Joseph David Heard v. State of Mississippi

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2024-DP-00802-SCT JOSEPH DAVID HEARD v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/10/2024 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LAWRENCE PAUL BOURGEOIS, JR. TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: GEORGE RANDALL HUFFMAN MARA MICHÈLE LESIEUR JOFFE WILLIAM CROSBY PARKER LAUREN RUTH HILLERY FRANK PHILIP WITTMANN, IV DONALD RAFFERTY BLAKE THORNBRO HERMAN F. COX BILLY EDWARD STAGE COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: GREG R. SPORE STACY L. FERRARO ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BRAD A. SMITH ALLISON K. HARTMAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY: WILLIAM CROSBY PARKER NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - DEATH PENALTY - DIRECT APPEAL DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 08/06/2026 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: EN BANC. GRIFFIS, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Joseph David Heard appeals his capital-murder conviction and death sentence. We find no reversible error and affirm.  FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2. Joseph and Hailey Heard began dating in November 2020 and married in February 2021. Joseph was thirty-seven years old. Hailey was twenty-one years old and had a one- year-old son, Hayden. Hayden turned two years old shortly thereafter in June 2021. Joseph, Hailey, and Hayden initially lived in Gulfport with one of Joseph’s friends, but they later moved into a house in Biloxi. ¶3. Joseph and Hailey struggled financially. Joseph quit his job at Waffle House and got a job at the port. But Joseph did not get picked to work very often, and he did not work much after he and Hailey got married. As a result, Joseph would watch Hayden while Hailey was at work at Walmart.1 ¶4. Despite her job at Walmart, Hailey had to apply for loans at times in order to pay the rent and utility bills. Hailey applied for a loan in December 2021 and expected the funds to be deposited into her account later that month. ¶5. On the morning of December 27, 2021, Joseph, Hailey, and Hayden were at home, asleep. Around 5:00 a.m., Hailey’s phone alert went off. Joseph woke up Hailey so she could check her phone since they were expecting money from the loan. The commotion woke up Hayden, who slept in the same bedroom as Hailey and Joseph. ¶6. According to Hailey, Joseph noticed that Hayden had soiled his diaper, so Joseph picked up Hayden, and Hayden started to cry. Joseph took Hayden to the bathroom and gave Hayden a bath. Joseph then took Hayden to the living room and gave Hayden some 1 Hailey’s work hours varied. She would work from 5:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., or 5:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., or some days from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 2 medicine, but Hayden was still crying. As a result, Hailey got up to check on Hayden. When Hailey walked into the living room, Hayden was on the couch and Joseph was kneeling in front of Hayden punching Hayden over and over again in the ribs with his closed fists, causing Hayden to again soil himself. Hailey put her hand over Hayden’s mouth to stop him from crying. As she held her hand over Hayden’s mouth, Joseph continued to punch Hayden in his ribs, chest, and head. Hayden eventually stopped breathing. Hailey then called 911,2 and Joseph performed CPR. Hayden was pronounced dead at 7:01 a.m. ¶7. Hailey and Joseph were indicted for capital murder. The indictment provided that Hailey and Joseph “on or about December 27, 2021, did . . . willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and with or without design to effect death, kill and murder Hayden . . . , a human being, while in the commission of the crime and felony of [f]elonious [a]buse and/or [b]attery of a [c]hild, as defined by Section 97-5-39(2)[.]” ¶8. Hailey pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and received a life sentence. Joseph pleaded not guilty and went to trial. At trial, multiple witnesses testified. ¶9. Rex Ritchie, a patrolmen with the Biloxi Police Department, responded to the 911 call regarding a possible child drowning.3 When Ritchie arrived at the Heards’ residence, Hayden was lying in the center of the living room and was not moving. When asked if anything stood out to him, Ritchie testified, “Yes, . . . [Hayden] had bruising on his face.” Ritchie further testified that Hailey was crying, and Joseph was “calm . . . like [it was] another day.” While 2 Hailey reported the emergency as a drowning. 3 Ritchie testified that he responded to the 911 call at 6:08 a.m. and that the 911 call would have been made before then. 3 Ritchie admitted that he did not know Joseph or his demeanor, he stated that Joseph “was calm . . . for the situation.” ¶10. Mark Dillard, a paramedic with AMR, also responded to the 911 call. He arrived at the residence at 6:11 a.m. Dillard noticed that Hayden was not wet and had bruising on his face and neck. CPR and intubation were performed. Dillard testified that there was no water in Hayden’s airway. He further testified that Hayden was not responsive to the life-saving measures and that Hayden did not breathe on his own after the life-saving measures were performed. Hayden was transferred to the hospital and arrived at the hospital at 6:32 a.m. ¶11. Nick Sonnier, an investigator with the Biloxi Police Department, received a phone call regarding the incident and went to the hospital. Sonnier testified that when he arrived at the hospital, he observed Hayden “to be unconscious, unresponsive, and [with] bruising covering . . . his chest [and] extremities.” Sonnier left the hospital, went to the Heards’ residence, and then went to the police station, where he collected Hailey’s and Joseph’s cell phones. ¶12. Aaron Michael Allen, a forensic analyst for digital forensics with the attorney general’s office, testified that as a forensic analyst, he obtains data from electronic devices such as cell phones. Allen was admitted as an expert in forensic analysis specializing in computer and cell-phone extractions, and he testified regarding his extraction of Hailey’s and Joseph’s cell phones. Allen explained that based on his extraction, he was able to retrieve text messages between Hailey and Joseph. A summary of the text messages between May 4 and December 27, 2021, was introduced into evidence and published to the jury. The text messages show Joseph’s demeanor toward Hailey, and they also show Joseph’s history of 4 abuse of Hayden. ¶13. Dr. Leanne Lee, a board-certified emergency-medicine physician, was admitted as an expert in emergency medicine. Dr. Lee testified that she has treated “thousands” of children during her career, and she explained that as an emergency-medicine physician, she is trained to look for signs of abuse when a child presents to the emergency room. ¶14. Dr. Lee was on call when Hayden presented to the emergency room. She testified that she “ha[d] never seen a kid that had sustained so much trauma” and that Hayden “was essentially dead on arrival.” She described Hayden as having “bruising everywhere,” specifically “[a]ll over [his] face,” “bruising to both eyes,” “[h]is arms, his torso, his back,” and “on [his] ribs.” ¶15. Dr. Lee explained the “various stages of bruising” on Hayden’s face and body, noting the older, green bruises versus the newer, “redder” bruises. She testified that while she could not identify when the older, green bruises occurred, the newer, redder bruises would have occurred “within the last 24 hours.” She stated that “in [her] experience[,] the bruise will pop up within an hour or two of it occurring.” Dr. Lee further noted a burn on Hayden’s right ear and “a scar on his right hand from a prior burn.” ¶16. Postmortem X-rays showed “bilateral proximate [humerus] fractures” to Hayden’s upper arms. Dr. Lee testified that “these fractures ha[d] the bucket handle appearance that you would suspect in child abuse” and that this “injury could be from taking the child’s arms and shaking them . . . while the body is remaining still.” ¶17. Dr. Lee acknowledged the report of drowning, but she explained that there were no 5 signs in this case to indicate drowning, such as water in the airway, froth around the mouth, or water in the lungs. She further explained why Hayden’s injuries were inconsistent with a fall from a bed or a couch, stating, “I’ve seen hundreds of falls from beds and couches, and I’ve never seen anyone with the amount of bruising and stages of bruising in a kid like that before.” ¶18. Dr. Lee opined that Hayden’s injuries were most consistent with being hit or punched with something. And when asked if being punched in the chest or the abdomen would hasten someone’s death by smothering, Dr. Lee stated it would “hasten the death if not alone cause death.” ¶19. Dr. Staci Turner, the chief medical examiner with the Mississippi Department of Public Safety, performed Hayden’s autopsy. Dr. Turner, who was admitted as an expert in forensic pathology, noted that Hayden was two years old, weighed thirty pounds, and was thirty-seven inches tall. ¶20. Dr. Turner testified that the first thing she noticed from her external examination was that Hayden “had numerous bruises scattered over his entire body.” She explained: Usually my procedure is to move from the head down to the feet when I do my examination, and as I was examining his head, face, mouth, I found a laceration on the inside of his upper lip and a bruise. It’s the part where the lip is attached to the gum called the frenulum. Also he had multiple bruises on the inside of his lips, and he had small hemorrhages in his eyes. He also had numerous bruises on the back of his head, on his face.[4] He had injuries to his ear, his right ear. Dr. Turner further explained that after shaving Hayden’s hair, she saw “multiple bruises on 4 Dr. Turner noted that the bruises to Hayden’s face varied in color. 6 the right side of his head and multiple bruises on the back and the front of his right ear.” She opined that these injuries were caused by “[e]ither a blunt force object striking the head or the head striking a blunt object.” ¶21. Regarding external injuries to the rest of Hayden’s body, Dr. Turner testified that “[t]here were numerous bruises on his torso, his upper extremities, his arms, and his lower extremities, his legs.” She further testified that there were multiple bruises and abrasions on Hayden’s back. Dr. Turner opined that the injuries on Hayden’s face and body were “blunt force injuries . . . made by a blunt object striking the skin and body or the body striking a blunt object.” Dr. Turner did not see any recent injuries to Hayden’s hands, but she noted a scar on the back of Hayden’s right hand. ¶22. According to Dr. Turner, X-rays showed bony abnormalities of the top of the long bones in the arm. This bone is called the humerus, and there were abnormalities in both sides indicating injury, and the larger bone in your back, your shoulder blade, on the right side there was a visible fracture that had healed or was in the process of healing. ¶23. Dr. Turner opined that Hayden’s cause of death was suffocation by smothering and that his manner of death was homicide. She further opined that Hayden also suffered from blunt injuries and agreed that a closed fist would be considered a blunt object. ¶24. Hailey testified that her relationship with Joseph was okay at first but that after they got married, Joseph became very controlling and would “beat on [her].” And according to Hailey, Joseph was also violent toward Hayden. She explained: There w[ere] days where [Joseph] would be upset with Hayden because [Hayden] used the bathroom on himself or Hayden would start crying for no reason. [Joseph] would put [Hayden] in a corner, tell [Hayden] to put his hands 7  up, or [Joseph] would tell [Hayden] to “do it,” which [meant] to lift his arms up and down over and over. If [Hayden] was in trouble because he used the bathroom on himself, [Joseph] would make him sit on the toilet for hours. She stated that Joseph would make Hayden raise his arms up and down for “[a]s long as Joseph wanted . . . [f]ive minutes to two hours.” ¶25. Hailey testified that Joseph would hit Hayden on the butt, ribs, or face and that he would pull Hayden’s arms. She also testified that Hayden had a second-degree burn on his right hand that Joseph used as a form of punishment. Specifically, Hailey explained that Joseph would hit Hayden’s blistered hand with a rubber spatula, causing Hayden to cry. ¶26. Hailey testified regarding the events on the morning of December 27, 2021. She stated that although Hayden was beaten “quite regularly,” she had never seen Joseph beat Hayden the way he did that morning. ¶27. On cross-examination, Hailey admitted that she smothered Hayden. She further admitted that she and Joseph never discussed “doing any kind of lethal injury to [Hayden],” that “at no point that morning did [she] see Joseph try to attempt to kill Hayden,” and that Joseph did not “say . . . that he was going to kill [Hayden].” ¶28. Hailey acknowledged it was her idea to tell the 911 operator that Hayden had drowned in the bathtub. Hailey further acknowledged she initially lied to the police by stating that Joseph did not hit Hayden and that Hayden’s bruises were accidental. Hailey testified, however, that she eventually told the police the truth about what had happened,5 and she stated that in doing so, she did not discuss any deals and did not ask for anything in exchange 5 Hailey told the police the truth one week later, on January 5, 2021. 8 for telling the truth. ¶29. Joseph testified at trial in his own defense and denied causing any injury to Hayden. Joseph admitted that Hayden was alone with him most days while Hailey was at work, and he implied that Hayden’s bruises were from falling off the couch or bed or from playing. Notably, Joseph testified that he never saw Hailey “put any marks on [Hayden]” and that he “wouldn’t think a mother would.” ¶30. Joseph explained that on the morning of December 27, he had given Hayden a bath and some medicine and then took Hayden to the bedroom. Hayden was thirsty, so Joseph sent Hayden to the kitchen to get some juice, and when Hayden did not return, Joseph got up to check on Hayden. According to Joseph, he saw Hayden “leaning against the couch . . . gasping for breath.” Joseph noticed that Hayden had soiled his diaper again and went to get a clean diaper. He heard Hailey screaming and ran back to the living room where he saw that Hayden’s face was blue and then Hayden “just blinked out.” Joseph performed CPR, and Hailey called 911. When asked how he felt at that point, Joseph responded that he was “scared.” When asked who he was scared for, Joseph stated, “me.” It was only after his defense counsel asked who else he was scared for that Joseph responded he “was scared for Hayden as well.” ¶31. Regarding Hayden’s second-degree burn on his hand, Joseph explained that during the summer of 2021, Hayden “somehow fell” off the couch and his right hand was swollen. Joseph “put a towel in the microwave for about 30 seconds, and [then] sat it on a plate.” According to Joseph, two-year-old Hayden picked up the hot towel and wrapped it around 9 his hand, causing a second-degree burn. ¶32. Joseph testified that despite the text messages, he “really wouldn’t . . . beat [Hayden].” He explained that he wanted a divorce from Hailey and that he sent the text messages to be mean and to “make her mad enough to just give [him] a divorce.” He further explained that the text messages were just a “figure of speech” and that it was just him “talking.” ¶33. Joseph maintained that he never put a bruise on Hayden. He testified that he did not kill, attempt to kill, or intend to kill Hayden, nor did he contemplate lethal force against Hayden. ¶34. The jury found Joseph guilty of capital murder. The penalty phase began the next day. ¶35. During the penalty phase, the State moved to admit all evidence from the guilt phase. The trial court granted the motion, and the State rested. After speaking with Joseph, defense counsel chose not to present any mitigation evidence during the penalty phase, and the defense rested. ¶36. The jury “unanimously f[ound] from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that . . . [Joseph] attempted to kill Hayden[.]” The jury also unanimously found the following two aggravating circumstances: (1) that “the capital offense was committed while [Joseph] was engaged, or was an accomplice, in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit, . . . felonious abuse or battery of a child in violation of subsection (2) of Section 97-5-39,” Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-101(5)(d) (Rev. 2020), and (2) that “[t]he capital offense was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.” Miss. Code Ann. § 99- 19-101(5)(i) (Rev. 2020). The jury further unanimously found that there were “insufficient 10 mitigating circumstances to outweigh the aggravating circumstances” and that “[Joseph] shall suffer death.” The trial court entered a final judgment sentencing Joseph to death. ¶37. Joseph filed a motion for a new trial or in the alternative a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Joseph timely filed a notice of appeal. On appeal, Joseph asserts ten assignments of error. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶38. “The Court applies heightened scrutiny when reviewing capital murder convictions where the death penalty has been imposed.” Clark v. State, 343 So. 3d 943, 954 (Miss. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Dickerson v. State, 175 So. 3d 8, 15 (Miss. 2015)). DISCUSSION I. Whether Dr. Lee provided improper expert testimony. ¶39. At trial, Dr. Lee was accepted as an expert in emergency medicine. Joseph argues Dr. Lee “provided improper expert testimony concerning the nature of Hayden’s bruising.” He claims certain testimony from Dr. Lee was improperly admitted since it commented on the ultimate issue in the case and was speculative. ¶40. “The admission of expert testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Anderson v. State, 62 So. 3d 927, 936 (Miss. 2011) (quoting Bishop v. State, 982 So. 2d 371, 380 (Miss. 2008)). “This Court will not reverse a trial court’s decision to admit expert testimony unless it finds that the trial court’s decision ‘was arbitrary and clearly erroneous, amounting to an abuse of discretion.’” Id. (citing Bishop, 982 So. 2d at 380). 11  A. Ultimate Issue ¶41. During direct examination, Dr. Lee testified as follows: [State]: . . . Dr. Lee, based upon your examination and treatment of Hayden and based on your education and experience, do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to how Hayden’s injuries occurred, the nature of those injuries? [Dr. Lee]: Yes. A hundred percent would be abuse. ¶42. Joseph asserts Dr. Lee provided improper expert testimony by failing to frame her opinions to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. He claims that “Dr. Lee testified to an absolute certainty or a fact” and that “Dr. Lee was neither assisting the trier of fact in understanding the evidence nor making a medical judgment; she was instead telling the jury precisely what to believe.” According to Joseph, “the damage from [Dr. Lee’s] ‘certainty testimony’ was irreparable” since “[i]n the jurors’ minds, it was now a fact that the bruising on Hayden was caused by abuse.” ¶43. But Joseph failed to object to this testimony. “This Court has long held that failure to make a contemporaneous objection waives any claim of error as to the evidence admitted, even in a capital case.” Abram v. State, 420 So. 3d 881, 887 (Miss. 2025) (citing Garcia v. State, 300 So. 3d 945, 976 (Miss. 2020)). Because Joseph failed to make a contemporaneous objection, his argument regarding the admission of Dr. Lee’s certainty testimony is waived. Id. (citing Garcia, 300 So. 3d at 976). ¶44. Joseph acknowledges that his trial counsel failed to contemporaneously object to Dr. Lee’s testimony. He argues, however, that “Dr. Lee’s testimony should be reviewed as plain error, or alternatively, as an ineffectiveness of counsel claim.” 12  i. Plain Error ¶45. “The plain error doctrine requires not only the existence of an error, but also that either the error resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice or ‘seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Corrothers v. State, 148 So. 3d 278, 319 (Miss. 2014) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. State, 995 So. 2d 698, 703 (Miss. 2008)). “ The Court applies the plain-error rule only when the error affects a defendant’s fundamental rights.” Id. (citing Brown, 995 So. 2d at 703). “To determine if plain error has occurred, we must determine ‘if the trial court has deviated from a legal rule, whether that error is plain, clear or obvious, and whether the error has prejudiced the outcome of the trial.’” Neal v. State, 15 So. 3d 388, 403 (Miss. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting McGee v. State, 953 So. 2d 211, 215 (Miss. 2007)). ¶46. Joseph clarifies that Dr. Lee’s “credentials and chosen methodology are not at issue” and that he is “not arguing a violation of [Mississippi Rule of Evidence] 702.” Instead, Joseph claims Dr. Lee’s “‘bald statement’ as to an ultimate issue in this matter” violates Mississippi Rule of Evidence 704. According to Joseph, “how Dr. Lee expressed her opinion[,] how she framed her opinion in absolute terms . . . stripp[ed] the jury of its role to determine if Hayden was abused.” We disagree. ¶47. “[I]t is not the expert’s function . . . to substitute himself or herself for the jury and advise them with regard to the ultimate disposition of the case.” Smith v. State, 925 So. 2d 825, 838 (Miss. 2006) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 13 State v. Lindsey, 720 P.2d 73, 76 (Ariz. 1986)). “Clearly, the expert should not be permitted to pass judgment on whether the defendant was the specific perpetrator.” Id. “Questions which simply allow the witness to tell the jury what result to reach are impermissible, as are questions asking the witness for a legal conclusion.” Moffett v. State, 156 So. 3d 835, 864 (Miss. 2014) (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hart v. State, 637 So. 2d 1329, 1339 (Miss. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Taylor v. State, 287 So. 3d 202, 209 (Miss. 2020)). ¶48. But under Rule 704, “[a]n opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue.” MRE 704. “[E]xpert opinion embracing the ultimate fact . . . must be helpful to the trier of fact.” Moffett, 156 So. 3d at 864 (quoting Hart, 637 So. 2d at 1339). ¶49. Here, Dr. Lee did not “substitute . . . herself for the jury[,]” Smith, 925 So. 2d at 838 (quoting Lindsey, 720 P.2d at 76), nor did she “tell the jury what result to reach[.]” Moffett, 156 So. 3d at 864 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Hart, 637 So. 2d at 1339). Dr. Lee did not testify who inflicted Hayden’s injuries but instead provided her medical opinion as to what caused those injuries. And Dr. Lee’s testimony regarding Hayden’s injuries was helpful to the jury. Moffett, 156 So. 3d at 864 (quoting Hart, 637 So. 2d at 1339). ¶50. Dr. Lee testified that when a child presents to the emergency room, as an emergency- room physician, she is trained to look for signs of abuse such as “patterns of bruising, patterns of fractures” as well as “the history” and whether “the injury match[es] the history.” According to Dr. Lee, when Hayden arrived at the emergency room, “[t]here was bruising everywhere essentially,” including on his head, arms, torso, back, ribs, chin, cheek, and eyes. 14 Dr. Lee testified that “on first glance,” the “most pronounced was the head trauma” with “lots of swelling, bruising in multiple stages on the head ranging to the arms as well.” She further testified that Hayden had bilateral racoon eyes, which is bruising to both eyes, that appeared to be in the older stages of bruising [since] they were more of a green color. He had green bruises on his cheeks as well, but he also had redder bruises, which means they are new, on the cheeks as well on top of the green. He had what we call battle signs, which is bruising to the back behind the ears. Dr. Lee opined that “[f]rom her experience, [Hayden’s] injuries were most consistent with being hit with something, punched with something.” ¶51. Additionally, postmortem X-rays revealed “bilateral proximate [humerus] fractures” to Hayden’s upper arm that Dr. Lee described as “bucket handle fractures.”6 Dr. Lee opined that the fractures were consistent with abuse and that “taking the child’s arms and shaking them . . . while the body . . . remain[s] still” could cause such injuries. ¶52. Although Hayden’s reported history “was a possible drowning,” Dr. Lee testified that she found “no evidence to . . . support the drowning.” She explained that if an individual had been a victim of drowning, the individual “would be wet” and “there would be signs of water in the airway, such as froth around the mouth.” Dr. Lee confirmed that there were no “signs in this case to indicate a drowning.” ¶53. Dr. Lee also testified that Hayden’s injuries did not appear to be self-inflicted or caused by an accident and that the injuries did not all appear to have happened in a single event. She admitted that she could not identify when the injuries occurred, but she testified 6 Dr. Lee explained that “buckle handle fractures of long bones are metastasis fractures” and “should be suspected for potential abuse.” 15 that the newer, redder bruises would have occurred within twenty-four hours. She explained that in her experience, “the bruise will pop up within an hour or two of it occurring.” ¶54. Dr. Lee further testified that Hayden’s injuries were not consistent with a fall from a bed or a couch. She explained that she has “seen hundreds of falls from beds and couches and [has] never seen anyone with the amount of bruising and stages of bruising in a kid like that before.” ¶55. As the record reflects, Dr. Lee was asked if she had an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to how Hayden’s injuries occurred. Notably, she answered that question in the affirmative, “[y]es,” and then explained, “[a] hundred percent would be abuse.” Joseph’s “absolute certainty” argument seeks to have this Court consider Dr. Lee’s one-line response in a vacuum, with no consideration to context or to her other testimony. Dr. Lee’s testimony as a whole was helpful to the jury in that it explained how and why she concluded that abuse caused Hayden’s injuries. She applied, in essence, a differential diagnosis, considering and excluding various etiologies before reaching the conclusion that the cause of Hayden’s injuries was abuse. ¶56. The trial court did not “deviate[] from a legal rule” in its admission of Dr. Lee’s testimony at issue. Neal, 15 So. 3d at 403 (quoting McGee, 953 So. 2d at 215). But even assuming the trial court’s admission of Dr. Lee’s certainty testimony was erroneous, as Joseph suggests, the testimony did not “prejudice[] the outcome of the trial” in light of all testimony and evidence presented. Id. (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting McGee, 953 So. 3d at 215). 16 ¶57. Patrolman Ritchie testified that when he arrived at the Heards’ residence, Hayden was “laying . . . in the center of the living room” and “had bruising on his face.” AMR paramedic Dillard also testified that when he arrived on the scene, he observed significant bruising on Hayden’s face and neck. Investigator Sonnier further testified that when he arrived at the hospital, he observed Hayden with bruises covering his chest and extremities. ¶58. According to Dr. Lee, when Hayden presented to the emergency room, “[i]t was one of the most horrific scenes [she had] witnessed as an ER doctor.” Dr. Lee testified that Hayden had “bruising everywhere,” and she opined that Hayden’s bruising was “most consistent with being hit with something, punched with something.” ¶59. Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Turner, who performed Hayden’s autopsy, noted numerous bruises on his body, including his head, face, torso, arms, and legs, as well as hemorrhages in his eyes. Like Dr. Lee, Dr. Turner opined that Hayden’s injuries were caused by a blunt-force object such as a closed fist. ¶60. Hailey testified that on the morning in question, she witnessed Joseph repeatedly punch Hayden with closed fists in Hayden’s ribs. Even after she covered Hayden’s mouth, Joseph continued to repeatedly punch Hayden in his head, chest, and ribs until he stopped breathing. According to Hailey, Joseph “beat [Hayden] quite regularly.” But while she had seen Joseph beat Hayden before, Hailey testified that she had never seen Joseph beat Hayden like he did on the day Hayden died. ¶61. Text messages between Hailey and Joseph also reflect Joseph’s abuse of Hayden. For instance, the following text messages were sent from Joseph to Hailey: 17  [I]f he’s is crying when I come out im whipping his ass I hit that ass to hard but idgaf today he really pulled his dick out n pissed on our floor I don’t get him at all he really has been spoiled but that shit dead now I j[u]st beat his hands n bath him and I found a remedy to heal his bruises fast the ones he already got I get up to use the bathroom n put him back on the couch this nigha shitted I whooped his ass good n put him in the tube Oh ok sorry bae this night piss on himself after he got off the pot he gonna wear the next one[.] ¶62. While Joseph denied causing any injury to Hayden, he admitted that Hayden was alone with him most of the time and that he never saw Hailey put any marks on Hayden. And any suggestion that Hayden’s injuries were caused by falls off the bed or couch was refuted by Dr. Lee. ¶63. According to Joseph, “Dr. Lee’s improper testimony [regarding the nature of Hayden’s injuries] was a cornerstone of the prosecution’s case” and “was highly prejudicial.” He claims: The prejudice created by [Dr. Lee’s] impermissible level of certainty and trial counsel’s failure to object was heightened as it corroborated Hailey’s testimony, which in turn implicated [Joseph] as the main abuser. . . . Hailey testified that [Joseph] repeatedly punched Hayden both in the months leading up to Hayden’s death and on the day of the incident. After hearing Hailey’s testimony, and because trial counsel failed to challenge Dr. Lee, the jury was led to believe that Hayden’s injuries were caused exclusively by abuse and that [Joseph] was responsible. ¶64. But as previously discussed, in addition to Dr. Lee, Ritchie, Dillard, Sonnier, Hailey, and Dr. Turner all testified to the bruising on Hayden’s body. Again, Ritchie, Dillard, and 18 Sonnier all observed bruises on Hayden’s body. Dr. Turner opined that Hayden’s injuries were caused by a blunt-force object such as a closed fist, which corroborated Hailey’s testimony that Joseph repeatedly punched Hayden in the head, chest, and ribs on the morning of his death. Text messages from Joseph to Hailey also provided evidence of Joseph’s abuse of Hayden. And despite Joseph’s assertion that Dr. Lee’s testimony “implicated [him] as the main abuser,” Hailey admitted her role in Hayden’s death, i.e., that she put her hand over Hayden’s mouth and smothered him. Thus, even without Dr. Lee’s certainty testimony, sufficient evidence was presented to support the jury’s findings. ¶65. Regarding Dr. Lee’s complained-of certainty testimony, Joseph fails to show that the trial court “deviated from a legal rule[.]” Neal, 15 So. 3d at 403 (quoting McGee, 953 So. 2d at 215). But even assuming the trial court erred, the admission of Dr. Lee’s certainty testimony did not “prejudice[] the outcome of the trial” in light of all testimony and evidence presented. Id. (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting McGee, 953 So. 2d at 215). Accordingly, Joseph’s plain-error argument fails. ii. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ¶66. Joseph argues that his trial counsel’s failure to object to Dr. Lee’s certainty testimony constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. Every criminal defendant has a state and federal constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV; Miss. Const. art. 3, § 26. To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). To 19 show deficient performance, a defendant must show that counsel’s performance “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Id. at 688. But a strong presumption exists that counsel’s performance constituted trial strategy and was “within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance[.]” Id. at 689. Prejudice is demonstrated by showing “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 694. ¶67. Ordinarily, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not addressed on direct appeal. Wilcher v. State, 863 So. 2d 776, 825 (Miss. 2003). “[G]enerally, ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are more appropriately brought during post-conviction proceedings.” Ross v. State, 288 So. 3d 317, 324 (Miss. 2020) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Bell v. State, 202 So. 3d 1239, 1242 (Miss. 2016)). “This Court will address such claims on direct appeal when ‘[1] the record affirmatively shows ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions, or [2] the parties stipulate that the record is adequate and the Court determines that the findings of fact by a trial judge able to consider the demeanor of witnesses, etc.[,] are not needed.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Bell, 202 So. 3d at 1242). When neither of these factors is present, “the appropriate procedure is to deny relief, preserving the defendant’s right to argue this issue through a petition for post-conviction relief[.]” Dartez v. State, 177 So. 3d 420, 423 (Miss. 2015) (citing Read v. State, 430 So. 2d 832, 837 (Miss. 1983)). ¶68. Here, neither factor is present. In other words, the record does not affirmatively show ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions nor do both parties stipulate that the record is 20 adequate for consideration on direct appeal. Ross, 288 So. 3d at 324 (quoting Bell, 202 So. 3d at 1242). Thus, Joseph’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is denied at this time, but Joseph’s right to argue this issue is preserved for post-conviction review. Dartez, 177 So. 3d at 423 (citing Read, 430 So. 2d at 837). B. Speculation ¶69. During direct examination, Dr. Lee testified as follows: [State]: . . . [I]f someone was being punched in the chest or abdomen, say, while somebody was holding a hand over someone’s mouth so they were being simultaneously punched and smothered, what effect would the punching have, assuming they’re being punched in the chest or abdomen? Would that have any effect on a person’s ability to breathe? [Dr. Lee]: Oh, yes. First of all, a punch to the chest, you know, itself could cause cardiac death. As instances of that, you know, like baseball to the chest and it hit it at the right time, the hitting of the chest would not allow—if anybody has ever had the wind knocked out of them, it takes you a few seconds to recover from that. So I can imagine that it would be difficult to regain your breath if you were being punched in the chest or even if the chest was being compressed by an arm. [State]: Is it possible that someone being punched in the chest or the abdomen would hasten someone’s death by smothering? [Defense Counsel]: Objection, Your Honor. [Trial Court]: Can you answer that, doctor? [Dr. Lee]: Yes. [Trial Court]: You can answer it? 21  [Dr. Lee]: Yes. It would hasten the death if not alone cause death. ¶70. Joseph argues Dr. Lee “testified to possibilities.” He claims Dr. Lee’s testimony “embraces suspicions and imaginings and possibilities.” ¶71. The opinion of an expert witness “must rise above mere speculation.” Parvin v. State, 113 So. 3d 1243, 1247 (Miss. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Williams v. State, 35 So. 3d 480, 486 (Miss. 2010)). “‘[I]ndefinite’ expert opinions, or those ‘expressed in terms of mere possibilities,’ a