This is a catch-up post from the week I took off of blogging for my oral argument on February 11. The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down five opinions on February 10 and one off-schedule opinion on Thursday, February 5. Read on for summaries…
February 5, 2026
Gray v. State, 2023-KA-01270-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of capital murder and sentence to life imprisonment but reversing the imposition of a fine, holding that the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the defendant’s second statement was voluntary or by denying the defendant’s motion in limine to exclude other evidence, that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, that the “flight instruction” issue was legally barred for failure to raise it in the trial court, and that there was no error and no prejudice regarding an alternate juror, but holding that there was not authority for the imposition of an assessment against the defendant as a partial reimbursement to the county for the defendant’s court-appointed counsel.
(5-5: Wilson for the Court; Barnes dissented, joined by Westbrooks, McDonald, McCarty, and Lassitter St. Pe’.
February 10, 2026
Lovern v. State, 2024-KA-01449-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of sexual battery and gratification of lust, holding that the evidence was sufficient, that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of a victim’s prior behavior, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding jury instructions, that the trial court did not err in allowing evidence of the defendant’s prior bad acts, that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion in limine that would have prevented the State from referring to the victim as “the victim,” that there was no abuse of discretion in the court’s limitations on voir dire questioning, that the trial court did not err in limiting the defendant’s references to the tyranny of the government during closing, that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s request to take possession of his phone to look for exculpatory text messages he alleged were missing from the extraction, that the trial court did not err in limiting the defendant to calling two character witnesses, that inconsistent verdicts (acquitting on one charge and convicting on two) was no basis for reversal, and that the cumulative error doctrine did not apply.
(9-0: Lassitter St. Pe’ for the Court; Emfinger did not participate)
Mize v. Nunmaker, 2025-CA-00089-COA (Civil – Contract)
Reversing the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment for the defendant in a breach of contract case, holding that there was a genuine fact issue regarding whether there was a binding agreement between the parties and regarding whether the claim was time-barred.
(10-0: Lassitter St. Pe’ for the Court)
Estate of Eaves: Schlesinger v. Eaves, 2024-CA-00692-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision in a probate matter, holding that the chancellor did not err in denying a request to set aside an inter vivos conveyance and assignment of a law firm based on an undue-influence argument and that the chancellor did not err by allegedly interfering with cross-examination at trial.
(8-2-0: Weddle for the Court; Wilson and McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing)
Southeast Financial Credit Union v. Brown, 2024-CA-01390-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the trial court’s dismissal of a debt collection claim for want of prosecution, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion dismissing the seven-year-old case after there were multiple periods of inactivity in excess of one year culminating in a two-year period of inactivity, a show cause order, and a non-appearance at the show cause hearing.
(10-0: McCarty for the Court)
DeCuir v. City of Laurel, 2024-CC-01055-COA, consolidated with Valentine v. City of Laurel, 2024-CC-01379-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of police officers’ appeals challenging the promotions of other officers, holding that the appeal was not perfected because the appellant filed a notice of appeal rather than a petition for writ of certiorari with the circuit court as is required to obtain judicial review of a civil service commission’s decision to promote.
(8-2-0: Wilson for the Court; Barnes and McDonald concurred in part and in the result without writing)
Practice Point – This one is like a Final Jeopardy appellate jurisdiction question. Here is the Court’s conclusion:
Other Orders
- Bird v. Ladner, 2024-CA_00245-COA (denying rehearing)
- Thompson v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 2024-CA-00393-COA (denying rehearing)
- Moody v. State, 2024-CA-00407-COA (denying rehearing)
- Carter v. State, 2024-CP-013828-COA (recalling mandate and allowing pro se motion for rehearing to proceed)
- Pedrego v. State, 2025-TS-01282-COA (dismissing appeal as untimely filed)
- Buchanan v. State, 2025-TS-01445-COA (allowing appeal to proceed as timely)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 