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 5 - KA- 0 2 1 3 6 - S CT CHR I S T I NE W I L S ON
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 05/ 2005 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. S AM AC S
. RI CH AR DS ON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ADI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N T: J U LI E A N N EPPS CY N TH I A H EW ES SPEE TJ EN S AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY: DEI RDRE M c CRORY DI S TRI CT AT TORNEY: DAV I D BYRD CLARK 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/ 25/ 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. CAR LS ON , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. I n t he M adi s on C ounty C i r cui tC ourt , C hr i s t i ne W i l s on w as i ndi ct ed, tr i ed, convi ct ed and s ent ence d t o the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons f

orthe cr i m e of f el ony s hopl i f

t i ng. A ggr i eved by the tr i al court ’ s entry of the f i nal j udgm entof

convi ct i on
a n d s e n t e n c e , W i l s o n a p p e a l s t o u s . F i n d i n g n o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r , we a f f i r m. F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶2. C hr i s t i ne W i l s on w as i ndi ct ed by a M adi s on Count y gr and j ury f orthe cr i m e of f

el ony sh o p lifti n g at D ill a rd ’s in the N o rth p a rk M a ll in R id g e lan d
. W e rev e a l he re the re lev a n t fa c ts

### The r e i s n o i ndi c at i onf r om there c ord that

C hri s t i neW i l s onand

O f f i c e r Ste ve 1 

### Wil son arere late d. To avoid c onfus ion in dis cus sing theevi denc e, thelos s preve nti on officer will be re fe rr ed t o as “Of fi ce r Wi ls on,”and the de fe ndant wil l bere fe rr ed t o as “Wilso n.” 2 thr ough the t es t i m ony of the var i ous w i tnes s es cal l ed dur i ng W i l s on’ s subs equentj ury t r i al i n the C i r cui tC our tof

M adi s on C ounty, J udge Samac S. R i char ds on, pr es i di ng. ¶ 3
. O n N o v e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 2 , R id g e la n d p o lic e o ffic e r S tev e W ilso n w a s w o rk in g a t h is 1 part - t i m e j ob as a l os s pr event i on off i cerforD i l l ar d’ s . A s a l os s pre vent i on of f i cer , O f f i cer W i l s on’ s pr i m ary duty w as t o l ook f ors hopl i f

t er s . D i l l ar d’ s l os s pr event i on of f i cer s s erved as ei ther cam era op erat ors or fl oo r operat ors. O n thi s day, O ff i cer W i l son w as serving as a f l ooroper at orw hen he not i ced thr ee f emal es and a mal e gather i ng m er chandi s e and then
c a rry in g the m e rc h a n d ise to o n e lo c a tio n in th e sto re , w h ich w a s a ty p ica l m odus oper andi for sh o p li ft ers. A s O ffic e r W il so n stat ed , “I’m n o t t alkin g ab o u t a co u p le of it em s; I ’m t al king abo ut qui t e a few i t em s, ” w hich con si st ed m ost l y o f l eat her coats and sw eatsui t s. W i th O f f i cerW i l s on’ s att ent i on under s t andabl y bei ng f ocus ed on t hes e f

ouri ndi vi dual s , he b e g a n t o a p p r o a c h t h e m wh i l e th e y we r e a l l t o g e th e r . As Of f i c e rW i l s o n a p p r o a c h e d t h e m, they bega n l i f

t i ng thei rbags of

m er chandi s e i n an appa r entef f or tt o l eave t he st or e. O nce thes e f ouri ndi vi dual s not i ced O f f i cerW i l son app r oachi ng, “they s pl i tup” w i th tw o of t he fem al es headi ng t ow ar d the parki ng l otdoorof D i l l ar d’ s ( and dr oppi ng the mer chandi se bag) , and the otherf

emal e and mal e hea di ng t ow ar d the mal l ar ea. O f f i cerW i l s on m ade a

### 3

courtr oom i dent i f

i cat i on o f W i l s on as the w om an w ho w as w i th the mal e. O f f i cerW i l s on
no t ed thatby then , W i l son w as not carryi ng a m erchand i se bag, butthe m al e w as. ¶4. O f

f i cerW i l s on us ed hi s cel l phone t o c a l l the Ri dg e l a ndPol i ce D epart m entf or backup and then appr ehende d W i l s on and the mal e i n the mal l ar ea, al s o r ecove r i ng t he bag, w hi ch cont ai ned l eathercoat s and s w eats ui t s . T he t ot al va l ue of the r ecove r ed mer chandi s e i n t he tw o b ags w as $1,100.50. O n redi rectexam i nati on , O ff i cer W i l son tes t i fi ed as fol l ow s: Q . L e t’s c o n c e n tra te o n th is d e fe n d a n t. W h a t sp e c ifica lly d id you s ee thi s def

endantdo dur i ng thi s epi s ode? A
. H ol d the b a g op e n s o the mer c ha nd i s e c ou l d be t a ke n and puti n t he bag. Q
. N ow , w hen mer chandi s e - - a cus t om erpays f or m e rc h a n d ise , d o e s th e c a sh re g iste r a tten d a n t d o a n y th in g w ith the sal e t ags? A
. O h, yeah. T her e’ s - - w el l , w e have a s ys t em. I t ’ s a poplab e l sy ste m . B u t in e ss e n c e , w h a t it am o u n ts to is th e y h a v e to sc a n th e tag th a t’s o n th e m e rc h a n d ise . T h e y a lso h a v e to a p p ly a t ag. So i t ’ s a tw o- t ag s ys t em. N on e of the mer chandi s e had pop- l abel s on the t ags and none of the mer chandi s e had that s econd, added l abel t hatthe yel l ow l abel goes on t her e. W i thout that , i tcan’ tbe rung up. Q
. A nd w hen thi s def

endantw as appr ehended by you and the of f i cer s , t ogether , di d s he pr oduce a s al es t i cketora r ecei pt w her e s he had pa i d f

oranythi ng? A. S h e d i d n ’ tp r o d u c e a r e c e i p tf o rth e me r c h a n d i s e t h a twe recovered. N ow I do n’tk no w if she had pu rchased any thing el se o r n o t. Q
. W ere there an y rec eipts fou n d in either o f th e tw o b ag s - - A
. N o , sir
.

### We de em it im perativeher e t o notethat, whi lene ver s pec if ic al ly s tate d in t

he r ec ord, 2 

### a reviewof th e record , wh en co nsid ered inits totality , reveals th at a jury co uldeasily co me to t he c onclusi on that, although Harris was “ outs ide ” Di ll ard’s whil e the wom en we reins ide shopl if ting theme rc handi se , Harris was “outside ” the s tore in thema llar ea , wa iting t o be summone d by thewome n for as si st anc e in car

rying the bags of merchandis e out of thest ore . In oth er word s, a reason able juro r couldfairly infer that Harris was not outside th e store in thepark ing lot , t ota lly oblivious to what wa s oc cur ring ins idethest ore . Thi s wi llbe discu ssed inmore d etail, infra
. 4

Q
. - - forthe fi ft een g arm ents ? A
. N o , sir
. ¶5. T i m othy H arr i s , t he m al e sus pect , pl eade d gui l ty t o f el ony s hopl i f

t i ng and t es t i f

i ed f or the St at e. B y the t i m e of W i l s on’ s tr i al , H arr i s w as i ncar cer at ed bas ed on hi s convi ct i on. H arr i s t es t i f

i ed thathe di d notknow W i l s on on the day of the i nci dentand di d notknow her name on t he day of

the tr i al ; how ever , he t es t i f i ed thathe s hopl i f

t ed r egul ar l y w i th the other tw o f emal es . H ar r i s f

ur thert es t i f

i ed thatW i l s on knew the othertw o f emal es and thats he “knew w hatw e w as doi ng [ s i c] ” beca us e “s he w enti n the s t or e w i th us
. ” H arr i s t es t i f i ed that th e p l a n wa s t o t a k e th e c l o th e s , n o tp a y f o rth e m, a n d s e l l th e m. ¶ 6
. A c c o rd in g to H a rris, th e p lan w a s th a t he w o u ld re m a in o u tsid e th e sto re w a iti n g to be ca l l ed bac k i nt o the s t or e t o a s s i s tw i th c arryi ng the bags of m er chandi s e outof

the s t or e. 2 O nce the w om en “ca l l ed m e back i n ther e t o t ot e them out , ” H arr i s w enti nt o the s t or e and

“ to ted ” o n e o f th e b a g s o u t o f th e sto re , at w h ich ti m e h e w a s s to p p e d b y se c u rity . H a rris fu rth e r testi fi ed th at he did n o t h o ld th e b ag w h il e the othe r th ree w o m en w ere stu ffi n g it. H arr i s s t at ed t hathe di d notsee w hatw as happeni ng i ns i de the s t or e bec aus e he w as out s i de

### 5

the st ore, w ai t i ng t o b e cal l ed int o the st ore t o p i ck u p the bag s. A ft er H arr i s w as cr osse x a m in e d b y d e fe n s e c o u n s e l c o n c e rn in g , in tera lia , H arr i s ’ s i nabi l i ty t o see w hatthe w om en
w er e doi ng i ns i de t he st or e si nce he w as out s i de the s t or e, H arr i s w as ques t i oned f ur therby th e p ro se c u to r d u rin g th e S tate ’s r e d ire c t ex a m in a tio n :

Q
. M r . H arri s , as you s ay, you w er e t o w ai tout s i de unt i l they t old you t o co m e get the b ags. A . R ig h t. Q
. W ho ’s [ si c] plan w as this ? A
. S ir ? Q
. W ho m ade thatpl an? A
. I tw as al l ourpl an. M R. CO N N ER : YourHonor , we o bj e c t . T he ques t i on cal l s f

orhear s ay. T H E C O U R T : O verrul ed. Q . W h o ’s [s ic] p lan w a s th a t? A . W e a ll w e n t to ste a l. Q
. A nd everybody i n thatcar - - w ho goti n thatvehi cl e knew yo u w ere abou tt o g o st eal som e cl othes? A
. Y es , s i r , they di d. M R
. C O N N E R : O bj ectt o spec ul at i on as t o w hat a n y o n e e l s e k n e w. Q. Ho w i s i te v e r y b o d y e l s e k n e w? T H E C O U R T : O verrul ed.

### Bythe time o f the trial, M athis w as emplo yedbythe F ederal B ureauof P rison s. 3 

### 6 A
. S ir ? Q. Ho w i s i te v e r y b o d y k n e w? M R
. C O N N E R : O bj ectt o a f actnoti n evi dence
. M R . R O G IL L IO : H e ’s try in g to g e t th e fa c t in to evi dence
. M R . C O N N E R : T h e fo rm o f th e q u e stio n is im p rop er. T H E C O U R T : O verrul ed. Q. Ho w wa s i tth a te v e ry b o d y k n e w? A
. S ir ? Q. Ho w wa s i tth a te v e ry b o d y k n e w? A
. B ec au se e v ery - - ev ery b o d y k n o w [sic ] that w e w o rk to g e th e r lik e th a t, yo u k n o w . T h e y k n o w - - th e y k n o w e x a c tly w h a t w e w e re g o in g to th e sto re to d o . W e w a sn ’t [sic ] go in g to w a tc h n o m o v ie . W e w a s n ’t [s ic ] g o in g to b u y n o th in g [s ic ]. ¶7. R i dgel and pol i ce of f i cerK evi n M athi s a rr es t ed W i l s on. O f f i cerM athi s t es t i f

i ed that 3 the cl othi ng i n the s us pect s ’ bags s t i l l cont ai ned t ags and thatW i l s on pr oduced no r ece i pt
s how i ng thats he had pa i d f orthe cl othi ng. ¶8. C hr i s t i ne W i l s on t ook the s t and i n the def endant ’ s case- i n-chi ef

, and s he i dent i f

i ed one of the tw o unknow n f

emal es as herf

r i end, Sham eka D avi s . W i l s on al s o t es t i f i ed thats he di d notknow the name of the otherf

emal e. W i l s on f

ur thert es t i f

i ed:

### 7 A
. Y es, si r. [D av is an d I] w ere g o ing to the m all - - or w e w ere a b o u t to g o to the m a ll. A n d sh e told m e tha t sh e w a s g o in g to pick up tw o o f herfr i end s that w anted t o g o to the m al l w i th u s. So she w entand pi cked up M r . H arr i s a nd the otherl ady. A nd w h e n sh e p ick e d th e m u p , w e w e n t t o the m a ll. W e a ll w e n t in to D i l l ar d’ s . T hey w entt hei rw ay; I w entm y s epar at e w ay. W hen I came back, I t ol d - - I w as t al ki ng t o m y f r i end. I t ol d herthat I wa s a b o u tt o c h e c k o u t , a n d s h e t o l d me th a t- - s h e t o l d me w hat w as going t o g o o n. S o I w al ked - - I putm y m erchand i se on the r ack. I w al ked outof the s t or e. I w as s i t t i ng out s i de on a benc h. I w as w ai t i ng on hert o come outof the s t or e. B y tha tt i m e, m us tbe abouttw enty m i nut es l at er , M r . W i l s on, th e o f f i c e r , h e h a d o n r e g u l a rc l o th e s , h e a rr e s t e d me , t o l d me that- - h e r ead me m y r i ght s . H e arr es t ed me and t ol d m e that h e h a d m e fo r sho p li ft ing
. A n d w h en h e a rrested m e, I didn ’t have a ny m er chandi s e. I di dn’ tha ve nothi ng on m e. A l l I had wa s my p u r s e . An d h e c h e c k e d - - h e s e a r c h e d my p u r s e . He got- - he t ook the money outorw hat ever ; he puteverythi ng back i n af

t erhe t ook i tout . A nd he j us t- - he arr es t ed m e, and he t ook m e t o the pol i ce s t at i on and book ed m e; and, thatw as a b o u t it
. W il so n furthe r em p h asize d in h er testi m o n y that sh e o n ly fo u n d o u t abo u t th e p lan to sh o p li ft f r om D avi s once i ns i de the s t or e, and thats he t ook no parti n t he s hopl i f t i ng. A ddi t i onal l y,
s he s t at ed thats he di d nots ee a nyone el s e s hopl i f t i ng. ¶9. A f

t er the def

endant r est ed her case- i n-chi ef , O f f i cer W i l s on t es t i f

i ed br i ef l y i n t he S tat e’s re b u tt al. A t th e c o n clus ion o f th e p rese n tat ion o f th e e v iden ce , the tri al j u d g e’s
rea d ing o f th e jury instruction s to the jury , an d clos ing arg u m en ts of co u n sel, the ju ry del i ber a t e d a nd r e turne d a un a ni mous ve r di c tf i nd i ng W i l s on gu i l ty o f f e l on y s ho pl i f

t i ng. T he tr i al j udge pr om pt l y s ent ence d W i l s on t o f i ve year s i n the cust ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof

C orr ect i on s , w i th the l a s tye a rs us pe nd e d, and f i ve yea r s s upervi s ed pr obat i on.

### Wil son wa s repr es ent ed by the Ma dis on County publi c de fe nder at tria l. The tri al 4 

### court he ld a

hearing fol lowing thetria l c once rning a m oti on to di sm is s the publ ic def ende r as Wil son’ s c ounse l at Wil son’ s re ques t. The tria l cour t the re af te r ent er ed an order

granting themotion, and att orne ys Juli e Ann Epps and Cynt hia Spe et je ns haverepr es ent ed Wi ls on in h er app eal to th is Co urt. 8 W ils o n a ls o w a s o rd e re d to p a y c o u rt c o s ts in th e a m o u n t o f $ 3 0 4 .5 0 a n d a $ 1 ,0 0 0 fi n e . A j udgm entof

convi ct i on and s ent ence w as l i kew i se ent er ed by the tr i al j udge, and the tr i al j udge deni ed W i l s on’ s s ubs equent l y- f i l ed mot i on f

ora new tr i al
. W i l s on t i m el y appea l ed the tri al cou rt ’s fi nal j ud gm ent and o rderden ying po st -tri al m oti on s. 4 ¶10. W i l s on pr es ent s thr ee i s s ues f or thi s C our t t o deci de: ( 1) w hether the tr i al courterr ed i n gr ant i ng the St at e’ s j ury i ns truct i on on ai di ng and abet t i ng; (2) w hethert he tr i al courterr ed i n i m pos i ng a f

el ony s ent ence upon W i l s on; and ( 3) w hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n admi t t i ng
a co- cons pi r at or ’ s t es t i m ony. W e w i l l r es t at e the i s s ues f ort he sa ke of

cl ar i ty i n di s cus s i on. I . W HET HER T HE T RI AL COURT ER RE D I N GRANT I NG THE S TA TE ’ S J URY I NS TR UCT I ON ON AI DI NG AND A B E T T I N G . ¶11. W e r ece nt l y a ddr es s ed thi s Court ' s f ami l i ars t and ard of r eview w hen con si deri ng chal l enges t o j ury i ns truct i ons . “T he C ou rtd oes nots i ngl e outany i ns truct i on ort ake i ns truct i ons outof

cont ext ; r ather , the i ns truct i ons ar e t o be r ead t ogetheras a w hol e. ” Spi cer v. S tate , 921 So. 2d 292, 313 ( M i s s . 2006) ( quot i ng P a rk s v . S ta te , 884 So. 2d 738, 746 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) )
. St at ed di f f er ent l y: “W he n c on s i de r i ng a c ha l l e ng e t o a j ury i ns truc t i on o n a pp e a l , we do not re v iew ju ry in stru c tio n s in iso latio n ; ra th e r, w e r e a d th e m a s a w h o le to d e te r m in e if

th e ju ry w a s p ro p e rl y in s tru c te d ." B urton ex r el . B r adf or d v. B a rn e tt , 615 So. 2d 580, 583 ( M i s s . 1993)
. Si m i l ar l y, thi s C our thas s t at ed that

### 9

"[ i ] n det erm i ni ng w het her err orl i es i n the gr ant i ng orr ef us al of var i ous i nst ruct i on s, the instruct i on s actuall y g i ven m ustbe read as a w ho l e. W hen so r ead, i f the i ns truct i ons f

ai rl y ann ou nce t he l aw of the ca s e and c r eat e no i njust i ce, n o rever si ble errorw i l l b e found
. " Co lem a n v. S ta te , 697 So. 2d 777, 782 ( M i s s . 1997) ( quot i ng Co llin s v . S ta te , 69 1 S o . 2d 91 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 7 )). In o th e r w o rd s, if a ll i n stru c tio n s ta k e n a s a w h o le f a irly , b u t n o t n e c e ss a rily perf ect l y, ann ou nce the app l i cable rules of l aw , no err or r esul t s. Mila n o v. S ta te , 7 9 0 S o . 2 d 1 7 9 , 1 8 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). ¶1 2
. W il so n arg u es that an im p rop er jury instruction w as g ran ted. T h e o b jecti o n ab le j u ry i ns truct i on w as t ender ed t o the C our tas the St at e’ s i ns truct i on num berS- 4, and once gi ven b y the tri al j u d g e, th e ins tru cti o n w as d esig n ated fo r th e rec o rd b y the tri al j u d g e a s Ju ry I ns truct i on N o. 5. T hi s i ns truct i on s t at ed: Th e Co u r ti n s tru c t s th e j u r y th a ti f y o u f i n d f r o m th e e v i d e n c e th a tth e c r i me of shopli ft i ng w as com m i t t ed in this c ase; each p ers on w ho w as p re sen t, cons ent i ng t o t he comm i s s i on of the cr i m e and doi ng a ny a c t whi c h ai de d, as s i s t e d or e nc our ag e d the cr i m e, i s gui l ty t o t he sam e ext entas i f he comm i t t ed the w hol e cr i m e. (E m p h a sis a d d e d ). W ilso n a rg u e s in h e r b rie f to th is C o u rt: T he obvi ous f

l aw i n the instruc t i on i s thati tdoes notr equi r e thatC hr i s t i ne know i ngl y, i nt ent i onal l y or w i l l f ul l y do an actt o ai d, as s i s torencour age the cr i m e. R ather , ital l ow s the j ury t o convi ctheri f the other s comm i t t ed the c rim e , sh e k n e w o f it b u t w a s m e re ly p re se n t an d d id a n a c t w h ich in c id e n tally as s i s t ed orencour aged the cr i m e eve n though s he m ay have had not[ s i c] i nt ent t o f ur therthe cr i m e. ( E m pha s i s i n o r i gi na l )
. W e f a i l t o s e e the di s t i nc t i on be tw e e n the l a ng ua ge “ kn owi ng l y, in ten tio n a lly o r w ill fu lly d o a n a c t to a id , as sis t o r e n c o u ra g e th e c rim e ,” a n d “ p re se n t,

### To conse nt t o an a c t m e ans “ t o a gre e ( t o d o s om e thing )
. . . . t o g i vepe rm i s si on, 5 

### approval , or

as se nt. ” Webst er ’s New Worl d Dic ti onar y 296 (3d c oll egeed. 1988). 10 cons ent i ng t o t he comm i s s i on of the cr i m e and doi ng an y actw hi ch ai ded, as s i s t ed or 5
encour aged the cr i m e. ” I n or derf orW i l s on, as a co- cons pi r at or , t o be pr es entand cons ent i ng t o the comm i s s i on of

the cr i m e of

s hopl i f t i ng, s he musthave know n of the cr i m e t o be perpetr at ed and i ntent i onal l y and w i l l f ul l y part i ci pat ed i n s om e el ementof the compl et ed
cr i m e. W e uphel d s i m i l arl anguage i n a j ury i ns truct i on i n K elly v . S ta te , 493 So. 2d 356, 3 5 9 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 ): T he courti ns truct s the j ury thateac h per s on pr es entatthe t i m e, and cons ent i ng t o and enc our agi ng the comm i s s i on of a cr i m e, an d know i ngl y, w i l f ul l y and f el oni ous l y doi ng any ac tw hi ch i s an i ngr edi ent to th e c rim e , o r im m e d iate ly connec t ed w i th i t , orl eadi ng t o i t s comm i s s i on, i s as m uch a pr i nci pal a s i f he had w i th hi s ow n hand com m i t t ed t he w hol e of f ens e; and i f

you bel i eve f

r om the evi dence , beyond a r eas onabl e doubt , thatthe D efendant , I ke Lee K el l y, di d w i l f ul l y, know i ngl y, unl aw ful l y and f el oni ous l y do any ac tw hi ch i s an i ngr edi entof

the cr i m e of

arm ed r obbery or i m m edi at el y connec t ed w i th i t , or l eadi ng t o i t s comm i s s i on, then and i n t hatevent , you s houl d f i nd the D ef endantgui l ty as char ged. I d. (E m p h asis in o ri g inal). ¶13. O bvi ous l y, i n K

e lly , w e appr oved of the w or d “cons ent i ng, ” and the l anguage of t he j ury i ns truct i on in t he ca s e s ub j udi ce , no tw i thst and i ng the o m i ssi on of the p hrase “know i ngl y, i nt ent i onal l y orw i l l f ul l y, ” meet s ourr equi r ementthata j ury i ns truct i on not
s i m pl y s t at e thata def

endantm er el y appr oved of the cr i m e. K eepi ng i n m i nd the admoni t i on thatw e m us tr ead and cons i derthe j ury i ns truct i ons a s a w hol e t o det erm i ne i f the j ury w as p ro p e rly in s tru c ted o n th e a p p lica b le la w , in a d d iti o n to Ju ry In stru c tio n N o . 5 g iv e n in

### 11

t oday’ s cas e, the j ury al s o r ece i ved f r om t he tr i al courtJ ury I ns truct i on N o. 2, w hi ch s t at ed i n pert i nentpartthatthe def endantw as pr es um ed i nnocentand bef or e the j ury coul d fi nd t he def endantgui l ty of the cr i m e char ged, t he St at e had t o pr ove ea ch and e very el ementof the
cr i m e beyond a r eas onabl e doubt. J ury I ns truct i on N o. 3, the “e l ement s ” i ns truct i on, i nf or m ed the j ury t hatbef or e the j ury coul d f

i nd W i l son gu i l t y of the cr i m e of f el ony
s hopl i f t i ng, the j ury ha d t o f

i nd thatW i l s on “ ( 1) di d w i l f ul l y, unl aw f

ul l y a nd f el oni ous l y t ake pos s es s i on of

m er chandi s e hel d by and of f er ed ordi s pl ayed f

orsal e by D i l l ar d’ s D epart m ent St or e, ( 2) havi ng a t ot al val ue over$250. 00, (3) w i th t he i nt ent i on and purpos e of convert i ng
s uch mer chandi s e t o herow n us e w i thoutpa yi ng the m er chant ’ s s t at ed pr i ce, ” and thati f t he St at e “f ai l ed t o pr ove any one orm or e of [ thes e] el ement s beyond a r eas onabl e doubt , ” the ju ry “ s h a ll f

in d [W ils o n ] n o t g u ilty .” ¶14. W i th thes e var i ous j ury i ns truct i ons bef or e us i n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , w e re turn to Ju ry I ns truct i on N o. 5. T he f i r s tphr as e of

thi s i ns truct i on s t at es : “The C our ti ns truct s the j ury t hat i f you fi nd fr om the ev i den ce t hat the cri m e of shop l i ft i ng w as com m i t t ed in this case”; t hu s, bef or e the j ury coul d cons i derthe r ema i nd erof the i ns truct i on, i thad t o f i nd f r om t he
e v i d e n c e th a tth e c r i me o f s h o p l i f t i n g h a d b e e n c o mmi t t e d
. I n o r d e rt o f i n d th a tth e c r i me of f el ony s hopl i f

t i ng had bee n comm i t t ed, the j ury had t o f i nd thatthe St at e had pr oven beyond a r eas onabl e doubteac h of the thr ee e l ement s of

the cr i m e of f

el ony shopl i f

t i ng as set o u t i n Ju ry In stru cti o n N o . 3
. In rea d ing Ju ry In stru cti o n N o . 5 in co n jun cti o n w ith Ju ry I ns truct i on N o. 3 and the otherj ury i ns truct i ons , i f t he j ury found thatthe cr i m e of s hopl i f t i ng
w as com m i t t ed i n t hi s cas e, t hen t he j ury w as t o consi dert he r emai nderof J ury I ns truct i on

### 12

N o. 5, w hi ch s t at ed: “each person w ho w as pr es ent , cons ent i ng t o the comm i s s i on of t he
c r i me a n d d o i n g a n y a c twh i c h a i d e d , a s s i s t e d o re n c o u r a g e d th e c r i me , i s g u i l ty t o th e s a me
e x te n t a s if

h e c o m m itte d th e w h o le c ri m e .” ¶1 5
. R eturn ing to the ev iden ce , w h ich w e v iew in th e lig h t m o st f av o rab le t o the jury
ver di ct , O f

f i cerW i l son o bserved suspici ou s act i vit i es atD i l l ar d’ s i nvol vi ng f ourper s ons , one
o f w h o m w a s C h ristin e W ilso n . W h e n h e a p p ro a c h e d th e lo c a tio n w h e re th e fo u r su sp e c ts
w e re sta n d in g alo n g w ith the m e rc h a n d ise w h ich the y h a d “g a th e re d ,” th e y sc a ttere d , w ith W i l s on depart i ng D i l l ar d’ s i nt o the m al l a r ea al ong w i th H arr i s , w ho ha d one of the bags of
s t ol en mer chandi s e. T hi s bag of m er chandi s e di d nothave t he s econd t ag orl abel w hi ch the
cas h r egi s t eratt endantappl i ed t o the mer chandi s e upon i t ’ s be i ng “ rung up. ” L i kew i s e, no one coul d pr oduce a s al es t i cketorr ece i ptf orthe mer chandi s e foun d i n the bag. O f f i cer W i l s on’ s ver s i on of

the f act s as t o t he cont ent s and s t atus of the mer chandi s e f

ound i n t he bags w as ver i f

i ed by R i dgel and pol i ce of f i cerK evi n M athi s . Cer t ai nl y, f r om thi s evi dence , the j ury w as j us t i f

i ed i n f i ndi ng thatthe cr i m e of

f el ony s hopl i f

t i ng ha d be en comm i t t ed and thatW i l s on “w as pr es ent , co nsenti ng t o the comm i s s i on of the cr i m e and doi ng any ac t
w hi ch ai ded, as s i s t ed orencour aged the cr i m e. ” Even t hough s he di d nots tuff every i t em
o f m e rc h a n d ise in to th e tw o b a g s, a n d p e rso n a lly c a rry th e tw o b a g s o f m e rc h a n d ise , w o rth
m o re th a n $ 1 ,1 0 0 , fro m D ill a rd ’s w ith o u t p a y in g fo r th e m e rc h a n d ise , sh e c lea rly a c ted in
conce r tw i th the otherthr ee s hopl i f t er s . J ury I ns truct i on N o. 5 i n no w ay l es s ened the resp o n sibil ity o f th e jury in return ing a gu il ty ve rdict ag ains t W il so n o n ly if ea ch an d ev ery

### 13

e lem e n t o f th e c rim e o f fe lo n y sh o p lifti n g w a s p ro v e n b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t as to W i l s on. ¶ 1 6
. W ith th is b e in g sa id , w e a c k n o w led g e th a t o u r c a se law re v e a ls th a t o n e o f th e m a in
co n ce rns ra ised b y d efe n d an ts t o aidin g an d ab ett ing instruction s sim il ar to tod ay ’s Ju ry I ns truct i on N o. 5 i s that , cont r ary t o the gene r al “el ement s of the cr i m e” i ns truct i on i n w hi ch the j ury is alw ays inf

or m ed thatthe St at e mustpr ove beyond a r eas onabl e doubteac h and
every el ementof

the cr i m e cha r ged, s uch an i ns truct i on as s ubm i t t ed and gi ven i n K e lly di m i ni s hes the r es pons i bi l i ty of the j ury i n thatthe j ury can f i nd a def endant gu i l t y of

t he char ged of

f ens e eve n i f

the def endanti s pr oven t o be gui l ty of c om m i t t i ng onl y one el ement of the of f ens e. W e addr es s ed thes e conc erns i n K e lly : T he appel l antcont ends thatthi s i ns truct i on w oul d al l ow convi ct i on of so m e o n e w h o is m e re ly p re se n t at th e tim e o f th e c rim e b u t h a d n o in ten t to c o m m it th e c rim e . It i s a w e ll-es tab lish e d ru le th a t th e ju ry in stru c tio n s a c tu a lly g iv e n m u s t b e re a d a s a w h o le
. N o rm a n v. Sta te , 3 85 S o. 2d 12 98 , 13 03 (M i ss. 1 9 8 0 ). In the ins tan t ca se , th e co u rt g a v e ins tru c tio n S -1 , w h ic h p ro p e rly i ns truct ed the j ury as t o the el ement s of the cr i m e, the bur den of pr oof , and the r equi s i t e i nt ent . B as ed upon the above , the j ury coul d have pr oper l y f ound the a p p e lla n t g u ilty o f a rm e d ro b b e ry fr o m th e in s tru c tio n s g iv e n . See a l so W h ite v. S ta te , 3 3 0 S o .2 d 8 7 7 , 8 7 9 (M iss . 1 9 7 6 ) (ju ry in stru c tio n su b sta n tially i dent i cal t o S- 2 w as appr oved by thi s C our t )
. I ti s s ugges t ed thatthe w or ds "e l ementof

" be s ubs t i tut ed her eaf

t erf or"i ngr edi entt o" i n the i ns truct i on. K e lly , 493 So. 2d at359. ¶ 1 7
. W ilso n a lso a rg u e s th a t b e c a u se Ju ry In stru c tio n N o . 5 is in c o m p a tib le w ith th e F ifth C i r cui t ’ s Pat t ern J ury I ns truct i on on A i ding and A bett i ng w hi ch w e pr os pect i vel y adopt ed i n Mil a n o v. S ta te , 7 9 0 S o . 2 d 1 7 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ), th e g iv in g o f Ju ry In stru c tio n N o . 5 in t od a y’ s c a s e was p l a i n e r r or . I n Milano , this C o u rtu p h eld T im o thy Jo h n M il an o ’s

### 14

convi ct i on of

capi t al m ur derand ki dnappi ng. W e t hor oughl y addr es s ed ai di ng and abe t t i ng i n s tru c t i o n s , a n d a l th o u g h l e n g th y , we q u o t e e x t e n s i v e l y f r o m Milano s in c e th is la n g u a g e is i ns truct i ve and c r i t i cal t o t oday’ s di s cus s i on on thi s i s s ue: The f i r s ti s s ue pr e s e nt e d t o thi s Cour ti s w he the rj ury i ns truc t i on s S- 13 a nd S14, r ead t ogetherw i th the ot heri ns truct i ons , fa i r l y announce d the l aw . W e f i nd thatthey di d. O verthe obj ect i on of

de f ens e couns el , the tr i al courtal l ow ed i ns truct i ons S- 13 and S-14 on ai di ng and abet t i ng. T hes e i ns truct i ons ar e i dent i cal , exce ptthat S- 13 appl i es t o c api t al murde ra nd S- 14 appl i es t o ki dnapi ng, the r el evantt ext o f wh i c h i s s e to u tb e l o w: I f you be l i eve f

r om the evi dence beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthat th e D e fe n d a n t, T im o th y J o h n M ilan o , d id w ill fu lly , u n law fu lly and f el oni ous l y d o a n y a ct w h ich is an elem en t of ( capi t al m u rd e r/k id n a p in g ) w ith w h ich h e is c h a rg e d , o r, im m e d iate ly connec t ed w i th i t , or , l eadi ng t o i t s comm i s s i on, t hen and i n that event , you s houl d f

i nd the D ef

end ant gui l ty of

( capi t al m u rde r/k idn ap ing ). ( E m phas i s added)
. The pr obl em w i th thes e i ns truct i ons i s thatthey al l ow f or a gui l ty ver di cti f

the def endantdi d "any ac tw hi ch i s an el ement " of the cr i m e. C on trary to these i nst ruct i on s, there w ere three i n structi on s precedi ng these tw o thats peci f

i cal l y addr es s ed the bur den of the St at e. Forexampl e, S- 4, S- 6- A , an d S -7 ea ch p rov ide that "if the S tat e h as fail ed to p rov e an y o n e o r m o re of the above el ement s beyond a r eas onabl e doubt , t hen y ou s hal l f i nd the D e fe n d a n t n o t g u ilty o f [th e c rim e ]. " E a c h ju ry in stru c tio n th a t sp e c ifica lly addr es s ed the cr i m es c har ged al s o s peci f i cal l y s t at ed thatthe St at e mustpr ove ev ery elem en t o f th e crim e b ey o n d a reaso n ab le do u b t o r th e d efe n d an t is to be f ound notgui l ty. I n Ho rn b u rg e r v . S ta te , 650 So. 2d 510, 515 ( M i s s . 1995) , thi s C our thel d that the j ury w as i m pr oper l y i ns truct ed by a s i m i l arai di ng and abe t t i ng i ns truct i on. H ow ever , w hen the i ns truct i on w as r ead t ogetherw i th otheri ns truct i ons pr es ent ed t o t he j ury, the i ns truct i ons adequa t el y i nf or m ed the j ury of

the l aw w h ich m a d e the im p ro p e r in stru c tio n h a rm les s e rr o r. I d. See al s o G r ay v. S ta te , 487 S o. 2d 1304, 1308 ( M i s s . 1986) ( w hen i ns truct i ons ar e r ead

### 15

t ogether , no err orcan be pr edi cat ed on f ai l ure of on e i ns truct i on t o s etout pr oper l y a nec es s ary el em entof the cr i m e, w her e the el ementw as i ncl uded co rrectl y in o ther instruc ti o n s). M i l ano ar gues thatr ece nt l y s i m i l ari nst ruct i ons have be en f ound t o be r ever s i bl e err or . I n B e rr y v. S ta te , 7 2 8 S o . 2 d 5 6 8 , 5 7 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ), this C o u rt exami ned a j ury i ns truct i on r egar di ng the cr i m e of ai di ng and abe t t i ng the tr ans f erof coca i ne. T he j ury i ns truct i ons i n B erry cont ai ned l anguage s u b s t a n t i v e l y i d e n t i c a l t o th e a b o v e i n s tru c t i o n s , e x c e p tth a tth e n a me d c r i me w as tr ans f

erof coca i ne. H ow ever , i n B erry , thi s C our ts t at ed, "i n thi s cas e, how ever , w e f

i nd thatr eadi ng the i ns truct i ons as a w hol e di d notcur e the err or res ult i ng fr om the im proper i nst ruct i on . " I d. at570. I n L e ste r v . S ta te , 744 So. 2d 757, 760 ( M i s s . 1999) , thi s C our tal s o r ever s ed a ca s e bas ed on s i m i l ar j ury ins truct i ons . A s i n B erry , this C o u rt fo u n d th a t, "there i s nothi ng i n the ot her i nst ruct ion s w h ich c ures this
. " I d. H o w e v e r, in thi s cas e, ther e w er e thr ee pr ecedi ng i ns truct i ons thatpr oper l y pl ace d the b u rd e n o n th e S tate to p ro v e e v e ry e lem e n t o f th e c rim e . T h e ju ry w a s fu lly in stru c ted th a t if all th e e lem e n ts w e re n o t pr o v e n b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t, M i l ano w as t o be f

ound notgui l ty. A ccor di ngl y, the j ury coul d nothave be en conf us ed w hen al l i ns truct i ons w er e cons i der ed and r ead t oget her. W e thus fi nd the err or harm l ess. T he s ame pr obl emat i c j ury i ns truct i on us ed i n Hor nburger , B erry , and L es ter i s o n c e a g a i n b e f

o r e th i s C o u r t . T o a v o i d a n y f u r th e rc o n f

u s i o n , t o d a y , we pr os pect i vel y adoptt he Fi f th C i r cui t ' s Pat t ern J ury I ns truct i on on A i di ng and A bett i ng due t o c ont i nui ng l i t i gat i on a nd c onf us i on overthi s i s s ue. T he us e of thi s i ns truct i on s houl d cur e f utur e pr obl ems r egar di ng t hi s i s s ue. T he i nst ruct i on i s as f

oll ow s: T he gui l tof

a def endanti n a cr i m i nal cas e m ay be e s t abl i s hed w i thoutpr oof

thatthe def

endant pe r s onal l y di d every act c o n stitu tin g th e o ff

e n s e a lleg e d . T h e law re c o g n ize s th a t, or di nar i l y, anythi ng a per s on can do f orhi m s el f

m ay al s o be acc om pl i s hed by thatpe r s on thr ough the di r ect i on of ano t her per s on as hi s orheragent , by a ct i ng i n conce r tw i th, orunderthe di r ect i on of

, ano t herper s on orper s ons i n a j oi ntef f or tor ent erpr i s e. I f anotherper s on i s act i ng underthe di r ect i on of the def endant o r if th e d e fe n d a n t jo in s a n o th e r p e rso n a n d p e rfo rm s a c ts w ith

### 16 the i nt entt o comm i ta cri m e, t hen the l aw hol ds the def endant res po nsi ble f

or the ac ts an d co nd uct of such o ther persons j ust a s th o u g h th e d e fe n d a n t h a d c o m m itt e d th e a c ts o r e n g a g e d in su c h c o n d u c t. B ef or e any de f

endantm ay be hel d cr i m i nal l y r es pons i bl e f orthe a c ts o f o th e rs it is n e c e ss a ry th a t th e a c c u se d d e lib e ra tely a ss o c iate h im se lf in so m e w a y w ith th e c rim e a n d p a rticip a te in i tw i th t he i nt entt o br i ng aboutthe cr i m e. O f cour s e, m er e pr es ence atthe s cene of a c r i m e and know l edge that a cr i m e is be i ng com m i t t ed are no tsuff i ci ent t o est abli sh th a ta d e f

e n d a n te i th e rd i r e c t e d o ra i d e d a n d a b e t t e d th e c r i me unl es s you f

i nd be yond a r eas onabl e doubtthatt he def endant w as a p arti cipa n t and n o t m ere ly a k n o w ing sp ec tat o r. In ot her w ords, yo u m ay n o tfi nd any defend ant gui l ty u nles s you f i nd beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatevery el ementof the o f f e n s e a s d e f

i n e d i n t h e s e i n s tru c t i o n s wa s c o mmi t t e d b y s o me p e rso n o r p e rso n s, an d tha t th e d e fe n d a n t v o lu n tar ily p a r t i c i p a t e d i n i t s c o mm i s s i o n wi th th e i n t e n tt o v i o l a t e th e l a w. Fi f th Ci r . Patt ern J ury I ns truct i ons ( C r i m i nal ) 2. 06 ( A i di ng and A bett i ng) (A g en cy ) (19 9 8 ). F o r th e a b o v e re aso n s, w e fin d that jury instruction s S -13 an d S -14 w ere err oneous . H ow ever , re ad w i th t he ot heri ns truct i ons w hi ch pr oper l y s t at ed the l aw and r equi r ed the j ury t o f i nd thatal l el ement s of the of f ens e had be en proven before M i l ano cou l d b e found gu i l ty, this err or w as harm l ess. Milano , 7 9 0 S o . 2 d at 18 4 -18 5 , ¶¶ 1 5 -22 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ) (em p h asis in o ri g inal). ¶18. I n s um , the j ury i ns truct i ons i n t oday’ s cas e, w hen r ead as a w hol e, cl ear l y r equi r ed the j ury t o f

i nd W i l s on gui l ty onl y i f the St at e meti t s bur den of pr oof on eac h el ementof

t he
cr i m e. A gai n, ourl ongs t andi ng rul e i s t o r ead j ury i ns truct i ons as a w hol e t o det erm i ne i f t he ju ry w a s e rr o n e o u s ly in s tru c te d
. S avo ry , 954 So. 2d at932. Even though J ury I ns truct i on N o. 5 w as noti n the f

or m w hi ch w e pr os pect i vel y adopt ed i n Milano , from the re co rd b efo re

### Co ntraryto to day ’s case, th e ob jection able in structio ns inBerryand Liggi nsclearly 6 

### allow ed th e juryto fin d th e defen dants gu ilty if o nlyon e element o f th e p ri n cipal o ffense was prove n. 17 us , w e f i nd no err or , m uch l es s r ever s i bl e err or , i n the tr i al c our t ’ s gi vi ng of J ury I ns truct i on N o . 5 , w h en w e re ad this i n stru cti o n alon g w ith all the o ther jury instruction s w h ich w ere g iv e n . See a l

so D u n c a n v. S ta te , 939 So. 2d 772, 779- 81 ( M i s s . 2006) ( tr i al courthel d not i n err orf

orgr ant i ng j ury i ns truct i on vi r tual l y i dent i cal t o one appr oved i n Milano ); B re n g e ttcy v. S ta te , 7 9 4 S o . 2 d 9 8 7 , 9 9 7 -9 8 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ) (p o st- Milano d ec isi o n o f th is C o u rt appr ovi ng ai di ng and abett i ng i ns truct i on noti n the f or m adopt ed i n Milano , di s t i ngui s hi ng B e rr y v. S ta te , 728 So. 2d 568, 570- 71 ( M i s s . 1999) , and L ig g in s v . S ta te , 726 So. 2d 180, 184- 85 ( M i s s . 1998) )
. A s w e s t at ed i n B r engettcy , “ [t] h e err o r w h ich led to re v e rsa l in 6 Li gg ins i s s i m pl y notpr es enther e. ” B r engettcy , 794 So. 2d at998. ¶19. W hi l e w e agai n r emi nd the tr i al bench and bar of the ai di ng and abett i ng i ns truct i on
w hi ch w e adopt ed i n Milano i n or dert o c ur e f utur e pr obl ems, w e f

i nd, ba s ed on the r eas ons
s ta te d , th a t th is is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. I I . W HET HER T HE T RI AL COURT ER RE D I N I M P OS I NG A F EL ONY S EN TE NCE UP ON W I LS ON. ¶ 2 0
. “ T h is is s u e p re s e n ts a q u e s tio n o f la w , fo r w h ic h th e s ta n d a rd o f re v ie w is d e n o v o .” D eL o a c h v. S ta te , 722 So. 2d 512, 518 ( M i s s . 1998) ( ci t i ng R o se v. S ta te , 586 So. 2d 746, 7 5 1 (M iss . 1 9 9 1 ); H

arrison Cou n t

y v. Cit y of G u l fport , 5 5 7 S o . 2 d 7 8 0 , 7 8 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 )).

### 18

¶21. W i l s on a r gues thatthe tr i al courterr ed i n s ent enci ng he r , thus e nt i t l i ng he rt o a new
s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g . W i l s o n wa s i n d i c t e d o n M a y 2 3 , 2 0 0 3 , f o rth e No v e mb e r4 , 2 0 0 2 , c r i me of f el ony s hopl i f

t i ng pu r s ua ntt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 97- 23- 93, w hi ch s t at ed: A per s on convi ct ed of

s hopl i f t i ng m er chandi s e f

orw hi ch the mer chant ’ s s t at ed pr i ce e xcee ds T w o H undr ed Fi f ty D ol l ar s ( $250. 00) s hal l be gui l ty of a f el ony and , up on con vict i on , pu nis hed as provi ded i n S ect i on 97 -17-41 f orthe o ff ense of gr and l ar ceny. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 23- 93( 7) ( 2002)
. T he s t atut e s ubs equent l y w as amended by t he L egi s l atur e af

t erW i l s on w as i ndi ct ed butpri ort o hert r i al
. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 23- 93, as
am end ed, st at es: A per s on convi ct e d o f

s hopl i f t i ng m er chandi s e f

orw hi ch the mer chant ’ s s t at ed pr i ce e xcee ds Fi ve H undr ed D ol l ar s ( $500. 00) s hal l be gui l ty of a f el ony and, upon convi ct i on, puni s hed as provi ded i n S ect i on 97-17- 41 f orthe of f ens e of gr and l ar ceny. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 97- 23- 93 ( 7) ( R ev. 2006)
. T hi s amendm entef f ect i vel y m ade the cha r ge of s hopl i f t i ng m er chandi s e over$250 i n val ue bu tnotm or e than $500 i n val ue t o be a
m i s demeanorr atherthan a f el ony. W i l s on ar gues that , acc or di ng t o D a n iels v. S ta te , 742 So. 2d 1140 ( M i s s . 1999) , s he s houl d be s ent ence d a s a mi s demeananti ns t ead of a f el on. W i l s on f ur therar gues thatthe j ury m ade a f i ndi ng onl y thats he s hopl i f t ed m er chandi s e w i th a val ue of m or e than $250 r atherthan the r equi r ed $500 bas ed upon J ury I ns truct i on N o. 3. ¶22. W i l s on’ s ar gum enti s m i s pl ace d. I n D a n iels , the def endantcomm i t t ed the cr i m e of
ca p it al rap e, w h ich a t th e tim e o f th e c o m m issi o n o f th e c ri m e, carried a m an d atory p u n is h m e n t o f d e a th o r l if e im p ri s o n m e n t. I

d. a t1144. The s t atut e w as amended ef f ect i ve f r om and af

t erJ ul y 1, 1998, and the s ent enci ng i n D a n iels occurr ed on A ugus t24, 1998.

### 19

B a se d o n p rio r d e c isio n s o f th is C o u rt, th e trial c o u rt w a s u n d e r th e b e lief th a t ith a d to
s ent ence the def

endantunderthe s t atut e i n ef f ectatthe t i m e of

the comm i s s i on of

the cr i m e. I d. at 11 4 4 -45
. In a p p lying M issi ssipp i C o d e A n n o tate d s e c ti o n 9 9 -19 -33 , an d in an effo rt t o cl ar i f y ourpr i orcas es , w e s t at ed: [ W ] hen a s t atut e i s amended to p ro v ide fo r a les se r p e n a lty , and t he am endm entt akes ef

f ectbef or e s ent enci ng, the tr i al courtm us ts ent ence a c c o rd in g to th e sta tu te a s a m e n d e d . A n y p re c e d e n t h o ld in g o th e rw ise is in erro r. I d. at1145 ( emphasi s added)
. H ow ever , s ect i on 99- 19- 33 and D an iel s s t and f ort he pr opos i t i on thatw hen t he st atut ory penal ty fora par t i cul arcr i m e i s l egi s l at i vel y r educe d af t er the date of t he com m i ssi on o f the cri m e b ut before the date of sent encing, the tr i al cou rtm ust
s ent ence the def

endantunderthe amended s t atut e. Such a pr opos i t i on i s a farcry f r om t oday’ s cas e w her e w e ar e notdeal i ng w i th an amended sent enci ng s t atut e, buti ns t ead a n amended s t atut e as i tr el at es t o the el ement s of the cr i m i nal of

f ens e. O ne of

the el ement s of the amended f

el ony shopl i f

t i ng st atut e now re qui r es t hatt he s t ol en mer chandi s e have a s t at ed pr i ce w hi ch exc eeds $500 i n val ue, as oppos ed t o $250 i n val ue. T hus s ect i on 99- 19- 33 and D a n iels ar e t ot al l y i r r el evantt o t oday’ s di s cus s i on. I n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , o n ly th e e lem e n ts
o f th e c r i me o f

f e l o n y s h o p l i f

t i n g c h a n g e d a n d n o tth e p e n a l ty , wh i c h h a s r e ma i n e d th e s a me dur i ng thi s amendm entpr oces s . W i l s on w as pr oper l y convi ct ed based u po n M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i on 97- 23- 93 a s i te xi s t ed on N ovember4, 2002, the dat e of the cr i m e. T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit.

### 20

I I I . W HET HER T HE T RI AL COURT ER RE D I N ADM I TT I NG I M P ER M I S S I BL E HE ARS AY. ¶23. "Rel evanc y and admi s s i bi l i ty of evi dence ar e l ar gel y w i thi n the di s cr et i on of the tr i al
cou rt , and rever sal m ay b e had on l y w here that d iscreti o n has bee n ab used." McI ntos h v. S ta te , 917 So. 2d 78 , 8 2 (M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng P ric e v. S ta te , 89 8 S o. 2d 64 1, 65 3 (M i ss. 2 0 0 5 ); W

h ite v . S ta te , 7 4 2 S o . 2 d 1 1 2 6 , 1 1 3 4 ( M i s s . 1 9 9 9 ) )
. " F u r th e r m o r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t 's di s cr e t i on mus tb e e xe r c i s e d w i thi n the s c op e o f the M i s s i s s i pp i Rul e s o f Evi de nc e , and
r ever s al w i l l be appr opr i at e onl y w hen an a bus e of di s cr et i on r es ul t i ng in prej udi ce t o t he accused occu rs . " I

d. ( quot i ng P r i ce , 8 9 8 S o . 2 d a t 6 5 3 ; W h ite , 742 So. 2d at1134)
. "A tr i al j udge enj oys a gr eatdeal of di s cr et i on as t o the r el evanc y an d adm i s s i bi l i ty of evi dence
. U n les s th e ju d g e a b u se s th is d isc re tio n so a s to b e p re ju d icia l t o th e a c c u se d , the C o u rt w ill
n o t rev erse this rul i ng . " I d. ( quot i ng P r i ce , 8 9 8 S o . 2 d a t 6 5 3 ; W a lk e r v . S ta te , 8 78 So. 2d 9 1 3 , 9 1 5 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); J e ffe rs o n v. S ta te , 8 1 8 S o . 2 d 1 0 9 9 , 1 1 0 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 )). ¶2 4
. W il so n fi n d s o b

jecti o n ab le H arris’ s testi m o n y co n ce rnin g w h atthe thr ee w om en w ere doi ng i ns i de the s t or e w hi l e he w as out s i de t he st or e, as w el l as W i l s on’ s know l edge of the
over al l pl an t o comm i tthe cr i m e of s hopl i f t i ng. A ccor di ng t o W i l s on, thi s w as i m pr oper tes tim o n y , to w h ich W ilso n ’s c o u n se l o b jec ted . W ilso n a rg u e s in h e r b rie f to th is C o u rt: [T ]h e p ro se c u tio n in tro d u c e d n o e v id e n c e w h a tso e v e r to sh o w h o w H a rris came t o hi s c oncl us i on a bout[ W i l s on] ’ s know l edge. Forexampl e, ther e i s no e v id e n c e th a t th e fo u r d isc u ss e d th e p lan w h ile e n ro u te to D ill a rd ’s. T h e re is no evi dence t hat H arr i s ’ [ s i c] concl us i on i s bas ed on anythi ng otherthan uns uppor t ed opi ni on or thati tw as notder i ved f r om w hatsomeone el s e, r ather th a n [ W i l s o n ] , t o l d h i m.

### 21

T hus , W i l s on ar gues thatH arr i s ’ s t es t i m ony w as i nadmi s s i bl e hea r s ay and thatno hear s ay
exce pt i on e xi s t s t o a l l ow thi s t es t i m ony t o be he ar d by the j ury. W i l s on f ur therar gues that thi s i nadmi s s i bl e hea r s ay t es t i m ony w as so pr ej udi ci al as t o w arr anta new tr i al beca us e the tes tim o n y w a s th e o n ly d ire c t ev id e n c e o f W ilso n ’s k n o w led g e o f a n d in ten t to sh o p lift. ¶25. W e f

i r s t not e that w hi l e W i l s on compl ai ns of H arr i s ’ s i nabi l i ty t o s ee w hat the thr ee
w o m e n w e re d o in g in sid e th e s to re s in c e H a rris w a s “ o u tsid e ” th e sto re , the fa c t is th a t H a rris
w a s in th e m a ll are a lo o k in g b a c k in to th e sto re . Ju st b e c a u se H a rris w a s n o t p h y sic a lly in sid e th e sto re , H a rris w a s n o t p re v e n ted fr o m o b se rv in g a c tiv ity in sid e th e sto re . W e n o te a port i on of

H arr i s ’ s t es t i m ony, t o w hi ch ther e w as no obj ect i on: Q
. W el l , w hatdi d you obs erve [ W i l s on] doi ng? A
. P ull i ng the clothes. Q
. A nd , then , did w hat w i th the cl othes? A
. I don’ tknow w hats he di d w i th t hem. She w as j us tw i th the othergir l s pull i ng the clothes. Q
. D i d you s ee w ho putthe cl othes i n the bag? A
. N o, beca us e I w as out s i de. F ro m th is te stim o n y , th e jur y rea so n a b ly co u ld h a v e in fe rre d fro m th e e v id e n c e th a t H a rris h ad at least som e v iew o f th e a cti v it ies o cc u rri n g in the store. O n the o ther h an d , the re co rd
re v e a ls th a t H a rris te stifie d o n se v e ra l o c c a sio n s th a t h e w a s n o t in th e sto re , an d th u s h e d id notsee t he act i ons of any of t he t hr ee f

emal es . H ow ever , t he col d, har d f act s ar e thatw hen
w e c o n sid e r O ffic e r W ilso n ’s e y e -w itn e ss te s tim o n y a s to w h a t h e o b se rv e d th e su sp e c ts doi ng, i ncl udi ng C hri s t i ne W i l s on, H arr i s ’ s t es t i m ony w as cumul at i ve, atbes t . T he admi s s i bi l i ty of

evi dence “i s l ef

tt o the s ound di s cr et i on of the tr i al courtw i thi n t he boundar i es of

the M i s s i s s i ppi Rul es of Evi dence , ” and on appeal , the tr i al court ’ s rul i ng on

### 22

the admi s s i bi l i ty of

evi dence w i l l notbe deem ed t o be er r orunl es s the tr i al courthas abus ed its d is c re tio n . H

a rr is v . S ta te , 861 So. 2d 100 3, 1018 ( M i s s . 2003) A ddi t i onal l y, “[ s ] uch
err orw i l l w arr antre ver s al onl y w hen t he abus e of di s cr et i on has r es ul t ed i n pr ej udi ce t o t he
a c c u s e d .” I

d . ( ci t i ng P a rk e r v . S ta te , 6 0 6 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 2 , 1 1 3 7 -38 (M iss. 1 9 9 2 )). ¶ 2 6
. C o n c e rn in g th e p la n to s h o p lif t, H a rr is te s tif

ie d , in tera lia , o v e r o b

je c tio n , t h a t “ [i]t
w as al l ourpl an” t o s t eal , that“[ w ] e al l w entt o s t eal , ” and thateverybody i n the ca r ( i n c l u d i n g W i l s o n ) k n e w a b o u tth e p l a n “ [ b ] e c a u s e e v e ry - - e v e ry b o d y k n o w [ s i c ] th a twe
w o rk to g ethe r l ike th at, y o u k n o w . T h ey k n o w - - th ey k n o w [si c] ex ac tl y w h at w e w ere goi ng t o the s t or e t o do. W e w as n’ t[ s i c] goi ng t o w at ch no movi e. ” W e w as n’ t[ s i c] goi ng t o buy nothi ng. ” ¶27. I n W

ill ia m so n v. S ta te , 512 So. 2d 868, 878- 79 ( M i s s . 1987) , w e s t at ed: I n P e o p les v. S ta te , 50 1 So
. 2d 42 4 ( M i s s . 19 87 ) , w e a ga i n r e c og ni z e d tha t a m o n g c o -c o n sp ira to rs th e re m u st b e a re c o g n iti o n tha t th e y a re e n ter in g in to a c o m m o n p lan k n o w ing ly inten d ing to fu rth er it s co m m o n p u rpo se. T h ere need notbe a f

or m al orexpr es s agr eementand the ex i st ence of any s uch agr eementnece s s ar i l y m ay b e i nferred f rom the cir cum st ances, part i cula r l y the decl ar at i ons , act s , and conduc tof the al l eged c ons pi r at or . M er e as s oci at i on w i th a cons pi r at ori s notenough -
- "ther e mustexi s ts om e evi den ce thatthe def endanthas as soci at ed h i m sel f w i th the ven ture i n som e fas hion, part i ci pat ed in it as so m e th in g th a t h e w ish e d to b rin g a b o u t, or so u g h t b y h is a c tio n s to m ake itsucceed
. " P eoples , 501 So. 2d at428. O ne conspi r at orneed notbe aw ar e of al l the det ai l s of

the cons pi r acy i n or dert o be f ound t o have a gr eed to p a rt ic ip a te in th e c o n s p ir a c y . U . S. v. Ri c c ob e ne , 7 0 9 F .2 d 2 1 4 , cer t . deni ed , 4 6 4 U .S . 8 4 9 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 15 7 , 7 8 L . E d . 2 d 5 1 4 ( 3 rd C ir. 1 9 8 3 ); U . S. v. J a n n o tti , 729 F. 2d 213 ( 5th C i r . 1984)
. O nce a cons pi r acy i s es t abl i s hed cocons pi r at or s [ s i c] st at em ent s m ade i n the cour s e of and i n f ur ther ance of

the cons pi r acy a r e adm i s s i bl e aga i ns teac h cons pi r at or , notw i ths t andi ng the c o n fr o n ta tio n c la u s e o r h e a rs a y ru le
. Mitch e ll v. S ta te , 4 95 S o. 2 d 5, 11 (M i ss. 1 9 8 6 ); see al

so , M is s . R . E v i[d ]. 8 0 1 (d )( 2 ) ( E ).

### 23

I d. at878-79. W i th thi s i n m i nd, t her e w as s uf f i ci entevi dence i n the r ecor d thata cons pi r acy t o shopl i f

texi s t ed am ong H arr i s , W i l s on and the othertw o f emal es . Fr om the evi dence and the r eas onabl e i nf

er ence s w hi ch may be dr aw n f r om the evi dence , al l vi ew ed i n the l i ght
m os tf avor abl e t o the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi , the j ury w as i nf or m ed that : ( 1) W i l s on knew one
o f th e o ther tw o fem ales a s S h am ek a; ( 2 ) on th e d ay in q u esti o n , W il so n w as a t Sh am ek a’s hous e w hen t hey deci ded t o go t o the mal l ; ( 3) w hen they l ef ti n Sham eka’ s carheade d t o the
m al l , Sham eka ment i oned ther e w er e tw o f r i ends ( H arr i s and the otherw om an) w ho w ant ed t o go t o the mal l w i th them; ( 4) H arr i s , Shameka, W i l s on a nd the unknow n f emal e al l w ent i nto D i l l ard’ s; (5) accordi ng to O ff i cer W i l son, all thr ee fem al es w ere gatheri ng m erchand i se and ca rryi ng the mer chandi s e t o a comm on l ocat i on i n the s t or e, a nd w hen O f f i cerW i l s on appr oache d t he f

ouri ndi vi dual s , “t hey spl i tup” w i th t w o of the f emal es headi ng t ow ar d one d o o r to the p a rk in g lot, an d the m a le ( H a rris) a n d th e o th e r fe m a le ( W ilso n ) h e a d in g o u t in to the m all a rea ; and (6) the b ag ca rri ed o u t by H arris w h en h e a n d W il so n ex it ed the s tore cont ai ned s t ol en mer chandi s e. ¶ 2 8
. A ll tes tim o n y o ffe re d b y H a rris a s to w h o k n e w w h a t reg a rd in g the p lan to s h o p lift,
r el at ed t o act s and conduc tw hi ch occ urr ed “duri ng the cour s e and i n f ur ther ance of

the
cons pi r acy” ata t i m e w hen W i l s on, f r om the evi dence and r eas onabl e i nf er ence s dr aw n f

r om th e e v id e n c e , c o u ld b e d e e m e d to b e a c o -c o n s p ir a to r. W il liam s on , 5 1 2 S o . 2 d a t 8 7 8
. See al s o B u sh v. S ta te , 8 9 5 S o . 2 d 8 3 6 , 8 4 5 -47 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). ¶29. W i th thi s havi ng been s ai d, w e di s agr ee w i th the St at e’ s as s ert i on that H arr i s ’ s “w eal l
- w ent - t o- s t eal ” t es t i m ony w as admi s s i bl e underM i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence

### 24

801( d) ( 2) ( E ) , conce r ni ng s t at ement s by a co- cons pi r at orduri ng the cour s e and i n f ur ther ance
o f th e co n sp ir ac y . W e em p h asize he re th at W il so n offered a he arsa y objecti o n to H arris’ s t es t i m ony that : “[ i ] tw as al l ourpl an” t o s t eal , that“[w ] e al l w entt o s t eal , ” and that
e v e ry b o d y i n th e c a rk n e w a b o u tt h e p l a n “ [ b ] e c a u s e e v e ry - - e v e ry b o d y k n o w [ s i c ] th a twe
w o rk to g ethe r l ike th at, y o u k n o w . T h ey k n o w - - th ey k n o w [si c] ex ac tl y w h at w e w ere goi ng t o the s t or e t o do. W e w as n’ t[ s i c] goi ng t o w at ch no movi e. ” W e w as n’ t[ s i c] goi ng t o buy no t hi ng. ” Si m pl y s t at ed, thi s t es t i m ony i s nothear s ay underM i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence
. 801( a) ( 1) or( 2)
. Fur ther , the evi dence w as both r el evant and adm i s s i bl e under M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of Evi dence 401, 402 and 403, s o thatthe j ury coul d cons i derthi s evi dence al ong w i th the otherevi dence , i ncl udi ng O f f i cerW i l s on’ s e ye- w i tnes s t es t i m ony as t o w hat he p ers on al l y o bserved the three w om en d oing i nsi de D i l l ard’ s. ¶3 0
. B ase d o n thes e rea so n s, the tr ial co u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in allow ing H arris’ s te s tim o n y a s to th e “ p la n to s te a l.” W e th u s fi n d th is is s u e to b e w ith o u t m e ri t. CO NC L US I ON ¶3 1. For the r e a s on s s t a t e d, the M a di s on County C i r c ui t Cour t ’ s j ud gmen t of c on vi ct i on and s ent ence ent er ed aga i ns tC hr i s t i ne W i l s on i s af f i r m ed. ¶ 3 2
. C O N V I C T I O N O F F E L O N Y SH O P L I F T I N G A N D SE N T E N C E O F F I V E ( 5) 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 , W I TH T HE L AS T Y EA R S US P EN DE D, AND F I VE ( 5 ) YE ARS S UP ER VI S ED P ROBA TI ON, W I TH COND I TI ONS , AF F I RM ED . AP P EL LA NT S HA L L P AY CO UR T COS TS I N T HE AMOUN T OF $ 3 0 4 . 5 0 AN D A F I NE OF $1, 000. 00.

### 25

S M I T H , C .J ., W A L L E R , P .J ., E A S L E Y , R A N D O L P H A N D L A M A R , J J ., CO NCU R. DI CK I NSON, J . , CO NCU RS I N R ES ULT O NLY. DI AZ , P. J . , DI S S ENTS W I T H SE P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y G R A V E S, J.
DI AZ , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶33. I cannotj oi n the maj or i t y fora nu m ber of reasons: (1) t he ai ding a nd abett i ng i ns truct i on w as i n e r r ora nd s ayi ng otherw i s e overrul es ourpr ece denti n Mila n o v. S ta te ; ( 2) H arr i s ’ s t es t i m ony w as i nadmi s s i bl e beca us e i tw as w i thoutfounda t i on; and ( 3) i tw as err or t o s ent ence W i l s on underthe pr i ors t atut e. ( 1) The Tri alC our t Err e d by Fai l i ng t o G i ve t he Pro pe r A i di ng a nd A be t t i ng I ns t r uc t i on. ¶34. Fi r s t , no amount of quot i ng Milano can h i de thatthe m aj ori ty h as overrul ed that case in f a v o r o f tw o -d e c a d e s -o ld p re c e d e n t. Milano clea rl y stat es th at th e a iding an d ab ett ing jury i ns truct i ons w er e “e r r oneous . ” Mila n o v. S ta te , 7 9 0 S o . 2 d 17 9 , 18 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). T o d ay ’s
o p in io n , o n th e o th e r h a n d , f in d s “ n o e rro r.” T h u s, th e C o u rt’s r e m in d e r to u se th e F ifth C irc u it’s in stru c tio n m e a n s n o th in g if w e w ill fin d n o e rro r a t all. ¶ 3 5 . S e c o n d , K

e lly c a n n o t b e in terp re ted to fin d tha t th e jur y in stru c tio n in q u e stio n “ m e e ts
ourr equi r ementthata j ury i ns truct i on nots i m pl y s t at e thata def endantm er el y appr oved of the cr i m e. ” K

e lly v . S ta te , 493 So. 2d 356 ( M i s s . 1986)
. I n K e lly , th e instruction atl east
re q u ire d th a t th e d e fe n d a n t d o “ a n y a c t w h ich is a n ing re d ien t t o the crim e ” w ith th e re q u isite i ntent(i
. e. , “kn ow i ng l y, w i l ful l y and fel on i ou sl y”). T he jury instruct i on s i n the presentcase
m er el y r equi r e thatthe def end ant do “any a ct , ” i nt ended ornot : “ea ch per s on w ho w as pr es ent , c ons ent i ng t o the comm i s s i on of the cr i m e and do in ga n y a c t w hi ch ai ded, as s i s t ed

### 26

o r e n c o u ra g e d th e c ri m e , is g u ilty to th e sa m e e x te n t a s if h e c o m m itte d th e w h o le c ri m e .” (e m p h a s is s u p p lie d ). ¶36. I t i s s i m pl y not enough that the def endant kn ow of and appr ove of the cr i m e t o be g u ilty a s a n a c c e s s o ry . V a u g h n v. S ta te , 712 So. 2d 721, 724 (M i ss. 1998) ( ci t i ng G riffin
v. S ta te , 293 So. 2d 810, 812 ( M i s s . 1974) )
. O ne w ho i s an acce s s ory bef or e t he f actor one
w ho a i ds a nd a be t s mus t“ do s omethi ng tha twi l l i nc i t e , e nc ou r a ge , o ra s s i s tt he ac tual p e rp e tr a to r i n th e c o m m is s io n o f th e c ri m e . . . [o r] p a rt ic ip a te in th e d e s ig n o f t h e fe lo n y .” I d. ( quot i ng Ma lo n e v . S ta te , 4 8 6 S o . 2 d 3 6 0 , 3 6 3 -64 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 )). B ec au se th e jury i ns truct i on onl y r equi r ed thatW i l s on be pr es entand appr ove of the cr i m e, the i ns truct i on w as
err oneous , and the tr i al courts hould hav e gi ven the pr operai di ng and abe t t i ng i ns truct i on adopt ed i n Mil

ano . Milano , 790 So. 2d at185 ( quot i ng Fi f th C i r . Pat t ern J ury I ns truct i ons (C ri m in a l) 2 .0 6 (A id in g a n d A b e ttin g ) ( A g e n c y ) ( 1 9 9 8 ))
. ( 2) H arri s ’ s T es t i m ony w as I nadm i s s i bl e. ¶37. I agr ee that H arr i s ’ s t es t i m ony that “eve rybody knew ” they w er e s hopl i f t i ng w as not h e a rsa y b u t fo r d iffe re n t re a so n s. F irst, h e a rsa y m u st b e a sta tem e n t, an d “ a ‘sta tem e n t’ is (1 ) an o ra l or w ritten as se rtio n o r (2 ) n o n v e rb a l co n d u c t of a p e rso n , if i t is in ten d e d b y h im
as an ass ert i on. ” M
. R
. E
. 801( a)
. H arr i s nevert es t i f i ed thatanyone made any s t at ement aboutthei ri nt ent i ons t o s hopl i f torthatther e w as any s or tof nonverbal conductevi denci ng
s uch an i nt ent . Second, even i f a s t at ementw er e ati s s ue, H arr i s ’ s s t at ement s w er e made on the s t and, n ot “duri ng the cour s e and i n f ur ther ance of

the cons pi r acy, ” as r equi r ed under R u le 80 1 (d)(2 )(E ).W hil e t he m aj ori ty no t es that the defense obj ect ed b ased on hearsay, there w ere al so 7 o b jec tio n s b e c a u se th e q u e sti o n s c a lle d fo r sp e c u latio n a s th e y w e re b a se d o n fa c ts n o t in e v id e n c e . 

### 27 ¶38. T he i s s ue her e i s thatther e w as s i m pl y no f oundat i on f

orH arr i s ’ s t es t i m ony. H e w as 7 of f er i ng a n opi ni on a s t o every per s on' s s t at e of m i nd bef or e the cr i m e, buthe of

f er ed nothi ng
u p o n w h ich h e c o u ld h a v e re a so n a b ly re lied fo r th is o p in io n . “A w itn e ss m a y n o t tes tify to a mat t erunl ess ev i den ce i s i ntr oduced s uf f i ci entt o s uppor ta f

i ndi ng thathe has per s onal know l edge of

the mat t er . ” M
. R
. E
. 602. A ddi t i onal l y, “ t es t i m ony i n the f or m of opi ni ons or i nf er ence s i s l i m i t ed t o t hos e opi ni ons ori nf er ence s w hi ch ar e r at i on al l y based on the per cept i on of

the w i tnes s . . . . ” M
. R
. E
. 701. U nt i l the cr i m e w as under w ay, ther e w as no
r at i onal bas i s f

orH arr i s ’ s opi ni on t hatthey “a l l w entt o s t eal , ” and the obj ect i ons s houl d have b e e n s u s ta in e d
. ¶39. T he m aj or i ty al s o conf us es the abus e- of

- di s cr et i on s t andar d w i th the st andar d us ed f orw ei ghtors uf

f i ci ency of

the evi dence a r gum ent s . The m aj or i ty f i nds no r ever s i bl e err or by “cons i der i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the ver di ct ” and f i ndi ng ther e w as

“ su ffic ien t ev id e n c e ” to su p p o rt a c o n v ictio n . T h is is n o t th e sta n d a rd . T h e q u e stio n is
w h e th e r th e tr ia l ju d g e a b u s e d h is d is c re tio n , re s u ltin g in p re ju d ic e to th e a c c u s e d
. P arker
v. S ta te , 60 6 S o. 2d 113 2 (M i ss. 19 92 ) ( ci t at i on s om i t t ed). T he tr i al j ud ge m ustal so exerci se h is o r h e r d is c re tio n w ith in th e ru le s o f e v id e n c e . I d . B eca us e ther e w as no f oundat i on f

or H arr i s ’ s t es t i m ony thatW i l s on i nt ended t o shopl i f t , i n vi ol at i on of

R ul es 602 and 701, and

### 28

beca us e t hi s goes t o prove an ess ent i al el ementof the cr i m e, W i l s on w as cert ai nl y pr ej udi ced by the admi s s i on of

thi s t es t i m ony. ( 3) W i l s on Sh oul d be Sente nced U nder t he A m ended Stat ut e. ¶40. Fi nal l y, the maj or i ty f i nds Sect i on 99- 19- 33 and D a n iels v. S ta te “ to tally irre lev a n t” t o and a “ f

arcry” f r om the pr es entcas e beca us e t he amendm entchange d an el ementof the
c rim e a n d n o t th e se n ten c e . In m y o p in io n , the a m e n d m e n t h a s e v e ry th in g to d o w ith
sen tenc ing , an d itw as e rror for W il so n to b e s e n ten ce d u n d er the p ri o r st atute. H o w ev er, b e c a u se th e e v id e n c e v a lu e d th e g o o d s a t ro u g h ly $ 1 ,1 0 0 , th e jur y co u ld n o t h a v e re a so n a b ly found that the v al ue w as l ess than $5 00 , and thu s, the err or i n sentenci ng w as harm l ess. C onc l us i on. ¶41. A l though the err or i n s ent enci ng w as harm l es s , the err or s i n the j ury i ns truct i ons and the admi s s i on of

H arr i s ’ s t es t i m ony a s t o W i l s on’ s s t at e of m i nd w er e s i gni f

i cantand w arr ant
re v e rs a l. F o r t h e s e re a s o n s , I w o u ld re v e rs e a n d re m a n d th e c a s e fo r a n e w tr ia l. GRAVE S , J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.