### Th i s statut e wa s am e nd e d b y theLe gi s l at ure duri ngthe20 07 s e s s i on( Mi s s . Laws 1 

### 20 07 , ch. 3 76 , § 1 , eff. from an d after Ju ly 1 , 20 07 ), but this amen dment is n ot ap plicab le to to day ’s case. 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 7 - KA- 0 2 1 3 0 - S CT S T EP H EN JO S EP H D EL A S H M IT

v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 27/ 2007 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N
. T H O M A S J. G A R D N E R , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LE E COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT : M I S S I S S I P P I OF F I CE OF I NDI GE NT APPEALS BY : GEO RG E T. HO LM ES AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : L A DONN A C
. HOL L AND DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: J OHN R I CH AR D YOUN G 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/ 09/ 2008 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 W A L L E R , P . J. , E A SL E Y A N D C A R L SO N , JJ. CAR LS ON , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. St ephen J os eph D el as hm i tw as t r i ed and conv i ct ed by a j ury i n t he C i r cui tC our tof L e e C o u n ty fo r t h e c ri m e o f e n tic e m e n t o f a c h ild fo r s e x u a l p u rp o s e s . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 9 7 -5-3 3 (R ev. 200 6). D el ashm i tw as s entenced as a hab i tual off end er t o a t erm of l if

e 1 i m pr i s onm entw i thoutpar ol e i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i ssi pp i D epart m entof C orr ect i ons

### Due t o these nsi tive nature of thi s c as e, theide nti ty of

the mino r ch ild willnot be 2 

### revealed
. 2 pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 99- 19- 83 ( R ev. 2007)
. A f t erhi s pos t - tr i al
mo t i o n s we r e d e n i e d b y th e tr i a l j u d g e , De l a s h mi ta p p e a l e d t o u s . F i n d i n g n o e rr o r , we af f i r m the Lee C ounty C i r cui tC our t ’ s j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence . F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶2. O n O ct ober 24, 2006, C or ey M al l ory dr ove pas t L ee M emori al C emet ery i n V er ona af t erl eavi ng w or k. H e obse r ved a l i t t l e gi r l pus hi ng a bi cycl e and then not i ced a bl ue N i s s an
carqui ckl y pul l up b esi de her. M al l ory thoughtthe enc ount erappea r ed s us pi ci ous , s o he turned ar ound t o chec k on the l i t t l e gi r l t o ens ur e hers af ety. H e s aw the bi cycl e l yi ng i n the cemet ery, butthe l i t t l e gi r l w as by then gone. M al l ory beca m e al arm ed and f ol l ow ed the bl ue car , and he eventual l y pul l ed up besi de the carand quest i oned the dr i ver , w ho l at erw as id e n tified a s S tep h e n D e las h m it. M a llo ry in q u ire d a b o u t th e little g irl, a n d D e las h m it init ial ly rep li ed tha t he d id n o t kn o w w h at M all o ry w as talkin g ab o u t. D elash m itp u ll ed o ff, b u t M a llo ry c o n tin u e d to fo llo w h im a n d c a lled 9 1 1 to re p o rt th e in c id e n t. ¶3. Ser geantR obbi e G w i n of the Lee C ounty S her i f

f’ s D epart m entw as di s pat ched t o L ee M e m o ria l C e m e ter y in V e ro n a re g a rd in g a p o ss ib le c h ild ab d u c tio n . W h e n S e rg e a n t G w in
arr i ved atthe s cene , he s aw a l i t t l e gi r l ’ s bicycl e o n t he gr ound. A w om an arr i ved on the
s cene and i dent i f

i ed the bi cycl e as bel ongi ng t o herei ght
- year - ol d daught er , V
. B
. S hor t l y, 2 V. B. r e tu rn e d t o th e s c e n e wi th a n a d u l two ma n a n d t o l d o f f i c e r s wha th a d tr a n s p i r e d
. V. B. st at ed thatshe had st op ped t o fi x the chain on her bi cycle w hen she no t i ced a b l ue car pass

### 3

by tw o o r three t i m es. T he d ri v er o f the car pu l l ed u p b esi de h er and asked fordir ect i on s. T he dr i vert hen as ked V
. B
. t o geti n the ca rw i th hi m , and he of f er ed herf

i f ty dol l ar s t o have
se x w ith h im
. T h e m a n alre a d y h a d h is p a n ts u n z ip p e d a n d sh o w e d th e little g irl h is “ m id d le
s pot ” orgeni t al ar ea. V
. B
. beca m e s car ed and r an t o herbr other ’ s f r i end’ s hous e, l eavi ng her bi cycl e i n the ce m et ery. ¶4
. A f

t erl eavi ng the s c e ne , Se r ge a ntGw i n a nd o the ro f f i c e r s began l ooki ng f

or t he
s us pect , w ho M al l ory and V
. B
. de s cr i bed as a w hi t e mal e w ear i ng gl as s es and a ba s ebal l cap
a n d d riv in g a sm a ll b lu e N iss a n c a r. G w in re c e iv e d a tele p h o n e c a ll fro m L e e C o u n ty D eputy Sher i f

f Phi l l i p S m i th, w ho w as w i th D eputy G ary T urner , and they advi s ed G w i n that they w er e f

ami l i arw i th a n i ndi vi dual , St ephen D el as hm i t , w ho mat ched the des cr i pti on of the s us pectand coul d poss i bl y be a r egi s t er ed s ex of f ender
. T he i nves t i gat i on l ed Ser geant G w i n t o the I nd ust r i al Par k atH i ckory Spr i ngs w her e D el as hm i tw or ked. H e s aw D e las h m it’s v e h icle in th e p a rk in g lo t, an d th is v e h icle m a tch e d th e d e sc rip tio n p re v io u sly
o b tain e d . A su p e rv iso r lo c a ted D e las h m it, a n d G w in a sk e d h im to ste p o u tsid e to s p e a k w ith him in the p arki ng l ot. G w i n ad vis ed D el ashm i tof hi s Mir anda rig h ts a n d in fo rm e d h im
w hy l aw enf

or cementw i s hed t o s peak w i th hi m atthatt i m e. G w i n t hen w ai t ed f orL ee C o u n ty S h e ri ff

J im m y H o w e ll J o h n s o n to a rr iv e . Mira n da v. A riz ., 3 8 4 U .S . 4 3 6 , 8 6 S . C t. 1 6 0 2 , 1 6 L
. E D
. 2 d 6 9 4 (19 6 6 ). ¶5. A f

t er arr i vi ng at the s cene , Sher i f f J ohns on appr oache d D el as hm i t and ens ur ed that he h ad b een read h i s Mir anda r i ght s a nd f ul l y under s t ood them. D ue t o w eathercondi t i ons
a n d th e ir lo c a tio n in a w o rk p lac e p a rk in g lo t, Jo h n so n a sk e d D e las h m it t o sp e a k w ith h im in

### 4

th e b a c k se a t o f a p a tro l ca r. O n c e in sid e th e ca r, Jo h n so n p e rso n a lly re -re a d D e las h m it h is Mir anda r i ght s . D el as hm i ta dm i t t ed thathe ha d of f er ed the l i t t l e gi r l , V
. B
. , f i f ty dol l ar s f

or
se x a n d h a d sh o w n h e r h is p e n is. D e las h m it w a s th e n p lac e d u n d e r a rre st a n d tra n sp o rte d to th e L e e C o u n ty jail. ¶6. A t the j ai l , D onna Fr anks , an of f i cer as s i gned t o the C r i m i nal I nves t i gat i on D i vi s i on of t he L ee C ou nty Sh eri ff’s D epartm ent, again adv i sed D el ashm i tof hi s Mir anda r i ght s , and D el as hm i texec ut ed a w ai ver - of
- r i ght s f orm . D el as hm i tagai n conf es s ed t o I nves t i gat or Fr anks thathe had of

f er ed V
. B
. f

i f ty dol l ar s t o have s ex w i th hi m and demonstr at ed how he had show n h er hi s penis
. ¶7. Fol l ow i ng a gr and- j ury i ndi ctm ent , S t ephen D el as hm i tw entt o t r i al on N ovember 26, 2007, i n the C i r cui tC our tof L ee C ounty, J udge T hom as J
. G ar dner , I I I , pr es i di ng. A f t erthe j ury r eturned a ve r di ctf i ndi ng D el as hm i tg uil t y of the cr i m e of

havi ng ent i ced, i nduced or
so licite d V .B ., a n e ig h t-y e a r-o ld c h ild , fo r th e p u rp o se o f e n g a g in g in se x u a lly e x p licit
co n d u ct, Ju d g e G a rd n e r se n tenc ed D elash m itas a h ab itu al offen d er to a term o f l if e i m pr i s onm entw i thoutpar ol e i n the cus t ody of the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof C orr ect i ons pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 99- 19- 83 ( R ev. 2007)
. A f t erJ udge G ar dner deni ed hi s m ot i on f

orj udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ct , or , i n t he al t ernat i ve, f ora new tr ia l, D e la s h m it p e rf

e c te d th is a p p e a l to th is C o u rt .

DI S CU S S I ON ¶8. D e las h m it p re se n ts th re e iss u e s fo r u s to c o n sid e r: (1 ) w h e th e r D e las h m it’s sta tem e n ts to law e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic ials w e re p ro p e rly a d m itt e d ; (2 ) w h e th e r D e las h m it w a s e n tit led to

### 5

a les se r-o ffe n se in stru c tio n ; an d (3 ) w h e th e r D e las h m it’s c o u n se l w a s u n c o n stitu tio n a lly preven t ed fr om m aking a closi ng argum ent r ega rdin g reasonab l e do ub t . W e res t at e these i s s ues f orthe s ake of

t oday’ s di s cus s i on. I . W HET HER D EL AS HM I T’ S S TA TE M EN TS TO L AW EN F ORCEM ENT OFFI CI ALS W ERE PROPE RL Y ADM I TT ED . ¶9. T h e sta n d a rd o f r e v ie w fo r a d m is s io n o f e v id e n c e is a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . D ebr ow v. S ta te , 9 7 2 S o . 2 d 5 5 0 , 5 5 2 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 7 )
. Ho we v e r , wh e n a q u e s t i o n o f l a w i s r a i s e d , we
a p p ly a d e n o v o s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w . Id
. “Thi s C our tw i l l re ver s e a t r i al cour t ' s fi ndi ng that a conf es s i on i s adm i s s i bl e onl y w hen an i ncorr ectl egal s t andar d w as appl i ed, m ani f es terr or
w a s c o m m itte d , o r t h e d e c is io n is c o n tr a ry to 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 .” Ma rti n v . S ta te , 871 So. 2d 693, 701 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng D u p la n tis v. S ta te , 644 So. 2d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 4 3 (M iss . 1 9 9 4 ); W ill ie v . S ta te , 5 8 5 S o . 2 d 6 6 0 , 6 6 5 (M is s . 1 9 9 1 ))
. ¶10. D el as hm i tar gues thathi s s epar at e conf es s i ons t o Sher i f

f J ohns on and t o I nves t i gat or Fr anks w er e i m pr oper l y admit t ed. W i th r egar d t o the conf es s i on t o Sher i f

f J ohns on, D el ashm i targues thatw hil e he w as und er arres t , the arr estw as w i tho ut pr ob able cause, so the s t at ementt o the s her i f f w as i nadmi s s i bl e as “f

rui tof the poi s onous tr ee. ” H e ar gues that the se cond st at emental s o s houl d nothave be en admi t t ed, beca us e i tw as m ade a f t erhe had in v o k e d h is rig h t to c o u n se l. ¶ 1 1
. De l a s h mi t wa s n o t u n d e r a rr e s t a t th e t i me o f h i s c o n f e s s i o n t o S h e r i f

f J o h n s o n . “ An
arr es tw i thi n the meani ng of the cr i m i nal l aw i s t he t aki ng i nt o cust ody of anotherper s on by an of f i cerora pr i vat e per s on f orthe purpos e of

ho l ding h i m to ans w erf oran al l eged or

### 6

s us pect ed cr i m e. O ne w ho vol unt ar i l y acc om pani es an of f i cert o a pl ace w her e he m ay be i nt ervi ew ed i s notunderarr es t . ” D a n c e r v . S ta te , 721 So. 2d 583, 586 ( M i s s . 1998) ; Blue
v. S ta te , 674 So. 2d 1184, 1202 ( M i s s . 1996) ( quot i ng Sm ith v. S ta te , 229 So. 2d 551, 556 ( M i s s . 1969) )
. D el as hm i tvol unt ar i l y goti nt o the patr ol cart o s peak w i th Sher i f f J ohns on. T he s her i f

f t es t i f i ed atthe s uppr es s i on hear i ng thatD el as hm i tw as det ai ned “ba s ed upon gather i ng i nform at i on . ” S heri ff J oh nson l i kew i se t est i fi ed that du e t o the w eat her con dit i on s,

“ I a s k e d [D e la s h m it] to s it in th e b a c k s e a t o f t h e p a tr o l c a r o n th e d ri v e r’ s s id e , a n d I g o t in the back s eat of the patr olcarnext

t o hi m on the pas s engers i de
. ” ( E m phas i s added)
. A l s o, Ser geantG w i n t es t i f

i ed thatD el as hm i tw as not und er arr es tatthi s t i m e and w as s i m pl y a
s us pect . Pol i ce of

f i cer s have a uthor i ty t o det ai n a per s on f ori nves t i gat ory purpos es w i thout
a c tu a lly a rr e s tin g th e p e rs o n . W ill ia m so n v. S ta te , 876 So. 2d 353, 355 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng Sh a n n o n v. S ta te , 7 3 9 S o . 2 d 4 6 8 , 4 7 1 (M iss. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 )). ¶12
. F urther, this C ou rtl i kew i se has st at ed that “[i ] f [ the def endant ] w a n ted to c laim h is
c o n fe ss io n w a s a p ro d u c t o f a n ill e g a l ar re st, ‘it [ w a s] in c u m b e n t u p o n h im to a ss e rt th is def ens e atthe hea r i ng and t o off ers om e evi dence i n s uppor tof i t . ’ ” S ill

s v . S ta te , 634 So. 2d 124, 125 ( M i s s . 1994) ( quot i ng B evil l v. State 5 5 6 S o . 2 d 6 9 9 , 7 0 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ) (e m p h a sis
a d d e d )). T h is C o u rt h e ld th a t in fa ili n g to d o th is, th e d e fe n d a n t, S ill s, h a d a b a n d o n e d th is cl ai m and had f

or f ei t ed hi s r i ghtt o ar gue ats om e s ubs equentt i m e tha tthe tr i al j udge had
e rro n e o u sly a d m itt e d h is s tate m e n t in to e v id e n c e b e c a u se itw a s in d u c e d b y an il leg a l ar re st. Id
. at126. I n the ca s e s ub j udi ce , D el as hm i tal s o f ai l ed t o ar gue thathi s conf es s i on w as the
re su lt o f a n ill e g a l ar re st a n d a rg u e d o n ly th a t itw a s in v o lu n tar y ; th e re fo re , th is a rg u m e n t is

### 7

barr ed. Pr ocedur al bar notw i ths t andi ng, D el as hm i t ’ s ar gum entf ai l s on i t s m er i t s f

orthe
reas on s st at ed; theref

ore, the tr i al cou rtdid not err i n all ow i ng i nto evi den ce D el ashm i t ’s fi rs t
s t at ementt o Sher i f

f J ohns on. ¶ 1 3
. B e fo re D e las h m it m a d e h is s e c o n d c o n fe ss io n , In v e stig a to r F ra n k s re a d h im h is rig h ts atthe Lee C ounty j ai l , and he s i gned a w ai ver - of
- r i ght s f or m . T he f

ol l ow i ng excha nge t ook place bet w een D el ashm i tand Invest i gatorF ranks: Fr anks : T hi s i s a s t at ementof yourr i ght s and you under s t and w hatyour r i ght s ar e? De l a s h mi t : Ye s , ma m. Fr anks : Y ou’ r e w i l l i ng t o m ake a s t at ementand ans w erques t i ons

w i thouta l aw yerpr es entatthi s t i m e? D elash m it : I pre fer a law y er. Fr anks : Y ou pr ef

ert o have a n att orney? D el as hm i t : W el l
. . . butI w i l l
. . . you know
. . . I w i l l go ahea d. F ra n k s : N o . Y o u h a v e to te ll m e y o u ’r e w illin g to ta lk to m e . D e la s h m it: I’ m w illin g to ta lk to y o u . Fr anks : W i thoutan att orney atthi s t i m e? D e la s h m it: W ith o u t a n a tto rn e y . Fr anks : O kay. D o you under s t and and know w hatyou’ r e doi ng? De l a s h mi t : Ye s , ma m. Fr anks : A r e you on any ki nd of m edi cat i on? D el as hm i t : U h .
. . notpr es ent l y. Fr anks : H as ther e bee n any pr om i s es orthr eat s m ade t o you? D e las h m it: N o , m a m , ith a sn ’t. F ra n k s: A g a in , I’m g o in g to a sk y o u . . . d o y o u w a n t an a tto rn e y a t th is

t i m e ordo you w antt o t al k t o m e? D el as hm i t : I w antt o t al k t o you. F ra n k s: O k a y . S o , y o u ’v e h a d y o u r rig h ts re a d to y o u a n d I n e e d y o u to

s i gn i tr i ghtther e. A nd you s ai d you pr ef ert o have a n att orney, a g a i n , I wa n tt o e mp h a s i z e . . . a r e y o u wi l l i n g t o t a l k t o me w i thoutan att orney? De l a s h mi t : Ye s , ma m. Fr anks : Y ou change d yourm i nd and s ai d .
. . you’ r e w i l l i ng t o t al k. D el as hm i t : I w as . . . yeah, I w i l l t al k t o you.

### 8

D e las h m it arg u e s th a t th e c o n fe ss io n h e m a d e s u b se q u e n t to th is e x c h a n g e w a s in a d m iss ib le b e c a u s e h e h a d re q u e s te d o r i n v o k e d h is ri g h t to c o u n s e l. ¶1 4. W hen a s us pe c t i nv ok e s hi s r i gh t t o c ou ns e l , a l l i nt e rr og a t i on mus t c e a s e un t i l t he law y e r is p re se n t. G r a

y so n v. S ta te , 806 So. 2d 241, 247 ( M i s s . 2001) ( ci t i ng E dw ar ds v. Ari z ona , 451 U
. S. 477, 484, 101 S. C t . 1880, 68 L
. Ed. 2d 378 ( 1981) )
. H ow ever , s uch an inv o ca ti o n m u st be un am bigu o u s. “[A ] n am b igu o u s m en ti o n o f po ssibly sp ea k ing w ith o n e’s
a t t orne y i s i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o tr i gg e rthe r i gh tt o c ou ns e l
. ” Id
. (ci t i ng D avis v. U nited States , 512 U
. S. 452, 459, 114 S. C t . 2350, 129 L
. E d. 2d 362 ( 1994) )
. I n D a v is , the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thel d thatt he st at ement , “[ m ] aybe I shoul d t al k t o a l aw yer , ” w as i ns uf f i ci ent to trig g e r th e ri g h t to c o u n s e l. D a v is , 512 U
. S. at462. A s us pectm us tart i cul at e hi s orher des i r e t o have c ou nsel pr es entw i th s uf f i ci entcl ar i ty thata r eas onabl e pol i ce of f i cerunder th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s w o u ld u n d e rs ta n d th e sta te m e n t to b e a re q u e s t fo r a n a tto rn e y . Id
. at459. ¶15. T hi s C our t l i kew i s e r ece nt l y deal t w i th t he i ssue of a s i m i l ar ambi guous s t at ement
m ade by the s us pectdur i ng a cus t odi al i nves t i gat i on. I n Ch a m b e rlin v. S ta te , 2 0 0 8 M i ss. L E X IS 3 5 2 (Ju ly 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 ); r ehear i ng deni ed , Ch a m b e rlin v. S ta te , 2008 M i s s . L E X I S 470 ( Sept
. 11, 2008) , thi s C our ts etoutthe f ol l ow i ng f

act s f r om the r ecor d: L yon [ l aw en for cementof f i cer ] began by a s ki ng pr el i m i nary i dent i f i cat i on ques t i ons . C hamb erl i n [ def endant ] cl ai m s thataboutone mi nut e i nt o the i nt e r vi e w s he s t a t e d, " I w on ' tt e l l yo u a ny thi ng un t i l I t a l k t o a l a w ye r . " T he St at e cont ends thatC hamber l i n aske d, "I s t hi s w her e I ' m s uppos ed t o as k f or a l aw yer , " a nd l at er"D on' tyou thi nk I need a l aw yer ?" T he vi deot ape of the i nt err ogat i on s how s thatC hamber l i n m ade an uni nt el l i gi bl e s t at ement , and L yon i m m edi at el y as ked ques t i ons t o cl ar i f y w hetherC hamber l i n had i nvoked h e r r ig h t to c o u n s e l. S u b s e q u e n tly , C h a m b e rl in c le a rl y s a id , " I'll ta lk ."

### 9

T hi s f i r s ti nt ervi ew l as t ed aboutsi x m i nut es . L yon t es t i f i ed thataf

t erhe r ead C h a m b e rli n h er Mir anda r i ght s , s he " chec ked [ on a Mir anda f or m ] thats he d id n o t w a n t t o sp e a k w ith [h im ]. " T h e in ter v iew c o n c lu d e d a t ap p ro x im a tely 5 : 2 0 p . m. Ch a m b e rlin , 2008 M i s s . L E X I S 352, **12- 13, ¶¶ 25- 26. ( f ootnot e omi t t ed)
. I n anal yzi ng th is iss u e , w e sta ted : P39. A re vi ew of the vi deo r ecor di ng of the f i r s ti nt err ogat i on s how s thatL yon w as i n the mi ds tof

aski ng i dent i f

i cat i on ques t i ons w hen C hamber l i n, af t er s pel l i ng herl as tname, bl ur t ed outthe unint el l i gi bl e s t at ementr egar di ng an att orney. L yon then ce as ed hi s s er i es of i dent i f yi ng ques t i ons and as ked C hamber l i n a numberof que s t i ons , pert ai ni ng onl y t o w hethers he w ant ed an att orney. E ventuall y, C hamber l i n s ai d, "I ' l l t al k. " The tr i al courtf ound that "he rques t i ons conce rni ng an att orney w er e ambi guous as a mat t erof l aw and thati nves t i gat or s t ook al l appr opr i at e pr eca ut i ons t o de t erm i ne the natur e and ext entof

the ambi gui t y, an d t hatthe def endantvol unt ar i l y and w i thout coerci on ag reed t o proceed an d further an sw er quest i on s. " T his C ou rtagrees. P 4 0 . A fte r th e c lar ify in g q u e stio n s a n d C h a m b e rlin ' s re sp o n se th a t sh e w o u ld tal k , L y o n a d v ised C h am b erli n o f he r Mir anda r i ght s , and s he ac know l edged thats he under s t ood. W hen L yon a s ked C hamber l i n "a r e you w i l l i ng t o ans w er ques t i ons now , " Cham ber l i n shoo k herhead " no, " a nd L yon cea s ed as ki ng ques t i ons . C hamber l i n' s i ndi cat i on thats he di d notw antt o ans w erques t i ons di d notcons t i tut e an una m bi guous r eques tforcounse l
. T hus , att he end of the f i r s ti nt err ogat i on, s he s ucce s s f ul l y i nvoked herr i ghtt o s i l ence b utnother r i g h tt o c o u n s e l
. T h i s C o u r tf n d s , a s t h e tr i a l c o u r td i d , th a tC h a m b e r l i n 's Mir anda r i g h t s we r e f

u l l y r e s p e c t e d d u r i n g th e f i r s ti n t e r v i e w. Ch a m b e rlin , 2008 M i s s . L E X I S 352, **20- 22, ¶¶ 39- 40 ( ci t i ng D avis v. U nited States , 512 U
. S
. at 45 8 -61 ). ¶16. I n t oday’ s cas e, D el as hm i t ’ s s t at ement of “I pr ef er a l aw yer ” w as onl y an ambi guous
m ent i on of

pos s i bl y s peaki ng w i th an att orney . C ons i s t entw i th Ch a m b e rlin , w e f i nd that thi s s t at ementw as i ns uf f i ci entt o i nvoke the r i ghtt o couns el
. C l ear l y, a reas on abl e pol i ce of f i cerw oul d notunder s t and thi s s t at emental one t o be an une qui vocal as s ert i on of the r i ght

### Mis si ss ippiCode Annot ated S ection 97- 29-31 on indec ent expos urest at es as 3 

### follo ws: A p erso n w h o w il lf

u ll y an d lew d ly ex p o ses h is pe rson , o r priva te pa rt s the reo f, i n any publ i c pl ace , ori n an y pl ace w her e other s ar e pr es ent , orpr ocur es anothert o s o expos e hi m s el f , i s gui l ty of

a mi s demeanorand, on convi ct i on, s hal l be puni s hed by a fi ne notexce edi ng Fi ve H undr ed D ol l ar s ( $500. 00) or b e im p riso n e d n o t ex c e e d in g six (6 ) m o n th s, o r b o th . It i s n o t a v io latio n o f th is s t atut e f ora w om an t o br eas t - f

eed. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 7 -29 -31 (R ev . 2 0 0 6 ). 

### 10 t o couns el
. I nves t i gat orFr a nk s a s ke d Del a s hmi tnu mer ou s f ol l ow- up que s t i ons t o ens ur e that hi s r i ght s w er e pr ot ect ed. D el as hm i tans w er ed, “I ’ m w i l l i ng t o t al k t o you” and “w i thoutan
a tto rn e y .” In v e stig a to r F ra n k s th u s w a s n o t re q u ire d to c e a se h e r in ter ro g a tio n o f D e las h m it,
a n d th e trial c o u rt, th e re fo re , d id n o t er r in a llo w in g in to e v id e n c e D e las h m it’s sta tem e n t to Invest i gatorF ranks. ¶ 1 7
. F o r th e re a so n s s tate d , this first iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. I I . W HET HER D EL AS HM I T W AS EN TI TL ED TO A L ES S ER OF F EN S E I NS TR UCT I ON. ¶18. D el as hm i t ar gues that the j ury s houl d have been gi ven a l es s er - of f ens e i ns truct i on on i ndece ntexpos ur e. “[ A ] cr i m i nal def endanti s ent i t l ed t o have the j ury i ns truct ed r egar di ng 3 any of f ens e ca rryi ng a l es s erpuni s hm entar i s i ng outof a comm on nucl eus of oper at i ve f

act
w i th the s cena r i o gi vi ng r i s e t o the char ge l ai d i n the i ndi ctm ent . ” G re e n v. S ta te , 884 S o. 2 d 73 3 , 73 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). See al s o G riffin v. S ta te , 5 3 3 S o . 2 d 4 4 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 8 ). H o w ev er,
a les se r-in c lu d e d -o ffe n se in stru c tio n , o r a les se r-o ffe n se in stru c tio n , sh o u ld b e g ra n ted o n ly if th e re is a n e v id e n tia ry b a s is fo r s u c h in s tru c tio n in th e re c o rd
. G riffin , 533 So. 2d at447.

### 11

T he tes ti s ul t i m at el y w hether“t his C ou rt– can say, takin g the ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost f avor abl e t o t he acc us ed, and consi der i ng al l re as onabl e f avor abl e i nf

er ence s w hi ch may be dr aw n i n f

avorof the ac cus ed f

r om the evi dence, thatno r eas onabl e j ury coul d f i nd the def endantgui l ty of

the l es s eri ncl uded of

f ens e ( and conve rs el y notgui l ty of atl eas tone
es s ent i al el ementof

the pr i nci pal char ge)
. ” Id
. ( ci t i ng H a rp e rv . S ta te , 478 So. 2d 1017, 1 0 2 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 )). ¶19. D el as hm i tw as notent i t l ed t o the l es s er - of f ens e i ns truct i on on m i s demeanor i ndece nt expos ur e. B as ed on the overw hel m i ng evi dence , no r easona bl e j ury coul d have f ound D e las h m it n o t gu ilty o f an y ele m e n t of th e p rin c ip a l ch a rg e . T h e v ictim , an e ig h t-y e a r-o ld g irl, tes tified th a t D e las h m it h a d o ffe re d h e r fifty d o llars a n d h a d e x p o se d h is “ m id d le s p o t” t o her
. D el as hm i tal s o conf es s ed t o both Sher i f

f J ohns on and I nves t i gat orFr anks thathe had off ered the ch i l d v i ct i m fi fty d oll ars t o h ave sex w i th h i m and had show n h er hi s penis
. ¶ 2 0
. T h e re fo re , fo r t h e re a s o n s s ta te d , th is s e c o n d is s u e is w ith o u t m e ri t. I I I . W HET H E R D E L A S HMI T ’ S C OUNS E L W A S UN CO NS T I T UT I ON AL L Y P RE VE NT E D F RO M M AK I NG A CL O SI NG AR G UM EN T R EGAR DI NG REASONABLE DO UBT. ¶21. L as t l y, D el a s hmi tc on t e nd s tha th e s uf f e r e d i rr e pa r a bl e p r e

j ud i ce due t o t he t r i al
c o u rt’s lim iti n g h is c lo sin g a rg u m e n ts. D e fe n se c o u n se l m a d e th e fo llo w in g s ta te m e n ts dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent s t o the j ury: N ow , w hati s a r eas onabl e doubt ? W el l , i f you’ r e thi nk i ng r i ghtnow , “W hy w oul d he admi tt o everythi ng w hen he w as i nt ervi ew ed atthe j ai l by D onna F ran k s? W h y w o u ld h e sa y all o f th is ab o u t w h at h ap p en ed if h e h ad so m e so rt of i nt entt o t ake the chi l d of f ?” I f y ou w on deraboutthat , w hy w oul d he do that , and you’ r e doubt i ng w hetherthatmeans thathe i nt ended t o do that , then

### 12

thati s r eas onabl e t o you. A nd thatc oul d be a r eas onabl e doubt
. A doubtthat you have aboutany of

the evi dence , aboutany of the “w hy di d thi s happen” or“w hy di d thi s eventt ake thatcour s e, ” i f you have a ques t i on i n your mi nd aboutw hy, that ’ s a doubt
. A nd i f you can puta r eas on on t op of that– A tthi s poi ntdur i ng def ens e couns el ’ s cl os i ng ar gum ent , the f ol l ow i ng exchange occurr ed in o p e n c o u rt: M r . D ani el s : O bj ect i on t o tryi ng t o def i ne r eas onabl e doubt t o the j ury, Y our H o n o r. T h e C o u rt: Y e s, sir. Y o u c a n n o t d e fi n e , th a t, C o u n se l. It' s fo r th e ju ry to

det erm i ne. A l l r i ght , you m ay pr ocee d. M r . H el m ert : Y ourH onor , I – The Cour t : G o ahea d, butyou can' tt el l t hem w hati ti s . T her e' s no

defi nit i on t o p rove as t o w hat r easona ble doub ti s. M r . H e l m e r t : Y o u rH o n o r , I 'm n o ta s k i n g th e C o u r tt o s a n c t i o n w h a tI 'm – I 'm

notas ki ng the C our tt o i ns tructthat
. I ' m as ki ng t o argue on b e h a lf o f m y c lien t. T he C our t : A l l r i ght
. G o ahea d. ¶22
. A ft er def

ense co u n sel stated tha t he w as o n ly a sking “t o argue on beh al f of [ his ] cl i ent , ” the t ri al courtgave hi m the “go- ahea d” t o cont i nue hi s ar gum ent . T hi s C our thas h eld th at “d ist inction s b etw ee n rea so n ab le d o u b t, a ll p o ssible d o u b t, b ey o n d a sh ad o w o f a doubt , and the l i ke, w hi l e, notprope r l y t he subj ectof j ury i ns truct i ons , ar e perm i s s i bl e dur i ng tr i a l c ou ns e l ' s c l os i ng a r gument . ” Ch ris tm a s v . S ta te , 700 So. 2d 262, 269 ( M i s s . 1997) ( quot i ng He ide lb e rg v . S ta te , 584 So. 2d 393, 396 ( M i s s . 1991) )
. I n the end, af t erthe above excha nge betw een the tr i al cour tand counse l , D el as hm i tw as gi ven thi s oppor tuni ty dur i ng cl os i ng ar gum ent s . H ow ever , def ens e couns el chose , forunknow n re as ons , t o di s cont i nue hi s ar gum entw i th r egar d t o r eas onabl e doubt
. Fr om the col d r ecor d, w e ca n onl y concl ude th a t th is w a s n o t trial-c o u rt e rro r b u t ra th e r a c h o ice o n th e p a rt o f d e fe n se c o u n se l.

### 13

A d d iti o n a lly , b e fo re th e p ro se c u to r o b jec ted to d e fe n se c o u n se l’s c lo sin g a rg u m e n t, D el as hm i t ’ s couns el had s everal m om ent s t o gi ve hi s opi ni on of w hatcons t i tut ed a
r eas onabl e doubt , and the tr i al cour tdi d noti ns tructthe j ury t o di s r egar d thes e comm ent s by d e fe n se c o u n se l. ¶23. Fur ther , even a s s um i ng ar guendo t hatt he af

or ement i on ed t ri al
- courtexchange w as an i m perm i s s i bl e pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tdef ens e couns el ’ s r e a s on a bl e - do ub ta r gu ment , the e rr or
w as harm l es s . T he t es tf orha r m l es s e rr ori s w hetheri tappea r s "be yond a r eas onabl e doubt thatthe err orcompl ai ned of di d notcontr i but e t o the ver di ctobt ai ned. ” T h o m a s v . S ta te , 711 So. 2d 867, 872 ( M i s s . 1998) ( quot i ng Y a tes v. E v a tt , 500 U
. S. 391, 392, 114 L
. E d. 2d 432, 1 1 1 S . C t. 1 8 8 4 (1 9 9 1 )). B a se d o n th e o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e o f g u iltin th e re c o rd , this
e rr o r, if a n y , h a d n o e ff

e c t o n th e u ltim a te o u tc o m e o f t h is c a s e . See K o lb e rg v. S ta te , 829 So. 2d 29, 68 ( M i s s . 2002) ( ci t i ng T a n n e r v . S ta te , 7 6 4 S o . 2d 3 8 5 , 3 9 9 -40 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 )). ¶ 2 4
. T h e re fo re , w e fin d th is iss u e to b e lik e w ise w ith o u t m e rit. CO NC L US I ON ¶25. Forthe r eas ons s t at ed, w e af fi rm t he L ee C ou nty C i rcui tC ou rt ’s j ud gm ent of convi ct i on ent er ed aga i ns tSt ephen D el as hm i tcon si s t entw i th the j ury ver di ctf i ndi ng D e las h m it g u ilty o f th e c rim e o f h a v in g e n tice d , ind u c e d , o r so licite d a n e ig h t-y e a r-o ld c h ild forthe p urpose o f engag i ng i n sexuall y exp l i ci tcond uct, and the resul t i ng l i fe s entence as a
s ect i on 99- 19- 83 habi tual of f enderw i thoutthe pos s i bi l i ty of par ol e. ¶26. COUNT I I : CONVI CT I ON OF EN TI CE M EN T OF A CHI LD F OR S EX UAL P UR P OS E S AN D S E NT E NC E OF L I F E I M P RI S ON M E NT I N T HE CU S T OD Y O F

### 14

THE M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M EN T OF CO RRECTI ONS , AS A HAB I TU AL O F F E N D E R , W I T H O U T T H E P O S S I B I L I T Y O F P A R O L E , A F F I R M E D . S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND D I AZ , P . J J . , EA S LE Y, DI CKI NS ON, RAN DO LPH AND LA M AR, J J . , CO NC UR . G RAV ES , J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY .