Tag: Confrontation Clause

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of January 31, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down three opinions today. Two affirm felony convictions and one is a PCR dismissal. One of the criminal cases contains a robust Confrontation Clause discussion between the majority and the dissent.

Williams v. State, 2022-KA-00100-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction for armed robbery, holding that there was no reversible error in admitting testimony from a detective that was not objected to and that neither the failure to object to that or defense counsel’s cross-examination of the detective constituted ineffective assistance.
(7-3-0: Judge Wilson, Judge McCarty, and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

McConn v. State, 2021-CP-00431-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion asserting ineffective assistance, holding that the trial court did not err in summarily dismissing the motion that was supported only by the movant’s affidavit and an immaterial affidavit and was contradicted by the record.
(9-1-0: Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Pitts v. State, 2021-KA-00740-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of sexual battery of his minor daughter, holding that placing a screen between the child and the defendant during the child’s testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause or the Due Process Clause where the defendant was able to observe the child via camera during the entirety of her testimony; the trial court did not err in excluding the testimony of the defendant’s expert witnesses where their disclosure was untimely or in allowing the testimony under the tender-years exception; and there was no cumulative error.
(6-1-2: Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson dissented, joined by Judge Westbrooks and joined in part by Judge McDonald. Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

NOTE – The dissent argued that the use of the screen was a violation of the Confrontation Clause:

Other Orders

Burns v. State, 2021-KA-00310-COA (denying rehearing)

Wilson v. State, 2021-KA-00608-COA (denying rehearing)

Loblolly Properties, LLC v. Le Papillon Homeowner’s Association Inc., 2021-CA-00767-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of December 15, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today. One is a criminal case dealing with a Confrontation Clause violation and the other is a judicial estoppel case that reversed the trial court because of an intervening decisions with a special concurrence that garnered a majority of the Court. The Supreme Court also granted cert in a slip-and-fall case that I had not summarized because the decision from the Court of Appeals was handed down back in June on a Thursday instead of Tuesday so it escaped my notice.

Saunders v. NCAA, 2020-CA-01146-SCT (Civil – Torts)
Reversing the trial court’s dismissal of claims based on judicial estoppel, holding that the plaintiff had no duty to disclose claims for declaratory relief during his Chapter 7 bankruptcy and that the dismissal of the money damages claim was in error per an intervening special concurrence that held that judicial estoppel should not be presumed and is, rather, a fact-specific inquiry that must include how the bankruptcy could dealt with the omission.
(7-2: Justice Coleman concurred in part and dissented in part; Justice Griffis concurred in part and dissented in part)

PRACTICE POINT – Regular readers might recall a discussion about the special concurrence referenced in today’s decision. The case is Jones v. Alcorn State University, 337 So. 3d 1062 (Miss. 2022) and Justice Maxwell’s special concurrence in that case was joined by four other justices. I wondered aloud about the precedential effect of a five-justice special concurrence and then later passed along the answer. In Saunders, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the trial court based upon the holding of the special concurrence in Jones.

Willis v. State, 2021-KA-00734-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first degree murder, holding that the trial court violated the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause by not allowing cross-examination of the lead investigator about prior inconsistent statements but that the error was harmless, that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s self-defense instruction, and that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.
(6-3-0: Justice Beam concurred in part and in the result, joined by Chief Justice Randolph and Justice Maxwell)

NOTE – For some reason it jumped out that both Kitchens’s majority opinion and Beam’s concurrence utilized the superior (per Strunk & White) “-s’s” to make Williams’s name possessive.

Other Orders

In Re: Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi Bar, 89-R-99010-SCT (appointing Hon. Mark A. Maples as a member of the Complaint Tribunal)

In Re: Tavares Reed, 2017-M-01391 (denying application for leave to proceed in the trial court, finding it frivolous, and restricting the petitioner from filing further applications in forma pauperis)

Moffett v. State, 2018-DR-00276-SCT (denying rehearing and/or reconsideration)

Thomas v. Boyd Biloxi LLC, 2021-CT-00265-SCT (granting cert)
NOTE – I did not recall this case from June. I looked back and realized it escaped my notice because it was an an off-cycle hand-down from the Court of Appeals on Thursday, June 2. The plaintiff slipped and fell on a pool deck after exiting a hot tub. A 5-1-4 Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment dismissing the case, holding that the evidence did not satisfy the standard to defeat summary judgment and that the trial court did not err in denying part of the plaintiff’s 56(f) request.

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of November 29, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals returned from Thanksgiving break with five opinions. Two cases are medical malpractice cases (one an appeal of summary judgment for lack of expert testimony and the other an appeal of a denied motion to compel arbitration). Two are criminal cases, and the other case is a custody case with cross motions for modification and a motion for contempt.

Davis v. State, 2021-KA-00908-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree, deliberate design murder, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the defense’s cross-examination of a detective to exclude testimony about other investigations and noting that the Confrontation Clause does not open the door to irrelevant testimony on cross-examination.
(10-0)

Mixon v. Berry, 2021-CA-00494-COA (Civil – Medical Malpractice)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of a doctor in a med mal case for lack of medical expert testimony, holding that summary judgment was proper because the plaintiff failed to produce sworn expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care, breach, and proximate cause, and that the trial court did not err in not granting a 56(f) continuance that was not requested or in denying the motion for reconsideration.
(10-0)

Practice Point – Here is some useful black-letter law from this opinion:

Turnage v. State, 2021-KA-01229-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of a high school teacher of two counts of sexual battery of a student, holding that there were no issues warranting reversal after reviewing appellate counsel’s Lindsey brief and independently reviewing the record.
(10-0)

Lamy v. Lamy, 2021-CA-00770-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the chancery court’s rulings on competing complaints for modification and a motion for contempt, holding that the chancellor did not err in admitting evidence used by the GAL and attached to her report, did not err in classifying one agreed custody order as temporary but did err by interpreting that order as awarding sole physical custody to the mother, and did not err in not finding the mother in contempt.
(5-1-4: Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Westbrooks, and Judge McCarty concurred in part and in dissent in part without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Westbrooks, and Judge McCarty, and joined in part by Judge McDonald.)

Note – In response to the motion for contempt, the mother pleaded COVID in her explanation of why she kept the children during the father’s period of custody. The dissent didn’t buy the excuse:

Durant Healthcare, LLC v. Garrette, 2021-CA-00823-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a wrongful death case, holding that the evidence in the record supported the trial court’s finding that the resident lacked the mental capacity to sign the nursing home’s arbitration agreement on the date of admission, that the resident’s daughter did not have authority to sign as his agent, and that the proof was sufficiently clear to affirm the trial court’s denial of the facility’s request for arbitration-related discovery.
(7-3: Judge Carlton dissented, joined by Judge Wilson and Judge Lawrence.)

Other Orders

Turner & Associates P.L.L.C. v. Estate of Watkins, 2021-CA-00258-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List