Tag: criminal law

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of July 16, 2024

The annual July hiatus is over and the Mississippi Court of Appeals is back today with nine opinions. There are four direct criminal appeals, including one reversal of a murder conviction. There are three real property cases, one involving a partition, one an administrative condemnation decision, and the other a landowner’s right to keep horses on her property within city limits. There is also a custody modification decision and a PCR decision. (If you notice a missing tenth judge on these cases, Judge Greenlee’s retirement from the court was effective July 1, 2024.)

JDB Rentals, LLC v. City of Verona, 2023-CA-00431-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Reversing the circuit court’s decision affirming the board of aldermen decision administratively condemning three of rental properties, holding that the exclusionary rule prohibited consideration of evidence the code-enforcement officer obtained incident to an unconstitutional search of property.
(8-1-0: Carlton concurred in result only without writing)

Davis v. State, 2023-KA-00636-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder and shooting into a motor vehicle, holding that the trial court did not err by not striking four potential jurors because none of the four was seated on the jury.
(8-1-0: McDonald concurred in the result only without writing)

Shanks v. State, 2023-CP-00271-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion seeking relief from a 2003 guilty plea, holding that the claims were not subject to any exception and did not involved the parole board.
(9-0)

Wade v. Simmons Erosion Control, Inc., 2023-CA-00733-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the chancery court’s decision dividing a large tract of land between two landowners, holding that the chancellor did not commit manifest error by accepting and approving a special master’s report and choosing one of the partition options presented by the special master.
(9-0)

Sinquefield v. The City of Ridgeland, 2022-CA-01276-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Reversing the circuit court’s decision that affirmed the City’s unanimous (no nays) decision that a landowner lacked the requisite acreage to maintain two horses on her property, holding that the City had to be reined in because its interpretation of the ordinance was not based on substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious where the owner had ponied up and acquired possessory interest in adjacent tracts.
(6-1-0: McCarty concurred in part and in the result without trotting out a written opinion; Barnes and Emfinger did not participate)

Herrington v. State, 2022-KA-00691-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that after reviewing counsel’s Lindsey brief and the record that there were no issues that warranted reversal.
(8-0: Lawrence did not participate)

Littleton v. State, 2023-KA-00239-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing the conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the circuit court erred in admitting a recorded statement of a witness where the witness was not called giving the defendant no opportunity to cross-examine the witness in violation of the Confrontation Clause, that the admission of the statement was not harmless error, and that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to give the proposed defense instruction stating the jury’s duty to acquit should it find that the defendant acted in necessary self-defense.
(6-3-0: Lawrence and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without writing; Wilson concurred in result only without writing)

NOTE – Here is a summary of the court’s holding that the admission of the statement was error from paragraph 42 of the opinion:

Wells v. State, 2022-KA-00707-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree murder, holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(9-0)

May v. Brown, 2023-CA-00624-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the chancery court’s child-custody modification order, holding that substantial evidence supported the modification giving the father primary care, control, and custody of the minor.
(8-1: Westbrooks concurred in result only without writing)

Other Orders

  • Estate of Green v. Michini, 2022-CA-00365-COA (denying motions for rehearing)
  • Rambo v. Kelly Natural Gas Pipelines, LLC, 2023-WC-00402-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of September 29, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down four opinions today. There is a case dealing with an attempt to collect early termination fees after a new board of supervisors terminated a service contract, a case dealing with a thorny procedural issue after a default judgment was entered on a counterclaim in an appeal from justice court, a domestic case regarding the parent’s school choice with potentially broader implications, and a criminal case addressing the weight of the evidence and improper testimony about prior convictions.

Broadband Voice, LLC v. Jefferson County, Mississippi, 2021-CA-01082-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of a phone and internet company’s claim for early termination fees against the county after new slate of supervisors terminated the service contract, holding that under the plain language of the contract the fee was due on the termination date rather than the date of the notice of termination and that the early-termination-fee provision that was negotiated by the prior board was unenforceable against the subsequent board.
(9-0)

Gordon v. Dickerson, 2020-CT-00601-SCT (Civil – Real Property)
Reversing the Court of Appeals, the circuit court, and the county court for denying the landlord’s motion to set aside a default judgment in county court on the tenant’s counterclaim that she asserted on appeal from justice court, holding that the landlord was not in default for purposes of Rule 55 because the counterclaim was filed in violation of Rule 15(a) (re: amendment of pleadings) and Rule 13(k) (re: appeals from justice court) cannot be read to the exclusion of Rule 15(a).
(5-4: Chief Justice Randolph dissented, joined by Justice Kitchens and Justice Ishee; Justice King dissented, joined by Justice Kitchens.)

Practice Point – There is a lot of explanation of the various rules in play in this decision. Bookmark this one and re-read it whenever you handle and appeal from justice court.

Bryant v. Bryant, 2020-CT-00883-SCT (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the Court of Appeals and the chancellor in ordering that the three minor children attend a specific public school district over the wishes of their father who was made the “final decision maker” on such matters, holding that the language of the property settlement agreement authorized the chancellor use its powers “as superior guardian to make decisions that are in the best interest of children.”
(6-3: Justice Coleman dissented, joined by Justice Maxwell and Justice Griffis; Justice Maxwell wrote a separate dissent joined by Justice Coleman.)

NOTE – The majority and the dissents disagree on a big-picture issue: the relationship between the government’s role in the relationship between parents and children. Take a few minutes and read the majority and both dissents.

Moore v. State, 2021-KA-00420-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence because inconsistencies in testimony did not render the verdict implausible and holding that although it was improper for the prosecution to directly elicit testimony about past convictions the error was potentially waived and ultimately harmless.
(6-3-0: Justice Maxwell concurred in part and in the result, joined by Chief Justice Randolph and Justice Beam.)

In Re: Rules Governing Admission to The Mississippi Bar, 89-R-99012-SCT (reappointing Pieter Teeuwissen, Marcie Fyke Baria, and Gwendolyn Baptist-Rucker to three-year terms (11/1/22 through 10/31/25) as members of the Mississippi Board of Bar Admissions)
Millette v. Frazier, 2022-M-00451-SCT (denying petition for permission to appeal and lifting stay of trial court proceedings)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of May 17, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down ten opinions today. One is a medical malpractice case that ran afoul of RFAs. There are several criminal appeals, a claim against an estate by a judgment-lien holder, several PRC cases including one with competing opinions on Eighth Amendment issues, and more.

Cunningham v. Mississippi Department of Corrections, 2021-CP-00428-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for judicial review of two ARP requests against MDOC, holding that the plaintiff failed to provide any documents to support his appeal and that, in any event, the plaintiff received sentencing credit for his pretrial detention.
(All judges concurred.)

Pickle v. State, 2021-CP-00972-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motions for writ of mandamus, alternative sentencing, and a new trial or for JNOV regarding his 1978 conviction of capital murder and life imprisonment, holding that the motion was untimely, successive, and meritless.
(All judges concurred.)

Thompson v. State, 2020-KA-01279-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming a conviction of drive-by-shooting that followed a domestic dispute between the defendant, the defendant’s boyfriend, and the defendant’s boyfriend’s ex-wife. The narrative in the opinion is gripping. In short, it was alleged that an Amber alert was issued for the formerly-married couple’s child when the child was with the defendant and her boyfriend (the child’s father). The couple had a physical altercation with the ex-wife at her work place in the midst of which the defendant instructed the ex-wife to “catch me outside.” Later, the ex-wife apparently inadvertently caught the defendant outside while driving and the defendant shot the ex-wife in the arm. A jury convicted the defendant of one count of drive-by-shooting and the court of appeal affirmed, holding that the conviction was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, the circuit court did not err in allowing the circuit clerk to testify as an authenticating witness even though she was present throughout the trial where the defendant’s counsel did not object, the circuit court did not err in refusing the defendant’s proposes “mere suspicion” instruction which would have been cumulative, and the defendant’s counsel was not ineffective.
(All judges concurred.)

Unifund CCR Partners v. Estate of Jordan, 2021-CA-00761-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates/Judgment Liens)
Reversing the chancery court’s ruling that claims against the estate were not timely, holding that the judgment liens against the decedent survive the time-bar of probate and were reasonably ascertainable to the executrices of the estate.
(Chief Judge Barnes and Judge Lawrence concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion. Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge McDonald.)

McLaughlin v. State, 2020-KA-00360-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of capital murder, third-degree arson, conspiracy, and possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that the evidence was sufficient for each of the convictions, that the defendants was procedurally barred on appeal from raising an alleged Miranda issue and that there was no plain error on this issue, that the circuit court did not err in admitting a photograph of the victim’s brain sitting on the autopsy table to show the bullet path, and that retroactive misjoinder did not apply.
(All judges concurred.)

PRACTICE POINT – Seeking to exclude gruesome photographs of victims in criminal trials is an uphill climb:

Carter v. Total Foot Care, 2021-CA-00610-COA (Civil – Medical Malpractice/Requests for Admissions)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendants based on the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the defendants’ requests for admissions that were deemed admitted, holding that the trial court did not err in deeming the RFAs as admitted–including an admission that the standard of care was not breached–where the plaintiff did not respond until after the defendants filed their MSJ which was more than five months after the RFAs were served. Additionally, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff could not rely on responses served in a related federal court proceeding.
(All judges concurred.)

MUSING– My experience is that RFAs are rarely used effectively. In the wild, they usually look like a cartoonish attempt to trick the other side. Something like a deadly CAPTCHA test. I think the best use of RFAs is to whittle down and actually define the contours of disputed issues. And, frankly, RFAs are a way to “shake” a lawsuit that is not being prosecuted and just needs to be dismissed.

Jolly v. State, 2021-KA-00318-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of four counts of statutory rape, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress his statement to law enforcement because there was no merit to the defendant’s claims that he lacked capacity to voluntarily waive his rights or that he was coerced into waiving his rights and giving a statement.
(Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Hood v. A & A Excavating Contractors, Inc., 2021-CA-00207-COA (Civil – Property Damage/Statute of Limitations/Continuing Tort)
Affirming summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ residential flooding claims against a developer and the operator of a gravel pit based on the statute of limitations, holding that the “discovery rule” did not toll the statute of limitations which began to run upon notice of the injury not the cause of the injury and the “continuing tort doctrine” did not apply where there were no “continual unlawful acts” by the defendants.
(McCarty concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge Westbrooks and Judge Lawrence, and joined in part by Judge McDonald and Judge Smith. Judge McDonald dissented without separate written opinion. Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

NOTE– I though this was a helpful summary and application of the continuing tort doctrine:

Dortch v. State, 2021-CP-00103-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s PCR motion and motion to vacate judgment and finding no error in the circuit’s revocation of the plaintiff’s PRS.
(All judges concurred.)

Skinner v. State, 2021-CA-00080-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion related to the plaintiff’s 2011 conviction of felony evasion and sentence to life without parole as a habitual offender (with eight prior felony convictions), holding that the Eighth Amendment claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and without merit and that the circuit court did not err in refusing to consider mitigating circumstances surrounding Skinner’s juvenile convictions.
(Judge McCarty concurred in part and dissented in part. Judge McDonald dissented, joined by Chief Judge Barnes and Judge Westbrook, and joined in part by Judge McCarty. Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

NOTE – The majority and the dissenting opinions contain robust discussions of the Eight Amendment analysis.

Other Order

 Tallent v. State, 2020-CP-01077-COA (denying motion for rehearing)

Hand Down List Page

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