for a search warrant before a more thorough search was conducted. ¶ 19. Hutto made no objection to the admission of the pistol seized during the protective sweep, and we find no issue with the pistol’s admissibility. The pistol was in plain view. And “[i]t has long been settled that objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced into evidence.” Godbold v. State, 731 So.2d 1184, 1190 (¶ 24) (Miss.1999) (quoting Hams v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 236, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968)). ¶ 20. Because the pistol’s seizure did not violate Hutto’s Fourth Amendment rights, we find no error in the admission of the pistol at trial. But see Marshall v. State, 584 So.2d 437, 438 (Miss.1991) (<HOLDING>). C. Refusal of Insanity-Defense Jury
holding that the supreme courts interpretation of 18 usc  924c1 in bailey v united states 516 us 137 116 sct 501 133 led2d 472 1995 has retroactive application to cases on collateral review holding that the rule announced in mills v maryland 486 us 367 108 sct 1860 100 led2d 384 1988 doesnt apply retroactively on collateral review holding that harris v united states 536 us 545 122 sct 2406 153 led2d 524 2002 does not overrule mendozapaz holding that tangible materials seized during an unlawful search are inadmissible fruit of the poisonous tree quoting murray v united states 487 us 533 536 108 sct 2529101 led2d 472 1988 holding that the rule announced in bailey v united states 516 us 137 116 sct 501 133 led2d 472 1995 applies retroactively on collateral review