I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 6 - KA- 0 1 3 9 3 - S CT C A R L O SB R O WN
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 28/ 2006 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. BO BBY BU RT D ELAU GH TER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T : D O N A L D W
. B O Y K IN AT T ORNE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T ORNE Y GE NE RA L DI S T RI CT AT T ORNE Y: BY : W
. G LEN N W A TTS E L E ANOR J OHNS ON P E T E RS ON NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D 10/ 18/ 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:

B E F O R E D I A Z, P . J. , C A R L SO N A N D R A N D O L P H , JJ. DI AZ , PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1. C ar l os B r ow n w as c onvi ct ed of one c ounte ach of

ki dnapi ng ( M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 5 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 6 )), b u rg lar y (M iss . C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -1 7 -2 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 6 )), a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt ( M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 7( 2) ( a) (Rev. 2006)) , at t empt ed arm ed r obbery ( M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 3- 79 ( R ev. 2006) ) , and shoot i ng i nt o a dw el l i ng ( M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 37- 29 ( R ev. 2 0 0 6 )) , a n d se n ten c e d to e ig h ty y e a rs in c u sto d y . O n a p p e a l B ro w n a rg u e s th a t th e sta te f ai l ed t o pr es ents uf

f i ci entevi dence t o supporthi s convi ct i ons , or, i n the al t ernat i ve, thatthe ju ry v e rd ic t is a g a in s t th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e .

### 2 F a cts ¶2
. O n M ay 5, 2005, C hi qu i t a Sc ottw a s a the rJ a c ks on ho me w i th h e rf our chi l dr en, C h im a u ri e , A m b e r, C o rt la n d , a n d L a d a ri u s , a n d h e r s is te r, E ri k a S c o tt. A ro u n d 1 0 :3 0 p .m ., the l ock on the f

r ontdoo r w as s hotand tw o m as ked men f or ced thei rw ay i nt o the hous e. T he bul l etfr om t he gunf i r e hi tA m ber , age el even, i n t he arm . A m berra n t o t he bac k of the ho use w here s he, her m other , her aun t , and her s i bli ng s at t em pted t o escape the intruders
. T he tw o m en demanded money and al s o as ked f ora man nam ed Fat , w hi ch w as the ni ckname of

Chi qui t a and E r i ka’ s br other
. T he s i s t er s t ol d thei ras s ai l ant s thatther e w as no
m o n e y a n d th a t F a t did n o t l iv e w ith th e m . O n e m a n h e ld E rik a o n th e flo o r w ith h is fo o t in herback a nd a gun t o herhead w hi l e the otherm an beatC hi qui t a se ver al t i m es w i th hi s gun. ¶3. T he tw o m en f

l ed the house , and t he m an w ho had as s aul t ed C hi qui t a gr abbed A m ber and f or ced he rout s i de. A m bert es t i f i ed thatthe m an had he ri n a hea dl ock and w as f or ci ng hert ow ar ds a w hi t e car w i th t i nt ed w i ndow s . B ef or e r eac hi ng the ca r , A m berki cked he r ki dnaperi n the s hi ns , al l ow i ng hert o es cape . She l at erdesc r i bed the man as havi ng br ai ds
an d a d iam o n d ea rri n g in h is l eft ear. ¶4
. J os eph W hi t e, B r ow n’ s co- def e nd a nt , t e s t i f

i e d f ort he St at e as par tof a pl ea
a rra n g e m e n t. A c c o rd in g to W h ite, B ro w n p ick e d h im u p e a rlierth a t n ig h t an d d ro v e to G i l bertE w i ng’ s hous e. W hi t e st ayed i n t he car , and B r ow n r eturned aboutf i f t een mi nut es late r w ith E w in g . T h e th re e m e n g o t in to E w in g ’s w h ite M e rc u ry G ra n d M a rq u is, w ith E w i ng i n the dri ver’ s seat . T hey drove t o the ho m e of V al eri e B row n, the d efendan t ’s fi rs t
cous i n, w hi ch w as aboutf ourbl ocks f

r om the Scott s ’ hous e. W hi t e and Brow n then w al ked d o w n the s tr ee t t o the S co tt s’ ho u se w h ere B row n sh o t op en an d k ick e d in th e fro n t do o r.

### “Lick ” is slangfor a robb ery. See Unit ed St ate s v . Bur roughs , 650 F.2d 595, 597 1 

### n. 2 (5thCir. Unit B July19 81 ) (exp lainin g th att o “ mak e a lick” mean s to “co mmit a rob bery ”); Ha ll v. Sta te , 785 So. 2d 302, 304 (Mi ss . App. 2001) ( Def endant robbed a

bank after tellingwitn ess that h e “hada major lickhe w antedto d o.”). Seeals o T.I., “What Ha ppe ned? ” on I’m Serio us (Aris ta 2001) ( “Pray to God isnothing but a robbery. I gave them allI had so they pul le d they li ck of f f lawle ss ly. ”)
. 3 W hi t e s ai d thathe s i m pl y f ol l ow ed B r ow n i nt o the house an d deni ed eve rhavi ng a gun,
a sk in g fo r m o n e y , o r h o ld in g E rik a o n th e flo o r. A c c o rd in g to W h ite, B ro w n b e a t C h iq u ita
w ith h is g u n a n d a lso fo rc e d A m b e r o u t of the h o u se . U p o n flee in g the h o u se , W h ite g o t in to the ca rw i th E w i ng, w ho w as w ai t i ng dow n the s tr eet , and the tw o men dr ove of f w hen they
saw B row n ap p roa ch w ith A m b er. A ft er m ak ing th e b lock , th ey saw B row n w ith o u t A m b er. B r ow n goti nt o the ca rand hande d the gun t o E w i ng. ¶5. T w o w eeks a f

t erthe i nci dent , K rys t al Ear l e cal l ed the J acks on Pol i ce a nd t ol d them thatE w i ng and B r ow n w er e i nvol ved i n the r obbery. E ar l e w as E w i ng’ s gi r l f r i end atthe t i m e and ha d been athi s house thatni ght
. She t es t i f i ed thatB r ow n came overthatni ghtand
a sk e d E w in g to tak e h im to V a ler ie’ s h o u se b e c a u se h e h a d to m a k e a “ lick .” B ro w n sa id 1 thathe needed a m as k and a gun, and thatE w i ng coul d s i ti n the ca r . E w i ng r etr i eved hi s gun and l ef tthe hous e w i th B r ow n. E w i ng returned aboutan hourl at erw i th new cl othes and appea r ed “s haky”a nd “s w eaty. ” Ear l e r ece i ved a $1, 000 r ew ar d f orthi s i nf

orm at i on. ¶6
. V al er i e Br own a l s o t e s t i f i e d f orthe St a t e . O n the n i gh tof t he i nci dent , B r ow n, E w i ng, and W hi t e ca m e t o her hous e i n E w i ng’ s car . B r ow n and W hi t e l ef ton f oot , but E w i ng s t ayed. V al er i e s ati n the carw i th Ew i ng f ora f ew m i nut es l i s t eni ng t o s om e musi c. She then r eturned i ns i de t o w ork on a s chool p aper . A tone poi nt , s he l ooked out s i de and

### 4

not i ced thatE w i ng w as n ot i n hi s car . T he nextt i m e s he l ooked, the ca rw as m i s s i ng. V al er i e then hear d guns hot s a nd a tt empt ed t o c al l Ew i ng. W hen s he coul d notr eac h hi m , s he cal l ed the def

endant
. B r ow n t ol d herthathe di d notknow anythi ng aboutthe guns hot s and thathe w as athom e. H e al s o t ol d V al er i e nott o t al k t o hi m anymore . St andard of R evi ew ¶7
. A m ot i on f

ora di r e c t e d v e r di c ta nd a mot i on f ora j ud gmen tnot w i t hs t andi ng t he
v e rd ic t c h a lle n g e th e s u ff ic ie n c y o f t h e e v id e n c e . B u sh v. Sta te , 895 So
. 2d 83 6, 84 3 (M i ss. 2 0 0 5 ). W h e n re v iew in g a c a se fo r su ffic ien c y o f th e e v id e n c e , “th e re lev a n t q u e stio n is
w hether , af

t erv i ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the pr os ecut i on, any
ra tio n a l trier o f fa c t co u ld h a v e fo u n d the es se n tial e lem e n ts o f th e c rim e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt
. ” I

d. ( quot i ng J

a c kso n v. V

irg in ia , 443 U
. S. 307, 315, 99 S. C t . 2781, 61 L
. E d. 2d 560 ( 1979) )
. T he evi dence m us ts how “beyond ar eas onabl e doubtthatacc us ed comm i tt ed the act charged, and that he di d so u nd er s uch ci rcum st ances that every el em ent of the o ff ense
e x iste d ; a n d w h e re th e e v id e n c e fa ils to m e e t th is te st it is in su ffic ien t to su p p o rt a convi ct i on. ” I

d . ( quot i ng Ca rrv. Sta te , 2 0 8 S o . 2 d 8 8 6 , 8 8 9 (M iss. 1 9 6 8 )). If, k ee p ing in
m i nd the re as onabl e- doubts t andar d, “r eas onabl e and f ai r - m i nded men i n the exe r ci s e of i m part i al j udgementm i ghtr eac h di f f er entconcl us i ons on every el ementof the of f ens e, ” the
e v id e n c e w ill b e d e e m e d to h a v e b e e n s u ff ic ie n t. I d. ( quot i ng E dw a rds v . Sta te , 469 So. 2d 6 8 , 7 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 )). ¶8. A m ot i on f

or a new tr i al , on the other hand, chall eng es t he w ei ght of the evi dence
. I d. at844. W e w i l l di s turb a j ury ver di ctonl y w hen “i ti s s o contr ary t o the overw hel m i ng
w e ig h t o f t h e e v id e n c e th a t t o a llo w itto s ta n d w o u ld s a n c tio n a n u n c o n s c io n a b le in ju s tic e .”

### 5

I d. ( ci t i ng Herrin gv. Sta te , 6 91 S o. 2d 94 8, 95 7 (M i ss. 19 97 ))
. T his C ou rtact s as a

“ th ir te e n th ju ro r” a n d v ie w s th e e v id e n c e in th e li g h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e v e rd ic t. I d. ( ci t i ng He r r ing , 691 So. 2d at957)
. A deci s i on t o r ever s e and or dera new tr i al , “unl i ke a
r ever s al bas ed on i ns uf

f i ci entevi dence , doe s notmean thatthe ac qui tt al w as the onl y pr oper
ver di ct . ” I

d. ( quot i ng Mc Q u e e n v. Sta te , 4 2 3 S o . 2 d 8 0 0 , 8 0 3 (M is s . 1 9 8 2 ))
. D i s cus s i on ¶9. B r ow n a r gues on appea l thatther e w as i ns uf f i ci ente vi dence t o s upporta ve r di ct , or th a t th e v e rd ict w a s a g a in st th e o v e rw h e lm in g w e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e , b e c a u se : (1 ) o n ly G i l bertE w i ng m eet s the des cr i pt i on of the ki dnaper ; ( 2) onl y one i ntruderhad a gun a nd E wi n g wa s t h e o n l y o n e s e e n wi th a g u n ; ( 3 ) th e o n l y d i r e c tt e s t i mo n y i mp l i c a t i n g Br o wn
w a s s u b sta n tially im p e a c h e d ; an d (4 ) th e o n ly p e rso n th e a ss a ilan ts a ttem p ted to ro b w a s F a t,
n o t C h iq u ita S c o tt. ( 1) Phys i c alD e s c r i pt i on. ¶10
. A m ber Sco ttt est i fi ed that the m an w ho kidnape d h er had b rai ds i n h i s hai r and al so
w or e a di amond earr i ng. J os eph W hi t e and K ryst al E ar l e t es t i f i ed thatatthe t i m e of

the i nci dentthe def

endantw as bal d and had neve rhad br ai ds i n hi s hai r . W hi t e al s o t es t i f i ed that B row n d id n o t w ea r ea rri n g s. O n the o ther h an d , three w itn esse s testi fi ed that E w ing w o re b ra id s in h is h a ir
. ¶11. C hi qui t a t ol d the pol i ce thatthe m an w ho a tt acke d he ra nd t ook h er daug hter w as
aro u n d fi v e fe et si x inch es tall
. T h ere is no ev iden ce in the rec o rd o f E w ing ’s an d B row n ’s h e ig h t, b u t V a le ri e te s tif ie d th a t B ro w n w a s s h o rt e r t h a n E w in g .

### 6

¶12. T he def

endant ar gues that thi s evi dence s how s that onl y E w i ng coul d have been the att acke rand notB r ow n. H ow ever , t he st at e pr es ent ed suf f i ci entevi dence thatw oul d poi nt t o B r ow n as the att acke r . J os eph W hi t e t es t i f i ed thatBrow n w as the one w ho s hotthe l ock, k icke d op en th e d o o r, att ac k ed C h iqu it a, an d kidn ap ed A m b er. K rystal E arle also o v erh ea rd B r ow n ask G i l bertf

ora gun and ar i de t o m ake a“l i ck. ” Fi nal l y, V al er i e B r ow n t es t i f i ed that B ro w n a n d W h ite le fth e r h o u s e w h ile E w in g s ta y e d b e h in d
. ¶13. A ddi t i onal l y, w hen A m berw as s how n a pi ctur e of Ew i ng a ttr i al , s he t es t i f i ed that s he di d notcons i derhi s hai rt o be br ai ded. Q : [ W ] hen you t al k aboutbra i ds i s thi s the ki nd of br ai ds you w oul d be talk in g a b o u t? A : N o. Q : T h a t’s n o t? A : N o. Q : W h y n o t? A : B ecaus e I am t al ki ng l i ke br ai ds l i ke Eri ka Scotthas i n herhai rover th e re . L ik e b ra id s lik e th a t. Q : W h at’s th e d if

feren ce b etw ee n – in y o u r m ind d o y o u k n o w w h at a c o rn row i s? A : N o. Q : O k ay . H o w w o u ld y o u d esc ri b e tha t m an ’s ha ir ? A : D read l ock s. Q : D r ead l ocks
. O kay. I s ther e a di f f er ence i n yourm i nd, r eal l y, betw een a dr ead l ock and abr ai d? A : Y es. Q : O kay. D i d you expl ai n t hatt o t he pol i ce thatw hen you s ai d br ai ds you real l y m eant dr ead locks? A : N o. A ccor di ng t o the above t es t i m ony, A m berdi d notcons i derE w i ng’ s hai r s tyl e t o be the one
w o rn b y h e r a tta c k e r. ( 2) Pos s e s s i on o f

t he G un.

### 7

¶14. B r ow n ar gues that “the undi s put ed evi dence w as that onl y one of the tw o m en had a
w eapon, and exc eptf

orJ os eph W hi t e’ s t es t i m ony, i tw as undi sputed t hat the onl y per s on
s een w i th a gun w as G i l bertE w i ng. ” Fi r s t , thi s s t at ementi s untrue; ther e w as t es t i m ony that b o th m en had guns
. E r i ka Scottt es t i f i ed thatheras s ai l anthel d a gun t o herhead w hi l e the
o th e ri n tru d e rb e a th e rs i s t e rwi th a g u n . F u rth e r , a l th o u g h W h i t e t e s t i f i e d th a to n l y Br o wn had a gun, he admi tt ed on cr os s - exami nat i on thathe w as pr ohi bi t ed f r om po s s es s i ng a fire a rm d u e to h is p rio r fe lo n y c o n v ictio n s a n d it w o u ld n o t b e in h is in ter e st to a d m it t o h a v in g a g u n . ¶1 5
. S e c o n d , w h ile o n ly W h it e’s testi m o n y p lace d a g u n in B row n ’s ha n d , rea so n a b le j ur or s coul d concl ude thatB r ow n w as w i el di ng a f i r earm . T hi s ar gum ent c hal l enges the
w ei ghtand cr edi bi l i ty of W hi t e’ s t es t i m ony, and i ti s axi om at i c thatm att er s r egar di ng the
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 to b e re s o lv e d b y th e ju ry . N e a l v. S ta te , 451 So. 2 d 7 4 3 , 7 5 8 (M iss . 1 9 8 4 ). A s d isc u ss e d b e lo w , th e d e fe n se w a s a llo w e d e v e ry o p p o rtu n ity t o i m peac h W hi t e, and hi s cr edi bi l i ty as a w i tnes s w as a det erm i nat i on f orthe j ury. ( 3) C o- def

endant’ s t es t i m ony. ¶16. B r ow n al s o chal l enges the w ei ght and s uf f i ci ency of the evi dence , as W hi t e w as the onl y w i tnes s w ho c oul d puthi m a tthe s cene of the cr i m e. The c rux of hi s a r gum enti s that W hi t e’ s t es t i m ony w as unc orr obor at ed, a nd as an ac compl i ce, hi s s ubs t ant i al l y i m peac hed t es t i m ony cannots upporta convi ct i on. I ti s true thatthe uncorr obor at ed t es t i m ony of an
a c c o m p lice m u st b e “ re a so n a b le, n o t im p ro b a b le, s e lf-c o n tra d icto ry o r su b sta n tially i m peac hed. ” Ma th e w J o n e s v . Sta te , 740 So. 2d 904, 910 ( M i s s . 1999) ( quot i ng L ouis Jones
v. Sta te , 3 68 S o. 2 d 12 65 , 1 26 7 (M i ss. 19 79 ))
. H ow ever, this argum ent f ai l s f or tw o reasons.

### 8

¶17. Fi r s t , contr ary t o the def endant ’s assert i on, W hi t e’ s t es t i m ony w as corr obor at ed by
a t lea st tw o o th e r w itn e ss e s. K ry sta l E a rle a n d V a ler ie B ro w n b o th s a w th e d e fe n d a n t sh o rtly bef or e the c r i me o c c urr e d. Ear l e h e a r d Br own a s k Ew i ng f ora g un a nd a r i de t o m ake a “l i ck, ” w hi l e V al er i e t es t i f i ed thatB r ow n and W hi t e l ef the rhous e and Ew i ng s t ayed be hi nd. T h is C o u rth as h eld th a t “ [w ]he re the re is sl igh t corro b o rati v e e v iden ce , the a cc o m p li ce ’s t es t i m ony i s l i kew i s e s uf f i ci entt o s us t ai n the ver di ct . ” B a llen g e r v . Sta te , 667 So. 2d 1242, 1253 ( M i s s . 1995) ( quot i ng Ma so n v. Sta te , 4 2 9 S o . 2 d 5 6 9 , 5 7 1 (M is s . 1 9 8 3 ))
. ¶ 1 8
. S e c o n d , th e j u ry h e a r d r e l e v a n t e v i d e n c e th a t wo u l d i mp e a c h W h i t e ’ s t e s t i mo n y . He admi tt ed thathi s t es t i m ony w as i n excha nge f ora t en- years ent ence and thathe had f i ve pr i or felon y co n v ict ion s. B ec au se m att ers reg ard ing th e w eigh t an d cred ibil ity of the ev iden ce are to b e re so lv e d b y th e ju ry a n d b e c a u se “ th e p ro se c u tio n m u st b e g iv e n th e b e n e fit o f a ll fa v o ra b le in fe re n c e s th a t m a y re a so n a b ly b e d ra w n fro m th e e v id e n c e ,” th is a rg u m e n t is
w ith o u t m e ri t. Mathew Jones , 740 So. 2d at910 ( quot i ng Co llie r v . Sta te , 711 So. 2d 458, 4 6 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 )). ( 4) I nt e nt t o Rob. ¶1 9
. F inally, B row n a rgu es that the e v iden ce c an n o t sup p o rta ch arg e o f att em p ted rob b ery becaus e he onl y i nt ended t o rob Fat , notC hi qui t a. H ow ever , the evi dence demonstr at es that the i ntruder s i nt ended t o rob the occupa nt s of the hous e, i ncl udi ng C hi qui t a Scott . C hi qui t a, E rik a , an d A m b e r a ll t e stifie d th a t th e a ss a ilan ts w e re d e m a n d in g m o n e y . It w a s re a so n a b le t o co nclude that the tw o m en w o u ld hav e t aken the m on ey fr om any on e of the o ccup ants , n o t ju s t F a t. C oncl usi on

### 9

¶20. T he s t at e pr es ent ed s uf f i ci entevi dence t o s upportconvi ct i ons of ki dnapi ng, bur gl ary, aggr avat ed as s aul t , att empt ed arm ed r obbery, and s hoot i ng i nt o a dw el l i ng. A ddit i onal l y,
v iew in g th e e v id e n c e in fa v o r o f th e v e rd ict, th e d e fe n d a n t i s n o t en tit led to a n e w trial. T her ef or e, the as s i gnm ent s of

err orar e w i thoutm er i t , and the j udgm enti s af f i rm ed. ¶21. COUNT I : CONVI CT I ON OF S HOOTI NG I NTO A N O CCU PI ED DW ELLI NG AN D SEN TEN CE O F TE N ( 1 0 ) YE AR S I N T H E C USTO DY O F TH E M I SS I SS I PPI DEPARTM ENT OF CO RRECTI ON S , AFF I RM ED. S ENTENCE I N CO UNT I S HALL RUN CONC URRENTL Y W I TH T HE S EN TE NCE I N COUNT I I I AND C O N S E C U T I V E T O T H E S E N T E N C E S I N C O U N T S I I , I V A N D V . CO UN T I I : CO NV I CT I ON OF B UR GL AR Y O F A H OUS E AN D S E NT E NC E OF T E N( 1 0 ) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CORRE CT I ONS , AF F I RM ED . S EN TE NCE I N COUNT I I S HALL RUN C O N SEC U TIVE TO TH E SE N TE N C ES I N C O U N TS I AN D I I I A N D A LSO C O N S E C U T I V E T O T H E S E N T E N C E S I N C O U N T S I V A N D V . COUNT I I I : CO NV I CT I ON OF AG GR AV AT E D A S S AU L T W I T H A W EA P ON AND SENTE NC E O F TW EN TY ( 2 0 ) YE AR S I N T H E C USTO DY O F TH E M I SS I SS I PPI D E P A R T M E N T O F C O R R E C T IO N S , A F F IR M E D . S E N T E N C E IN C O U N T III S HALL RUN CONC URRE NT LY W I TH T HE S EN TE NCE I N COUNT I AND C O N S E C U T I V E T O T H E S E N T E N C E S I N C O U N T S I I , I V A N D V . CO UNT I V: CONVI CT I ON OF ARM ED ROBB ER Y AND S EN TE NCE OF TW ENTY ( 2 0 ) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CORRE CT I ONS , AF F I RM ED . S EN TE NCE I N COUNT I V S HALL RUN C O N SEC U TIVE TO TH E SE N TE N C E IN C O U N TS I AN D II I A N D A LSO C O N S E C U T I V E T O T H E S E N T E N C E S I N C O U N T S I I A N D V . C O U N T V : C O N V I C T IO N O F K I D N A P I N G A N D SE N T E N C E O F T H I R T Y ( 30) YE AR S I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F T HE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF CORRE CTI ON S , AF F I RM ED . S EN TE NCE I N COUNT V S HALL RUN C O N SE C U T I V E T O TH E SE N TE N C ES IN C O U N TS I AN D I I I A N D A LSO C O N S E C U T I V E T O T H E S E N T E N C E S I N C O U N T S I I A N D I V . S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P. J . , EAS LE Y, CARLS ON, GRAVES , DI CKI NS ON, R A N D O L P H A N D L A M A R , J J ., C O N C U R .