“Wilful” Means “Knowing” – Mississippi Supreme Court Clarifies Mens Rea for Drug Possession and Re-affirms a Flexible Lindsey Review

Introduction

The Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in Mercedes B. Clark v. State of Mississippi, No. 2024-KA-00446-SCT (12 June 2025) addresses the conviction of Mercedes Clark for trafficking eutylone (ecstasy). Although the Court ultimately affirmed the trial court, the opinion is significant for two reasons:

It expressly reiterates that a jury instruction using the term “wilfully” satisfies the statutory requirement that possession be “knowing or intentional.” In effect, “wilful” equals “knowing” for purposes of Mississippi drug-possession statutes.
It provides fresh guidance on the scope of the Court’s duty under Lindsey v. State to scour the record—showing tolerance toward late and technically deficient pro se briefs filed by incarcerated appellants.

Below is an in-depth commentary on the judgment, its reasoning, and its likely implications.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Court affirmed Clark’s conviction and ten-year, no-parole sentence for trafficking 43 dosage units of eutylone.
• Court-appointed counsel filed a “no-arguable-issues” brief under Lindsey; Clark submitted a late pro se brief raising three claims:

Error in excluding her post-arrest interview with a drug-task-force agent;
Inadequate jury instructions on knowing possession;
A plea for statutory change to allow parole eligibility for first-time drug offenders.

The Court held all three contentions meritless, finding (1) Clark consented to the exclusion order, (2) the instructions correctly used “wilfully” and covered constructive possession, and (3) the judiciary cannot rewrite parole statutes.

Detailed Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Lindsey v. State, 939 So. 2d 743 (Miss. 2005) – Governs the procedure when appellate counsel finds no arguable issues. The Court quoted Lindsey to confirm its obligation to examine the entire record and any pro se submissions.
Hollis v. State, 320 So. 3d 518 (Miss. 2021) – Emphasized that even poorly briefed pro se arguments must be reviewed for potential merit under Lindsey. Clark’s case extends this leniency to a brief filed nearly two months late.
Moore v. State, 676 So. 2d 244 (Miss. 1996) – The Court relied heavily on Moore’s statement that “wilfully” is synonymous with “knowingly” or “intentionally,” cementing the mens rea clarification.
Ousley v. State, 154 Miss. 451, 122 So. 731 (1929) and Perrett v. Johnson, 253 Miss. 194, 175 So. 2d 497 (1965) – Earlier authorities establishing the equivalence of willfulness and knowledge.
Weathersby v. State, 165 Miss. 207, 147 So. 481 (1933) – Mentioned in counsel’s checklist of issues considered.
Wilson v. State, 194 So. 3d 855 (Miss. 2016) – Cited for the principle that courts may not rewrite statutes.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

a. Procedural Leniency Toward Pro Se Appellant

Rule 31(d) permits dismissal for late briefs, yet the Court invoked its discretion and the policy of leniency toward incarcerated, self-represented litigants. Similarly, it ignored Rule 28 technical defects, citing Hollis to reaffirm that the Court’s Lindsey duty overrides strict briefing requirements where fundamental rights are at stake.

b. Exclusion of the After-Arrest Interview

Clark’s statements to Agent Wilburn were self-serving hearsay. More importantly, she personally agreed—on the record—to the State’s motion in limine. Under the doctrine of invited error/waiver, a defendant may not later complain about a ruling she accepted. The Court also noted that any ineffective-assistance claim should be pursued via post-conviction relief, preserving the familiar separation between direct appeal and collateral proceedings.

c. Jury Instructions & Mens Rea

The pivotal passage is ¶21–¶22: borrowing from Moore, the Court stated it is “inconceivable that an act wilfully done is not also knowingly done.” Consequently, Instruction C-11, which required the jury to find Clark “wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously” possessed eutylone, already encompassed the knowledge/intent element. Instruction C-12 further clarified constructive possession, rendering Clark’s tendered Instruction D-7 cumulative and properly refused.

d. Separation of Powers & Parole Eligibility

Clark’s policy argument for parole eligibility was dismissed with a brief but strong reminder that statutory modification lies exclusively with the Legislature, not the judiciary (Wilson, 2016).

3. Impact of the Decision

Clarification of Mens Rea Terminology
Prosecutors and trial courts may confidently use “wilfully” in indictments and instructions for drug-possession and trafficking charges without separately adding “knowingly.” Defense lawyers can anticipate diminished success in attacking instructions on that ground.
Guidance on Lindsey Appeals
The case underscores the Court’s willingness to:
1. Accept late pro se filings from incarcerated appellants;
2. Relax Rule 28’s technical briefing standards;
3. Nevertheless enforce waiver where the defendant expressly agreed to an evidentiary ruling.
Strategic Considerations for Counsel
When entering into agreed orders—particularly to exclude a client’s own exculpatory statements—defense counsel must ensure the record reflects genuinely informed consent. Such agreements foreclose later appellate relief.
Legislative vs. Judicial Roles
The decision reinforces the judiciary’s limited power to alter mandatory-minimum or no-parole statutes, channeling reform efforts toward the Legislature.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Lindsey Brief – A procedure where court-appointed appellate counsel, finding no non-frivolous issues, files a declaration to that effect. The appellate court still independently scans the whole record.
Self-Serving Hearsay – Out-of-court statements offered by the defendant to prove the truth of what she said; generally inadmissible unless an exception applies.
Constructive Possession – Having dominion or control over contraband without physical holding; proximity plus other incriminating factors can prove it.
Invited Error/Waiver – A party cannot appeal an error it affirmatively agreed to or induced at trial.
Mens Rea – The “guilty mind” element; the mental state required for a crime. Here, “wilfully”/“knowingly.”

Conclusion

The Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in Clark sets a concise yet meaningful precedent: in Mississippi criminal law, “wilful” conduct satisfies the requirement of “knowing” or “intentional” conduct for drug possession and trafficking. Simultaneously, the case illustrates the Court’s commitment to a robust Lindsey review, even when pro se filings are tardy or technically inadequate. While upholding Clark’s conviction, the Court clarified important procedural and substantive doctrines that will influence future criminal litigation and appellate practice within the state.