The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down four opinions today. There is an estates case, a domestic relations case, and a direct criminal appeal. However, the main stage act is a decision on the constitutionality of HB 1020 (and part of that decision was unanimous).
In Re The Estate of Herbert Bernard Ivison, Jr.: Malouf & Malouf, PLLC v. The Estate of Herbert Bernard Ivison, Jr., 2022-CA-00837-SCT (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Reversing the chancellor’s ruling that a law firm’s probated claim against a state was barred by statute, holding that the law firm had no reason to pursue further additional legal actions to secure payment of its claim after timely probating the claim.
(8-0: Griffis did not participate.)
West v. West, 2020-CA-01206-SCT consolidated with 2022-CA-00147, 2002-IA-01158, 2008-CA-01700, 2009-CA-01877, 2010-CA-00316 (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Reversed on direct appeal and cross appeal, holding that the chancellor erred in his priority-of-liens analysis and remanding for a determination of whether capital stock certificates conspicuously noted bylaws restrictions, holding that the chancellor erred in failing to address a retroactive child support claim, and holding that because one party engaged in claim-splitting the chancellor’s decision in the consolidated case was reversed with orders to dismiss the case and reinstate a 2008 judgment, writs of garnishment, and writs of execution.
(8-0: Beam did not participate.)
NOTE – This is a 44-page opinion with a lot going on. Be advised that my summary is even broader than usual.
Jenkins v. State, 2022-KA-00754-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of DUI (third offense), holding that the trial court did not err in granting a jury instruction that the State was not required to prove that alcohol impaired the defendant’s ability to drive or level of impairment and did not err in refusing the defendant’s instruction on the defendant’s theory of the case where most of the language of that instruction was incorporated into another instruction.
(5-1*-3: Maxwell specially concurred, joined by four justices from the majority: Coleman, Beam, Chamberlin, and Griffis; Kitchens dissented, joined by King.)
NOTE – Justice Maxwell’s concurrence garnered four other votes giving it precedential effect. That special concurrence held that “an instruction like S-8’s potential to confuse weight heavily against giving it in Section (1)(a) common law DUI cases.” The concurrence also noted that even if this instruction was given in error, it would have been harmless due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Here is the text of the instruction at issue:
Saunders v. State, 2023-CA-00584-SCT (Civil – Unconstitutional Statute)
Affirming in part and reversing in part in the HB 1020 case, holding (1) the creation of the CCID inferior court is Section 4 of HB 1020 is constitutional but (2) Section 1’s creation of four “temporary special circuit judges” to be appointed by the Chief Justice to “almost-four-year-terms” violates the Mississippi Constitution’s requirement that circuit judges be elected.
(6-2: Kitchens dissented as to the constitutionality of CCID inferior court, joined by King; Kitchens and King concurred as to the unconstitutionality of appointing the temporary judges; Randolph did not participate)
NOTE – Here is the crux of the reasoning behind the unanimous holding that the appointment process in HB 1020 is unconstitutional:
Other Orders
Moore v. State, 2021-M-00111 (denying application for leave to proceed in the trial court, finding the filing frivolous, and warning that future frivolous filings may result in sanctions)
Hull v. State, 2022-CT-00088-SCT (denying cert)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 