The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down six opinions today. There is a reversal of a defense verdict in a med mal case and a reversal of a conviction. There are a couple of domestic relations cases and another criminal appeal.
Upchurch v. Lewis, 2023-CA-01296-COA, consolidated with Lewis v. Upchurch, 2024-CA-00396-COA (Civil – Med Mal)
Reversing the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for JNOV in a med mal case after a defense verdict, holding that the plaintiffs presented substantial testimony that the defendant-physician breached the standard of care and that his negligence caused the plaintiff’s injuries, and that since the defendant-physician was not tendered or accepted as an expert there was no insufficient evidence to support the verdict in favor of the defendant; affirming the trial court’s decision requiring the appellee to pay the $30,000 for the appellee’s additional record designations.
(6-3: Weddle for the Court; Wilson dissented, joined by Barnes; Emfinger did not participate)
Sharp v. Sharp, 2024-CA-00171-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancery court’s order clarifying its final judgment of divorce, holding that the chancellor had authority to clarify and correct the final judgment and did not abuse his discretion in doing so regarding 529 accounts or requiring the father to pay college education expenses.
(9-0: Emfinger for the Court)
Clark v. State, 2024-KA-00932-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing conviction of one court of sexual battery, holding that the State’s improper reference to nonexistent DNA and repeated comments on evidence excluded by pretrial order amounted to denial of the defendant’s due process.
(8-2-0: McCarty for the Court; McDonald and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without writing)
Thornhill v. Thornhill, 2023-CA-00714-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s grant of divorce on the ground of desertion, holding that there there was substantial credible evidence supporting the basis for divorce, that the chancellor did not err in property evaluation or equitable division, or in granting rehabilitative alimony instead of periodic alimony.
(10-0: Lawrence for the Court)
Practice Point – This is excerpt is worth noting. Failure to raise an issue in a Rule 59 motion does not bar that issue on appeal as long as it was presented to and decided by the trial court:
Alexander v. Scarbrough, 2023-CA-01359-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the chancellor’s award of full custody to a child’s mother, holding that there was substantial evidence to supporting the chancellor’s legal determinations and fact findings.
(10-0: Lawrence for the Court)
Harrison v. State, 2024-KA-00430-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of two counts of sexual battery, holding that the defendant’s argument that the date range in his indictment was not overly broad was procedurally barred and without merit.
(9-1-0: Carlton for the Court; McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing)
Other Orders
- Magyar v. Shiers, 2023-CA-00682-COA (denying rehearing)
- Brownless v. Brownless, 2023-CA-01044-COA (denying rehearing)
- Ruffin v. State, 2024-CA-00867-COA (denying State’s motion to strike untimely motion for rehearing)
- Walker v. State, 2025-TS-00584-COA (sua sponte allowing untimely appeal to proceed)
- Robertson v. State, 2025-TS-00806-COA (sua sponte allowing untimely appeal to proceed)
- Hoskins v. State, 2025-TS-00993-COA (allowing appeal to proceed as timely after taking pro se response to show cause notice well)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 