The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions on Thursday. The first is a divorce case that discusses property classification and alimony and partially overrules a prior decision. The second decision is a direct criminal appeal appealing the denial of an indigent defendant’s request for funding for defense experts. The third case involves a motion for protective order that was sought to exempt redacted information from a public records request disclosure.
Cassell v. Cassell, 2023-CA-00213-SCT (Civil – Domestic)
Affirming the chancellor’s rulings in a divorce matter, holding that the chancellor did not err in the classification of property or award of alimony, that the burden of proof to rebut the presumption of marital property is preponderance of the evidence, and that the party claiming property excluded from marital property has been commingled and transformed into marital property bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and “overrul[ing] Cheatham insofar as it has any bearing on a chancellor’s decision to award alimony and reaffirm the factors enumerated in Ferguson—awarding alimony during the division of the estate—and Armstrong—awarding alimony subsequent to the division of the estate—as the appropriate factors to be considered.”
(9-0)
Harris v. State, NO. 2023-KA-00038-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction for aggravated DUI, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion denying the indigent defendant’s request for funds to retain experts where the requests were insufficient to show a substantial need for state funding or defense experts.
(9-0)
UnitedHealthcare of Mississippi, Inc. v. Amerigroup Mississippi, Inc., 2022-SA-01216-SCT (Civil – Other)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision denying a motion for protective order that sought to exempt redacted information in a qualification United Healthcare had submitted to the Department of Medicaid from disclosure in response to a public records request, holding that United did not meet its burden of showing that the redacted information was either a trade secret or confidential commercial or financial information, and denying United’s request to supplement the record.
(9-0)
Other Orders
Simmons v. State, 2022-CT-01260-SCT (denying cert)
Brown v. State, 2024-M-00013 (granting application for leave to file a motion for post-conviction DNA testing)
Bonner v. The Mississippi Bar, 2024-BD-00142-SCT (granting leave under Mississippi Rule of Discipline 11(b) to resign in good standing from the practice of law in Mississippi)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 