trial c o u rt d id notf i nd thatthe i ntr oduct i on of the s t at ementw as m ot i vat ed by a de s i r e t o gai n a t act i cal advant age. T he St at e cannotc l ai m thatthe i ntr oduct i on of the s t at ementcaughti tunaw ar e, si nce the st at em ent w as gi ven by i t s ow n w i tness. ¶ 6 7 . H o w e v e r, fa ilu re to fo llo w R u le 9 .0 4 (I) d o e s n o t in e x o ra b ly re q u ire re v e rsa l. R u le 103 of the M i s s i s s i ppi Rul es of E vi dence s t i pul at es thaterr orm ay notbe pr edi cat ed upon a
rul i ng w hi ch admi t s orexcl ud es evidence unl es s a s ubs t ant i al r i ghtof the party i s af

f ect ed and a t i m el y obj ect i on i s m ade, orthe s ubs t ance of the evi dence w as m ade know n t o the
co u rtb y an o ffer of p roo f or w as a p p are n t f rom the c o n text w ith in w h ich q u e sti o n s w ere as ked. T he admi s s i on orexcl us i on of evi dence cons t i tut es r ever s i bl e err oronl y w her e a p a rt y c a n s h o w p re

ju d ic e o r h a rm . Jacks on v. State 594 S o. 2d 20, 25 ( M i s s . 1992) . T he

### 39

relev an t i n q u iry there fore is w h ethe r th e tri al co u rt ’s fail u re to a d h ere to R u le 9.04 (I) p re ju d ic e d R o s s . ¶68. T hi s C our thas f

ound pre j udi ce w her e t he t r i al cour tfa i l s t o f ol l ow the B ox gui del i nes in e x c lu d in g te s tim o n y th a t te n d e d to s u p p o rt a d e fe n d a n t’ s a c c o u n t o f e v e n ts . See D a rg h ty v . S ta te , 5 3 0 S o . 2 d 2 7 , 3 3 (M iss . 1 9 8 8 ) (“ E v e n -h a n d e d a p p lica tio n o f th e R u le
r equi r es the sa m e pr ocedur e t o be fol l ow ed w hen t he St at e obj ect s t o t es t i m ony beca us e of a def endant ' s vi ol at i on as w hen the def endantobj ect s fort he s ame r eas on. . . . [ the] t es t i m ony bei ng r e l e va nta nd c ompe t e nt , i tw a s pr e j ud i c i a l e rr ort o e xc l ud e i tw i tho utf ol l owi ng our proced ural gu i deli nes. A ccordi ng l y, w e r everse and r em and f or anot her tri al . ”). W hil e R oss w as al l ow ed t o i m peac h J ones w i th herpr i ors t at ementon cr os s - exami nat i on, the exc l us i on of t hatst at ementfr om evi dence di d pr ej udi ce hi s cas e. J ones ’ t es t i m ony w as the onl y di r ect evi dence l i nki ng R os s t o the cr i m e. T he j ur or s r ecogni zed the i m por t ance of hercr edi bi l i ty, as evi dence d by one j ur or ’ s r eques tt o s ee the tr ans cr i pt . G i ven thatJ ones ’ cr edi bi l i ty w as the cruci al i s s ue i n thi s cas e, and i n l i ghtof the s ever i ty of

the cr i m e cha r ged, w e f i nd that the tr i al c our tc om m i t t ed r ever s i bl e err ori n excl udi ng hers t at ementf r om evi dence w i thout conduct i ng a B ox h e a ri n g p u rs u a n t to R u le 9 .0 4 (I ). I I I . PROSE CUTO RI AL M I S CO NDU CT ¶69. R os s ar gues that the di s tr i ct att orney comm i t t ed m i s conduct i n hi s cl os i ng ar gum ent i n the gui l tphas e and s ent enci ng phas es of the tr i al by ( A ) att acki ng the cha r act erand h o n estl y o f op p o sing c o u n se l, ( B ) m ak ing p erso n al ob serv ati o n s ab o u t th e v era city o f a
w i tnes s , and ( C ) r ef

er enci ng i nf

or m at i on nots ubm i t t ed i nt o evi dence .

### 40

¶70. A t t orneys ar e af f or ded w i de l at i tud e in arguing t hei rcas es t o the j ury butar e not
a llo w e d to e m p lo y tac tics w h ich a re in fla m m a to ry , h ig h ly p re ju d icia l, or re a so n a b ly
c a lc u la te d to u n d u ly in fl u e n c e th e ju ry . S h e p p a rdv. Sta te , 77 7 S o. 2d 65 9, 66 1 (M i ss. 2001) . W e w i l l r evi ew al l egat i ons of m i s conductt o det erm i ne “w hetherthe natur al and probab l e eff

ectof the im proper argum ent i s t o creat e un j ustprej ud i ce aga i nstthe acc used so
as t o r es ul ti n a dec i s i on i nf l uence d by the prej ud i ce so cre at ed. ” Id . I n deci di ng the pr opr i ety of

al l egedl y i m pr opercomm ent s , w e w i l l consi dert hem i n the cont extof the ca s e. A h m a d v. S ta te , 6 0 3 S o . 2 d 8 4 3 , 8 4 6 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ). A se rie s o f o th e rw ise h a rm les s e rro rs in
a c lo sin g a rg u m e n t m a y b e g ro u n d s fo r r e v e rsa l w h e re , in th e a g g re g a te, th o se e rro rs v io late
a d e fe n d a n t’ s r ig h t t o a f a ira n d im p a rt ia l tr ia l. Ho w e ll v. S ta te , 41 1 S o. 2d 77 2, 77 6 (M i ss. 198 2) ( ser i es of i nap propri at e com m ents by prosecuti on du ri ng cl osi ng argum ent gr ounds f or rev ersa l f

o r vio lat ion o f du e p roc ess). ¶71 . R oss fai l ed t o obj ect t o a nu m ber o f t he st at em ents abo ut w h ich h e n ow com plai ns. I n gener al , the f

ai l ur e t o obj ectt o the pr os ecut i on ’s st at ement s i n cl os i ng ar gum ent c o n s titu te s a p ro c e d u ra l b a r. S p ice r v . S ta te , 9 2 1 S o . 2 d 2 9 2 , 3 0 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ). T h is cont empora neous obj ect i on rul e appl i es i n death penal ty cas es and ma y appl y t o the p ro s e c u tio n ’s c lo s in g a rg u m e n t. W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 6 8 4 S o . 2 d 1 1 7 9 , 1 2 0 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ). H o w ev er, i n ex tr em e c ase s, a fail u re to o b ject t o q u esti o n s w h ich w ere v iolati v e o f a
c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t w ill n o t a c t a s a p ro c e d u ra l b a r t o c o n s id e ra tio n . W o o d v. S ta te , 257 So. 2d 193, 200 ( M i s s . 1972) ( f i ndi ng thatcons i der at i on of i nappr opr i at e cr os s - exami nat i on by th e S ta te w a s n o t b a rr e d b y d e fe n d a n t’ s fa ilu re to o b je c t) . See a l

so Mick e ll v. S ta te , 735 So. 2 d 1 0 3 1 , 1 0 3 5 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ) (“ [I] n c a se s o f p ro se c u to ria l m isc o n d u c t w e h a v e h e ld [th a t] th is

### 41

C our t[ i s not ] cons tr ai ned f r om cons i der i ng the mer i t s of the al l eged pr ej udi ce by the f actthat
o b jec tio n s w e re m a d e an d su sta in e d , o r th a t n o o b jec tio n s w e re m a d e .”); G riffin v . S ta te , 557 So. 2 d 54 2, 5 52 (M i s s . 1990) ( “Even w i thouta t i m el y obj ect i on, r ever s al m ay be r equi r ed
w hen the pr os ecut i ng att orney has comm ent ed upon the def endant ' s ri gh tn ott o t es t i f y. ”) (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). A . St at e m e nt s A l l e ge dl y I m pugni ng t he H one s t y a nd C har ac t e r of O ppos i ng C o u n se l. ¶72. I n the St at e’ s cl os i ng ar gum entdur i ng the gui l tpha s e of the tr i al , the di s tr i ct att orney m ade a num berof

s t at ement s thatR os s ar gues w er e i ns ul t i ng t o def ens e couns el . I ndi cat i ve o f th ese st atem en ts w as the be g inn ing of the S tat e’s c losing arg u m en t: “I d o n ’tk n o w if it ’s
nece s s ary t o addr es s the def ens e’ s cas e ornot . I thi nk you have s een a t extbook vi ol at i on of cl os i ng ar gum entby [ def ens e couns el ] . ” W hi l e thes e and others t at ement s a r e pr ovocat i ve, w e f in d th a t th e y fa ll w ith in th e w id e d isc re tio n g ra n ted to p a rties in c lo sin g a rg u m e n t. S h epp ard , 7 7 7 S o . 2 d a t 6 6 1 . B . P rosecu ti on ’s O b servati on on the V eracit y o f a W i tness. ¶73. T he di s tr i cta t t orney not ed J ones had t es t i f i ed that R os s t ol d he rthatki l l i ng Y ance y “di dn’ tbot herhi m atal l , ” and t ol d t he j ury “I don’tt hi nk i tdi d. ” R os s ar gues thatbol s t er i ng a w i tnes s ’ s cr edi bi l i ty i n thi s mannerw as err or , butci t es no author i ty f orthi s pr i nci pl e. Such sta tem e n ts a re p e rm iss ib le g iv e n th e w id e latitu d e g ra n ted to p a rties in c lo sin g a rg u m e n t. S h epp ard , 7 7 7 S o . 2 d a t 6 6 1 . C . R ef

ere nces t o I nf

orm at i on not i n E vi dence .

### 42

¶ 7 4 . Ro s s a l l e g e s th a tth e S t a t e i mp e r mi s s i b l y i mp l i e d t h a tRo s s h a d b e e n s e e n a tth e c r i me s cene . I n gener al , part i es m ay com m entupon any f act s i ntr oduced i nt o evi dence , and may d ra w w h a te v e r d e d u c tio n s a n d in fe re n c e s th a t s e e m p ro p e r fr o m th e fa c ts . B e ll v. S ta te , 725 S o . 2 d 8 3 6 , 8 5 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ) (co ll ec ti n g a u tho ri ti es). A rgu ing statem en ts of fac t w h ich a re n o t in e v id e n c e o r n e c e ss a rily in fe ra b le f ro m fa c ts in e v id e n c e is e rro r w h e n th o se sta tem e n ts
a re p re ju d ic ia l. B lu e v. S ta te , 6 7 4 S o . 2 d 1 1 8 4 , 1 2 1 4 (M is s . 1 9 9 6 ), over rul ed on other gr ounds , K

in gv. S ta te , 7 8 4 S o . 2 d 8 8 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ); s ee R a n da ll v. S ta te , 806 S o. 2d 185, 2 1 2 -1 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ) (re v e rsin g a n d re m a n d in g fo r n e w trial in d e a th p e n a lty a p p e a l p a rtly beca us e the pr os ecut oratt empt ed t o i nf ergui l tf r om the s udden abs ence of gunpo w der residu e w h en ab sen ce of gu n p o w d er residu e w as n o t i n ev iden ce ); W est , 485 So. 2d at689- 90 ( r ever s i ng a nd r emandi ng f orne w tr i al i n de ath pe nal ty a ppeal pa r t l y be caus e t he pr os ecut or i nappr opr i at el y i m pl i ed i n cl os i ng ar gum entthe def endanthad thr eat ened tee n a g e d w itn e ss e s); A u g u stin e v. S ta te , 201 M i s s . 277, 28 So. 2d 243, 244- 47 (1946) (re v e rsin g a n d re m a n d in g fo r n e w tria l p a rtly b e c a u se th e p ro se c u to r m a d e re fe re n c e s to fa c ts
n o to n th e r e c o r d , i n c l u d i n g , b u tn o tl i mi t e d t o , r e f e r e n c e s t o a g u n u s e d t o c o mmi tth e c r i me w hen ther e w as no evi dence of a gun on the r ecor d) . A n a r gui ng pa r ty m ay notappea l t o a j ur or ’ s pr ej udi ce by i nj ect i ng pr ej udi ces n ot cont ai ned i n s om e s our ce of the evi dence . S h epp ard , 777 So. 2d at661 ( ci t i ng N e l m s & Blum Co. v. Fink , 159 M i s s . 372, 131 So. 817, 8 2 1 (19 3 0 )). ¶ 7 5 . F o rm er T ipp ah C o u n ty S h eriff G a ry M a u n e y tes tif ied th at, the m o rnin g after Y an ce y ’s
m ur der , an uni dent i f

i ed party s om ew her e nea rthe cr i m e s cene s t at ed thatRoss w as ar ound Ya n c e y ’ s r e s i d e n c e th e d a y h e wa s k i l l e d . S h e r i f f M a u n e y wr o t e Ro s s ’ n a me o n a “ c r i me

### 43

s cene s i gn- i n s heet ” use d t o re cor d t he i ndi vi dual s i nt ervi ew ed att he cr i m e sc ene. M auney e mp h a s i z e d , h o we v e r , th a tRo s s wa s n o ta c tu a l l y a tth e c r i me s c e n e wh e n h e wr o t e h i s n a me dow n. T hi s si gn- i n shee tw as notent er ed i nt o evi dence and w as noti dent i f i ed f orthe r ecor d. I n i t s cl os i ng ar gum ent , the St at e f i r s tar gued t hat , base d on M auney’ s not es , R os s had bee n att he cr i m e s cene the day be f or e the murde r . D ef

ens e couns el obj ect ed t o the St at e’ s ar gui ng m att e r s no ti n e vi de nc e , a nd the c ou r ti ns truc t e d the j ury t o d i s r e ga r d the s t a t e ment . Lat er i n it s cl osi ng argum ent, the S t at e agai n m ade ref erence t o the si gn -i n sheet, st at i ng that R oss’
n a m e “ a p p e a re d ” o n th e sh e e t, an d th a t “th a t’s th e first tim e w e h e a r a b o u t C h a rle s R o s s .” N o o b jec tio n w a s m a d e to th e se c o n d sta tem e n t. R o ss a rg u e s th a t th e se sta tem e n ts e rr o n e o u s ly s u g g e s t th a t R o s s w a s p re s e n t a t th e c ri m e s c e n e . ¶ 7 6 . T h is C o u rt h a s re v e rse d a n d re m a n d e d c a se s in w h ich th e p ro se c u to r in a p p ro p ria tely
m ade r ef er ence s i n c l os i ng a r gum entt o s uppos ed i ncons i s t enci es betw een tw o s t at ement s the def endanthad made, one recor ded on t ape a nd one unr ecor ded, beca us e nei thers t at ement
w a s in e v id e n c e . Flo w e rs v. S ta te , 773 So. 2d at329-30. I n t he pr es entcas e, the pr os ecut i on m ade tw o r ef

er ence s t o the cr i m e s cene s i gn -i n s heetand ar guabl y m i s cons trued the
s i gni f i canc e of

the s heetby i ni t i al l y ar gui ng i ti ndi cat ed thats om eone had seen R os s at Y an ce y ’s reside n ce aro u n d the tim e o f th e c ri m e. T h e tri al co u rt ’s i n stru cti o n t o d isr eg ard th e f ir s t s ta te m e n t i s d e e m e d s u ff ic ie n t t o c u re a n y im p e rm is s ib le p re ju d ic e . Se e , e.g. , Wa lker v. St ate , 671 So. 2d 581, 621-622 (Miss. 1995) (cit ing Da visv. St ate , 53 0 So . 2 d at 69 4, 69 7 (M iss . 1988)). Neverthe less, the second reference to the cr ime sign-in sheet was error. Because the second ref ere nc e w as n ot a s p ointed as t hefir st, we de clineto re ve rseon the se grou

nd s. Th e ef

fe ct o f t his

### 44

error o n o ur c on fi de nc e in theoutco m e o f t

his tri al w illbeco ns idered in S ection

XI I. I V. I NEFF ECTI VE ASS I S TANCE O F COUN S EL ¶77. R os s ar gues thatnear l y al l o f hi s i nd epen den tassi gn m ents o f er rorare , i n the
a ltern a tiv e , ev id e n c e o f in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l. T h e tou c h sto n e fo r te stin g a c laim of i nef f ect i venes s of

couns el m us tbe w hethercounse l ' s conductso underm i ned the pr oper f unct i oni ng of

the adve r s ar i al pr oces s thatthe tr i al cannotbe r el i ed on a s havi ng pr oduced
a ju s t r e s u lt. I

rb y v. S ta te , 893 So. 2d 1042, 1049 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng Str i ckland v. W as hington , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 6 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 2 0 5 2 , 2 0 6 4 , 8 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 7 4 (1 9 8 4 )) . ¶78. T he s t andar d of

r evi ew f ora cl ai m of

i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance i nvol ves a tw o- pr onged i nqui ry: the def

endantm us tdemonstr at e thathi s couns el ' s per f orm ance w as def

i ci entand th a t th e d e fi c ie n c y p re ju d ic e d th e d e fe n s e o f t h e c a s e . Id . T o es t abl i s h def i ci ent per f or m ance , a de f

e nd a ntmus ts ho w tha thi s a tt orney’ s r epr es ent at i on f el l bel ow an obj ect i ve s ta n d a rd o f r e a s o n a b le n e s s . D a v is v . S ta te , 897 So. 2d 960, 967 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng W il liam s v. T

aylor , 5 2 9 U. S. 3 6 2 , 3 9 0
- 9 1 , 1 2 0 S. Ct . 1 4 9 5 , 1 4 6 L. Ed . 2 d 3 8 9 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ) . To
es t abl i s h pr ej udi ce, a de f endantmusts how thatther e i s a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i ty that , butf or c o u n s e l' s u n p ro fe s s io n a l e rr o rs , th e re s u lt o f t h e tr ia l w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if fe re n t. Id . A
r eas onable probabi l i ty i s a pr obabi l i ty s uf f i ci entt o underm i ne conf i dence i n the out come. Id . ¶ 7 9 . T h e fo c u s o f th e in q u ir y m u s t b e w h e th e r c o u n s e l' s a s s is ta n c e w a s re a so n a b le
c o n s id e ri n g a ll th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Id . at746 ( ci t i ng Str i c kl and , 4 6 6 U .S . at 6 8 8 ). W e w ill
n o t fin d in e ff

e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e w h e re a d e fe n d a n t’ s u n d e rl y in g c la im is w ith o u t m e ri t. Id . Si m i l ar l y, m ul t i pl e def

aul t s thatdo noti ndepende nt l y cons t i tut e err orw i l l notbe aggr egat ed

### 45

to f in d re v e rs ib le e rr o r. W

a lk e r v . S ta te , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 1 , 2 2 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ). O u r re v iew is h ig h ly d e fe re n tial to the atto rn e y , w ith a stro n g p re su m p tio n tha t th e a tto rn e y ' s c o n d u c t fe ll w ith in th e w id e ra n g e o f r e a s o n a b le p ro fe s s io n a l a s s is ta n c e . Ho w a rdv. S ta te , 853 So. 2d 781, 796 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng H iterv. S ta te , 660 So. 2d 961, 9 65 (M i s s . 1995) ) . H ow ever , an att orney’ s l aps e mustbe vi ew ed i n l i ghtof the natur e and s er i ous nes s of t he char ges and the p o te n tia l p e n a lty . State v. T okm an , 564 So. 2d 1339, 1343 ( M i s s . 1990) ( ci t i ng W as hington v. W at kins , 6 5 5 F . 2 d 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 5 6 -57 (5th C ir . 1 9 8 1 )). A . T ai nt ed V eni re Panel . ¶80. A s not ed i n S ect i on I ( B ) , dur i ng the voi r di r e of pr os pect i ve j ur or s , veni r e mem ber M art i ndal e not ed thats he had t es t i f i ed aga i ns tR os s i n f

eder al c our tand, s epar at el y, thats he had been the vi ct i m of

a cr i m e. D ef

ens e couns el f

ai l ed t o obj ectt o hers t at ement s atthe t i m e, d id n o t h a v e h e r re m o v e d a fte r h e r in iti a l sta tem e n t th a t sh e h a d tes tified a g a in st R o ss , d id
n o t r eq u est a c u rati v e in stru cti o n from the c o u rt , an d d id n o t qu ery the re m ainin g v en ir e m ember s aboutpos s i bl e pr ej udi ce i nduced by t he s t at ementaf t ers he w as r emoved. M a rt in d a le w a s s u b s e q u e n tly s tru c k fo r c a u s e . ¶ 8 1 . D e fe n se c o u n se l u n d o u b ted ly e rre d in fa ili n g to c o n d u c t e v e n a c u rso ry in q u iry in to the id en ti ty o f th e v en ir e m em b ers. R o ss’ co u n se l h a d ac tual k n o w ledg e o f M arti n d ale’s i dent i ty beca us e t es t i m ony dur i ng a pr e- tr i al bond hear i ng s peci f i cal l y not ed thats he had been the v i ct i m of R oss’ pri or arm ed b ank robbery a n d had subsequ entl y tes t i fi ed ag ai nst hi m . Si m i l ar l y, w hi l e def ens e couns el ’ s de ci s i on nott o obj ectt o M art i ndal e’ s f i r s ts t at ement i m m edi at el y af

t ers he made i tm ay w el l have be en s ound tr i al s tr at egy, thei rf ai l ur e t o t ake act i ons t o re m ove M art i ndal e f r om the pane l bef

or e s he made hers econd s t at ementcannot

### 46

b e c o n side red the p rod u ct of rea so n ab le strateg y . Itis true th at ev iden ce o f th e b an k rob b ery w as i ntr oduced i n the s ent enci ng phas e, butthati s i rr el evantt o pr ej udi ce s uf f er ed dur i ng the gui l tphas e, par t i cul ar l y af t ert he se cond s t at ement . T hes e s ubs t ant i al l aps es l i kel y f al l bel ow an obj ect i ve s t and ard of r eas onabl enes s and ther ef or e cons t i tut e err or , butw e ca nnots ay fr o m th e re c o rd th a t R o s s s u ff e re d p re ju d ic e . B . F ai l ure t o L ay N ece s s ary F ound at i on t o I nt roduce t he St at em ent T aken b y H e r b e r t W e lls . ¶82. T he s t at ement gi ven by J ones t o W el l s w as t aken on Sept ember 10, 1997, ni net een days before R oss’ tr i al began. A ttr i al , def ens e couns el ar gued thatthe s t at ementw as f or i m peac hm entpurpos es , ori n the al t ernat i ve, w as w or k produc t , and t her ef or e di d nothave t o be di s cl os ed. W hetheri tw as an omi s s i on ora mi s gui ded tr i al s tr at egy, the deci s i on s ubs t ant i al l y pr ej udi ced Ross be caus e i tpr ecl uded hi m f r om i ntr oduci ng i nt o evi dence the subst anti al i nco nsi st encies betw een Jon es’ st at em ents t o p oli ce and her st at em ent t o W el l s. H ow ev e r , be c a us e w e c a nn ots a y tha tde f e ns e c ou ns e l ’ s f

a i l ur e t o i ntr od uc e the s t a t ement
w a s n o t tr ia l s tr a te g y , w e d o n o t f in d re v e rs ib le e rr o r. C . F a il u re to In v estiga te P o ten ti al M i ti ga ti n g E v ide n ce a n d F a il u re to E f f ect i vel y P res ent R el evant M i t i gat i ng E vi dence at t he P enal t y P hase . ¶8 3. D ur i ng t he s ent enci ng phas e o f the tr i a l , d e f

e ns e c ou ns e l of

f er ed as m i t i gat i ng e v id e n c e th e tes tim o n y o f R o ss ’ m o th e r, g ra n d m o th e r, an d d a u g h ter , a m in iste r a t th e jail
w h e re R o ss h a d b e e n in c a rc e ra ted sin c e h is a rre st, a n d th e sh e riff w h o h a d a rre ste d R o ss in 1989 f orarm ed bank r obbery. R os s al s o t es t i f i ed i n hi s ow n def

ens e. M uch of

the t es t i m ony con cerned the w i tnesses’ op i nions of R o ss’ ch aract er. A subst anti al po rt i on of defense
co u n sel’s ca se fo r m it igation reli ed o n their ch ara cterizati o n that R o ss w as a “ g o o d p ri so n er”

### 47

a n d fu n c tio n e d a p p ro p ria tely in th e p riso n sy ste m . O n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n o f R o ss , the S tate chal l enged thi s char act er i zat i on, not i ng thatR os s had bee n m oved f r om a county j ai l t o a hi ghers ecur i ty f

aci l i ty f orpos s es s i on of

a hacks aw a nd a t t empt i ng t o es cape and thathe had been pu nis hed in fe d eral pri son for m aking al coh oli c bev erages i n h i s cel l . D uri ng R oss’
com petency h eari ng pen ding app eal , defense cou nsel con fes sed that they w er e s tunned w hen R o s s a d m itte d m a k in g a lc o h o lic b e v e ra g e s in p ri s o n a n d “ a b o u t f e ll th ro u g h [th e ir ] se a ts .” R os s al s o ar gues hi s at t orney w as i nef f ect i ve f orfa i l i ng t o conductan adequa t e i nves t i gat i on in to p o ten tially m itig a tin g fa c to rs s u c h a s R o ss ’ p sy c h o lo g ica l p ro b lem s a n d fo r fa ili n g to o b ta in a n e x p e rt to te s tif y to th e s e fa c to rs . ¶84. W hi l e court s m us tdef ert o l aw yer s ’ j udgm ent s and s tr at egi es , “ata mi ni m um , couns el h a s a d u ty to in ter v iew p o ten tial w itn e ss e s a n d to m a k e in d e p e n d e n t in v e stig a tio n o f th e fa c ts and ci r cumst ance s of

the ca s e. ” Fe rg u so n v. S ta te , 507 So. 2d 94, 96 ( M i s s . 1987) . U nder thi s st andar d, counse l m ay be de emed i nef f ect i ve f orr el yi ng al m os texcl us i vel y on m at er i al fu rn is h e d b y th e S ta te d u ri n g d is c o v e ry a n d c o n d u c tin g n o in d e p e n d e n t in v e s tig a tio n . Id . W hi l e couns el i s notr equi r ed t o exhaus te very c oncei vabl e avenue of i nves t i gat i on, he ors he
m us ta tl eas tc onducts uf f i ci enti nves t i gat i on t o m ake a n i nf or m ed eva l uat i on aboutpot ent i al d e fe n s e s . State v. T

okm an , 56 4 S o. 2d at13 43 . U nd er Str i c kl and , co u n se l h a s a d u ty “ to
m ake r eas onabl e invest i gat i ons ort o m ake a r eas onabl e dec i s i on thatm akes part i cul ar i nves t i gat i ons unnece s s ary. ” Str i c kl and , 466 U . S. at691. ¶8 5 . O u r sta te c a se law h a s n o t ex ten siv e ly a d d re ss e d w h a t co n stitu tes a d e q u a te in v e s tig a tio n in to m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See , e. g. , B ro w n v. S ta te , 749 So. 2d 82, 90- 91 ( M i s s . 1999) ( def

endantent i t l ed t o hear i ng on i nef f ect i ve as s i s t ance w her e def ens e couns el

### 48

had a psyc hol ogi cal eval uat i on admi ni s t er ed butf ai l ed t o s ubm i ta mi t i gat i on r eporton the
e v a lu a tio n ); Fo ste r v . S ta te , 6 8 7 S o . 2 d 1 1 2 4 , 1 1 3 1 -32 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ) (de cisi o n n o t t o i nv est i gate pot enti al l y m i t i gati ng psych ologi cal fact ors w as r easona ble and str at egi c because
a p re lim in a ry c o m p e ten c y h e a rin g fo u n d tha t de fe n d a n t ha d n o p sy c h o tic d iso rd e r o r o rg a n ic
m e n tal d iso rd e r); L a dn e r v . S ta te , 584 So. 2d 743, 757 ( M i s s . 1991) ( couns el noti nef f ect i ve w her e court - appoi nt ed ps ychol ogi s tperf ormed compre hens i ve eva l uat i on and f ound no
m itig a to rs ). ¶86. I n s uch ca s es , the j ur i s prudence f r om otherj ur i s di ct i ons pr oves us ef ul . For exampl e, w her e def

ens e couns el has s oughtand ac qui r ed a ps ychol ogi cal eval uat i on of the def endant form i t i gati on pu rposes, cou nsel gen eral l y w i l l not be held i neff ect i ve forf

ai l ure t o reque st
a d d itio n a l te s tin g . Moor e v. P arker , 4 2 5 F .3 d 2 5 0 , 2 5 4 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); H al l v. U nited States , 2004 U . S. D i s t . L E X I S 17089, *73 ( D . T ex. 2004) . Si m i l ar l y, def ens e couns el cannot be hel d i nef

f ect i ve f orf ai l i ng t o di s covera mi t i gat i ng f act or , s uch as or gani c br ai n damage, th a t th e d e fe n d a n t c a n n o t s h o w e x is ts in a n y p o s t t ri a l m o tio n . T h o m p so n v. B e ll , 315 F. 3d 5 6 6 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). ¶87. I n eac h of

thes e ca s es , counsel w i l l n ot be d eem ed i neff ect i ve i f ther e i s pr oof of i nv est i gati on o r i f there i s no factual basi s forthe de fendan t ’s clai m . H ow ever, each of these pr i nci pl es pr es uppos e a cert ai n l evel of i nves t i gat i on. B y c ontr as t , “ s tr at egi c choi ces m ade
a fte r le ss th a n c o m p lete in v e stig a tio n w ill n o t p a ss m u ste r a s a n e x c u s e w h e n a fu ll i nv e s t i ga t i on w ou l d h a ve r e ve a l e d a l a r ge bo dy of mi t i ga t i ng e vi de nce. ” D i ckers on v. B agley , 4 5 3 F .3 d 6 9 0 , 6 9 6 -6 9 7 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). “ It is n o t re a so n a b le to re fu se to in v e stig a te
w hen the i nves t i gat ordoe s notknow the r el evantf act s the i nves t i gat i on w i l l uncover . ” I d.

### 49

I n the pr es entc as e, Ross undoubt edl y a l l eges f act s w hi ch demonstr at e a need t o devel op m iti g a tin g e v id e n c e b a se d o n p o ten tial p sy c h o lo g ica l p ro b lem s. T h e M iss iss ip p i S tate H os pi t al atW hi t f

i el d conduct ed a ps ychol ogi cal eval uat i on of R os s and di s cover ed a number
o f p o ten tial m iti g a tin g fa c to rs, in c lu d in g a c c o u n ts o f p h y s ic a l a n d se x u a l ab u se , p o ss ib le al cohol i s m , acc ount s of vi s ual and audi t ory hal l uci nat i ons , and the deaths of hi s ex- w i f

e and f ouryoung c hi l dr en i n a c ara cci denti n 1985 and the brut al murde rof hi s s i s t eri n 1982. T he
su p p lem e n tal re c o rd a lso re v e a ls th a t, at th e tim e o f h is e x a m in a tio n , R o ss w a s ta k in g a n tip sy c h o tic m e d ica tio n a n d m e d ica tio n fo r d e p re ss io n . W h ile R o ss te stifie d to th e d e a th o f h is f ami l y, phys i cal abus e as a c hi l d, a nd hi s dr i nki ng pr obl ems, a nd hi s mot hert es t i f i ed t o the
m ur derof

hi s s i s t er , def

ens e couns el pr ovi ded no exper tevi dence abouthow thes e eve nt s had af f ect ed R os s ps ychol ogi cal l y. T he r ecor d pr ovi des no evi dence thatdef ens e couns el knew aboutR os s ’ hal l uci nat i ons orthe ci r cumst ance s w hi ch w oul d eventual l y l ead t o hi s t aki ng m edi cat i ons f

orps ychol ogi cal di s or der s . W hen as ked w hy he di d nottry t o devel op thi s l i ne of m i t i gat i on evi dence forhi s cl i ent , R os s ’ def ens e couns el s t at ed thatR os s m ai nt ai ned he
w as n’ t“cr azy. ” D ef

ens e couns el ’ s f

ai l ure t o i nves t i gat e beyond thi s s i ngl e dec l ar at i on cannotbe cons i der ed r eas onabl e gi ven the s er i ous m i t i gat i ng i s s ues evi denti n the pos t - tr i al
c o m p e te n c y h e a ri n g . ¶ 8 8 . F a r m o re p ro b lem a tic w a s d e fe n se c o u n se l’s a p p a re n t fa ilu re to p ro p e rly in v e stig a te R os s ’ r ecor d as an i nm at e. D efense couns el as s ert ed i n openi ng s t at ement s thatR os s had b e e n a “ g o o d p riso n e r” sin c e h is a rre st, b u t p u t o n o n ly th e m o st s u p e rfic ial e v id e n c e o f th is fa c t. In d o in g so , the y o p e n e d the d o o r fo r th e S tate to in tro d u c e R o ss ’ p re v io u s b a d a c ts in to evi dence . T hi s f

ai l ur e f al l s below an obj ect i ve s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s and w as

### 50

u n d o u b ted ly h ig h ly p re

ju d icia l, as it t e n d e d to c a st R o ss a s u n re p e n tan t, a h a b itu a l cr im in a l,
an d a d an g er to so ciety. G iven the s ev erity o f th e c h a rg e a g ains t R o ss, defe n se c o u n sel’s f ai l ur e t o i nv e s t i ga t e Ros s ps yc ho l og i c a l pr ob l e ms a nd hi s di s c i pl i na ry r e c or d i n p r i s on s ubs t ant i al l y underm i nes ourf ai th i n R os s ’ s ent ence , and ther ef or e cons t i tut es i nef

f ect i ve a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l f o r t h e s e n te n c in g p h a s e o f t h e tr ia l. D a v is , 897 So. 2d at967; T okm an , 564 So. 2d at1343. V. CO M P E T E NC Y H E AR I NG ¶89. O n appea l , R os s cl ai m s that the compet ency hear i ng conduct ed by the tr i al courtand app roved b y thi s C ou rtw as defi ci ent i n thr ee res pects : fi rs t , forplaci ng the b urden o n R oss of pr ovi ng hi s l ack of

com pet ency by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence ; s econd, f orthe tr i al
court ’ s deni al of

R os s ’ m ot i on f

ora cont i nuance t o cons i derthe t es t i m ony of the exa m i ni ng phys i ci an; and thi r d, f orthe tr i al court ’s fai l ure t o addr es s R os s ’ m ot i on t o r et ai n an i nd epen den texp ertt o ex am i ne R oss. ¶90. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tr ecogni zes thatthe al l ocat i on of the bur den of pr oof i n co m petency h eari ng s i n cri m i nal tri al s l i es squa rel y w i thin t he d i scr et i on of st at e cou rt s, and s peci f

i cal l y thatthe al l ocat i on of the bur den of

pr oof t o the def

endantdoes notof

f end d u e p ro c e s s . Me din a v. Ca lifo rn ia , 5 0 5 U. S. 4 3 7 , 4 4 9
- 5 2 ; 1 1 2 S . Ct . 2 5 7 2 , 2 5 7 9
- 8 1 ; 1 2 0 L. E d. 2d 353, 366- 68 ( 1992) . W her e ther e i s a s er i ous que s t i on a boutthe s ani ty orcompet ency of a def endantt o st and t r i al , “i tnatur al l y devol ves upon the def endantt o go f

orw ar d w i th the evi dence t o s how hi s pr obabl e i ncapa ci ty t o m ake a r at i onal def ens e. ” E m a n u e l v. S ta te , 412 S o . 2 d 1 1 8 7 , 1 1 8 9 (M iss . 1 9 8 2 ); s ee als o E v a n s v . S ta te , 7 2 5 S o . 2 d 6 1 3 , 6 6 0 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 ). T h e d e fe n d a n t m u st sh o w inc o m p e ten c y b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e ev id e n c e . G r i f f in v.

### 51

S ta te , 504 So. 2d 186, 191 ( M i s s . 1987). T he t r i al cour tt her ef or e di d noterri n pl aci ng the bu rden of proof on R oss. ¶91. Si m i l ar l y, the dec i s i on t o gr antordeny a m ot i on fora cont i nuance i s w i thi n the s ound dis cret i on of the tr i al cou rtand w i l l no tbe reversed un l ess the d eci sion res u lt s in m anif est in ju s tic e . See , e. g. , Cox v. S ta te , 8 4 9 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 7 , 1 2 6 7 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ). A fte r c o n d u c tin g h is exami na t i on o f

the p s yc ho l og i s twho e xa mi ne d Ros s , Ros s ’ a pp e l l a t e c ou ns e l r e ne w ed a pr evi ous l y off

- the- r ecor d m ot i on fora cont i nuance t o r evi ew m at er i al thathe mai nt ai ned had onl y been made ava i l abl e t o hi m the day of the hear i ng. T he tr i al c our tf ound thatw i tnes s es h a d b e e n c a lled u p fro m the M iss iss ip p i S tate H o sp ital an d tha t th e ca se w o u ld n o t b e w e ll
served by hav i ng the w i tnesses m ake repeat ed t ri ps. T he record do es not r efl ectthat R oss’ appel l at e couns el w as unf ami l i arw i th the eva l uat i on r es ul t s orthathe w as una bl e deve l op h is c a se th ro u g h th e e x a m in a tio n o f w itn e ss e s. T h e trial c o u rt’s d e ter m in a tio n w a s w ith in its d is c re tio n . ¶9 2. Fi nal l y, R os s al l eges t hatt he t r i a l c ou r t ’ s f a i l ur e t o a dd r e s s hi s m ot i on f or an i ndepende ntexpertcons t i tut ed r ever s i bl e err or . H ow ever , the r ecor d r evea l s thatthe tr i al
c o u rt w a s a m e n a b le to h e a rin g R o ss ’ m o tio n a t a n a p p ro p ria te tim e . T h e re is n o e v id e n c e in the r ecor d thatR os s f

ur therpur s ued hi s m ot i on. A def endanthas the obl i gat i on t o s ecur e a rul i ng on hi s m ot i on foran i ndepende ntexper t , and fa i l ur e t o do s o const i tut es a pr ocedur al b a r. B e rr

y v. S ta te , 728 So. 2d 568, 570 ( M i s s . 1999) ( “I ti s the r es pons i bi l i ty of the movant t o o btai n a rul i ng fr om the co urton m oti on s f i l ed b y h i m and fai l ure t o d o so co nst i tutes a w a iv e r o f sa m e .”). E v e n if R o ss w e re n o t p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d , a d e fe n d a n t is n o t en tit led to
a fav o ra b le m e n tal h e a lth ev a lu a tio n , b u t o n ly to a c o m p e ten t p sy c h iatris t an d a n a p p ro p ria te

### 52

e x a m in a tio n . J

o rda n v. S ta te , 91 2 S o . 2d 80 0 , 81 8 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ); B y ro m v. S ta te , 863 So. 2d 836, 852 ( M i s s . 2003) . T he tr i al courtcannotbe f aul t ed f orf ai l i ng to rul e on a mot i on n e v e r f o rm a lly b e fo re it. T h is a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r i s w ith o u t m e ri t. V I. AT

KINS HE AR I NG ¶93. I n A tk in s v . V

irg in ia , 536 U . S . 30 4, t he U nit ed St at es Supr eme C our t hel d thatthe
exec ut i on of

ment al l y r et ar ded i nm at es amount ed t o cruel and unus ual puni s hm entand w as th e re fo re p ro h ib ited b y the E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. R o ss arg u e s th a t in lig h t o f th is d e c isio n h is
se n ten c e m u st b e v a c a ted a n d h is c a se re m a n d e d to th e trial c o u rt fo r a n e v a lu a tio n o f h is
m e nt a l c a pa c i ty. Ros s mai nt a i ns tha ta l tho ug h he was g i ve n bo th a n I . Q . t es tand a personal i ty i nd ex b y the M i ssi ssi pp i S t at e H ospit al , tho se t est s w ere adm i nis t ered t o est abli sh h is c o m p e ten c y to a ss ist in h is a p p e a l an d d id n o t co n c lu siv e ly d e te rm in e w h e th e r h e is
m e n ta lly re ta rd e d . ¶94. T he re cor d r ef

l ect s that w hi l e R os s ’ s cor es on hi s I . Q . t es t w er e w i thi n the ra nge of
m ent al l y r et ar ded, the hos pi t al ’ s ps ychol ogi s ttes t i fi ed thati n heropi ni on R os s w as m al i ng eri ng and that he w as not actuall y m ental l y ret arded. T he ex am i ning psyc ho l og i stal so sta ted th a t th e M iss iss ip p i S ta te H o sp ital h a d a d m in iste re d th e M in n e so ta M u lti p h a sic P e rso n a lity In v e n to ry , o r M M P I, to R o ss . T h e e x a m in in g p sy c h o lo g isto p ined that th e re su lts
o f th e M M P I w e re in v a lid b e c a u se R o ss in ten tio n a lly m a lin g e re d o n th e tes t b y ra n d o m ly ch o o sing an sw ers. R o ss i m p li cit ly arg u es tha t b o th fi n d ing s are b eli ed b y the p sy ch o log ist ’s tes tim o n y a t th e c o m p e ten c y h e a rin g , w h e re sh e a d m itt e d th a t R o ss h a d d iff ic u lty under s t andi ng the i m pl i cat i ons of hi s tr i al and s ent ence .

### 53

¶95. A def

endantw i l l notbe dee m ed m ental l y ret arded forthe pu rpose s of the E i ght A m endmentunl es s “s uch def endantprodu ces, ata mi ni m um , an expe r tw ho expr es s es an opi ni on, t o a r eas onabl e degr ee of cert ai nty, that : 1. the def endanti s m ent al l y r et ar ded, as that t erm i s def

i ned by the A m er i can A ss oci at i on on M ent al R et ar dat i on and/ orT he A m er i can P sy ch iatri c A sso ciati o n ; 2. th e d efe n d an t has co m p let ed the M inn eso ta M u lt ip h a sic Per s onal i ty I nvent ory- I I ( M M PI - I I ) and/ orothers i m i l art es t s , and t he defendanti s not
m al i nger i ng. ” L

y n c h v. S ta te , 2007 M i s s . L E X I S 3 4, 17-18 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng Chase v. S ta te , 873 So. 2d 1013, 1029 ( M i s s . 2004)) . W hen t hes e t es t s al r eady ha ve bee n admi ni s t er ed and the r es ul t s ar e cl earf r om the r ecor d, r e- f

i l i ng an af

f i davi ti s unnece s s ary. S c o tt v. S ta te , 878 So. 2d 933, 948 ( M i s s . 2004) . I n the pr es entcas e, the t es t i m ony f r om the S tate ’s p sy c h o lo g ist in d ica tes th a t R o ss w a s m a lin g e rin g a n d th a t h is fu n c tio n in g d id n o t fa ll
w i thi n the r ange of

m ent al l y r et ar ded. B ecause R os s has f ai l ed t o pr of

f erthe i nf or m at i on nece s s ary t o w arr antan A t kins hear i ng, he i s note nt i t l ed t o a r econs i der at i on of hi s s ent ence o n th is is s u e . Hu g h e s v . S ta te , 892 So. 2d 203, 216 ( M i s s . 2004) . T hi s as s i gnm entof err or is w ith o u t m e rit. VI I . J URY I NS TR UCT I ONS ¶9 6 . R o ss m aintains th at th e tr ial co u rterred i n refu sin g th e fo llo w in g p ro p o se d jury i ns truct i ons dur i ng the gui l tpha s e of hi s tr i al : 1- A , 2, 3, a nd 4. H e al s o ar gues thatthe tr i al
courterr ed i n gr ant i ng the St at e’ s Sent enci ng I ns truct i on S- 1 and i n denyi ng hi s s ent enci ng p h a s e in s tru c tio n s 2 , 3 , 4 , 1 2 , a n d 1 3 . A . C u l p ab i l i ty P h ase Instructi on s. 1. N um ber4, di r ected ve r di ct i ns tr uct i on .

### 54

¶9 7 . R o ss arg u es that the ev iden ce p rese n ted b y the S tat e w as insu ffi cien t to su p p o rth is
con vict i on of capi t al m urder, and that, as a r esul t , the tr i al cou rte rred in ref usi ng R oss’ p ro p o s e d in s tru c tio n to th e ju ry fo r a d ir e c te d v e rd ic t o f n o t g u ilty . ¶98. W her e a def

endant has r eques t ed a per empt ory i ns truct i on i n a cr i m i nal cas e oraf t er c o n v ictio n m o v e d fo r ju d g m e n t n o tw ith sta n d in g th e v e rd ict, th e trial ju d g e m u st c o n sid e r a ll th e e v id e n c e , n o t ju st th e e v id e n c e w h ich su p p o rts th e S tate ' s c a se , in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e S ta te . Ho w a rdv. S ta te , 853 So. 2d 781, 788 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng G a v in v. S ta te , 473 So. 2d 952, 956 ( M i s s . 1985) ) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . T he evi dence w hi ch s uppor t s the ca s e of th e S tate m u st b e tak e n a s tru e , an d th e S tate m u st b e g iv e n th e b e n e fit o f a ll fav o ra b le in fe re n c e s th a t m a y r e a s o n a b ly b e d ra w n fr o m th e e v id e n c e . Id . I f ther e i s evi dence of

s uch qual i ty and w ei ghtthatr eas onabl e, f ai r - m i nded men i n the exe r ci se of i m part i al j udgm ent
m ig h t r e a c h d if

fe re n t c o n c lu s io n s , th e n th e re q u e s t o r m o tio n s h o u ld b e d e n ie d . Id . ¶99. I n R os s ’ cas e, ther e w as s uf f i ci ent evi dence , both ci r cumst ant i al and i n t he for m of J ones ’ t es t i m ony, f

ora r eas onabl e j ury t o f

i nd thatR os s m ur der ed Y ance y i n the comm i s s i on of a r obbery. The s t ol en goods w er e f ound i n a r es i dence w her e R os s ha d s t ayed the ni ght of the murde r . A cars i m i l art o R os s ’ had been se en and hea r d nearY ance y’ s r es i dence the nightof the m urder. Jones t est i fi ed thatR oss adm i t t ed to ki l l i ng Y ancey . R oss had a ccess to a p isto l o f th e s a m e c a lib e r a s th e fire a rm th a t k ill e d Y a n c e y . In lig h t o f th is e v id e n c e , it
w a s n o t er ro r fo r th e trial c o u rt to d e n y R o ss ’ p ro p o se d in stru c tio n fo r a d ire c ted v e rd ict.

2. N um ber1-A , ci r cum s tant i alevi dence i ns tr uct i on . ¶10 0. R oss al so argues that the tri al cou rt err ed i n ref usi ng t o i nst ruct the j ury that the case agai ns tR os s w as bas ed ent i r el y on ci r cumst ant i al evi dence . W hen al l o f t he evi dence

### 55

tend ing to p rov e the g u il t of a d efe n d an t i s circu m stan ti al, the trial c o u rtm u st gran t a j u ry in stru c tio n th a t ev e ry re a so n a b le h y p o th e sis o th e r th a n g u iltm u st b e e x c lu d e d in o rd e r to c o n v ic t. Ma n n in gv. S ta te , 735 So. 2d 323, 338 ( M i s s . 1999) ( ci t i ng G ive n s v . S ta te , 618 So. 2d 1313, 1318 ( M i s s . 1993) ) . C i r cumst ant i al evi dence i s evi dence w hi ch, w i thoutgoi ng di r ect l y to prov e the exi s t ence of a f act , gi ves r i s e t o l ogi cal i nf er ence thats uch f

actdoes
e x is t. Id . If d ire c t ev id e n c e is b e fo re th e ju ry , the n a c irc u m sta n tial e v id e n c e in stru c tio n is in a p p ro p ri a te . L adner v. S ta te , 584 S o. 2 d 74 3, 750 ( M i s s . 1991) . D i r ectevi dence m ay cons i s tof

a conf es s i on by the def

endant , i ncl udi ng a def

endant ' s admi s s i on t o a pe r s on other th a n a la w e n fo rc e m e n t o ff ic e r. Id . ¶101. R os s concedes thatJon es’ t es t i m ony r egar di ng R os s ’ s t at ement s t o her cons t i tut es di r ectt es t i m ony, butar gues thatJ ones ’ t es t i m ony w as s o thor oughl y di s cr edit ed by other evi den c e tha ti t s wei gh twas n e gl i gi bl e . The r e f or e , h e a r gu e s , the j ury s ho ul d have
cons i der ed R os s ’ case t o be bas ed on ci r cumst ant i al evi dence . H ow ever , i s s ues r egar di ng w e ig h t a n d c re d ib ility o f th e e v id e n c e a re fo r th e ju ry to re s o lv e . Hu g h e s v . S ta te , 735 So. 2d 238, 276 ( M i s s . 1999) . T he tr i al courtdi d noter ri n re f us i ng t o t r eatR os s ’ cas e as a de f act o ci r cumst ant i al
- evi dence cas e.

3. N um bers 2 and 3, i ns tr uct i ons def i ni ng r eas onabl e doubt . ¶102. R os s ar gues thatthe tr i al courterr ed i n r ef us i ng hi s pr opos ed j ury i ns truct i on no. 2,
w h ich d e fin e d re a so n a b le d o u b t, an d p ro p o se d ju ry in stru c tio n 3 , w h ich sta ted th a t all
r eas onabl e doubt s m us tbe r es ol ved i n f avorof the def endant . H e cont ends thatthe r ef us al
o f th ese instruction s co n sti tuted rev ersible e rror b ec au se the tri al co u rtfail ed to o ffer th e jury

### 56

any i ns truct i on r egar di ng r eas onabl e doubt . R os s ’ cl ai m i s nots upport ed by the r ecor d. T he tr i al courtgr ant ed j ury i ns truct i on N um ber1, w hi ch r ead: T he l aw pr es um es every per s on char ged w i th the comm i s s i on of a cr i m e t o be i nnocent . T hi s pr es um pt i on pl aces u po n the St at e the bur den of pr ovi ng the d e fe n d a n t g u ilty o f e v e ry m a te ri a l e lem e n t o f th e c rim e w ith w h ich h e is c h a rg e d . B ef

or e you c an r etur n a verdi ct of gui l t , the Stat e m us tpr ove to you beyond a r eas onabl e doubt thatthe def

end antis gui l t

y. The pr es um

pt i on of i nn ocen ce attend

s the defenda nt throu gh ou tthe tr i al and p revai l s ati t s cl ose unl es s over com e by e vi dence w hi ch s at is f i es the j ur

y of his gui l tbeyond a re a so n a b le d o u b t. T h e d e fe n d a n t is n o t r e q u ir e d to p ro v e h is in n o c e n c e . (E m p h asis ad d ed ). T h e C o u rtalso g ran ted th e S tat e’s fir st i n stru cti o n o n ca p it al m u rde r, w hi ch r ead: If th e S tat e o f M issi ssip p i h a s fail ed to prove a ny o ne o r m ore of these e lem e n ts b e

y o n da r e a so n a b le d o u b t, th e n y o u sh a ll f in d th e d e fen da n t, C har l es W

ayne Ross , notgui l t

y of capi talm ur deri n the death of H er s hel R ay Y a n c e y . (E m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶103. W her e a j ury i s adequa t el y i ns truct ed on reas onabl e doubt , i t i s not r ever s i bl e err or fo r th e c o u rt to re fu s e to g iv e a d e fe n s e in s tru c tio n o n it. Ho w a rdv. S ta te , 853 So. 2d 781, 791 ( M i s s . 2003) ( ci t i ng Ho llo w a y v. S ta te , 809 So. 2d 598, 606 ( M i s s . 2000)) . I ns truct i ons near l y i dent i cal t o R os s ’ pr opos ed i ns truct i ons have be en pr oper l y excl uded w her e exi s t i ng in s tru c tio n s a d e q u a te ly a d d re s s th e p re s u m p tio n o f i n n o c e n c e a n d re a s o n a b le d o u b t. See Ma rtin v. S ta te , 854 So. 2d 1004, 1009- 10 ( M i s s . 2003) ( addr es s i ng the def i ni t i on of
re a so n a b le d o u b t); W

ill ia m s v . S ta te , 667 So. 2d 15, 2 4 (M i ss. 1996) ( addr es s i ng the
r es ol ut i on of

r eas onabl e doubt ) . Becaus e R os s ’ pr opos ed i ns truct i ons on r eas onabl e doubt had bee n a dequat el y a ddr es s ed by otherj ury i ns truct i ons , thi s a s s i gnm entof e rr ori s w i thout
m e ri t.

### 57

B. Se nt e nc i ng Phas e I ns t r uc t i ons . 1. S en tenc inginstruc ti o n N u m b er S -1 . ¶ 1 0 4 . T h e fi rs t se n ten c in g in stru c tio n , o ffe re d b y th e S tate a n d a d o p ted b y th e trial c o u rt, i ncl uded as one of

the s t atut ory aggr avat or s t o be cons i der ed by the j ury that“the capi t al off ense w as com m i t t ed forthe pu rpose o f avoidi ng o r preventi ng a l aw ful arr est . ” D efense
co u n sel objected t o th e inc lusion of th is ag g rav ator in th e instruc ti o n on th ree ba ses : first, th a t th e re w a s in su ffic ien t ev id e n c e to s h o w th a t R o ss h a d m u rd e re d Y a n c e y in o rd e r to a v o id
arr es tf orthe r obbery; s econd, thatthe us e of thi s aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance had notbeen d isc lo se d to R o ss in th e ind ictm e n t; a n d third , th a t th e ag g ra v a to r co u ld n o t be u se d a s b o th
a “ c a p ita liz in g ” o ff

e n s e a n d a n a g g ra v a to r i n d e te rm in in g R o s s ’ s e n te n c e . ¶ 1 0 5 . A n in stru c tio n d e tailin g th e a g g ra v a to r o f “ a v o id in g law fu l a rre st” m a y b e g ra n ted if ther e i s evi dence f

r om w hi ch a j ury m ay reas onabl y i nf erthata s ubs t ant i al r eas on f orthe k ill in g w a s e ith e r to c o n c e a l th e id e n tity o f th e k ill e r o r to “ c o v e r th e ir tra c k s” so a s to a v o id
a p p re h e n s io n a n d e v e n tu a l a rr e s t b y a u th o ri tie s . Mitch e ll v. S ta te , 792 So . 2 d 192, 219 ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng Ma n n in gv. S ta te , 73 5 S o. 2d 32 3, 35 0 (M i ss. 19 99 )) . B ecause R oss knew Y ance y per s onal l y, i tw as r eas onabl e f ora j ury t o concl ude t hatY ance y w as m ur der ed t o conce al ei therthe i dent i ty of the ki l l eror t o avoi d i nves t i gat i on f orthe r obbery. T he tr i al
courtcomm i t t ed no err ori n fi nd i ng thatther e w as a s uf f i ci entevi dent i ary bas i s f orthe in s tru c tio n . ¶106. R os s ’ ar gum ent that the St at e err ed i n f ai l i ng t o s t at e the aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s to b e u sed in the sen tenc ing p h ase is sim il arly u n av ail ing . M issi ssipp i l aw d o es n o t r eq u ir e th e a g g ra v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s to b e s e t f o rt h in th e in d ic tm e n t. See B e n n e tt v. S ta te , 933 So.

### 58

2 d 9 3 0 , 9 5 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ); S m ith v . S ta te , 7 2 9 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 1 , 1 2 2 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 ); Sm it h v. S ta te , 72 4 S o . 2d 28 0 , 29 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ); In r e Jor dan , 3 9 0 S o . 2 d 5 8 4 , 5 8 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 0 ). R at her, an indi ctm entf orcapi t al m ur derput s a def endanton not i ce of

the aggr avat i ng c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t m a y b e u s e d a g a in s t h im . B e n n e tt , 9 3 3 S o . 2 d a t 9 5 2 ; W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 445 So. 2d 798, 804- 05 ( M i s s . 1984) . T he St at e’ s f ai l ur e t o l i s tthe aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s i n the i ndi ctm entw as ther ef or e no bart o thei rb ei ng empl oyed i n the
s ent enci ng phase of t he t ri al . Fi nal l y, thi s C our thas r epea t edl y hel d thatevi dence of the under l yi ng c r i m e can pr oper l y be us ed both t o el evat e the cr i m e t o capi t al m ur derand as an a g g ra v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e . See B e n n e tt , 9 3 3 S o . 2 d a t 9 5 4 ; G o o din v. S ta te , 787 So. 2d 639, 6 5 4 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ); Sm ith , 7 2 9 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 2 3 ; B e ll v. S ta te , 7 2 5 S o . 2 d 8 3 6 , 8 5 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ); Cr a w fo r dv . S ta te , 7 1 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 8 , 1 0 4 9
- 5 0 ( M i s s . 1 9 9 8 ) . Th e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C our thas al s o hel d thatthe us e of a n unde r l yi ng f

el ony as an aggr avat ordoes notof f end the C o n s titu tio n . Lowenf

ie ld v. P hel

ps , 484 U . S. 231, 233, 108 S. C t . 546, 98 L . E d. 2d 568 ( 1988) . C ons equent l y, ther e w as no err ori n gr ant i ng s ent enci ng i ns truct i on S- 1.

2. D eni alof

R os s ’P r opos ed Sentenci ng I ns tr uct i ons . a. Pr opos ed s ent enci ng i ns truct i on N um ber2 – s t atut ory and nons t atut ory m i t i gat i on. ¶107. R os s m ai nt ai ns that the t r i al court err ed i n r ef us i ng hi s s econd pr opos ed s ent enci ng i ns truct i on, w hi ch s etoutel ement s of the cr i m e thatthe St at e had t o pr ove, a l i s tof the aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s the St at e w oul d att empt t o s how , and a l i s tof tw enty- fournonsta tu to ry m iti g a to rs, p re se n ted a s illu stra tio n s o f th e typ e o f in fo rm a tio n th a t th e ju ry c o u ld

### 59

c o n sid e r m iti g a tin g c irc u m s ta n c e s. T h e c ru x o f R o ss ’ c o n ten tio n is th a t th e re fu sa l o f th is instruction im p erm issi b ly restri cted the m it igation ev iden ce the ju ry c o u ld co n side r. ¶10 8. S pecif

i c i nst ruct i on s on no n-st atutory m i t i gati ng cir cum st ances need no tbe g i ven , so l ong as a “c at ch- al l ” i ns truct i on i s i ncl uded thati ns truct s the j ury thatthey may cons i derany fa c to rs th a t th e y m a y d e e m m itig a tin g in th e ird e lib e ra tio n s . See , e. g. , Ma n n in gv. S ta te , 735 So. 2d 323, 352 ( M i s s . 1999) . T hi s C our thas al s o hel d t hat“ca t ch- al l ” i ns truct i ons do not lim it th e ju ry ’s c o n s id e ra tio n o f m itig a tin g fa c to rs . S im m o n s v . S ta te , 805 So. 2d 352, 499 ( M i s s . 2001) . U nderthe l i sto f st atut ory m i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s i n the f i r s ts ent enci ng instruction , the tri al co u rtinstructed the ju ry th at th ey m ay co n side r: A ny othermat t er , a ny othera s pectof the def endant ’ s c har act erorr ecor d, and a n y o th e r c irc u m sta n c e o f th e o ffe n se b ro u g h t to y o u d u rin g th e trial o f th is c a u se w h ich y o u , the ju ry , d e e m to b e m iti g a tin g o n b e h a lf o f th e d e fe n d a n t. T he i ns truct i on pr oper l y i nf or m s the j ury a boutw hatmay be cons i der ed as m i t i gat i on evi dence . T her ef

or e, the tr i al court ’ s r ef us al of R os s ’ pr opos ed i ns truct i on does not co n sti tute erro r. b. Pr opos ed s ent enci ng i ns truct i on N um ber3 – convi ct i on i s not it self an ag g rav ator. ¶109. R os s ar gues thatthe tr i al c our te rr ed i n r ef us i ng hi s thi r d s ent enci ng i ns truct i on, w hi ch sta ted th a t th e fa c t o f h is c o n v ictio n o f c a p ital m u rd e r w a s n o t it se lf a n ag g ra v a to r th a t co u ld b e c o n sid e re d fo r th e p u rp o se o f p u n ish m e n t. H o w e v e r, w h e n a jur y h a s b e e n ins tru c ted to co n side r on ly an en u m era ted listo f st atuto ry a g g rav ati n g fac tors, there is no n ee d for a
s e p a ra te in s tru c tio n to th is e ff e c t. See , e. g. , W

a lk e r v . S ta te , 91 3 S o. 2d 19 8, 24 8 (M i ss.

### 60

2 0 0 5 ); E dw a rds v . S ta te , 737 So. 2d 275, 317 ( M i s s . 1999) . T her e w as no err ori n r ef us i ng R os s ’ thi r d pr opos ed s ent enci ng i ns truct i on.

c . P ro p o s e d s e n te n c in g in s tru c tio n N u m b e r 4 – R e s id u a l d o u b t. ¶110. R os s cont ends thatthe tr i al courterr ed i n r efusi ng h i s four th pr opos ed s ent enci ng in stru c tio n , w h ich in stru c ted ju ro rs to c o n sid e r a s a m iti g a tin g c irc u m sta n c e th e p o ss ib ili ty o f residu al do u b t abo u t R o ss’ g u il t. B o th th e U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rtan d this C o u rt h a v e h e ld th a t a c a p ital d e fe n d a n t is n o t en tit led to a n in stru c tio n o n re sid u a l d o u b t. Ho lla n d v. S ta te , 7 0 5 S o . 2 d 3 0 7 , 3 2 5 -2 7 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ); Fr anklin v. L ynaugh , 487 U . S. 164, 1 7 4 , 1 0 8 S . C t. 23 2 0 , 1 0 1 L . E d . 2 d 1 5 5 (1 9 8 8 ). T h e trial c o u rt d id n o t er r in re fu sin g th is pr opos ed i ns truct i on.d. Pr opos e d s e nt e nc i ng i ns truc t i on N um ber12 – m er cy i ns truct i on. ¶111. R os s m ai nt ai ns thatthe t ri al co urterr ed i n grant i ng t he St at e’ s f i r s t s ent enci ng i ns truct i on and denyi ng hi s tw el f th pr opos ed s ent enci ng i ns truct i on. R oss ’ pr opos ed in stru c tio n e m p h a siz e d th a t w h ile ju ro rs c o u ld n o t co n sid e r “ m e re s y m p a th y ” in th e ir cul pabi l i ty det erm i nat i on, they coul d, and pr es um abl y s houl d, consi derm er cy ors ym pathy i n thei rs ent enci ng det erm i nat i on as a mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance. T he cont es t ed partof the St at e’ s i ns truct i on expl ai ned the proc es s of bal anci ng aggr avat i ng and mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s t o the j ury: Y ou m ustcon si der and w ei gh any agg ravat i ng and m i t i gati ng ci rcum st ances, as s etf or th l at eri n thi s i ns truct i on, butyou ar e ca ut i oned nott o be s w ayed by m er e s ent i m ent , conj ectur e, s ym pathy, pa s s i on, pr ej udi ce, publ i c opi ni on, or publ i c f eel i ng.

### 61

¶112. T hi s C our thas hel d t he above- quot ed l anguage , consi der ed i n the con t ext of a l ong s ent e nc i ng i ns truc t i on , does notpr eventthe cons i der at i on of s ym pathy. See Flo w e rs v. S ta te , 8 4 2 S o . 2 d 5 3 1 , 5 6 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ); E v a n s v . S ta te , 725 So. 2d 613, 690- 91 ( M i s s . 1997) ( expr es s l y appr ovi ng of s uch l anguage i n the cont extof a l ong i ns truct i on) . C ons equent l y, the tri al co u rtd id n o t err i n g ran ti n g the S tate’s fi rstsen tenc ing instruction . S im il arly, th ere w as no err ori n r ef

us i ng R os s ’ pr opos ed i ns truct i on s peci f i cal l y ci t i ng m er cy ors ym pathy
as a mi t i gat or . T hi s C our thas r epea t edl y h el d t hat a capi t al def endanti s notent i t l ed t o a s ym pathy i ns truct i on, beca us e, l i ke a mer cy i ns truct i on, i tcoul d r es ul ti n a ver di ctbas ed on
w h im a n d c a p ri c e . See , e. g. , Ho w e ll v. S ta te , 8 6 0 S o . 2 d 7 0 4 , 7 5 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ).

e. Pr opos ed s ent enci ng i ns truct i on N um ber1 3 – w ei ghi ng of agg ravat i ng and m i t i gati ng ci rcum st ances. ¶113. Fi nal l y, Ross a r gues thatthe tr i al c our te rr ed i n de nyi ng hi s t hir t eenth i ns truct i on, w h ich w o u ld h av e a ll o w ed juro rs t o rely o n a se n se o f m erc y to se n tenc e R o ss to li fe i m pr i s onm ent , des pi t e the f actthataggr avat or s exi s t ed and w er e notbalanced by any
m i t i gat i ng fact or s . Such an i ns truct i on i s both a mer cy i ns truct i on and an i ns truct i on that j ur or s ar e notbound t o w ei gh a ggr avat i ng a nd mi t i gat i ng c i r cumst ance s c ont empl at ed i n the St at e’ s f i r s ts ent enci ng i ns truct i on. T hi s C ou rtdoes notr ecogni ze a r i ghtt o a mer cy in s tru c tio n . Ho w e ll , 860 So. 2d at759. Si m i l ar l y, thi s C our thas r epea t edl y r ef us ed t o acc ept i ns truc t i on s tha tw ou l d nul l i f y the bal anci ng of

aggr avat i ng and mi t i gat i ng f act or s , s i nce s uch in s tru c tio n s m ig h t in d u c e v e rd ic ts b a s e d o n w h im a n d c a p ri c e . Ma n n in gv . S ta te , 726 So. 2d 1152, 1197 ( M i s s . 1998) . T he tr i al courtd i d no terri n r ef us i ng R os s ’ pr opos ed i ns truct i on.

### 62

¶11 4. B ecause R oss has show n no err or by the tri al cou rt i n i t s rul i ng s on j ury i nst ruct i on s, th is a ss ig n m e n t o f e rro r is w ith o u t m e rit. VI I I . M I TI GATI ON EV I DE NCE ¶115. R os s ar gues thatthe tr i al courterr ed i n gr ant i ng the St at e’ s i n l i m i ne mot i on t o pr event R os s ’ fa m i l y fr om t es t i f yi ng t o t he i m pacta death s ent ence w oul d have on the f ami l y. T he U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt m a in tain s th a t th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t g iv e s c a p ital d e fe n d a n ts
w id e la titu d e i n a rg u in g m itig a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s to th e ju ry . See , e. g. , Mc Co y v. N o rth Car ol ina , 4 9 4 U .S . 4 3 3 , 4 4 1 , 1 1 0 S . C t. 1 2 2 7 , 1 0 8 L . E d . 2 d 3 6 9 (1 9 9 0 ). F u rt h e rm o re , a s t at e “c annotpr ecl ude the s ent ence rf r om cons i der i ng ‘ any r el evantm i t i gat i ng evi dence ’ that the def endantpr of

f er s i n s uppor tof

a s ent ence of

l es s than dea th. ” T

ennard v. D r et

ke , 542 U . S. 274, 285, 124 S. C t . 2562, 159 L . E d. 2d 384 ( 2004) . “R el evantevi dence ” has been def i ned as “any a s pectof

a def endant ’ s char act erorr ecor d and any of the ci r cumst ance s of th e o f f e n s e th a t th e d e fe n d a n t p ro ff e rs a s a b a s is fo r a s e n te n c e le s s th a n d e a th . Loc ke tt v. O h io , 4 3 8 U .S . 5 8 6 , 6 0 4 , 9 8 S . C t. 29 5 4 , 5 7 L .E d .2 d 9 7 3 ( 1 9 7 8 ). C o n s iste n t w ith th is p rec ed en t, test im o n y reg ard ing the im p ac t a de ath s en tenc e m ay h av e o n the d efe n d an t’ s f a m i l y i s n o t‘ r e l e v a n tm i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e , ’ b e c a u s e i td o e s n o ta d d r e s s th e d e f e n d a n t 's
c h a ra c te r, re c o rd , o r th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f t h e o ff e n s e . See , e. g. , W

ilch e r v . S ta te , 697 So. 2d 1 0 8 7 , 1 1 0 4 ( M i s s . 1 9 9 7 ) ( “ [ T ] h e tr i a l c o u r td i d n o te rri n e x c l u d i n g t e s t i m o n y f r o m W i l c h e r 's f ami l y thatthey w i s hed f orhi s l i f e t o be s par ed . . . [ beca us e] s uch t es t i m ony i s notr el evant to th e d e fe n d a n t' s c h a ra c ter , rec o rd , o r th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f th e o ffe n se .”); S im o n v. S ta te , 6 8 8 S o . 2 d 7 9 1 , 8 1 1 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 ) ( im p a c t o f d e a th p e n a lty o n fa m ily is n o t re lev a n t to

### 63

s ent enci ng) . The tr i a l c ou r tthe r e f or e di d n ote rri n g r a nt i ng the St a t e ’ s i n l i mi ne mot i on. T h is a s s ig n m e n t o f e rr o r i s w ith o u t m e ri t. I X. S UF F I CI EN CY OF THE I NDI CT M EN T A . F ai l ure t o L i s t A ggravat i ng C i rcum s t ances . ¶1 1 6 . R o ss c laim s th a t th e in d ictm en t w as insu ffi cien t b ec au se itfailed to c h a rg e a ll el ement s ne ces s ary t o i m pos e the death pe nal ty underM i s s i s s i ppi l aw : ( a) i ti ncl uded nei ther a st atut ory aggr avat i ng f act ornora m ens r ea elem en t o f M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -19 -10 1 (5) & (7 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 0 ); (b ) it d id n o t it e m ize th e sta tu to ry a g g ra v a tin g circ u m sta n c e s th a t th e S tate
w oul d r el y upon; and ( c) i tdi d notpr ovi de speci fi c not i ce t o R os s of w hatthe St at e w as p r o p o s i n g t o p r o v e a g a i n s th i m. ¶11 7. R oss ci t es A

ppr endiv. N

ew Jers ey , 530 U . S. 466, 490, 120 S. C t . 2348, 147 L . E d. 2d 435 ( 2000) , and Ring v. Ari z ona , 5 3 6 U . S . 5 8 4 , 1 2 2 S . C t. 2 4 2 8 , 1 5 3 L . E d . 2 d 5 5 6 (20 0 2 ), i n s uppor tof

hi s ar gum entthatthe s t atut ory aggra vat or s and m ens r ea el ementm us tbe
s peci f i cal l y pl ed i n the cha r gi ng i ndi ctm entof a st at e cour tcas e. H ow ever , as the C our thas h eld, ne ith er Ringn o r A ppr endis t a n d f

o rt h i s p r o p o s i t i o n , a n d th e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C our ti n both deci s i ons s peci f i cal l y hel d i tw as notaddres si ng the ques t i on of w hetherthe
a g g ra v a to rs m u s t b e in c lu d e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. See A ppr endi , 5 3 0 U .S . at 4 7 7 fn .3 ; see al so B e n n e tt v. S ta te , 9 3 3 S o . 2 d 9 3 0 , 9 5 2 ( M is s . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s c o n tin u e d to h o ld th a t in d ictm e n t issu e s in fe d e ra l co u rts a re g o v e rn e d b y th e F ifth A m e n d m e n t, w h ile i ndi ctm enti s s ues i n s t at e court s ar e i ns t ead gove rned by s t at e l aw . M i s s i s s i ppi l aw does not re q u ir e th e a g g ra v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s t o b e s e t f o rt h in th e in d ic tm e n t. See I d. ; Sm it h v. S ta te , 7 2 9 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 1 , 1 2 2 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 ); Sm ith v. S ta te , 72 4 S o . 2 d 2 8 0 , 2 9 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 );

### 64

I n re Jor dan , 390 So. 2d 58 4, 5 85 (M i s s . 1980) . R ather , an i ndi ctm entf orcapi t al m ur der p u t s a d e f

e n d a n to n n o t i c e o f

t h e a g g r a v a t i n g c i r c u ms t a n c e s t h a tma y b e u s e d a g a i n s th i m. B e n n e tt , 9 3 3 S o . 2 d a t 9 5 2 ; W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 4 4 5 S o . 2 d 7 9 8 , 8 0 4 -05 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). ¶118. W hi l e s peci f

i c aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ances n eed no tb e spec i fi ed i n the i ndi ctm ent un der M i ssi ssi pp i l aw , the un derl ying f el on y thatel evates the cri m e t o cap i t al m urder m ust be i de nt i f

i e d i n the i nd i c t menta l on g w i th the s e c t i on a nd s ub s e c t i on o f the s t a tut e under
w h ic h th e d e fe n d a n t is b e in g c h a rg e d . See M i ss. C od e A nn . § 9 9-17-20 (R ev. 20 00 ). T hu s, al tho ug h iti s not r equ i red und er f ederal or M i ssi ssi pp i l aw , the indi ct m en t i n thi s case i ncluded on e of the ag gravat i ng ci rcum st ances. ¶119. Fur therm or e, t hi s C our thas r epea t edl y r ej ect ed s i m i l arar gum ent s bas ed on Ringand A ppr endi , hol di ng both of them i nappl i cabl e t o M i s s i s s i ppi ' s capi t al sent enci ng s cheme. B e n n e tt , 933 So. 2d at952. I n S tev e n s v . S ta te , 8 6 7 S o . 2 d 2 1 9 , 2 2 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ), this C o u rt h e ld th a t th e “ d e fe n d a n t is n o t en tit led to fo rm a l n o tice o f th e a g g ra v a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s to be empl oyed by the pr os ecut i on” and thatany t i m e an i ndi vi dual i s char ged w i th m ur der , he i s puton not i ce thatthe death pe nal ty may r es ul t . A ddi t i onal l y, i n B ro w n v. S ta te , 890 So. 2 d 9 0 1 , 9 1 8 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ), th is C o u rt re jec ted th e a rg u m e n t th a t Ringand A ppr endireq u ir e a g g ra v a to rs to b e in c lu d e d in a s ta te c o u rt in d ic tm e n t. See al s o K n ox v. S ta te , 901 So. 2d 1 2 5 7 , 1 2 6 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ); G ra y v. S ta te , 887 So. 2d 158, 174 ( M i s s . 2004) ( "Thus, the i s s ue o f th e o m issi o n o f ag g rav ati n g circu m stan ce s in the ind ictm en t i s w ith o u t m erit . "); Mitch e ll v. S ta te , 8 8 6 S o . 2 d 7 0 4 , 7 1 1 ( M is s . 2 0 0 4 ); B e rr y v. S ta te , 882 So. 2d 157, 173 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); P u c k e tt v. S ta te , 8 7 9 S o . 2 d 9 2 0 , 9 4 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); Ho lla n dv . S ta te , 878 S o . 2 d 1 , 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); S im m o n s v. S ta te , 8 6 9 S o . 2 d 9 9 5 , 1 0 1 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); Ste v e ns , 867

### 65

So. 2d at227 ( “The St at e i s corr ecti n i t s ass ert i on thata def endanti s notent i t l ed t o f or m al not i ce of the aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s t o be em ployed by t he pr os ecut i on and thatan ind ictm en t f

o r ca p it al m u rde r pu ts a d efe n d an t on su ffi cien t no ti ce that the s tatu to ry a g g ra v a tin g fa c to rs w ill b e u se d ag a in st h im .”). R o ss ’s in d ictm e n t su ffic ien tly in fo rm e d h im
o f th e c h a rg e s a g a in st h im , an d h is c laim is w ith o u t m e rit. B . U s e of

t he U nderl yi ng F el ony as an A ggravat i ng C i rcum s t ance. ¶1 20 . R el yi ng pr i m ar i l y on Ri ngand A ppr endi , R os s m ai nt ai ns t hatt he us e of t he
u n d erly ing felon y o f arm ed rob b ery as a n ag g rav ati n g circu m stan ce u p o n w h ich th e jury
r el i ed i n r eturni ng a s ent ence w as i m pr oper . H ow ever , evi dence of the under l yi ng cr i m e ca n pr oper l y b e us e d b oth t o e l e va t e the c r i me t o c a pi t a l mur de ra nd a s a n a gg r a vat i ng c ir c u m s ta n c e . See B e n n e tt , 9 3 3 S o . 2 d a t 9 5 4 ; G o o din v. S ta te , 78 7 S o. 2d 6 39 , 6 54 (M i ss. 2 0 0 1 ); Sm ith , 7 2 9 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 2 3 ; B e ll v. S ta te , 7 2 5 S o . 2 d 8 3 6 , 8 5 9 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ); Cra w fo rdv. S ta te , 716 So. 2d 1028, 1049- 50 ( M i s s . 1998) . Fur therm or e, the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas hel d thatther e i s no cons t i tut i on al err or i n us i ng the under l yi ng f el ony a s a n a g g ra v a to r. L ow enf ield v. P hel

ps , 484 U . S. 231, 233, 108 S. Ct . 546, 98 L . E d. 2d 568 ( 1988) . T he Supr eme C our ts t at ed i n Tu ila e p a v. Ca lifo rn ia , 5 1 2 U .S . 9 6 7 , 9 7 2 , 1 1 4 S . C t. 2 6 3 0 , 1 2 9 L . E d . 2 d 7 5 0 ( 1 9 9 4 ), th a t "[t] h e a g g ra v a tin g c irc u m sta n c e m a y b e c o n tain e d in th e d e fi n itio n o f t h e c ri m e o r i n a s e p a ra te s e n te n c in g fa c to r ( o r i n b o th )." ¶ 1 2 1 . T h e u s e o f t h e u n d e rl y in g fe lo n y a s a n a g g ra v a to r w a s n o t e rr o r. C . Subs t i t ut i on o f

A gg r av at i ng Ci r c um s t anc e s at t he C l os e of t he Se nt e nc i ng P h ase .

### 66

¶122. R os s compl ai ns that , dur i ng the j ury i ns truct i on conf er ence f or the s ent enci ng phas e, the St at e w as al l ow ed, overobj ect i on, t o w i thdr aw a j ury i ns truct i on on the aggr avat i ng circu m stan ce o f m u rde r co m m itted b y a p e rso n w h o h ad p rev iou sly b ee n co n v ict ed o f a f el ony i nvol vi ng the t hreatof vi ol ence t o per s ons and s ubs t i tut e a j ury i ns truct i on on the aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance of murde rc om m i t t ed f

orthe purpos e of

avoi di ng orpr event i ng a l aw f ul arr es t . R os s ar gues thatthi s l as t - m i nut e s ubs t i tut i on of aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s v io late d h is F ifth A m e n d m e n t rig h t t o tim e ly n o tice o f th e c h a rg e s a g a in st h im a n d h is S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to s u ff ic ie n t n o tic e o f t h e c h a rg e s a g a in s t h im . ¶123. I n G ar dnerv. Flor ida , 4 3 0 U . S . 3 4 9 , 3 6 2 , 97 S . C t. 11 9 7 , 51 L . E d . 2 d 3 9 3 (19 7 7 ), the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our the l d thata de f endantmay notbe s ent ence d t o death “on the bas i s of i nf or m at i on w hi ch he ha d no oppor tuni ty t o deny orex plai n. ” H ow ever , i thas al r eady be en es t abl i s hed t hatan i ndi ctm entforcapi t al m ur derput s a def endanton not i ce of th e a g g ra v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t m a y b e u s e d a g a in s t h im , W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 445 So. 2d 79 8, 80 4-05 (M i ss. 19 84 ), and there i s n o a u tho ri ty f or the p roposi t i on that the S t at e m ust fu rn is h fo rm a l n o tic e o f a g g ra v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s in d is c o v e ry . Sm ith v. S ta te , 729 So. 2d 1 1 9 1 , 1 1 2 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). ¶ 1 2 4 . E v e n if th e su b stitu ted a g g ra v a tin g c irc u m sta n c e h a d b e e n e x c lu d e d , th e re w a s s til l
s u ff ic ie n t p ro o f o f o th e r a g g ra v a tin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s to s u p p o rt th e s e n te n c e . J o rda n v. S ta te , 9 1 2 S o . 2d 80 0 , 81 2 (M iss. 20 0 5 ). If o n e ag g rav ator is fou n d t o be i n v ali d , th e C o u rt is
au thori zed to r ew ei gh the rem ai ning agg ravat ors agai nstthe m i t i gati ng ci rcum st ances. Mc G ilb e rr

y v. S ta te , 843 So. 2d 21, 29 ( M i s s . 2003) . U pon r evi ew of the aggr avat i ng and
m it igating ci rcum st ances w i tho u t th e c o n test ed ag g rav ati n g circu m stan ce s, w e find that there

### 67

w er e suf f i ci entaggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s t o j us t i f y t he se nt ence . T hi s ass i gnm entof err or is w ith o u t m e rit. D . Suf

f i c i e nc y o f

t he H abi t ualO f

f e nde r Por t i on o f

t he I ndi c t m e nt . ¶ 1 2 5 . T h e p o rtio n o f th e in d ictm e n t c h a rg in g R o ss a s a h a b itu a l o ffe n d e r w a s o n a se p a ra te page f r om the re s tof

the i ndi ctm ent . R os s ar gues that , pur s uantt o Sect i on 169 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on of 1890, the i ndi ctm entconcl uded w i th the w or ds "a gai ns tthe pea ce and di gni ty of

the s t at e, " w hi ch w er e f ound on the f

i r s tpa ge of

the i ndi ctm ent ; and ther ef or e, he w as notpr oper l y char ged as a habi tual of f enderand coul d notbe s ent ence d as s uch. Sect i on 169 of

the M i s s i s s i ppi C ons t i tut i on r eads : “The styl e of al l pr ocess shall b e ‘ T he St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi ’ and al l pr os ecut i on s hal l be ca rr i ed on i n the name and by author i ty of ‘T h e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i,’ a n d a ll in d ictm e n ts s h a ll c o n c lu d e ‘a g a in st th e p e a c e a n d d ig n ity of the St at e. ’ ” M i s s . C ons t . ar t . 6, § 169. H ow ever , R os s di d notchal l enge the s uf f i ci ency o f h is in d ic tm e n t a t tr ia l. ¶126. C hal l enges t o the sub st anti ve suf f i ci ency of

an i ndi ctm entm ay notbe w ai ved and
c o n s e q u e n tly m a y b e ra is e d fo r t h e fi rs t tim e o n a p p e a l. S ta te v . B e rr y h ill , 703 So. 2d 250, 254 ( M i s s . 1997) . Fore xampl e, a c hal l enge t o a n i ndi ctm entf orf ai l ur e t o c har ge the
es s ent i al el ement s of a cr i m i nal off ens e af f ect s a f undament al r i ght , and may notbe w ai ved. J e ffe rs o n v. S ta te , 5 5 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 6 , 1 0 1 9 (M iss . 1 9 8 9 ). H o w e v e r, “th e m e re fa c t th a t a pr ocedur al r equi r ementi s l ocat ed i n the C ons t i tut i on does notn eces s ar i l y el evat e i tt o the
s t atus o f a fundament al r i ght . ” B ra n da u v. S ta te , 662 So. 2d 1051, 1054 ( M i s s . 1995) ( f ai l ur e t o concl ude i ndi ctm entw i th the w or ds “aga i ns tthe pea ce a nd di gni ty of the St at e of M i s s i s s i ppi ” di d notaf

f ecta f undament al r i ght ) . W e have hel d s peci f i cal l y thatthe i ncl us i on

### 68

of the habi tual of

f enderpor t i on of

an i ndi ctm entaft er t he w ords “aga i ns tthe pea ce a nd di gni ty of

the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi ” does notaf f ecta f undament al r i ghtand may be w ai ved
o n a p p e a l. Cr a w

fo rdv. S ta te , 7 1 6 S o . 2 d 1 0 2 8 , 1 0 5 0 -51 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). R o ss is th ere fore pr ocedur al l y barr ed f

r om chal l engi ng hi s i ndi ctm ent . T hi s as s i gnm entof err ori s w i thout
m e rit. XI . OVER W HEL M I NG W EI GHT OF THE EV I DE NCE ¶127. R os s ar gues thatthe tr i al c our te rr ed i n de nyi ng hi s mot i on f ora new tr i al . A m ot i on f ornew tr i al chal l enges t he w ei ghtof the evi dence . W hen r evi ew i ng a deni al of a mot i on f

or a n e w tria l b a se d o n a n o b jec tio n to th e w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e , w e w ill d istu rb a v e rd ict o n ly
w hen i ti s s o contr ary t o the overw helm i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence thatt o al l ow i tt o s t and
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 . B u sh v. S ta te , 895 So. 2d 836, 844 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng He rr in gv. S ta te , 691 So. 2d 948, 957 ( M i s s . 1997)) . W e have s t at ed t haton a mot i on fornew tri al , the co urtsi t s as a thirt eenth j uror, and t he evidence i s w ei gh ed i n the li gh tm ost fa v o ra b le to th e v e rd ic t. I d . A fi ndi ng t hatt he ver di ctw as agai ns tt he overw hel m i ng w ei ght of t he e vi de nc e i nd i c a t e s tha tthe Cour tdi s a gr e e s w i th the j ury’ s r e s ol ut i on of c on f l i ct i ng e v id e n c e a n d re q u ir e s a n e w tr ia l. I d . ¶1 28 . T hou gh the s t a nd a r d of r e vi e w i n s uc h ca s e s i s hi gh , “ [ t ] hi s Cour t ha s no the s i t at ed t o i nvoke i t s author i ty t o or dera new tr i al and al l ow a s econd j ury t o pas s on the evi dence
w her e i tcons i der s the f i r s tj ury' s det erm i nat i on of gui l tt o be bas ed on extr emel y w eak or tenu o u s ev iden ce [, ] ev en w h ere that ev iden c e is su fficien t t o w ith stan d a m o ti o n for a di r ect ed ver di ct . ” L a m b e rt v . S ta te , 462 S o. 2d 308, 322 ( M i s s . 1984) ( L ee, J . , di s s ent i ng) ( ci t i ng S h o re v. S ta te , 2 8 7 S o . 2 d 7 6 6 (M iss . 1 9 7 4 )); Fe ra n da v. S ta te , 26 7 S o. 2d 30 5 (M i ss.

### 69

1 9 7 2 ); B a rn e s v . S ta te , 2 4 9 S o . 2 d 3 8 3 (M iss . 1 9 7 1 ); Co o kv. S ta te , 248 So . 2d 43 4 (M i ss. 1 9 7 1 ); P e terso n v. S ta te , 2 4 2 S o . 2 d 4 2 0 (M iss . 1 9 7 0 ); Hu x v. S ta te , 234 So . 2d 50 (M i ss. 1 9 7 0 ); Q u a rle s v . S ta te , 1 9 9 S o . 2 d 5 8 (M iss. 1 9 6 7 ); Y e lv e r to n v. S ta te , 191 So. 2d 393 (M iss. 1 9 6 6 ); Miste r v . S ta te , 1 9 0 S o . 2 d 8 6 9 (M iss . 1 9 6 6 ); Co le v . S ta te , 217 M i s s . 779, 65 S o . 2 d 2 6 2 (1 9 5 3 ); D ick e rs o n v. S ta te , 5 4 S o . 2 d 9 2 5 (M iss . 1 9 5 1 ); J e ffe rs o n v. S ta te , 52 So. 2 d 9 2 5 (M iss . 1 9 5 1 ); Co n w a y v. S ta te , 1 7 7 M iss . 4 6 1 , 1 7 1 S o . 1 6 (1 9 3 6 )); see al so Hu tch in s v . S ta te , 2 2 0 S o . 2 d 2 7 6 (M iss . 1 9 6 9 ); B ro w n v. S ta te , 219 M i s s . 748, 70 So. 2d 2 3 (1 9 5 4 ); W

ill ia m s v . S ta te , 22 0 M iss. 80 0 , 72 S o . 2d 14 7 (1 9 5 4 ); Ma rtin v. S ta te , 197 M i ss. 96, 19 S o. 2d 48 8 (19 4 4 ); Ho lifield v. S ta te , 1 3 2 M iss. 4 4 6 , 9 6 S o . 3 0 6 (19 2 3 ); B o lde n v. S ta te , 98 M i s s . 723, 54 S o. 241 ( 1910) . A gr eat erquantum of evi dence f

avor i ng the St at e i s nece s s ary f orthe S t at e t o w i ths t and a mot i on f ora new tr i al , as di s t i ngui s hed fr o m a m o tio n fo r J .N .O .V . P h a rrv. S ta te , 4 6 5 S o . 2 d 2 9 4 , 3 0 2 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ). ¶ 1 2 9 . In d e n y in g R o s s ’ m o tio n fo r a n e w trial, th e trial c o u rt fo u n d th a t th e ju ry p ro p e rly
w ei ghed the evi dence a nd de t erm i ned thatRoss : ( 1) t ook a w al l et , t el evi s i on, and V C R , ( 2) fro m Y a n c e y , (3 ) w h ich b e lo n g e d to Y a n c e y , (4 ) a g a in st Y a n c e y ’s w ill , (5 ) b y sh o o tin g h im f ourt i m es . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 79 ( R ev. 2000) . H ow ever , a caref ul r evi ew of

the evi dence s uppor t i ng the ver di ctr ai s es s er i ous conce rns r egar di ng the w ei ghtof the evi dence
c o n s id e re d b y th e ju ry . A . T he C ont radi ct ory C haract er of T es t i m ony at T ri al . ¶130. T he mosts tr i ki ng as pect s of t he evi dence used t o convi ctR os s w er e t he numer ous and subst anti al i nco nsi st encies am on g the t est i m on i es of Jones, H al e, S and ers , an d D on al d R oss, J r . A l though t he acc ount s of J ones and S ander s w er e s ubs t ant i al l y s i m i l ar , thei rver s i on of

### 70

the event s di f

f er ed s i gni f

i cant l y f r om H al e’ s a ccount . O f pa r t i cul arc oncern a r e t he w i de inco n sist en cies reg ard ing w h at t im e R o ss, Sa n d ers, an d D o n ald R o ss, Jr . arrived a t H ale’s
r es i dence, i n w hator derthey arr i ved, and w hatthey di d w i th the t el evi s i on and V C R af t er R os s al l egedl y br oughti ti ns i de. ¶131. H al e t es t i f

i ed thatS ander s and D onal d R os s , Jr . w er e al r eady home w hen R os s arr i ved b e tw e e n 9 :0 0 an d 1 0 :0 0 p .m . w ith the tele v isio n an d V C R . H e w a s c e rta in itw a s n o t as late
as 11: 30 p. m . J ones di s agr eed, t es t i f yi ng R os s arr i ved atthe H al e resi dence f i r s t , ar ound 1 1 :30 p . m . , foll o w ed b y S an d ers a n d D o n ald R o ss, Jr . w h o sh e sa y s arrive d just be fore
m i dni ght . J ones ’ acc ountattr i al al s o di f f er s f r om herst at ementt o W el l s , i n w hi ch s he s t at ed th a tRo s s a rr i v e d a tHa l e ’ s r e s i d e n c e b e twe e n 8 : 3 0 a n d 9 : 0 0 p . m. ¶132. H al e t es t i f

i ed Sander s re pai r ed t he t el evi s i on, and then they al l w at ched i tt ogether on Fr i day ni ght . T hi s conf l i ct s w i th Sander s ’ t es t i m ony, i n w hi ch he s t at ed thathe r epai r ed the broken cord on the tel evis i on the n ext m orni ng atthe requ estof R oss. S and ers ’ accoun tal so c o n flicts w ith Jo n e s’ te stim o n y , in w h ic h s h e s tate d th a t sh e , H a le, a n d S a n d e rs w e n t in to to w n e a rl y th a t m o rn in g . ¶133. J ones ’ t es t i m ony aboutthe ci r cumst ance s underw hi ch Ross s how ed herthe gun and th e w a llet a lso c o n flicts w ith h e r s tate m e n t to W e lls a n d H a le’ s te stim o n y a t trial. A t trial, J ones t es t i f

i ed thatRoss t ook he ri nt o a be dr oom a nd s how ed hera thr ee- f ol d w al l et . I n her sta tem e n t to W e lls, sh e sta ted th a t R o ss h a d sh o w n h e r th e w a llet o u tsid e th e tra iler. B o th
s t or i es conf

l i ctw i th H al e’ s t es t i m ony, i n w hi ch h e sai d he neve rs aw J ones and R os s go out s i de ori nt o a bedr oom al one. A tt r i al , Jones t es t i f i ed t hatR os s then t ook s om e pape rout o f his ca r, p lace d ito n a c h arc o al gril l, lai d the w all et on top o f it , a n d u sed the p ap er to b u rn

### 71

the w al l et . In herst at ementt o W el l s , Jones sai d R os s t ook the pape r s outof the w al l etand
u s e d th e m to s ta rt th e fi re . ¶134. I n addi t i on t o thes e i ncons i s t enci es , s ever al as pect s of J ones ’ t es t i m ony a ttr i al appea r i m pl aus i bl e. J ones t es t i f i ed thataf

t erR os s c onf

es s ed t o m ur der i ng Y ance y, he pul l ed the gun outf r om underthe s eatof

hi s car , s how ed i tt o her , and t osse d i toverhi s head ba ckw ar ds
w ith a “ little flip .” A t trial sh e e m p h a s iz e d th a t R o ss c a su a lly to ss e d th e g u n o v e r h is
s houl der . H ow ever , the gun w as f ound i n a s ew age di t ch s i xty- f i ve f eet fro m w h e re sh e sa id R os s ha d t os s e d i t . W he n c on f r on t e d wi th thi s i nc on s i s t e nc y, he ron l y r e pl y was t hat
s ubs t ant i al t i m e had e l aps ed s i nce R oss’ conf es s i on. Si m i l ar l y, J ones ’ t es t i m ony w as the onl y evi dence s uppor t i ng the St at e’ s cont ent i on thatR os s had burned Y ance y’ s w al l eton a ch arc o al gril l ou tsi d e H ale’s reside n ce . Jo n es testi fie d th at R o ss sh o w ed h er Y an ce y ’s
w a llet, th e n e ith e r to o k p a p e r o u t o f h is c a r o r o u t o f Y a n c e y ’s w a llet, an d u se d th e p a p e r to s etthe w al l eton f

i r e. She furthert es t i f

i ed thatR os s had notus ed any a cce l er antt o des tr oy the w al l et . T hi s t es t i m ony c onf l i ct s w i th the opi ni on of D eputy W i l banks , w ho col l ect ed the
a sh e s a n d o p in e d th a t a w a llet c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n d e stro y e d w ith o u t so m e so rt o f a c c e ler a n t. A ttr i al , J ones t es t i f

i ed thats he w as notcert ai n i f the w al l etw as t ot al l y des tr oyed, w hi ch conf l i ct ed w i th hers t at ementt o W el l s , i n w hi ch s he s t at ed thatthe w al l ethad bee n c o m p le te ly re d u c e d to a s h e s . ¶135. C ons i der ed i n i s ol at i on, thes e i ncons i st encies an d i m plausi ble accou nts m i ght be
re g a rd e d m e re ly a s a m a tte r o f w itn e s s c re d ib ility to b e d e te rm in e d b y a ju ry . See , e. g. , Hu g h e s v . S ta te , 724 So. 2d 893, 896 ( M i s s . 1998) . H ow ever , the f actthatJ ones ’ t es t i m ony w as of t en i ncons i s t entand i m pl aus i bl e w ei ghs agai ns ti t s trus tw or thi nes s , part i cul ar l y i n a

### 72

c a p ita l c a s e . See Co le v . S ta te , 217 M i s s . 779, 786- 87, 65 So. 2d 262, 264- 65 ( M i s s . 1953) ( f i ndi ng, i n c as e of

r ever s al ba s ed on the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence , St at e’ s key
w i tnes s w as i ncr edi bl e si nce “[ n] otone, buta num berof as pect s of [ the w i tnes s ’ s ] t es t i m ony, w h en co n side red tog ethe r, [ m ad e] i t an e x ce ed ing ly im p rob ab le an d u n rea so n ab le st o ry” ). B . I nconcl usi ve C i rcum s t ant i al E vi dence . ¶136. A bs entJon es’ tes t i m on y, the bul k of the evi dence agai ns tR os s w as i nconcl us i ve, circu m stan ti al, o r did n o t im p li ca te R o ss an y m o re tha n itd id the o ther o cc u p an ts of H ale’s
r es i dence . T he St at e’ s cas e r el i ed on a numberof i t ems i n evi dence w hos e r el evanc e w as ques t i onabl e. Fore xampl e, the St at e pr ovi ded no s uppor tf orthei rar gum entthatthe t ai l l i ght fra g m e n ts c a m e fro m R o ss ’ c a r. T h e S tate m a d e n o sh o w in g tha t th e as h e s fo u n d o n th e g rill had bee n pr oper l y pr es erved orw hatthei rcomposi t i on w as . T he St at e no t ed t hatthe bee r c a n s c o l l e c t e d f

r o m Ro s s ’ c a rh a d t h e s a me ma n u f a c tu r e r ’ s s t a mp a s th o s e f o u n d a tth e c r i me s cene , butneverexpl ai ned how m any ca ns w oul d have the s ame st amp. T he St at e ar gued th a t th e v e h icle h e a rd b y Y a n c e y ’s n e ig h b o rs w a s R o ss ’ c a r, w h ich ra n lo u d ly b e c a u se it d id nothave a m uf

f l er . H ow ever , ot heri ndi vi dual s adm i t t ed dr i vi ng t he ca rats om e poi nton the ni ghtof the m ur der . Y ance y’ s nei ghborsai d she s aw a smal l per s on w or ki ng on a ca ri n her yar d, a des cr i pt i on w hi ch coul d have f i tR os s orSander s . A l l the i ndi vi dual s s t ayi ng at H al e’ s r es i dence w oul d have had ac ces s t o H al e’ s pi s t ol . Fi nal l y, the s t ol en t el evi s i on and V C R w e re fo u n d in S a n d e rs ’ b e d ro o m . C . T he B al ance of

E vi dence . ¶1 37 . T he l ac k of s ub s t a nt i a l di r e c t e vi de nc e a ga i ns t Ros s i s tr ou bl i ng , pa r t i c ul a r l y g i ven the i ncons i s t enci es i n J ones ’ t es t i m oni es . U l t i m at el y, how ever , w e ca nnotf i nd thatthe tr i al

### 73

courterr ed i n de nyi ng Ross ’ mot i on f ora ne w tr i al . A bs entf r om the r ecor d a r e the myri ad
nuance s and s ubt l e i m pr es s i ons f r om w hi ch j ur or s w ei gh cr edi bi l i ty, and t hi s C our tm us tbe
w ary of encr oachi ng on the pec ul i arpr ovi nce of the j ury. W e ther ef

or e dec l i ne t o f

i nd that R os s ’ convi ct i on w as agai ns tthe overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence. I t s ef

f ecton our c u m u la tiv e h a rm le s s e rr o r a n a ly s is w ill b e c o n s id e re d in S e c tio n X II . XI I . CU M UL AT I VE E RR OR ¶13 8. R oss argues the cum ulat i ve ef fect of the vari ou s err ors i n the tri al , even i f harm l ess, r equi r es r ever s al and r emand. T he cum ul at i ve err ordoctr i ne s t ems f r om the doctr i ne of har m l e s s e rr or , c od i f

i e d un de rM i s s i s s i pp i Rul e o f Ci vi l Pr oc e du r e 6 1. I th ol ds t hat in d iv id u a l erro rs, w h ich are n o t rev e rsib le in the m se lv e s, m a y co m b in e w ith o th e r e rro rs to
m ake up r ever s i bl e err or , w her e t he cum ul at i ve ef f ectof al l er r or s depr i ves the def endantof
a fu n d a m e n ta lly fa irtr ia l. B y ro m v. S ta te , 863 So. 2d 8 36 , 8 47 (M i s s . 2003) . A s an extensi on of the h arm l ess errordo ct ri ne, prej ud i ci al rul i ng s or events that do n o teven ri se t o the l evel of

harm l es s err orw i l l notbe aggr egat ed t o f i nd r ever s i bl e err or . A s w hen
cons i der i ng w hetheri ndi vi dual err or s ar e ha rml e s s orpr ej udi ci al , r el evantf act or s t o cons i der in ev a lu a tin g a c laim o f cu m u lativ e err o r in c lu d e w h e th e r th e issu e o f in n o c e n c e o r g u iltis
c lo s e , th e q u a n tity a n d c h a ra c te r o f t h e e rr o r, a n d th e g ra v ity o f t h e c ri m e c h a rg e d . S e e , e .g ., L e o n a rdv. S ta te , 114 N ev. 1196, 1216, 9 6 9 P . 2 d 2 8 8 , 3 0 1 ( N ev. 1998) ( ci t i ng Hom i ck v. S ta te , 112 N ev. 304, 316, 913 P. 2d 1 28 0, 1 28 9 ( 1996) ) . T hati s , w her e ther e i s not o v erw h elm ing ev iden ce ag ains t a de fen d an t, w e a re m o re inc li n ed to v iew cu m u lat ive e rrors as pr ej udi ci al . I n death penal ty cas es , al l genui ne doubt s aboutthe harm l es s nes s of err or

### 74

m u s t b e re s o lv e d in fa v o r o f t h e a c c u s e d b e c a u s e o f t h e s e v e ri ty o f t h e p u n is h m e n t. See W a lk e r v . S ta te , 9 1 3 S o . 2 d 1 9 8 , 2 1 6 (M is s . 2 0 0 5 ). ¶1 3 9 . In the p rese n t ca se, w e fi n d rev ersible erro r in the fail u re o f th e tri al co u rtto ad h ere to R u le 9.04 (I) in e x c lu d in g th e statem en t of M arg are t Jon es tak en b y R o ss’ i n v esti g ator. Si m i l ar l y, def

ens e couns el ’ s f

ai l ur e t o i nves t i gat e s ubs t anti al m i t i gat i ng f act or s dur i ng the
s ent enci ng phase requi r es r ever s al of R os s ’ s ent ence . A r gui ng thatR os s ’ l i f e s houl d be spared becau se he co uld have f un ct i on ed app ropri at el y as a pri soner w as not a val i d d efense gi ven R os s ’ di s ci pl i nary r ecor d i n pr i s on. D ur i ng the s ent enci ng, def ens e couns el al s o f

ai l ed to a d d re ss su b sta n tial n o n -sta tu to ry m iti g a tin g fa c to rs n o ted b y th e sta te m e n tal h o sp ital. O th e r e rro rs p ro v id e fu rth e r ju stific a tio n fo r re v e rsa l b e c a u se o f th e ir c u m u lativ e e ffo rt. Th e s e i n c l u d e th e S t a t e ma i n t a i n i n g i n c l o s i n g a r g u me n tth a tRo s s h a d b e e n s e e n a tth e c r i me sce n e w h en h e h ad n o t; d efe n se c o u n sel’s fail u re to e x p lore the p o ssible tainti n g o f th e v en ir e panel , part i cul ar l y af

t erM art i ndal e’ s s econd pr ej udi ci al s t at ement ; a nd the excl us i on of the St at e’ s bal l i s t i cs r eportf r om evi dence , w hi ch t ook a t angi bl e documenta w ay f r om R os s that coul d have be en ar gued t o the j ury. T hes e err or s ar e of part i cul arconce rn beca us e much of the St at e’ s cas e aga i ns tR os s , abs entthe i nconsi s t entt es t i m ony of M ar gar etJ ones , w as i ndi r ect . W e ther ef

or e r ever s e R os s ’ convi ct i on and sent ence and re m and hi s cas e f ora new tr ia l. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 1 4 0 . W e d o n o t r e v e rs e a c o n v ic tio n l ig h tl y a n d r e c o g n iz e t h a t n o tr ia l is p e rf e c t. See W a lk e r v . S ta te , 9 1 3 S o . 2 d 1 9 8 , 2 5 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ). H o w e v e r, th e g ra v ity o f a d e a th p e n a lty

### 75

cas e d e mand s tha twe s a nc t i on a c on vi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e o nl y w he r e the r e a r e n o ge nui ne doubt s as t o thei rval i di ty. ¶141. B eca us e the i ndepende ntand cumul at i ve err or s dur i ng the gui l tand s ent enci ng ph as es of the tr i al deni ed R os s a funda m ent al l y f ai rtr i al , w e r ever s e R os s ’ convi ct i on and s ent ence a n d re m a n d th is c a s e fo r a n e w tr ia l c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n . ¶ 1 4 2 . REVERSED AND REM AND ED . S M I TH, C. J . , COB B, P . J . , DI AZ , GRAV ES AN D D I CKI NS ON, J J . , CONCUR. RANDOL P H, J . , CONCURS I N RE S UL T ONL Y. DI AZ , J . , S P EC I AL LY CONCURS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED BY W ALLER, P. J . , GR AVES AND DI CK I NSON, J J . EAS LEY, J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y C A R L SO N , J. DI AZ , J US T I CE , S P E CI AL L Y C ON CU RR I NG : ¶143. I w hol ehea r t edl y c oncurw i th the m aj or i ty’ s opi ni on thatw e mustr ever s e and r emand thi s cas e f

ora new tr i al beca us e of pervas i ve err or s dur i ng both the gui l tand s ent enci ng phas es . Y etI am com pel l ed t o w r i t e b ecau se pros pect i ve j ur or s w er e i m pr oper l y s truck, viol at i ng bo th the con st i tuti on al ri gh t s of C harl es W ayn e R oss and al so t ho se of the jur ors. ¶ 1 4 4 . It is a b e d ro c k te n e t o f A m e ri c a n la w th a t “ [t]h e v e r y i d e a o f a ju ry is a b o d y . . . c o m p o se d o f th e p e e rs o r e q u a ls o f t h e p e rso n w h o se rig h ts it is se lec ted o r su m m o n e d to det erm i ne; thati s , of

hi s nei ghbor s , f

el l ow s , as s oci at es , per s ons havi ng the s ame l egal s t atus i n s oci ety as thatw hi ch he hol ds . ” B at s on v. K entucky , 476 U . S. 79, 87, 106 S. C t . 1712, 90 L . E d. 2d 69 ( 1986) (i nte rnal quot at i ons and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . A ccor di ngl y, the “j ury has occupi ed a c entr al pos i t i on in ours ys t em of j us t i ce by s af eguar di ng a per s on acc us ed of
cr i m e aga i ns tthe arbi tr ary exer ci s e of pow erby pr os ecut oror j udge. ” I d . T heref ore “[ t ] ho se on the veni r e mustbe ‘ i ndi f f er ent l y cho sen, ’ t o s ecur e the def endant ’ s r i ghtunderthe

### 76

Four t eenth A m endmentt o ‘pr ot ect i on of l i f e and l i berty agai ns tr ace orcol orpr ej udi ce. ’ ” I d. (i n terna l qu o tat ion s an d cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶145. T he r i ght t o an i m part i al j ury does not j us t f l ow t o the acc us ed i n a cr i m i nal cas e, f or

“ [r] a c ial d isc rim in a tio n in s e lec tio n o f ju ro rs h a rm s n o t o n ly th e a c c u se d w h o se life o r lib e rty they ar e s um m oned t o try, ” butal s o the jur orw ho has been di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns tand, by
e x te n s io n , th e g re a te r w h o le o f t h e c o m m u n ity . I d . at87. “[ B ] y denyi ng a per s on p a rticip a tio n in ju ry s e rv ice o n a c c o u n t o f h is ra c e , the S tate [als o ] un c o n stitu tio n a lly di s cr i m i nat e[ s ] agai ns tthe exc l uded j ur or . ” I d. ¶14 6. In M i ssi ssi pp i , w e hav e speci fi cal l y no t ed that this con st i tuti on al prohibi t i on against j ur ordi s cr i m i nat i on ext ends t o al l ci t i zens , r egar dl es s of r ace . A s w e dec l ar ed i n State v. R og ers , “[ w ] hi l e B at

s on v. K

entucky . . . h as pr edomi nat el y been a t ool t o det er di s cr i m i nat i on agai ns tA f r i can A m er i cans orotherm i nor i t i es , thi s i s notthe purpos e of the
ruli ng . ” 847 So. 2d 858, 862 ( M i s s . 2003) . I ns t ead, “[ t ] he purpos e i s t o af f or d a f ai rand i m part i al tri al t o d efendan t s r egar dl es s of thei rr ace . ” I

d. (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶14 7. In our i ncreasi ng l y d i verse s ociety, this m eans the prohibi t i on on dis cri m i nati on m ust be r es pect ed aga i ns tal l r ace s s o thatw e m ay honorthe cr i t i cal bal anci ng r ol e the j ury pl ays in o u r c o u n tr y . See B at s on , 476 U . S. a t87 ( “Fora j ury t o per f or m i t s i nt ended f

unct i on as a che ck on of

f i ci al pow er , i tm ustb e a bo dy dra w n f r om the comm uni ty”) . N orm ay the pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tdi s cr i m i nat i on be i nvoked onl y by the ac cus ed; the St at e may al s o i nvoke B at s on . For“[ r ] egar dl es s of w ho i nvokes the di s cr i m i nat ory chal l enge, ther e can be no doubtthatthe harm i s the s ame–i n al l cas es , the j ur ori s s ubj ect ed t o ope n and publ i c r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on. ” R og ers , 8 4 7 S o . 2 d at 86 2 (i n terna l qu o tat ion s an d cit ati o n s o m itted).T he r ecor d does notr ef l ectw hetherthe pr os pect i ve j ur or s w er e r el at ed. 8 

### 77 ¶ 1 4 8 . I t a l s o d o e s n o t ma t t e r wh e th e r th e a c c u s e d a n d a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s h a r e th e s a me ra c e , a s a d e fe n d a n t m a y o b je c t to r a c e -b a s e d p e re m p to ry c h a lle n g e s r e g a rd le s s o f r a c e . See P o w e rs v. O h io , 4 99 U . S . 4 00 , 1 1 S . C t . 1 36 4, 11 3 L . E d. 2d 41 1 (199 1). T his i s not because the d i sm i ssed j urors m ay h ave bee n p redi sposed to favor the d efendan t , bu trather “becau se r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on i n the s el ect i on of j ur or s cas t s doub to n t he i nt egr i ty of the j udi ci al pr oces s , and pl ace s the f ai rnes s of

a cr i m i nal p roceeding i n doubt . ” I d . at411 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . L i kew i s e, the s ame reas on i ng behi nd the pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tr aci al di s cr i m i nat i on has al s o been recog ni zed t o pr ohi bi tgender
- bas ed di s cr i m i nat i on. U l t i m at el y, “ [ d] i s cr i m i nat i on i n j ury s el ect i on, w hetherba s ed on r ace oron g en d er, cau ses h arm to the li ti g an ts, the c o m m u n ity , an d the in d ividu al j u ror s w h o are w r ongf ul l y excl uded f

r om part i ci pat i on i n the j udi ci al pr oces s . ” J . E. B. v. Al

a . e x r e l . T. B. , 5 1 1 U . S . 1 2 7 , 1 4 0 , 1 1 4 S . C t. 1 4 1 9 , 1 2 8 L . E d . 2 d 8 9 (19 9 4 ). ¶149. I n the cas e at hand, the veni r e panel gather ed f or the tr i al of R os s cons i s t ed of s i xtyf i ve w hi t e mem ber s and s i x A f r i can- A m er i cans . E very one of the bl ack j ur or s w er e s truck. T he pr os ecut i on us ed i t s re m ai ni ng t w o per empt ory s tr i kes agai ns tpr os pect i ve j ur or s 24 and 25, W endy G i l l ar d and Sonya G i l l ar d. 8 ¶150. I n herques t i onnai r e, W endy G i l l ar d indi cat ed t hat she w as a li f el ong r es i dent of T i ppah C ounty, s pendi ng t he ent i r ety of hertw enty- s even ye ar s ther e. She had no cr i m i nal hi s t ory and neve rkne w a nyone w ho had bee n the vi ct i m of a vi ol entcr i m e, and att ended he r B apti stch urch e very S un day an d W edn esday nightfor services . H er hobb i es w ere exerci se

### 78

and readi ng , and s he read the M em ph i s C o m m e rc ia l Ap p e a l and the Ti ppah C ounty So uthern S e n tin e l ea ch w ee k . S h e h ad be en w o rkin g at the C arrier C o rpo rati o n bu t h ad be en lai d o ff the m on th b efor e she w as cal l ed for j ury du ty. S he regu l arl y w at ched the local new s. ¶151. Pr os pect i ve j ur or25, Sonya G i l l ar d, w as empl oyed by C arr i eras a pr oduct i on t ech. She had w or ked w i th C arr i erf orf i ve yea r s . She had al s o s tudi ed atN ortheast S t at e, the t echn i cal coll ege i n B l ou ntvi l l e, T enn essee, an d at t end ed her B apti stchu rch m ostS un day s. She r ead the C o m m e rc ia l Ap p e a l on a dai l y bas i s , r ead the Souther n Sent i nel , and w at ched th e lo c a l n e w s. S h e h a d n o crim in a l his to ry a n d n e v e r k n e w a n y b o d y th a t w a s in v o lv e d in a vi ol entcr i m e. ¶15 2. P rospect i ve jur ors 24 an d 2 5 att end theirchu rches r egu l arl y; w ork atl ocal bu si nesses; an d take the lo ca l pap ers. T h ey b o th w ere reg ist ere d to v o te a n d b o th sh o w ed u p for jury d u ty w h e n c a lle d . O n p a p e r, t h e y s e e m lik e th e id e a l c ro s s -s e c tio n o f t h e c o m m u n ity . ¶153. Y et the S t at e struck t hem. C ouns el f or R os s oppos ed t he st ri kes, off er i ng onl y that

“ w e w o u ld o b

je c t t o h im r e m o v in g th e la s t t w o b la c k ju ro rs I th in k w e ’v e g o t o n th is p a n e l.” In res po nse, the pr os ecut orof f er ed that“J ur or24, W endy G ai l l ar d [ s i c] , i s 27 year s ol d. S h e’s sing le; an d the s am e g o es fo r j u ror n u m b er tw en ty -fi v e, S o n y a G ail lard [si c]. S h e’s 23 year s ol d. She’ s young. She’ s s i ngl e. W e bel i eve there i s suff i ci entt i es t o the
comm uni ty. ” T he St at e appa r ent l y m eantt o of f erthatthe pr os pect i ve j ur or s di d nothave
s u ff ic ie n t tie s to th e c o m m u n ity . ¶154. I n uphol di ng the s tr i kes , the onl y anal ys i s off ered b y t he t ri al co urtw as that “the def endanti n thi s cas e i s nota m emberof a r ecogni zabl e m i nor i ty . . . [ t ] her e noteven be i ng an i s s ue of

m i nor i ty ores t abl i shi ng of a patt ern, I ’ m notgoi ng t o r equi r e the St at e t o keep

### 79

them. I ’ m goi ng t o e xcus e them. ” Ross i s w hi t e and the pr os pect i ve j ur or s w er e bl ack, but
as exami ned s upr a the l aw m akes no di s t i nct i on on thi s poi nt . B oth thi s C our tand the U ni t ed S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt h a v e m a d e c lea r th a t B at s on appl i es no m att erthe r ace of the ac cus ed
o r t h e p o te n tia l ju ro r. P ow ers , 4 9 9 U .S . at 4 1 1 ; R og ers , 847 So. 2d at862. A l though the trial c o u rt su b se q u e n tly re c o g n ize d th a t Bat s on and i t s pr ogeny do notr equi r e thatthe obj ect i ng par ty be a m emberof the sa m e r aci al group as t he par ty s truck, i tdi d notr evi s i tthe
ea rl ier ruli n g a ll o w ing the p ere m p tory str ikes o f th e p rosp ec ti v e juro rs. T h e tri al co u rt ’s
m isap p li ca ti o n o f th e law is th ere fore rev ersible e rror. ¶155. E ven i f the tr i al j udge had us ed the corr ect s t andar d of l aw , the pr oper anal ys i s under Bat s on a n d o u r p re v io u s c a s e la w w a s n o t p e rf o rm e d . See R og ers , 847 So. 2d at862 ( out l i ni ng the bur den- s hi f t i ng pr oces s i n det erm i ni ng i f ther e has been purpos ef ul di s cr i m i nat i on) . I f

s uch a pr oces s w as us ed i tis d ou btf ul thatW endy G i l l ar d and Sonya G ill a rd w o u ld h a v e b e e n stru c k fro m th e ju ry , fo r th e se tw o w o m e n w e re c o n n e c ted to th e ir
c o m m u n iti e s in a t lea st a h a lf-d o z e n w a y s. T h e trial c o u rt like ly w o u ld h a v e b e e n lef t w ith the conc l us i on, as I am, thatthe pr os pect i ve j ur or s w er e ampl y qual i f i ed t o serve. F r om the
re c o rd , ita p p e a rs th a t th e re is o n ly o n e re a so n th e w o m e n w e re stru c k b y th e S ta te : b o th W e n d y a n d S o n y a id e n tif ie d th e m s e lv e s a s “ b la c k ” o n th e irju ry q u e s tio n n a ir e s . ¶15 6. Jury sel ect i on can be a com pli cat ed process. S om e l aw yers l oo k up on i t w i th alm ost a s uper st i t i ou s eye, and s om e turn t o s t at i s t i cs orcens us t o gai n a di f f er entper s pect i ve. T her e ar e many w ays t o s el ecta j ury, butw e ca nnotand w i l l notal l ow one t hati s t ai nt ed by
r aci al or gende rdi s cr i m i nat i on. I n addi t i on t o agr eei ng w i th t he m aj or i ty t hatR os s i s ent i t l ed to a n e w t r ia l b e c a u s e o f e rr o rs in th e g u ilt a n d s e n te n c in g p h a s e s o f h is p re v io u s tr ia l, I

### 80

w oul d al s o r ever s e bec aus e the tr i al courtut i l i zed the w r ong s t andar d i n anal yzi ng the
s el ect i on of

the j ury and bec aus e the St at e pr ovi ded onl y a pr et extual j us t i f i cat i on w hy the pr os pect i ve j ur or s w er e s truck. W AL LE R, P . J . , GRAVE S AND DI CKI NS ON, J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.

E AS L E Y, J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶1 5 7 . A s I w o u ld affirm R o ss’ d ea th p en alty co n v ict ion an d sen tenc e, I am c o m p e lled to
w r i t e i n or dert o a ddr es s the m aj or i ty’ s r ever s al a nd r emand t o the tr i al c our tf or al l eged
rev ersible e rror an d cu m u lat ive e rror. ¶158. I n m y opi ni on, the maj or i ty err oneous l y f i nds r ever s i bl e err or . T he m aj or i ty f i nds that ( 1) the exc l us i on of M ar gar etJones ’ st at ementt o W el l s ; and (2) def ens e couns el ’ s al l eged fa ilu re to in v e stig a te m iti g a tin g fa c to rs d u rin g th e se n ten c in g p h a se o f th e trial a m o u n t to rev ersible e rror. ¶ 1 5 9 . In a d d iti o n , I d isa g re e w ith th e m a jo rity ’s fin d in g o f c u m u lativ e e rro r. T h e m a jo rity f i nds that : ( 1) the St at e’ s us e of i nf or m at i on noti n evi dence dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent ; ( 2) d efe n se c o u n sel’s all eg ed fail u re to e x p lore the tai n ti n g o f th e v en ir e a ft er M arti n d ale’s
s econd s t at ement ; and ( 3) the exc l us i on of the bal l i s t i cs r eportf

r om evi dence requi r es rever sal du e t o cu m ulat i ve err or. L ast l y, I address tw o o ther i ssues, tho se bei ng , (1) W el l s’ pr of f er ed t es t i m ony on pol i ce i nves t i gat i ve t echni ques ; and ( 2) the w ei ghtof the evi dence . I . R ever s i bl e E rror . A . M a r g a r e t J o n e s - S ta te m e n t to H e r b e r t W e lls . ¶160. T he m aj or i ty hol ds t hatt he t r i al cour ter r ed by fa i l i ng t o f ol l ow U . R . C . C . C . R ul e 9. 04

### 81

conce rni ng the port i ons of J ones ’ s t at ement s t o W el l s t hatw er e s ui t abl e f ori m peac hm ent purpos es . I di s agr ee. T he m aj or i ty f i nds thata B ox v. S ta te , 437 So. 2d 19 ( M i s s . 1983) analysi s w as r equ i red. T he tr i al cou rt ’s rul i ng on this i ssue w as not cl ear. H ow ever, R oss ar gued hi s r eas oni ng f

ora l l ow i ng the admi s s i on of the i ncons i s t ency as an i m peac hm ent i s s ue, nota di s covery i s s ue. ¶1 6 1 . Jo n es g av e inc o n sist en t st atem en ts co n ce rnin g the tim e R o ss arrive d at H ale’s tr ail er. J ones t ol d W el l s thatR os s arr i ved atH al e’ s tr ai l erbetw een 8: 30 and 9: 00 p . m . , and s he tes tified a t trial th a t R o ss a rriv e d a t H a le’ s tra iler a t 1 1 :3 0 p .m . H o w e v e r, th e re c o rd re v e a ls that Jon es w as q u esti o n ed on d ir ec t exa m ination ab o u t th e a rri v al of R o ss at H ale’s tr ail er. O n cr os s - exami nat i on, R os s f ai l ed t o ques t i on J ones f ur theron thi s i s s ue. ¶162. O n di r ectexami nat i on, J ones st at ed t hatR os s ar r i ved atH al e’ s tr ai l eri n the af t ernoon. She s t at ed thatRoss l ef

ta r ound 8: 30 t o 9: 00 p. m . and r eturned t o H al e’ s tr ai l erar ound 11: 30 p. m . t o 12: 00 a. m . D es pi t e Jone s ’ t es t i m ony thatR os s came t o H al e’ s tr ai l eri n the af t ernoon, lef t ab o u t 8 :3 0 p .m . to 9 :0 0 p .m ., a n d re tu rn e d a ro u n d 1 1 :3 0 to 1 2 :0 0 a .m ., R o ss fa iled to ques t i on J ones on cr os s - exami nat i on aboutany i ncons i s t enci es i n herst at ement s t o var i ous peopl e pr i ort o tr i al . A tbes t , R os s m ade a vague r ef er ence t o J ones ’ di r ectt es t i m ony, s t at i ng: Q . [R o ss ] w a s so d ru n k h e w a s p a ss e d o u t o n y o u r c o u c h th a t w h o le n ig h t, w as n’ the? A . A f

t erhe ca m e i n, yeah. Q . A f

t erhe ca m e i n the f

i r s tt i m e oraf

t erhe ca m e i n the s econd t i m e. A . T he s econd t i m e. Q . A l l ri gh t , and that’ s j ustas true as anythi ng el se you ’ve t old us. A . W hat everyou s ay. A d d iti o n a lly , R o ss d id n o t p u rs u e a n y q u e stio n s o n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n w ith re g a rd to i ncons i s t enci es w i th s t at ement s made a s t o Ross ’ al l eged a rr i val atH al e’ s tr ai l er . R os s had

### 82

an opportuni ty t o ques t i on J ones o n cr os s - exami nat i on, how ever , he f ai l ed t o do s o. T h e re fo re , I fin d th a t th is d o e s n o t m e rit re v e rsa l.

B . M i ti ga ti n g F actors. 1. Ps yc hol og i c alTes t i ng . ¶163. I n Ho d

g e s v . S ta te , 9 12 S o. 2 d 730, 758- 59 ( M i s s . 2005) , thi s C our ts etf or th the st and ard of r eview fori neff ect i ve assi st ance o f counsel as fol l ow s: W her e i nef

f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

counse l i s al l eged, "the benchmar k [ ] m us tbe w he the rc ou ns e l ' s c on du c ts o un de r mi ne d the p r op e rf un c t i on i ng o f

t he adv ers ari al process that the tr i al cann ot be r el i ed o n as h aving p roduce d a just res ult . " Str i ckland v. W as hington , 466 U . S. 668, 686, 104 S. Ct . 2052, 2064, 80 L . Ed. 2 d 67 4 ( 19 84 ) . I n a dd i t i on , the d e f e nd a ntmus ts ho w tha tt he couns el ' s per form ance w as def i ci entand thatthe def

i ci ency pr ej udi ced the d e fe n se o f th e ca se . Id . at 687 , 104 S. C t . 2052. I n or dert o s how pr ej udi ce underthe Str i c kl

and st and ard, the [de fen d ant] m ustshow "that there i s a re a so n a b le p ro b a b ili ty th a t, bu t fo r c o u n se l' s u n p ro fe ss io n a l er ro rs, th e re su lt of the p roceeding w ou ld h av e been dif fer ent. A reas on able pr ob abil i ty is a probab i l ity su ffi ci ent t o u nd erm i ne co nfi den ce i n the outcom e. " Id . at694, 1 0 4 S . C t. a t 20 6 8 . A d efe n d an t m u st m ak e b o th sh o w ing s u n d er Str i c kl and , otherw i s e, "i tcannotbe s ai d thatthe convi ct i on ordeath sent ence r es ul t ed fr o m a b re a k d o w n in th e a d v e rs a ry p ro c e s s th a t r e n d e rs th e r e s u lt u n re lia b le ." J o n e s v . S ta te , 857 So. 2d 740 , 7 45 (M i s s . 2003) ( quot i ng S trin g e r v . S ta te , 4 5 4 S o . 2 d 4 6 8 , 4 7 7 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 )). Hodges , 912 So. 2d at758- 59. T hi s C our tal s o hel d: D ur i ng tr i al couns el m us tm ake s tr at egi c di s cr et i onary deci s i ons i ncl udi ng w h e th e r o r n o t to f

ile c e rta in m o tio n s, c a ll ce rta in w itn e ss e s, a sk c e rta in q u e s t i o n s , o rma k e c e r t a i n o b j e c t i o n s . I n g a u g i n g c o u n s e l ' s p e r f o r ma n c e , we m u st m a k e e v e ry e ffo rt "to e lim in a te th e d isto rtin g e ffe c ts o f h in d s ig h t, to re c o n stru c t th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f co u n se l' s c h a llen g e d co n d u c t, a n d to e v a lu a te th e c o n d u c t f

ro m c o u n s e l' s p e rs p e c tiv e a t th e tim e ." Id . (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶164. T he m aj or i ty hol ds that ther e w as i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . I n thi s r egar d, the maj or i ty f

i nds thati n a pos t - convi ct i on p sycho l ogi cal exami nat i on conduct ed attheT he t est i m on y of C hr i s K i t chens , R os s ’ tr i al couns el , atthe compet ency he ar i ng 9 r evea l s thatR os s has ta ken K i t chens ’ s t at ement s of “s tupi d” and “ thi ck hea ded”outof cont ext . K i t chens s t at ed thatJ i m Pannel l , co- couns el , R os s , and he cons i der ed ther e t o be a pr obl em w i th the i s s ue of pr oof . Si nce they ques t i oned the St at e’ s abi l i ty t o pr ove the ca s e, the bes tdef

ens e forR os s w as t o att ack a ny pr oof of R os s ’ gui l t . T hey cons i der ed other al t ernat i ves ; how ever , R os s w as “ada m ant ” thathe w as notgui l ty and notcr azy. K i t chens i ndi cat ed t hatt hi s w as t he t r i al str at egy f orR os s ’ cas e, and base d on K i t chens ’ t es t i m ony that R o s s a m p ly p a rt ic ip a te d a n d g a v e h is o p in io n o n v a ri o u s a s p e c ts o f h is c a s e . K i t chens di d cal l R os s “sl ow ” and “ thi ck hea ded. ” K i t chen, on cr os s - exami nat i on, ma d e i tc l e a rth a th e th o u g h tRo s s wa s d i f f i c u l tp e r s o n t o d e a l wi th b e c a u s e Ro s s h a d h i s o wn i deas aboutthe ca s e. A s f aras R os s bei ng s tupi d orthi ck hea ded, K i t chens s t at ed: W e l l , l i k e I s a y th e b e s twa y I c a n a n s we rth a tq u e s t i o n i s we th o u g h tth a twe actual l y ha d a s hota tthe i nnocenc e orgui l tori nnocenc e. C har l es [ R os s ] w as thi ck hea ded. Y ou m i ghteven s ay s tupi d as f aras tryi ng t o t el l hi m s om ethi ng, you know he w oul d a r gue w i th you beca us e he knew be t t erthan you di d. A nd I thi nk that ’ s goi ng back t o the ar gum entthathi m and Ji m P annel l had. T hat w as bas i cal l y i t . H e w as t el l i ng Ji m no that ’ s notthe w ay t o do thi s or 

### 83 M i s s i s s i ppi St at e H os pi t al atW hi t f i el d, s om e pot ent i al m i t i gat i ng f act or s w er e di scover ed such as p hy si cal abu se, m ental abu se, al coh ol abuse, an d v i sual and aud i t ory hall ucinat i on s. I n addi t i on , e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a tthe c ompe t e nc y h e a r i ng i nd i c a t e d tha tRos s w a s t a ki ng ant i
- ps ycho t i c medi cat i on and depr es s i on m edi cat i on atthe t i m e of the eva l uat i on. F urtherm ore, the m aj ori ty fi nd s t hat R oss and h i s m othert est i fi ed ab ou tthe d eat h o f R oss’
ex- w i f e and f ourc hi l dr en i n a ca rcr as h i n 1984 and the murde rof R os s ’ s i s t eri n 1982, yet def ens e couns el f

ai l ed t o s how how thes e eve nt s ps ychol og i cal l y af f ect ed R os s . T he
ma j o r i ty f i n d s th a tth e d e f

e n s e ’ s f a i l u r e t o i n v e s t i g a t e Ro s s ’ p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o b l e ms a m o u n ted to in e ffe c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l. ¶165. R os s al s o ci t es t o num er ous pl ace s at the compet ency hear i ng, w hi ch w as conduct ed aft er R oss’ tr i al an d i m po si t i on o f the d eat h p enalty, w here hi s tri al cou nsel descri bed R oss a s “ s tu p id ” a n d “ th ic k h e a d e d .” 9w hat ever . A nd m e and J i m w er e both pr etty m uch r i ngi ng [ s i c] ourhands and

Jim is m o re o u t sp o k e n th a n I a m a n d th e y fin a lly g o t in to a fu ss a b o u t it . K i t chen s al so m ade itcl ear that R oss underst oo d the t ri al process. K i t chen tho ug ht that R oss a n sw e re d q u e stio n s a p p ro p ria tely ; he w a s c o m p e ten t; h e h a d h is o w n o p in io n ; bu t R o ss d id n o t pro v ide th e b est assistanc e to K it ch en s an d P an n ell . T h ere fore , R o ss’ asse rt ion s are w ith o u t m e rit. 

### 84 I n Hodges , thi s C our thel d: Str i c kl and does notr equi r e couns el t o i nves t i gat e eve ry conce i vabl e l i ne of m i t i gat i ng evi dence no m att erhow unl i kel y the ef f or tw oul d be t o as s i s tthe defend ant atsent encing. N or does St r i c kland re q u ire d e fe n se c o u n se l to pr es entm i t i gat i ng evi dence at sent enci ng i n every cas e. B oth concl us i ons w o u ld in ter fe re w ith th e "c o n stitu tio n a lly p ro tec ted in d e p e n d e n c e o f c o u n se l" atthe heart of Str i c kland , 466 U . S. at689, 104 S. C t . 2052. W e bas e our concl us i on on the much m or e l i m i t ed pr i nci ple t hat"s tr at egi c choi ces m ade af t erl es s than co m pl et e i nves t i gat i on ar e r eas onabl e" onl y t o the ext entthat " re a s o n a b le p ro fe s s io n a l ju d g m e n ts s u p p o rt th e lim ita tio n s o n in v e s tig a tio n ." Id . at690- 691, 104 S. C t . 2052. A deci s i on nott o i nves t i gat e thus "mustbe dir ect l y asses sed for r easona bleness i n all the cir cum st ances. " Id . at691, 104 S. C t . 2052. Hodges , 912 So. 2d at764. ¶ 1 6 6 . T u rn in g to th e m iti g a tin g e v id e n c e p re se n ted d u rin g th e se n ten c in g p h a se o f th e trial, R os s ’ mot he r , N e l l i e Br a c ke n, t e s t i f i e d o n h i s be ha l f

. She s t a t e d tha tRos s ’ pa t er nal grandm otherw at ched R oss w hil e she w orked to supp orther chi l dren. S he st at ed thatR oss’ g ra n d m o th e r “ tre a ted h im b a d .” H is g ra n d m o th e r u se d to lo c k R o ss in a c lo se t w h ile h is
o th e r sib lin g s w e re p lay in g . B ra c k e n sta ted th a t R o ss w a s s c a re d o f th e d a rk c lo se t, an d h is gr andmot herknew i t . B r acke n st at ed t hatshe thoughtt hi s t r eatm entm ade Ross f r i ght ened,
w orr i ed, and he w oul d “go t o pi ece s ” w hen s he had t o l eave hi m everyday. ¶167. B r acke n a l s o s t at ed thatRoss ’ f ather , W i l l i e R os s , w as notpartof R os s ’ l i f e, pr ovi ded

### 85

n o su p p o rt fo r h is c h ild re n , a n d w o u ld b e a t B ra c k e n a n d h e r c h ild re n w h e n h e w a s p re se n t. E ven though B r acke n t es t i fi ed t hat Ross had a ha r d t i m e i n s chool and dr opped outatage f our t een, he ea rned a G . E . D . a nd be came a pl um berw hi l e he w as i n pr i s on. She a l s o s t at ed th a t R o s s d ra n k b e e r . W h e n h e d r a n k b e e r, s h e s ta te d th a t “ it w o u ld m e s s u p h is m in d .” O f t en, R os s w oul d do and s ay thi ngs w hi l e dr i nki ng thatw er e w r ong, and he l at erapol ogi zed forhis act i on s. ¶ 1 6 8 . B ra c k e n a lso sta ted th a t R o ss ’ e x -w ife a n d th re e y o u n g so n s w e re k ill e d b y a tra in in A r kans as m or e than ei ghtyear s ago. T he def ens e couns el then as ked: Q. An d h o w d i d th a ta f f e c th i m? A . R ough. Q . D id h e h a v e to g o in th e h o sp ital o r a n y th in g lik e th a t af ter th a t? A . N o . W e to o k c a re o f h im . W e talk e d to h im a n d h e lp e d h im th ro u g h it. W e hel ped hi m thr ough i t , buthe w i l l be af f ect ed w i th i tas l ong as he l i ves. T he d efense coun sel al so quest i on ed B racken abo ut the viol ent death of her chi l d an d R oss’
s i s t er . B r acke n s t at ed thathe rda ught erw as s hoti n the back by a s hot gun. She de s cr i bed the im p a c t th a t th is d e a th h a d o n R o s s a s b e in g “ a w fu l.” ¶169. W hen ques t i oned about R os s ’ abi l i ty t o know r i ght f r om w r ong, B r acke n s t at ed that sh e d id n o t b e liev e th a t R o ss “ h a s g o t th e k n o w h o w s o m e tim e s.” S h e a ttribu ted th is d iffic u lty t o “p rob ab ly alco h o l an d th e w ay he w as tr ea ted in h is li feti m e.” A cc o rdin g to B racken, al coh ol w as “a bi g p art ” of R oss’ problem s. B racken ack no w l edg ed thatR oss s om et i m es beca m e vi ol entand “r an of f ” f ami l y m ember s w hen he w as dr i nki ng. R os s l at er apol ogi zed f

orhi s act i ons . I n addi t i on, B r acke n s t at ed thats he had he ar d thathe w as m oved t o a di f f er entpr i s on f

or tryi ng t o es cape , butR os s nevert ol d herw hy he w as m oved. T he

### 86

p ro se c u tio n a llu d e d to a n u m b e r o f o th e r in sta n c e s w h e re R o ss a lleg e d ly b e h a v e d b a d ly in pr i s on; how ever , def

ens e couns el obj ect ed t o al l thes e ques t i ons , and the tr i al courts us t ai ned th e m. ¶170. H ow ar d Edw ar d J ones , a pr i s on mi ni s t er , a l s o s poke on Ross ’ be hal f atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng. H e s t at ed thathe bel i eved Ross knew r i ghtfr om w r ong. For m erSher i f f L er oy M eeks al s o t es t i f

i ed on R os s ’ behal f

. H e st at ed thathe w as the f i r s tl aw enf

or cementper s on to tak e R o ss in to c u sto d y w h e n R o ss w a s a rre ste d fo r a rm e d b a n k ro b b e ry . W h ile M e e k s d id notknow i f

R os s thr ew a w ay any s hot gun s hel l s , the s hot gun thatthe pol i ce r ecove r ed atthe t i m e of R os s ’ arr es tw as notl oaded. I n addi t i on, M eeks s t at ed thatR os s neverdi s char ged any bul l et s dur i ng the r obbery. ¶171. R os s t es t i f

i ed at the s ent enci ng hear i ng about hi s l i f e and backgr ound. H e conf i r m ed hi s m other ’ s t es t i m ony thathi s gr andmot herbeathi m and l ocked hi m i n a cl os et . I n addi t i on, he t ol d the j ury a boutthe deaths of hi s e x- w i f

e and hi s c hi l dr en. H e s t at ed thathe had ne ver go t t en o ver the d eat hs of these fam i l y m em bers. H e al so t est i fi ed ab ou this dri nk i ng hab i t s. W hi l e he di d notcons i derhi m s el f t o be an a l cohol i c, he s t at ed “[ m ] os tpe opl e w oul d s ay I
a m [an a lco h o lic]. I w o u ld sa y I a in ’t, b u t th a t’s th e w a y m o st a lco h o lics w o u ld re a c t to that. ” H e also de scribe d his be h av ior w h il e in prison an d ad m itted to m ak in g a lco h o l in f eder al pr i s on. ¶17 2. C l earl y, the jury h eard t est i m on y regard ing R o ss’ p h y sical an d m en t al abu se as a chil d. In addi t i on , the j ury heard abou tR oss’ dri nk i ng probl em that he ackn ow l edg ed m ost p e o p le w o u ld c o n sid e r to b e alc o h o lism . R o ss an d h is m o th e r te stifie d to th e e ffe c t th e d e a th of hi s ex- w i f

e and young s ons had on hi m . R os s ’ m otheral s o t ol d the j ury the ef f ectthatthe

### 87

death of he rda ught era nd Ross ’ s i s t erhad on hi m . R os s ’ m others t at ed thatw hi l e R os s w as had di f f i cul ty w i th s chool , he eve ntual l y earned hi s G . E . D . w hil e i n f eder al pr i s on and l earned t o be a pl um ber . R os s ’ counsel ad equ at el y pr es ent ed mi t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s tes tim o n y . T h e re fo re , I fin d th is iss u e to b e w ith o u t m e rit.

2. I nm at e B ehavi or . ¶173. R os s al s o ar gues t hathi s counse l w as i nef f ect i ve f orportr ayi ng hi m as a good pr i s oner i n openi ng st at ement s w hen hi s t r i al counse l “appar ent l y” di d notknow abouthi s pr i orpr i s on behavi or . Speci f

i cal l y, R os s ci t es t o hi s t es t i m ony t o the j ury att he s ent enci ng phas e of tr i al
a b o u t m a k in g a lco h o l an d g e tti n g d ru g s in p riso n . R o ss , h o w e v e r, fa iled to a c k n o w led g e h is
ow n uns ol i ci t ed el abor at i on on as pect s of hi s pr i s on behavi or . A tthe compet ency he ar i ng, K i t ch e ns , Ros s ’ f

ormertr i a l c o- couns el , t es t i f i ed conc erni ng R os s ’ pr i s on behavi or . K i t chens stat ed “m e a n d Jim [Pa n n ell ] alm o st f ell thro u g h o u r s e at w h en h e sa id tha t. ” H o w ev er, e x a m in in g th e rec o rd , K itch e n s m a d e c lea r th a t th e sta tem e n t w a s b e c a u se h e a n d P a n n e ll, R o ss ’ c o -c o u n se l, w e re su rp rised that R o ss m ad e h arm fu l sta tem e n ts to th e ju ry a b o u t h im se lf aboutm aki ng al cohol i n pr i s on, notthatthey had no pr i orknow l edge of R os s ’ behavi or . T he quot e R os s f

or th i n hi s br i ef

w as t aken outof

cont ext . K i t chens actual l y s t at ed: I f I c an I know one poi nt[ R os s ] vol unt eer ed on the s ent enci ng phas e thathe coul d m ake l i ke homem ade w i ne ors om ethi ng l i ke t hat orgetany drugs he w ant ed t o i n pr i s on and, you know of cour s e me and Ji m aboutfe l l t hr ough our s eatw hen [ R os s ] sai d t hat . T hatobvi ous l y di d nothel p hi m any. I don’ tthi nk i n [ the] s ent enci ng hear i ng. A revi ew of

R os s ’ t es t i m ony conce rni ng m i t i gat i ng evi dence r evea l s thaton cr os sexami nat i on Ross admi t t ed t o m aki ng al cohol and then vol unt eer ed i nf or m at i on aboutbei ng abl e t o obt ai n drugs and al cohol i n pr i s on. D ef ens e couns el di d notel i ci tthi s r es pons e.

### 88

T her ef or e, R os s ’ cl ai m thathi s couns el pr ovi ded i nef f ect i ve ass i s t ance of

couns el i s t aken
o u t o f c o n tex t an d is w ith o u t m e rit. I I . C um ul at i ve E rror . A . P ro sec u tor ’s C losin g S tate m en t. ¶174. T he m aj or i ty hol ds thatthe pr os ecut or m ade inapp ropri at e ref erences i n cl osi ng ar gum ent s l i nki ng R os s ’ al l eged pr es ence t o the s cene of the cr i m e. W hi l e the maj or i ty hol ds thatthi s err orm ay nothave pr ej udi ced Ross enough t o r equi r e r ever s al i n I s s ue I I I , the
m aj or i ty i n I s s ue X II , conce rni ng cumul at i ve err or , hel d thatthe pr os ecut i on’ s us e of in fo rm a tio n n o t in e v id e n c e in h is c lo sin g a rg u m e n t w a rra n ted re v e rsa l. ¶17 5. T his C ou rt has held that ‘[ a] t t orneys are al l ow ed w i de l at i tud e i n cl osi ng argum ents ”
a n d “ [t] h e trial ju d g e is in th e b e s t a [s ic] p o sitio n to d e ter m in e if a n a lleg e d o b jec tio n a b le
r emar k has a pr ej udi ci al ef f ect . ” Ho w e ll , 860 So. 2d at751. ¶176. R os s ci t es t o tw o i ns t ance s i n the r ecor d w her e he cl ai m s that the pr os ecut i on ar gued fac ts no t i n ev iden ce d u ri n g th e clo sing argu m en ts. A rev iew o f th e re co rd re v ea ls th at th ere w as no err or , and the i s s ue i s w i thoutm er i t . For m erSher i f f M auney t es t i f

i ed thatR os s w as n o t at the scene of the cri m e. H ow ever, he ex plai ned that R oss’ nam e w as on M aun ey ’s
cr i m e s cene s i gn- i n s heetbeca us e a numberof t he w i tnes s es pre s entatthe s cene s t at ed that R os s had bee n i n the vi ci ni ty the pr i orday. M auney w r ot e R os s ’ nam e on the s i gn- i n s heet
a s a p e rso n a l n o te to h im se lf so th a t h e w o u ld n o t fo rg e t it . ¶17 7. O n the fi rs to ccasi on o f al l eged p rosecut ori al m i scond uct, the r ecord reveal s that R oss obj ect ed t o the pr os ecut i on’ s st at ementand t he t r i al j udge i ns truct ed t he j ury t o di s r egar d the pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ement , thus c ur i ng a ny a l l eged err or . O n the s econd oc cas i on, R os s f ai l ed

### 89

t o m ake a cont empora neous obj ect i on t o the pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ement . I n R u b e n ste in v. S ta te , 9 4 1 S o . 2 d 7 3 5 , 7 5 5 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ), th is C o u rt h e ld th a t “[t]h e c o n tem p o ra n e o u s o b jec tio n ru le
a p p lies in d e a th p e n a lty c a se s.” T h e re fo re , this n o w is p ro c e d u ra lly b a rre d o n a p p e llate
r evi ew . H ow evernotw ai vi ng t he pr ocedur al bar , t he pr os ecut or ’ s s econd s t at ement , w hen
r ead i n cont ext , m er el y i nform ed the j ury of the f i r s tt i m e thatR os s ’ name came up i n the i nves t i gat i on. In th e first in sta n c e , the p ro se c u tio n sta ted in p a rt: [S T A T E ]: T h e re h a s b e e n n o d isp u te th a t G a ry M a u n e y w e n t o u t to

the s cene of

the cr i m e and w as m aki ng n otes – he w as the s her i f

f then – as f

aras w ho w as ther e and thi ngs l i ke that. A t th at t im e h e re ce ived info rm ati o n that this def endantw as s een i n t he ar ea thatday, no di s put e of th a t. T her e’ s been no di s put e – [ D E FE N SE ] : I don’ tm ean t o i nterrupt , buthe’ s ar gui ng out s i de the

s cope of the evi dence . [C O U R T ]: A n y sta tem e n t o r re m a rk th a t d o e sn ’t h a v e a n y b a sis in

the evi dence , the C our ti ns tructed the j ury t o di s r egar d. Y o u ca n co n ti n u e, M r. L u ther. T h is C o u rth as h eld that “ [w ] h en the tri al c o u rtsu stai n s an o b jecti o n an d ad m o n ishe s the jury t o d i sr egard t he st at em ent, there i s usual l y n o err or, ‘ absent un usual ci rcum st ances. ’" Cas ton v. S ta te , 823 So. 2d 473, 494 ( M i s s . 2002) ( ci t i ng P u lp h u s v . S ta te , 782 So. 2d 1220, 1223 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 )). ¶17 8. F u rt h erm ore, the t ri al courti nst ruct ed the jury that an y rem ark s b y co u n sel are in stru c tiv e o n ly a n d n o t ev id e n c e . Ju ry in stru c tio n C -1 sta ted in p a rt: A r gum ent s , s t at em ent s , and r emar ks of couns el ar e i nt ended t o hel p you under s t and the evi dence and appl y the l aw , butar e notevi dence . A ny ar gum ent , s t at ement , orr emar k havi ng no basi s i n t he evi dence s houl d be di s r egar ded by you.

### 90

¶ 1 7 9 . O n th e se c o n d o c c a sio n , R o ss fa iled to o b jec t to th e a lleg e d re fe re n c e to fa c ts no t in
e v id e n c e . W h e n re a d in g th e sta tem e n t in c o n tex t, i t is c lea r th a t th e p ro se c u tio n ’s s tate m e n ts
m e re ly a d d re ss th e first tim e th a t R o ss ’ n a m e w a s m e n tio n e d in th e in v e stig a tio n , n o t h is actual w her eabout s . T he pr os ecut i on s t at ed: O n e th in g [G a ry M au n ey ] h ad d o n e a t th e sc en e – n o p erso n that they w ere acc us i ng l i ke M ar gar etA nn J ones oranybody had t ol d them anyt hi ng about a f el l ow by the name of

C har l es R os s ; buton G ary’ s not e dow n atthe bott om w her e he’ s atthe cr i m e s cene t aki ng a l i s tof al l the f ol ks s t andi ng ar ound out ther e l ooki ng, he w r i t es dow n the name C har l es R os s . T hati s Satur day m orni ng af

t erR ay Y ance y w as ki l l ed. T hat ’ s the f i r s tthi ng w e hea rabout C harl es R oss. I n S c o tt v. S ta te , 8 7 8 S o . 2 d 9 3 3 , 9 5 3 (M is s . 2 0 0 4 ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds , this C o u rt hel d: “H ei gh t ened app el l at e scruti ny i n d eat h p enalty cases do es not r equ ir e abandonmentof

ourcont empora neous obj ect i on rul e w hi ch appl i es w i th equal f or ce t o death cas es . Form any yea r s thi s C our thas hel d t hatt r i al err or s cannot be rai sed in t his C ou rtfor the fi rs tt i m e on app eal . " W ill ia m s v . S ta te , 684 So. 2d 1179, 1203 ( M i s s . 1996) . "I f no cont empora neous obj ect i on i s m ade, the err or , i f any, i s w ai ved. Thi s rul e' s a ppl i cabi l i ty i s notdi m i ni s hed i n a capi t al case. " Co le v . S ta te , 5 2 5 S o . 2 d 3 6 5 , 3 6 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). See al s o R u b e n ste in , 9 4 1 S o . 2 d a t 7 5 5 (“ T h e c o n tem p o ra n e o u s o b jec tio n ru le a p p lies in d e a th p e n a lty c a se s. T h e re fo re , an y iss u e to w h ich R u b e n ste in fa iled to o b jec t is p roc ed u rall y b arred ”) (cit ati o n s o m itted). In ad d it ion , as a d d resse d a b o v e , th e tri al co u rt pr oper l y i ns truct ed t he j ury i n j ury i ns truct i on C
- 1 thatany r emar ks by couns el “havi ng no bas i s i n t he evi dence shoul d be di s r egar ded” by the j ury. A ccor di ngl y, I f i nd thatther e w as n o p ro se c u to ria l m isc o n d u c t.

B . M art i ndal e – T ai nt i ng of t he V eni re. ¶ 1 8 0 . T h e m a

jo rity a d d re ss e s tw o sta tem e n ts a p o te n tia l v e n ire p e rso n m a d e d u rin g v o ir

### 91

di r e. T hi s pot ent i al j ur or , W anda M art i ndal e, w as s ubs equent l y s truck and di d nots i ton the j ury. M art i ndal e s t at ed that“I ’ ve t es t i f i ed aga i ns t[ R os s ] i n f

eder al c our t ” and i ndi cat ed that sh e w o u ld b e b iased b y this fact. L ater, M arti n d ale a lso stated that “I w as th e v ict im o f a
c ri m e .” ¶ 1 8 1 . T h e m a

jo rity o p in io n in Iss u e I, S e c tio n A , fin d s th a t it h a s n o b a sis to d e ter m in e if M art i ndal e’ s f

i r s ts t at ementthat“I ’ ve tes t i fi ed aga i ns t[ R os s ] i n f eder al court ” w as p r e j u d i c i a l s i n c e th e r e wa s n o o b j e c t i o n a n d n o r e c o r d o n th e i s s u e . I n I s s u e I V, S e c t i o n A,
conce rni ng i nef

f ect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el , the maj or i ty f

i nds no i nef

f ect i ve as s i s t ance of
co u n sel. Instea d , the m ajority fi n d s tha t defe n se c o u n sel sh o u ld h av e c o n d u cted a c u rsory inq u iry into the iden ti ty o f th e v en ir e p an el, an d tha t th e fa il u re to rem o v e M arti n d ale b efo re hers econd s t at ementcoul d notbe cons i der ed tr i al s tr at egy. D espi t e thes e f i ndi ngs , the
m ajority stat es th at th e a cti o n s o f R o ss’ tri al co u n sel l ikely fell b elow an o b jecti v e stan d ard of r easona bleness and thereby con st i tuted e rr or even tho ug h itcann ot cl ai m that R oss s uf f er ed pr ej udi ce. Pur s uantt o the maj or i ty’ s f i ndi ngs , R os s f

ai l ed t o m eetthe Str i c kl and
s ta n d a rd . Ho d

g e s v . S ta te , 912 So. 2d at758- 59. ¶182. U nder the Str i c kl and sta n d a rd , if th e a c tio n s o f th e d e fe n se c o u n se l d o n o t u lti m a tely
re s u lt in p re

ju d ic e , th e re is n o i n e ff e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. Hodges , 912 So. 2d at 758- 59. N everthel es s , the m aj ori ty, i n I s s ue X I I conce rni ng cumul at i ve err or , f i nds that def ens e couns el ’ s fa i l ur e t o expl or e t he poss i bl e t ai nt i ng of the veni r e amount ed t o a r eas on to rev erse o n cu m u lat ive e rror. ¶18 3. N otw i thst and i ng the m aj ori ty’s analysi s, I f i nd no err or. A s for M arti n d al e’s fi rs t s t at ement , s he w as struck f r om t he veni r e and nevers atas a j ur or . M art i ndal e s i m pl y s t at ed

### 92

th a t sh e te stifie d a g a in st R o ss in fe d e ra l co u rt w ith o u t an y fu rth e r e x p lan a tio n . M a rtin d a le al s o neverspec i f

i ed w hethershe t es t i f

i ed agai ns tR os s i n a cr i m i nal or ci vi l cas e i n f eder al
court . T her ef

or e, the otherpr os pect i ve veni r e p er s ons had no know l edge of R os s ’ f eder al
cr i m i nal r ecor d dur i ng voi rdi r e. ¶184. M art i ndal e’ s s econd s t at ement w as that s he w as a vict i m of a cr i m e and w oul d be bi as ed by thi s f

act . Thi s s t at ementa l one i s notegr egi ous and i s a comm on ques t i on as ked
mo s tve n i r e pe r s o n s i n v o i rd i r e . M a r t i n d a l e d i d n o ts t a t e th a ts h e wa s a v i c t i m o f a c r i me co m m itted b y R o ss. S h e sim p ly stated tha t she w as a v ict im o f a crim e, w h ich d id n o t i n form the r es tof

t he veni r e of

any pot ent i al connect i on bet w een M art i ndal e and Ross . A ccor di ngl y, I fin d th is iss u e w ith o u t m e rit.

C . E x clu sion o f the B a ll ist ics R ep o rt. ¶1 85 . T he maj or i ty f

i nd s the e xc l us i on of the ba l l i s t i c s r e po r t do e s not m er i t r ever s al by i t s el f . H ow ever , undera cum ul at i ve err oranal ys i s , the maj or i ty f i nds thatthe exc l us i on of the bal l i s t i cs r eportand the j ury’ s i nabi l i ty t o have the t angi bl e documentw arr ant s r ever s al of the convi ct i on. I di s agr ee. ¶ 1 8 6 . R o ss w a n ted th e b a lli stic s re p o rt to b e a d m itt e d in to e v id e n c e in o rd e r to re fe r to it i n cl os i ng ar gum ent s orf ori m peach m ent. W hetherthe r eportw as i n evi dence m ade no d if feren c e to R o ss ’ ab il ity to refere n ce the b all ist ics rep o rtin h is cl o sing stat em en t. In addi t i on, R os s ’ couns el m ore than ade quat el y cr os s - exami ned l aw enf or cementand the bal l i s t i cs e xpertc oncerni ng the r eport . O f f i cerW i l banks t es t i f

i ed conc erni ng the cr i m e l ab
res ult s. T he po l i ce r equ est ed l at ent fi ng erpr i nt analysi s of the of the g un and provided R oss’ fi n g erp ri n ts. O ffi ce r W il b an k s st ated th e rep o rtresu lt s w ere th at “n o i d en ti fi ca ti o n s w e re

### 93

ef f ect ed” meani ng nothi ng coul d be pos i t i vel y i dent i fi ed. J ohn Fr anovi ch, the cr i m e l ab bal l i s t i cs e xpert , r ead the bal l i s t i cs r eportr es ul t s t o the j ury. T he t es tr es ul t s s t at ed thatthe
r ecove r ed bul l et s coul d notbe pos i t i vel y i dent i f i ed as bei ng fi red f

r om the r ecove r ed gun. I n otherw or ds , Fr anovi ch s t at ed thathe coul d notpos i t i vel y s ay the bul l et s w er e f i r ed f r om the r ecove r ed gun, norcoul d he excl ud e the poss i bi l i ty thatthe bul l et s w er e f i r ed f r om anothergun. ¶ 1 8 7 . B o th o f R o ss ’ d e fe n s e a tto rn e y s , K itc h e n s a n d P a n n e ll, a rg u e d c lo sin g sta tem e n ts bef or e the j ury. B oth of

the att orneys s peci f

i cal l y r ef er ence d the f

ai l ur e t o pos i t i vel y l i nk the
re c o v e re d g u n to th e b u llets. M r. K itch e n s s tate d , in p a rt: T her e w er e no f

i ngerpr i nt s of

C har l es R os s on thi s gun, on thes e bee rcans , on thi s T V , on thatV C R . T her e w as nota pos i t i ve bal l i s t i cs m at ch on thi s gun. Y o u h e a rd M r. F ra n o v ich , a lth o u g h itw a s so rt o f fu n n y w h e n Jim [P a n n e ll] s ai d, “Y ou w entt o D el t a St at e”; and he s ai d, “N o, I di dn’ t , ” s or tof f unny; but he coul dn’ ts qui r m outof the f actthathe c oul d notpos i t i vel y i dent i f y thi s gun a s b e in g th e m u rd e r w e a p o n . H e c o u ld n ’t d o it. M r. P ann el l , i n h i s port i on of R oss’ cl osi ng argum ent, al so ref erenced the f

actthat R oss al l egedl y t hr ew t he gun aw ay, yetR os s ’ fi ngerpr i nt s w er e notfound on t he gun. In a ddi t i on, R os s ’ couns el al s o s t at ed thatt her e w as nothi ng t o i dent i f y the bul l et s as comi ng f r om the gun. ¶ 1 8 8 . T h e re fo re , th e ju ry w a s m a d e a w a re o f th e fa c t th a t th e re p o rt w a s in c o n c lu siv e a s to fi ng erpr i nts and there w as no m at ch o f the recovered g un to the g un used in the m urder. R oss m ade no s how i ng of

pr ej udi ce by the exc l us i on of the r eport . A ccor di ngl y, I f i nd thi s i s s ue w ith o u t m e rit. III . O ther Iss u es.T he r ecor d re veal s t hatR os s att empt ed t o have W el l s qual i f i ed as an expe r ti n the 10 f i el d of c r i m i nal i nves t i gat i on. T he St at e obj ect ed t o W el l s bei ng qual i f i ed as an expe r t . T he tr i al courtnevers peci f

i cal l y qual i f

i ed W el l s as an expe r t . I ns t ead, the tr i al courts t at ed that W el l s w oul d notbe al l ow ed t o t es t i f y conce rni ng hi s e xpertopi ni on on i nves t i gat i on, pol i ce t echn i qu es, and otherm at t ers . 

### 94

A . H erber t W el l s – P ol i ce I nves t i gat ory T echni ques . ¶1 8 9 . T h e m ajority fi n d s tha t th e tri al co u rtd id no t err b y ex clud ing the testi m o n y o f H erb ert W el l s w i th re gar d t o t he pol i ce i nves t i gat ory t echni ques . I agr ee. T he m aj or i ty fi nds that 10 W el l s ’ pr of

f er ed t es t i m ony on pol i ce i nv es t i gat ory t echni ques f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h the
r el i abi l i ty of

hi s t es t i m ony pur s uantt o D au bert and McClem ore . I f

i nd, i n the al t ernat i ve, thata r evi ew of

the r ecor d r evea l s i n thi s cas e thatt es t i m ony conce rni ng pol i ce i nves t i gat i ve t echn i qu es w as pl aced b efor e t he j ury b y otherw i tnesses, w hich gives R oss’ argum ent l ess cr edenc e and abs ol ut el y demonstr at es thatR os s w as notpr ej udi ced by the exc l us i on of W el l s ’ pr of

f er ed t es t i m ony. ¶1 90 . T he r ecor d r eve a l s tha t Ros s ne ve r a t t e mpt e d t o a dmi t W e l l s ’ r e po r t i nt o e vi de nc e. Fur therm or e, the r ecor d r evea l s thatal l of W el l s ’ pr of

f er ed t es t i m ony, and more , w as pr es ent ed t o the j ury thr ough otherw i t nesses. I n hi s pr of f er ed t es t i m ony, W el l s t es t i f i ed g e n e ra lly a b o u t th e p o lice tec h n iq u e s. In h is p rio r ex p e rie n c e , W e lls h a d b e e n re sp o n sib le f orcontr ol and ana l ys i s of a numberof

cr i m e s cene s . W el l s t es t i f i ed thatt oo m any non- l aw enf or cementper s onnel w er e pr es entatthe cr i m e s cene w i thouta l aw f ul purpos e. I n addi t i on, W el l s s t at ed thatthe evi dence coul d have be en ei theracc i dent al l y ori nt ent i onal l y di s turbed b y th e lar g e n u m b e r o f n o n -la w en fo rc e m e n t p e rso n n e l p re se n t at th e sc e n e . A c c o rd in g to doc umen t s r e vi e w e d by W e l l s , Ros s ’ f i ng e rpr i nt s wer e the o nl y pr i nt s s ub mi t t e d f or

### 95

compar i s on r es ul t s . H ow ever , W el l s s t at ed thatther e w er e no compar i s on orr es ul t s f orany o f th e late n t fin g e r p rin ts s u b m itt e d . In h is e x p e rie n c e a s a law e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic e r, W e lls t es t i f i ed thatf i ngerpr i nt s f

oreac h i ndi vi dual i nvol ved w oul d be subm i t t ed f orcompar i s on. Fur ther , W el l s s t at ed thathe w oul d notarr es ts om eone ba s ed upon a t i p pr ovi ded by per s on w ith u n k n o w n c re d ib ili ty . W e lls sta ted tha t pr io r to m a k in g a n a rre st, h e w o u ld in v e stig a te th e b a c k g r o u n d o f

a wi tn e s s wh o p r o v i d e d i n f o r ma t i o n t o h i m. ¶19 1. T h e S tat e o bjected to W ell s’ testi m o n y a n d e x p ertreportbased o n d isco v ery viol at i on s of U . R . C . C . C . P . R ule 4. 04 (a) and R ule 9. 04 (c) (3) . T he t ri al cou rtexcluded W el l s’ t es t i m ony on pol i ce t echni ques and s t at ed: D o you i nt end t o of

f erthe t es t i m ony? C our thad as ked you t o m ake thi s of f er outof the pr es ence of

the j ury, beca us e C our thad t ol d you her e atthe benc h I ’ m notgoi ng t o l etthi s w i tnes s t es t i f y conce rni ng an expe rtopi ni on on the in v e stig a tio n , the tec h n iq u e , the p ro c e d u re , this ty p e th in g , o f th is in v e stig a tio n ; so th a t’s a ll o u t. T he recor d r evea l s thatR os s ’ def ens e couns el admi r abl y pl ace d the i s s ue of pr obl emat i c pol i ce t echni ques be f or e the j ury. R os s ’ couns el cr os s - exami ned a numberof law e n fo rc e m e n t p e rso n n e l a n d p re se n ted th e ju ry w ith th e s a m e c o n c e rn s th a t w e re se t fo rth i n W el l s’ proff

ered t est i m on y. C hief

of Poli ce W i l ban ks, form erl y C hief D epu ty W i l ban ks, t e s t i f i e d t h a ta n u mb e ro f

p e o p l e we r e p r e s e n ta tt h e s c e n e . Th e p o l i c e r e q u e s t e d th e c r i me l ab t o t es tf

orl at entf

i ngerpr i nt s on the t el evi s i on, gun, f r ontdoor of Y ancey’ s hous e, and
v a rio u s o th e r item s in Y a n c e y ’s h o m e . O ffic e r W ilb a n k s s tate d th a t th e c ri m e lab re su lts show ed t hatnone of

R os s ’ f i ngerpr i nt s w er e pos i t i vel y i dent i f i ed on any of

thes e i t em s. O ff i cer W i l ban ks al so t est i fi ed thatno fi ng erpr i nts of D on al d R oss, Jr . ; Jerry San ders; M ar gar etJ ones ; and Tom m y H al e w er e s entt o the cr i m e l ab f ora compar i s on.

### 96

¶19 2. O f

f i cerW i l banks col l ect ed ev i den ce i n Y ancey ’s ho m e. H e acknow l edged thathe had tra in in g to n o t d istu rb e v id e n c e a s it is b e in g c o llec ted a n d d id n o t co llec t an y item s w ith h is b a re h an d s. O ffi ce r W il b an k s st ated th at he did n o t take a skin sam p le f rom R o ss to det erm i ne i f

he had f i r ed a gun w i thi n a w eek of hi s a rr es t . O f

f i cerW i l banks al s o s t at ed that he d i d n ot t ake M argaret Jo n es’ or T om m y H al e’s st at em ent, that he di d n ot know these wi tn e s s e s , a n d th a th e d i d n o tp e r f o r m a c r i mi n a l r e c o r d s e a r c h o n th e m. ¶19 3. G ary M auney, then P oli ce C hief of T i pp ah C ou nty, t est i fi ed thati nform at i on pr ovi ded by w i tnes s es has t o be “c hecke d out . ” O f f i cerM auney s t at ed t hatthe pol i ce s om et i m es have be e n gi ve n f

a l s e i nf ormat i on . J os e ph Kel l um, a c r i me l a b f or e ns i c s c i e nt i s t , s t a t e d thathe
com pli ed w i th st and ard ope rat i ng proced ures. ¶1 94 . C l ear l y, def

ens e couns el ques t i oned o the rwi tne s s e s a bo utpol i ce i nves t i gat i on t echni ques . T he t es t i m ony of O f f i cer s W i l banks and M auney c over ed al l of the i s s ues that W el l s rai s ed i n hi s pr of f er ed t es t i m ony. T her ef or e, the j ury had an opportuni ty t o hear test im o n y ab o u t po li ce tech n iqu es, an d there is no erro r.

B . W ei ght of

t he E vi dence. ¶195. T he maj or i ty goes t o gre atl engths t o demonstr at e i ncons i s t ence s i n w i tnes s t es t i m ony and ci r cumst ant i al evi dence . O n the one hand, the maj or i ty f i nds the contr adi ct ory t es t i m ony of var i ous w i tnes s es , part i cul ar l y J ones’ t es t i m ony, t o be untrus tw or thy. I n addi t i on, the
m aj or i ty f

i nds the ci r cumst ant i al e vi dence t o be tr oubl i ng. N onethel es s , the maj or i ty f i nds thatthe tr i al courtdi d noterr , and a ne w tr i al i s notw arr ant ed on thi s bas i s al one. ¶196. I n B u sh v. S ta te , 895 So. 2d 836, 844 ( M i s s . 2005) , thi s C our t s t at ed the s t andar d of revi ew forthe w eigh tof the ev i den ce. “[ W ] e w i l l on l y d i sturb a ve rdi ctw hen i ti s so

### 97

contr ary t o the overw hel m i ng w ei ghtof the evi dence thatt o a l 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 . T he i s s ues of w ei ghtof

the evi dence and cr edi bi l i ty of
w i tnes s es ar e cl ear l y w i thi n the pr ovi nce of the j ury. I n S tep h e n s v. S ta te , thi s C our thel d: J ur or s ar e perm i t t ed, and i ndeed ha ve the duty t o r es ol ve the co nfl i ct s i n the te s tim o n y th e y h e a r. G a n d y v. S ta te , 3 7 3 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 2 , 1 0 4 5 (M iss. 1 9 7 9 ). A ny conf

l i ct s i n the t es t i m ony of w i t nesses i s the pr ovi nce of the j ury. G ro se c lo se v. S ta te , 440 S o. 2d 297, 300 ( M i s s . 1983). W ho t he j ury bel i eves and w hatconcl us i ons i tr eac hes ar e sol el y f ori t s det erm i nat i on. A s the r evi ew i ng court , w e ca nnotand nee d notdet erm i ne w i th exac t i tude w hi ch w itn e ss (e s) o r w h a t tes tim o n y th e ju ry b e liev e d o r d isb e liev e d in a rriv in g a t it s v e rd ict. It is e n o u g h th a t th e c o n flictin g e v id e n c e p re se n ted a fa c tu a l d isp u te fo r j u ry re s o lu tio n . Id . at300. S tep h e n s v . S ta te , 911 So. 2d 424, 436 ( M i s s . 2005) . I n Ho w e ll , anotherdeath penal ty cas e, this C ou rtadd res sed t he rol e of the jur ors w hen con fr on t ed w i th co nfl i ct i ng w i tness te s tim o n y . Ho w e ll , 860 So. 2d at731. T hi s C our thel d: [ T ] h i s C o u r th a s r e p e a t e d l y h e l d th a t" th e j u ry i s th e f i n a l a rb i t e ro f

a w i tn e s s 's credi bil i ty. " See W

illia m s v . S ta te , 7 9 4 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 9 , 1 0 2 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ); Mo rg a n v. S ta te , 681 So. 2d 82, 93 ( M i s s . 1996) . T he j ury al one det erm i nes th e w e ig h t a n d w o rt h o f a n y c o n fl ic tin g te s tim o n y . H ick s v . S ta te , 812 So. 2d 1 7 9 , 1 9 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). Ho w e ll , 860 So. 2d at731. Fur ther , thi s C our tal s o has hel d: T hi s C our thas i n num er ous cas es , t oo m any t o m ent i on, s ai d thatw hen the evi dence i s conf

l i ct i ng , t he j ury w i l l be the s ol e j udge of the cr edi bi l i ty of w i tnes s es and the w ei ghtand w or th of thei rt es t i m ony. T hi s w i s e rul e appl i es w i th equal f

or ce t o the s t at e' s w i tnes s e s a ndthe a pp e l l ant ' s w i tnes s es , i ncl udi ng the appel l anthi m s el f

. W e have r epea t edl y hel d t hati n a cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on the jury m ay acc ept the tes t i m on y o f s om e w i tnesses and rej ectthat of other s, and thatthey may acce pti n partand r ej ecti n partthe evi dence on behal f of the s t at e oron behal f

of the acc us ed. In otherw or ds , the cr edi bi l i ty of w i tnes s es is n o t fo r th e re v iew in g c o u rt. Hughes , 735 So. 2d a t276- 77 ( ci t at i ons omi tt ed) . Thi s C our tpr es um es thatj ur i es f ol l ow the instruction s p rov ided t o th em by th e tr ial co u rt , an d t o fi n d othe rw ise w o u ld m ak e the jury

### 98

s y s te m in o p e ra b le . Ho w e ll , 860 So. 2d at733. T hi s C our t"a l s o hel d that“[ c] i r cumst ant i al
e v id e n ce n ee d n o t exc lud e e v ery ' p o ss ib le d o u b t,' b u t o n ly e v e ry o th e r ' re a so n a b le' h y p o th e sis of i nnocenc e. " N

e a l v. S ta te , 805 So. 2d 520, 526 ( M i s s . 2002) ( quot i ng T o lb e rt v . S ta te , 4 0 7 S o . 2 d 8 1 5 , 8 2 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 1 )). ¶ 1 9 7 . H e re , the trial c o u rt p ro p e rly in stru c ted th e ju ry c o n c e rn in g th e w e ig h t an d c re d ib ili ty of the w i tnes s es . J ury i ns truct i on C
- 1 s t at ed, i n pert i nentpart , the f ol l ow i ng: I ti s yourduty t o det erm i ne t he f act s and t o det erm i ne them fr om the evi dence pr oduced i n open court . Y ou ar e t o appl y t he l aw t o t he f act s and i n thi s w ay deci de t he cas e. Y ou s houl d notbe i nf l uence d by bi as , s ym pathy, orpr ej udi ce. Y ourver di cts houl d be bas ed on the evi dence and n ot upon spec ul at i on, gues s w or k, orconj ectur e. Y ou ar e the s ol e j udges of the f act s . Y oure xcl us i ve pr ovi nce i s t o det erm i ne w hatw ei ghtand w hatcr e di bi l i ty wi l l be as s i gned the t es t i m ony and s uppor t i ng evidence o f each w i tness in th is case. Y ou are r equ i red and exp ect ed to use yourgood comm on s ens e and s ound hones tjudgm enti n cons i der i ng and w ei ghi ng the t es t i m ony of eac h w i tnes s w ho has t es t i f i ed i n thi s cas e. ¶1 98 . R os s ’ j ury had t he oppor tuni t y t o hearconf l i ct i ng t es t i m ony as w el l as t he circu m stan ti al ev iden ce p rese n ted a t tri al. P u rsu an t t o M issi ssipp i prec ed en t, this C o u rt pr es um es thatthe j ury fol l ow ed t he i ns truct i ons of the court . A ccor di ngl y, I f i nd thi s i s s ue to b e w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 1 9 9 . F o r th e fo re g o in g re a so n s, I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t w ith the m a jo rity o p in io n . I w o u ld af f i r m the convi ct i on and dea th s ent ence i m pos ed on C har l es W ayne Ross by the Ti ppah C ounty C i r cui tC our tj ury. CARL S ON, J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.