The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today. There is one direct criminal appeal, one § 1983 case, and one case about huntin’ dogs.
Pittman v. State, 2023-KA-00367-SCT (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of burglary of a dwelling, passing on the issue of whether evidence of prior bad acts were improperly admitted and holding that if there was any error it would be harmless. (9-0)
Clay v. Tunica County, Mississippi, 2022-CA-01106-SCT (Civil – Wrongful Death) Affirming summary judgment in a § 1983 action on qualified immunity grounds, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish deliberate indifference and that local governments cannot be held vicariously liable based on employer-employee relationships. (9-0)
Allen v. Dickerson, 2023-CA-00067-SCT (Civil – Real Property) Affirming the chancellor’s rulings in a case pitting the right to quite enjoyment of property against the right to hunt and harvest wildlife, holding that the trial court’s finding that repeated intrusion of deer hunting dogs onto neighboring property constituted private nuisance and warranted an injunction. (5-1*-3: Maxwell specially concurred, joined by Coleman, Beam, Chamberlin and Griffis; Ishee dissented, joined by Randolph and Kitchens)
Practice Point – Maxwell’s special concurrence received four other votes, giving it precedential value. The special concurrence agreed with the majority’s ruling but emphasized that the decision is not a blanket and should not be read to besmirch lawful dog hunting.
Note – The dissent waded into the regulatory morass of what you can hunt when.
My Parting Thought – Mind your dogs.
Other Orders
Goldbolt v. State, 2020-DP-00440-SCT (denying rehearing)
Durr v. State, 2021-CT-01109-SCT (dismissing cert sua sponte)
Gilmer v. State, 2022-CT-00257-SCT (denying cert)
Premier Radiology, P.A. v. Davis, 2022-IA-00916-SCT (dismissing interlocutory appeal)
After some sort of technical hiccup with the State’s web domain that knocked the Mississippi Supreme Court’s website offline for a spell, they are back in business. The Court handed down one hearty opinion in a wrongful death case that involves § 1983, qualified immunity, the MTCA, the appealability of summary judgment denials, and hearsay.
City of Jackson v. Johnson, 2020-CA-00318-SCT (Civil – Tort/Wrongful Death/1983/MTCA) Reversing and rendering a jury verdict holding the City liable under § 1983 and affirming the trial court’s judgment finding the City liable under the MTCA for the decedent’s wrongful death. The victim was murdered shortly after calling 911 to report a prowler. The dispatcher did not tell the victim to remain on the line, in violation of the City’s policies and procedure. Two JPD officers went to the victim’s house, did not detect that the prowler had entered a window, did not make contact with the victim, and left. The victim was found dead the next day. The victim’s family filed suit under § 1983 and under the MTCA.
The 911 operator and officers got out via qualified immunity on summary judgment. The § 1983 case was tried by a jury and the MTCA case was tried “simultaneously” before the bench. The jury found that the City violated the victim’s constitutional rights to due process and awarded $1M in damages. The trial court awarded $500,000 (i.e. the statutory maximum) under the MTCA.
On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the City was entitled to a directed verdict on the § 1983 claim, reasoning that our constitutional due process rights do not include the right to be protected by the state from acts of private violence. Regarding the MTCA claim, the Supreme Court held that the 911 dispatcher’s conduct in responding to the victim’s call did not involve an element of choice or judgment and the City was therefore not protected by discretionary function immunity from liability under the MTCA.
There was a hearsay issue involving the defendant’s statement contained in the police report that warrants a brief discussion. The trial court admitted the police report, but with the assailant’s statement to police redacted, finding that the assailant could not be compelled to testify against himself and that hearsay exception in Rule 804(b)(3) did not apply because the statement was not being used against the assailant/declarant. Later in the trial, the court allowed the plaintiff’s expert to reply on the assailant’s statement in forming his opinions over the City’s objection that the expert had relied on inadmissible hearsay. The Mississippi Supreme Court did not have to address the argument that the expert’s testimony was a “conduit for otherwise inadmissible hearsay” because it held that that the assailant’s statement to police was admissible under the Rule 804(b)(3) exception after all, so there was no error in admitting the expert testimony that relied upon it.
(Chief Justice Randolph wrote a special concurrence, joined in part by Justice Maxwell, Justice Chamberlin, Justice Ishee, and Justice Griffis. Justice Griffis also wrote a special concurrence.)
Practice Point – I found it remarkable that the Mississippi Supreme Court heretofore had not addressed the issue of whether the denial of a motion for summary judgment can be appealed after a trial. They did here, and now we know:
One More Thing – We were this close (maybe) to the Mississippi Supreme Court addressing one of my pet issues: When a case involves an MTCA defendant and a non-MTCA defendant how, exactly, should a hybrid bench/jury trial proceed?
Hutto v. State, 2017-DR-01207-SCT (granting the plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Rebuttal to Opposition to Motion for Appointment of Counsel for Representation for Successive Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and the State’s Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal in Opposition to Motion for Appointment of Counsel for Representation for Successive Petition for Post-Conviction Relief)
Randle v. Randle, 2020-CT-0033-SCT (granting cert)
McPhail v. McPhail, 2020-CA-00739-SCT (denying Motion Pursuant to Rule 8 and Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure is hereby denied and remanding to the chancery court of Grenada County for an adjudication of a request for release on bond pending appeal in light of his child support payment subsequent to the February 24, 2022 denial of his prior motion)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 