Tag: Auto Liability

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of May 6, 2025

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today. There are several felonies, a wrongful death summary judgment case, a workers’ compensation intoxication case, a wills and estate case, and a few PCR cases. Interestingly enough, the last two PCR cases resulted in voting-line-soup pluralities.

Carr v. State, 2024-KA-00185-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of fondling and sexual battery, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying funding for a defense expert, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing testimony about other alleged prior bad acts, that one conviction of fondling did not merge with the conviction of sexual battery, and that the indictment was not insufficient for the defendant to prepare an adequate defense.
(9-1-0: St. Pe’ opinion; McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing)

Smith v. State, 2024-KA-00162-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming convictions of ten counts of possession of child pornography but reversing convictions of two counts of sexual battery, holding that the evidence was not sufficient to support the sexual battery convictions, but that the doctrine of retroactive misjoinder did not require reversal of the other convictions and remanded to reconsider sentencing.
(10-0: Weddle opinion)

Good v. Sanders, 2023-CA-00669-COA (Civil – Wrongful Death)
Affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in a wrongful death case where a pedestrian was struck and killed by a driver, holding that there was no evidence that the defendant breached any duty owed to the pedestrian and that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in not recusing herself.
(7-3*-0: Lawrence opinion; Westbrooks specially concurred, joined by Weddle and St. Pe’ and joined in part by McCarty; McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing)

Ruffin v. State, 2024-CA-00867-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion where the petitioner failed to include a supporting affidavit with her PCR motion and acknowledged at her plea hearing that she was freely and voluntarily admitting her guilt.
(9-1-0: McDonald opinion; Wilson concurred in part and in the result without writing)

Estate of Anderson: Brown v. Fitzgerald, 2023-CA-01131-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision setting aside a deed and ordering conveyance pursuant to the will, holding that substantial evidence supports the chancellor’s findings that the testator suffered from a weakness of intellect and the consideration for the deed was grossly inadequate.
(10-0: Wilson opinion)

Nicolaou v. State, 2023-CP-01007-COA (Civil – PCR)
Vacating the circuit court’s denial of a PCR motion as successive because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate it.
(10-0: Carlton opinion)

Ladner v. Hinton Homes LLC, 2024-WC-00941-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the MWCC’s decision that a claim was not compensable under the intoxication provision, holding that substantial evidence supported the MWCC’s finding that the claimant failed to prove that intoxication was not a contributing cause of the accident.
(8-2-0: Carlton opinion; Westbrooks and McDonald concurred in result only without writing)

Taylor v. State, 2023-CA-00738-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of a PCR motion, holding that although the sentence exceeded the maximum the PCR motion was barred by the statute of limitations.
(3-2-5: Wilson principal opinion; Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without writing; Lawrence concurred in part and in the result, joined by Emfinger, Weddle, and Set. Pe’, and joined in part by Westbrooks and McCarty; McDonald dissented without writing; McCarty dissented, joined by Barnes, Carlton, Westbrooks, and McDonald.)

Underwood v. State, 2024-CP-00423-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the claims that the petitioner’s plea was involuntary and that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance.
(4-1-4: McCarty principal opinion; Westbrooks concurred in result only without writing; Lawrence concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Wilson, Emfinger, and St. Pe’; Weddle did not participate.)

Other Orders

  • Nailer v. State, 2023-KA-00627-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of February 14, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down ten opinions on this Valentine’s Day. These opinions cover a lot of territory including criminal, custody, personal injury, and PCR.

Clayton v. State, 2021-KA-00505-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of two counts of first-degree murder, holding that the trial court did not err by refusing the defendant’s lesser-included instructions and that the evidence was sufficient to support the deliberate design element for both counts.
(10-0)

Kirk v. State, 2021-KA-00733-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(10-0)

MIMG C Woodridge Sub LLC v. Course, 2021-CA-00535-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming award for past and future pain and suffering against an apartment complex to a plaintiff whose apartment was burglarized by someone who used an office key, holding that the award of $450,000 in noneconomic damages ($250,000 for past; $200,000 for future) was not excessive based on the evidence.
(8-2: Wilson dissented, joined by Barnes)

NOTE – The jury also awarded $42,080 in economic damages for the stolen items medical bills for psychiatric care.

Hull v. State, 2022-CP-00088-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial the plaintiff’s PCR petition, holding that the plaintiff was properly sentenced, he was not denied effective assistance, and his motion to receive a copy of his record and transcript was moot.
(10-0)

Stevenson v. State, 2021-KA-00411-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of capital murder, holding that allowing the State’s forensic pathologist testify remotely violated the Confrontation Clause because there was no case-specific determination of necessity but that it was harmless error since there was other sufficient evidence to support the verdict.
(5-5-0: Wilson, Lawrence, Smith, and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Westbrooks concurred in the result only without separate written opinion)

McFarland v. State, 2021-CA-01311-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming in part and reversing/rendering in part the trial court’s rulings on a petition to correct eligibility for parole, holding that the trial court erred in treating the petition as a motion to modify the sentence and that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the petition but also holding that the record supported a finding that the plaintiff was not eligible for parole.
(8-1-0: Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Jordan v. State, 2021-KA-01421-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of sexual battery of the defendant’s minor stepdaughter, holding that the trial court did not err in allowing a sexual assault nurse examiner was not reversible error, that the trial court did not err in admitting “nanny cam” video into evidence, that trial counsel’s lack of hearsay objection to a letter did not affect the outcome, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
(8-1-0: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Smith did not participate)

Rye v. State, 2021-CA-00477-COA (Civil – PCR)
Reversing denial of motion for PCR, holding that the trial court erred in denying the motion on the basis that the guilty plea prevented the plaintiff from asserting that newly discovered evidence existed that could prove his innocence.
(10-0)

Denham v. Lafayette County Department of CPS, 2021-CA-00871-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming judgment terminating a mother’s parental rights, holding that the chancellor’s ruling was based on substantial credible evidence and that there was no merit to her arguments regarding her attorney’s performance or the GAL’s report and testimony.
(5-2-2: Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Carlton concurred in result only without separate written opinion; McCarty concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Westbrooks; Greenlee did not participate)

Haynes v. Beckward, 2019-CA-01508-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the trial court judgment’s after a car wreck trial, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the defendant-driver’s testimony that he saw three other cars pass his trailer before the accident without incident or in denying a mistrial after the plaintiff testified about the defendant’s insurance company during cross, but holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for remittitur where the awards for future medical expenses and future lost wages exceeded the competent evidence on those elements.
(6-1-3: Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion; Lawrence concurred in part and dissented in part with separate written opinion, joined by Westbrooks and McCarty, and in part by McDonald.)

DISCLOSURE – I was not trial counsel, but I represent the appellants in this appeal.

Other Orders

Smith v. State, 2020-KA-00775-COA (granting motion for authorization to proceed out of time)

Blagodirova v. Schrock, 2020-CA-01162-COA (denying rehearing)

Bowman v. State, 2020-KA-01371-COA (denying rehearing)

Dampier v. State, 2021-KA-00280-COA (denying rehearing)

O’Quinn v. State, 2021-KA-00534-COA (denying motion for permission to proceed out of time)

Keys v. Rehabilitation, Inc., 2021-CA-01338-COA (denying rehearing)

Young v. State, 2022-CP-00141-COA (denying rehearing)

Johnson v. State, 2022-CP-01186-COA (sua sponta allowing appeal to proceed as timely)

Boyett v. State, 2022-TA-01239-COA (sua sponte suspending appeal deadline to allow untimely appeal to proceed on the merits)

Silas v. State, 2022-TS-01265-COA (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of November 22, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down six opinions before making a break for the turkey this week. There is a custody case reviewing a contempt order related to visitation rights, a civil asset forfeiture case, a previously-decided MTCA wrongful death case with a substituted opinion, a real property contract case with a claim by the would-be purchaser for specific performance or damages, and a couple of PCR cases.

Kay v. Kay, 2021-CA-01377-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the chancery court’s contempt ruling, holding that there was substantial credible evidence supporting the finding of the father willfully failed to comply with visitation guidelines and denied the mother visitation rights but reversing the part of the order directing the children to report to jail if they chose not participate in future scheduled visitation with their mother.
(10-0)

McDonald v. State, 2021-CP-01040-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the denial of a PCR motion, holding that the circuit court had jurisdiction to resentence the plaintiff and that there was no merit to the claims that the guilty plea was not voluntary or for ineffective assistance of counsel.
(1o-0)

Parker v. State, 2021-CP-01102-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of a PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff did not overcome the time bar, there was no merit to his claims that he was wrongly sentenced as a habitual offender, and the illegal-sentence claim was waived by meritless anyway.
(9-1-0: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Forty-One Thousand Eighty Dollars v. State, 2021-CA-00692-COA (Civil – Other/Civil Asset Forfeiture)
Affirming seizure of case, holding that the funds were subject to forfeiture, the argument that the K-9 alerted to the cash because the case was contaminated was unpersuasive, and that the forfeiture was not grossly disproportionate.
(8-1-0: Judge Westbrooks concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

Simmons v. Jackson County, Mississippi, 2020-CA-01014-COA (Civil – Wrongful Death)
Denying a motion for rehearing but substituting a new opinion, but still affirming circuit court’s ruling that the county bore no responsibility for a driver’s fatal accident that occurred when his vehicle left the road and struck a culvert, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s finding that the driver’s negligence in failing to exercise vigilant caution as he drove through a work zone was the sole proximate cause of the accident.
(7-3: Judge Westbrooks dissented, joined by Judge Carlton and Judge McDonald.)

NOTE – Since the old opinion is no longer available, I am not sure what changed. Apparently what I took away as the core holding did not change because my prior summary still seems to fairly characterize the opinion.

Haidar v. Margetta, 2021-CA-00683-COA (Civil – Contract)
Reversing the chancery court’s dismissal of a purchaser’s claim for specific performance or damages after the seller refused to honor the contract after the initial closing date passed, holding that time is not automatically of the essence in real estate transactions and there was no evidence in the record to establish that time was of the essence here.
(6-1-3: Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Greenlee dissented, joined by Chief Judge Barnes and Judge Carlton, and joined in part by Judge Westbrooks)

Other Orders

Murry v. State, 2020-KA-01363-COA (denying rehearing)

Wilson v. Lexington Manner Senior Care, LLC, 2021-CA-00072-COA (denying rehearing)

Wilson v. City of Greenville, 2021-CA-00316-COA (denying rehearing)

White v. White, 2021-CP-00333-COA (denying rehearing)

Beasley v. State, 2021-CA-00653-COA (denying rehearing)

Mitchell v. MDES, 2021-CC-00795-COA (denying pro se motion for rehearing as untimely)

Norwood v. State, 2021-CA-00802-COA (denying rehearing)

Patrick v. State, 2022-TS-00683-COA (dismissing appeal as moot)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals decisions of May 3, 2022

There is no peddling of leaked drafts on this blog, folks. Just genuine, final opinions from the Mississippi Court of Appeals and Mississippi Supreme Court, locally sourced and responsibly harvested from the Court’s official hand down page. Today, we have eight opinions from the Mississippi Court of Appeals including several criminal cases (one involving the admissibility of social media messages), an auto liability/road construction case with another MTCA-related hybrid bench/jury trial, a will contest, and PERS disability case.

Simmons v. Jackson County, Mississippi, 2020-CA-01014-COA (Civil – Wrongful Death/MTCA/Auto Liability/Hybrid Trial)
Affirming circuit court’s ruling that the county bore no responsibility for a driver’s fatal accident that occurred when his vehicle left the road and struck a culvert, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s finding that the driver’s negligence in failing to exercise vigilant caution as he drove through a work zone was the sole proximate cause of the accident.
(Judge Westbrooks dissented, joined by Judge Carlton and Judge McDonald.)

NOTE – This was another was with an MTCA defendant and a non-MTCA defendant. In addition to the county, the plaintiff sued Mallette, a construction company that had repaved the road prior to the acccident. The trial court held a hybrid jury/bench trial:

At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case-in-chief, the circuit involuntarily dismissed the joint venture claim against the County and Mallette. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Mallette. The circuit court then entered findings of fact and conclusions of law concluding that the county created a dangerous condition but that the driver’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident and therefore held that the county was not liable.

Dyer v. State, 2021-KA-00016-COA (Criminal – Felony/Sexual Battery)
Affirming conviction of sexual battery of a teenage girl, noting that the defendant’s appointed counsel had filed a Lindsey brief, the defendant had not filed his own brief, and that the Court’s review of the record yielded no arguable issues of appeal.
(All judges concurred.)

Smith v. Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi, 2021-SA-00051-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies/PERS)
Affirming denial of a correctional offer’s application for duty-related benefits, holding that the PERS decision was not clearly erroneous, contrary to law and not supported by substantial evidence.
(All judges concurred.)

Wofford v. State, 2020-KA-01341-COA (Criminal – Felony/Burglary/Accomplice Liability)
Affirming convictions of and sentences for two counts of burglary of a dwelling, holding that the circuit court did not err when it denied the defendant’s motion for directed verdict, his request for a peremptory instruction, or his motion for JNOV arguing that he could not be convicted of burglary because there was no evidence that he had broken, entered, or stolen, because the Court reasoned the defendant was indicated for burglary as a principal based on his actions as an accessory before the fact; the circuit court did not err in giving an accomplice-liability instruction; and the circuit court did not err in granting the State’s motion in limine excluding testimony about the amount of money that was taken in the burglary.
(Judge McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion. Judge Smith did not participate.)

Adams v. State, 2020-KA-01383-COA (Criminal – Felony/Armed Robbery/Indictment)
Affirming conviction of armed robbery, holding that the jury’s verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence; that the circuit court did not err by not sua sponte preventing a former associate of the defendant from testifying that he had pleaded guilty to the armed robbery in question in response to a question that was not objected to; that the circuit court did not err by allowing the defendant’s former associate’s recorded interview to be played at trial; that although the State’s attempts to amend the indictment were ineffective because the State failed to procure a written order allowing the indictment, the original indictment was not fatally defective; and that the defendant was not entitled to a new trial under the cumulative error doctrine.
(Judge Westbrooks concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Smart v. State, 2020-KA-00835-COA (Criminal – Felony/Exploitation of a Child/Social Media)
Affirming conviction of exploitation of a child and a twenty-year sentence, holding that there was no error in the admission of Kik messages because they had been sufficiently authenticated and that there was no prosecutorial misconduct in stating that the Kik messages were from the defendant and correlated with a printout of the defendant’s phone records.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Practice Point – If you need to get social media communications admitted (or if you are trying to keep them out) here is the Mississippi Supreme Court’s guidance, as stated by the Court of Appeals in this opinion:

Briggs v. State, 2020-KM-01350-COA (Criminal – Misdemeanor)
Affirming conviction of driving under the influence of marijuana and simple possession of marijuana in a motor vehicle, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction and that the conviction was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

NOTE – The defendant argued that the State failed to prove he was “influenced” by the marijuana because the State Trooper testified that he never saw the defendant operate the vehicle except to pull the vehicle to the side of the road. The unimpressed Court noted that the State does not have the burden of proving impaired driving, and that the Trooper’s testimony that he smelled strong marijuana odor from the vehicle and observed the defendant’s watery and bloodshot eyes was sufficient.

Dunn v. Hart, 2020-CA-01229-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates)
Affirming the chancery court’s findings that the testator/mother had mental capacity to execute a 2015 will but that one of her children (who happened to be the recipient of the mother’s entire estate in the will) failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence by clear and convincing evidence.

NOTE – This is a fact-bound opinion and I do not think any summary I could write of the facts would be particularly helpful, and it would certainly not be a substitute for reading this opinion if it applies to your practice.

Other Orders

Manhattan Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Hollinshed, 2020-CA-00882-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page