Tag: criminal procedure

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of February 7, 2023

The ever-prolific Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today. There is a mix of criminal, domestic, and civil cases with a unifying theme of appellees running the table.

Edwards v. State, 2021-KM-01348-COA (Criminal – Misdemeanor)
Affirming conviction of first-offense DUI, holding that there was probable cause for the traffic stop and that law enforcement was not required to inform the defendant of his right to an independent and alternative BAC test.
(10-0)

Harrison v. Howard, 2021-CA-00697-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming judgment of contempt for failure to comply with agreed order of modification of child custody and support, holding that the father waived improper service, that the agreed modification order was voidable but not void and he failed to timely appeal it, and that he waived the issue of termination of the mother’s child support obligation by not timely objecting or appealing.
(7-3-0: Wilson, McCarty, and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Washington v. State, 2021-KA-01041-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of capital murder and armed robbery, holding that the trial court’s comments to the jury that this was not a death penalty case was appropriate clarification of fact and did not prejudice the jury, that the defendant did not prove that the State’s loss of a video lineup was not bad faith, that there was no proof that inadmissible portions of video testimony were played to the jury and so it is presumed that the trial court’s order sustaining an objection to the inadmissible testimony was heeded, and that if admitting a handgun into evidence was error it was invited by the defendant who introduced it.
(7-3-0: Wilson, McCarty, and Emfinger concur in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Pace v. State, 2022-KA-00046-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, that the trial court erred in admitting photos without a proper foundation but the error was harmless, that the defendant waived the argument that the State made an improper comment during closing by not objecting, and that the trial court did not err in refusing the defendant’s self-defense instruction.
(7-2-0: Wilson and Greenlee concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion, Smith did not participate.)

Brandon v. State, 2021-KA-01239-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon upon receipt of a Lindsey brief and a review of the record finding no arguable issues for appeal.
(10-0)

Lofton v. Lofton, 2021-CA-00035-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming judgment in a fraudulent-transfer of real and personal property lawsuit that is tangential to a pending divorce action, holding that the chancery court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the UFTA supported a finding of fraud or in awarding the prevailing party attorney’s fees.
(9-1-0: Westbrooks concurred in the result only.)

NOTE – This is an interesting and fact-bound decision discussing the UFTA.

Mack v. State, 2021-CA-01060-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming denial of expungement, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that the plaintiff’s conviction was related to his official duties as a police officer.
(10-0)

Clark v. Tippah County Dept. of Child Protection Services, 2021-CP-01209-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming judgment terminating parental rights, holding that the mother’s due process claims were procedurally barred and without merit and that the chancellor did not err in terminating parental rights.
(7-2-0: McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Westbrooks concurred in the result only; Greenlee did not participate.)

West Jasper Consolidated School District v. Rogers, 2021-CA-00171-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming chancery court’s judgment that the school district breached 16th section lease terms regarding rent adjustments, holding that the chancery court had subject matter jurisdiction, applied the correct standard of review, did not err in finding no material breach by appellees, did not err in overturning the county board’s ruling, and did not err in denying attorney’s fees to the appellant.
(10-0)

Other Orders

La Casa I, LLC v. Gottfried, 2021-CA-00347-COA (denying rehearing)

Belmer v. State, 2021-CP-00398-COA (denying rehearing)

Davis v. State, 2021-KA-00593-COA (denying rehearing)

Howard Industries, Inc. v. Hayes, 2021-WC-00694-COA (denying rehearing)

Meek v. Cheyenne Steel, Inc., 2021-WC-01219-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

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 Court of Appeals Decisions of January 24, 2023

The Court of Appeals handed down six opinions today. Three criminal cases and three PCR cases. I don’t anticipate any of the PCR cases today drawing the sort of attention the Hathorn case drew last week.

Wells v. State, 2021-KA-00747-COA (Civil – Felony)
Affirming conviction for sale of meth, holding that testimony from a confidential informant about the defendant’s past drug selling activity was elicited by defense counsel on cross and not purposeful elicited by the DA and that it was not error to refuse the defendant’s preferred instruction on weighing confidential informant testimony.
(10-0)

Note – Pithy introductory paragraphs like this could put me out of business:

Thomas v. State, 2021-CP-00060-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that the sentence was not illegal, that there was a sufficient factual basis for the kidnapping plea, that the retroactive competency hearing was adequate and proper, and that there was no error in finding the plaintiff competent.
(7-3-0: Judge Wilson, Judge Smith, and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the judgment without separate written opinion)

Green v. State, 2021-CP-01299-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming dismissal of PCR motion, holding that the claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata and the three-year statement of limitations, and the motion was an impermissible successive motion.
(9-0: Judge Lawrence did not participate)

Bradley v. State, 2022-CP-00173-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that the motion was both successive and time-barred.
(9-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Melendez v. State, 2021-KA-00775-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of second-degree murder and aggravated assault, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, dismissing the ineffective assistance claim without prejudice, and holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving a flight instruction.
(10-0)

Alford v. State, 2022-KA-00025-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of trafficking meth with intent to distribute and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(5-5-0: Judge Wilson, Judge McDonald, Judge Lawrence, and Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result; Judge Westbrooks concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Other Orders

Nguyen v. Bui, 2021-CP-00548-COA (granting appellee’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees) (don’t get excited, they were contractual fees)

Wallace v. State, 2021-CP-01149-COA (recalling mandate and accepting pro se motion for rehearing as timely)

Hendrix v. State, 2022-TS-01217-COA (dismissing appeal for want of appealable judgment)

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

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of September 27, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today (and one off-cycle opinion last Thursday). There are several criminal cases (including one with a “marijuana made me do it” defense), a real property case, a lawyer money-fight case, a workers’ comp case, a domestic case, and a couple of PCR cases.

Clemts v. State, 2021-KA-01013-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence which included testimony that the defendant, the victim, and others were in an argument and the victim grabbed the defendant in an effort to get the defendant to leave the house and the defendant “wheeled around” and stabbed the victim in the abdomen.
(10-0)

Edwards v. State, 2021-KA-00261-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of second-degree murder and the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s post-trial motion, holding that there was no error in denying the defendant’s lesser-included culpable negligence manslaughter instruction because there was “no evidence in the record that ingesting marijuana caused the defendant to stab a man eight times.”
(10-0)

NOTE – Might need to consider keeping the reefer madness defense on the shelf.

Loblolly Properties LLC v. Le Papillon Homeowner’s Association Inc., 2021-CA-00767-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the chancery court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a HOA over restrictive covenants on lots that were purchased after a foreclosure sale, holding that the bank that purchased the properties after foreclosure agreed that the property was bound by the covenants and the subsequent purchaser then obtained the property by warranty deed that provided that the conveyance was subject to restrictive covenants of record.
(3-3-4: Chief Judge Barnes, Judge McCarty, and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson dissented, joined by Judge Greenlee, Judge Lawrence, and Judge Smith)

NOTE – Put this one on your cert watch list. A fractured, 3-3 majority in favor of affirming carried the day, but the four-judge dissent raised some big-picture issues with the majority opinion.

Hollis v. Acoustics, Inc., 2021-WC-01261-COA (Civil – Workers’ Compensation)
Affirming the MWCC’s ruling that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury, holding that a injuries from a physical fight with racial slurs stemming from a disagreement regarding the relative merits of playing Christian rap versus country music at the worksite was not a work-related injury where the claimant also admitted that he willfully shoved the other person in a manner not necessary for self-defense.
(10-0)

Scott v. Rouse, 2021-CP-01029-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancery court’s rulings on several divorce enforcement matters after the ex-husband faked his own death, was apprehended, and then (with the help of his mother) claimed his ex-wife had wrongful retained his property, holding that all issues were procedurally barred because they were either the subject of a prior timely judgment that had not been timely appealed or the pro se appellants had failed to designated an adequate record for their appeal.
(9-0: Judge Lawrence did not participate.)

Wess v. State, 2020-CP-00704-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the PCR motion asserting an illegal sentence, holding that the plaintiff’s argument that his sentence was illegal because he was not given the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea was without merit.
(6-3-0: Chief Judge Barnes and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; Judge Lawrence did not participate.)

Cooper v. State, 2021-CP-01004-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the “writ of habeas corpus” should have been denied because the plaintiff filed it in the circuit court of the county of incarceration (instead of the county of conviction) which lacked jurisdiction to hear the PCR motion.
(10-0)

Wooten v. State, 2021-KA-00737-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated domestic violence for shooting her boyfriend, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing evidence that the defendant had previously stabbed her ex-husband because it was admissible to show that the shooting of her boyfriend was not an accident or mistake and that the trial court did not err in (1) denying a motion to continue because the defendant had not availed herself of the court’s “considerable powers” to compel the witness’s attendance, (2) sustaining the State’s objection to some of the defendant’s testimony about alleged threats the victim made a month before the shooting, and (3) not sending law enforcement to obtain a witness’s presence after defense counsel declined the trial court’s offer to issue a bench warrant.
(7-3-0: Judge Wilson and Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result; Judge McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Virden v. Campbell Delong, LLP, 2021-CA-00478-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the trial court’s grant of the defendant’s motion for declaratory judgment, holding that a former partner’s claim for a greater share of proceeds from a settlement he obtained while working for the firm was barred by a written agreement governing the withdrawal, termination, or retirement of any partner from the firm.
(5-5: Judge Wilson dissented, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Greenlee, Judge Lawrence, and Judge Emfinger.)

NOTE – Here is another one for cert-watch: a lawyer-fight over money and a 5-5 decision that leaves the trial court’s ruling in place.

Davis v. State, 2021-KA-00416-COA (Sept. 22, 2022) (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of felonious abuse of a vulnerable person, holding that the sufficiency and weight of the evidence was adequate to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in refusing the defendant’s proposed jury instruction for the offense of simple domestic violence.
(4-1-5: Judge Greenlee concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Chief Judge Barnes concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge Wilson, Judge Westbrooks, Judge McDonald, and Judge Emfinger.)

Other Orders

Trotter v. State, 2020-CA-00094-COA (denying rehearing)
Thomas v. Boyd Biloxi, LLC, 2021-CA-00265-COA (denying rehearing)
McCarty v. State, 2021-KA-00418-COA (dismissing untimely pro se motion for rehearing)
Lennon v. Lowrey & Fortner, P.A., 2021-CA-00426-COA (denying appellee’s motion for appellate fees; denying motion for rehearing)
Avery v. The University of Mississippi, 2021-CA-00471-COA (granting motion for correction or modification of the Court’s opinion)
Gilmer v. State, 2022-TS-00257-COA (denying State’s motion to strike notice of appeal as untimely)
Morgan v. State, 2022-TS-00287-COA (dismissing appeal as untimely)
Rutledge v. State, 2022-TS-00677-COA (finding good cause to suspend the appeal deadline so the appeal can proceed on the merits)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of September 22, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today. Two are criminal cases dealing with issues that occurred during voir dire. In one, the issue was an inculpatory exclamation by the defendant. In the other, the issue was two jurors’ undisclosed connection the defendant. The third opinion is a journey through contempt law.

Scott v. State, 2021-KA-01015-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of burglary, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion denying the defendant’s attorney’s request for a mistrial after the defendant exclaimed during voir dire that he was “guilty as hell.”
(9-0)

Note – This decision seems correct to me.

Watts v. State, 2021-KA-00873-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming denial of a JNOV after the defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and a denial, holding that although two jurors did not disclose that they were related to a man who was murdered by the defendant’s brother in 2006 the court did not commit clear error in determining after an evidentiary hearing that those jurors lacked substantial knowledge of their connection with the defendant during voir dire.
(9-0)

Seals v. Stanton, 2020-CA-00741-SCT (Civil – Domestic Relations)
This decision waded into a morass of contempt and affirmed the chancellor in part, reversed and remanded in part, and vacated in part. The Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor’s finding that two attorneys handling a divorce proceeding were in direct criminal contempt for missing a hearing, vacating the penalty for that because it exceeded statutory authority and remanded on that issue, and affirmed an award of attorney’s fees to the other side. The Supreme Court vacated judgment of direct criminal contempt against another attorney and remanded for proceedings on under the constructive criminal contempt standards. The Supreme Court held that the chancellor erred in finding these attorneys in direct criminal contempt for violating a court order and remanded for a determination of whether an indirect civil contempt proceeding should be commenced.
(6-3: Justice Kitchens dissented, joined by Justice King and Justice Coleman.)

Practice Point – Don’t miss hearings. Don’t violate orders. If you have further questions about what went wrong here or about the intricacies of direct criminal contempt, indirect/constructive criminal contempt, and civil contempt I refer refer you to the opinion and wish you the best.

Other Orders

Hamer v. State, 2019-CT-01633-SCT (denying cert)
Nowell v. Stewart, 2020-CT-00728-SCT (denying cert)
Johnson v. State, 2022-CT-01308-SCT (dismissing cert sua sponte)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of September 20, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today and only one was PCR! There are three criminal cases (one of which reversed a conviction as to one count on a jury instruction issue). There are two MTCA cases (one reversing summary judgment in a med mal case and one reversing a bench trial judgment finding police-protection immunity), two divorce cases, and an involuntary commitment case.

Johnson v. State, 2021-KA-00571-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming and part and reversing in part a conviction for burglary and automobile theft, holding that the conviction of burglary was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence but reversing the conviction for auto theft because the jury was not properly instructed as to the value of the stolen vehicle. The case was remanded for retrial on the auto theft count.
(10-0)

Brock v. State, 2021-KA-00739-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of possession of methamphetamine, holding that even if the defendant could prove that her counsel was ineffective she had not proven that but for such professional errors the result would have been different.
(10-0)

Guinn v. Claiborne, 2021-CP-00997-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision denying husband’s amended complaint for divorce, holding that the chancellor did not commit clear error in determining that the husband had failed to prove the elements for a divorce based on adultery or irreconcilable differences.
(10-0)

W.C. v. J.C., 2021-CA-00237-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming chancellor’s decision setting aside an agreed order of involuntary commitment and dismissing the action after treatment was completed, holding (1) the agreed order was properly dismissed because the motion to set aside was not untimely, (2) the chancery court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the terms of the order had been substantively complied with, (3) evidence from an professional organization monitoring the treatment for professional licensure was admissible, (4) the chancellor did not err in ruling that the petitioner had no standing to object to the motion to set aside the agreed order, and (5) there was no ground for the chancellor to convene a hearing to “protect the interests of the minor children.”
(9-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Smith v. State, 2021-CP-00915-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of a PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff did not prove an exception to the statute of limitations, that the sentence was not illegal, and that the indictment was not defective.
(8-2: Judge McCarty and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

German v. State, 2021-KA-00933-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that the circuit court’s finding that the defendant was sane when the crime was committed was supported by substantial evidence and the jury’s finding was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and that the defendant waived issues related to the reliability of a medical expert’s testimony by failing to object at trial.
(9-0: Judge Westbrooks did not participate.)

Moss v. Moss, 2021-CA-00452-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision granting the wife divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, holding that there was substantial evidence to support that finding (read the facts for yourself if you have doubts), that the subject matter of wife’s expert’s opinions was adequately disclosed and was not even a basis for the chancellor’s decision, and the husband’s claim for separate maintenance was moot since the divorce was affirmed.
(10-0)

St. Andrie v. Singing River Health System, 2021-CA-00042-COA (Civil – Medical Malpractice/MTCA)
Reversing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s independent negligence claim against the hospital on statute of limitations grounds, holding that the plaintiff’s claim that the hospital failed to protect the plaintiff from the doctor’s negligence arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the doctor’s negligence and therefore the independent negligence claims against the hospital related back to the date of the original complaint that asserted an independent negligence claim against the doctor and a vicarious liability claim against the hospital.
(7-2-0: Judge Greenlee concurred in result only, joined by Judge Emfinger and joined in part by Judge McDonald and Judge McCarty; Judge Lawrence did not participate.)

Phillips v. City of Oxford, 2021-CA-00639-COA (Civil – Personal Injury/MTCA)
Reversing the circuit court’s finding after a bench trial that the City was protected by police-protection immunity after an officer’s vehicle crossed an intersection against a red light and struck the plaintiff’s vehicle while the officer was responding to an emergency, holding that the facts of this case met the “exceptional circumstances” requirement for finding reckless disregard and that the officer acted with conscious indifference to the safety of the public and the certain parts of the police chief’s testimony were not credible.
( 5-4: Judge Lawrence dissented, joined by Judge Wilson, Judge Smith, and Judge Emfinger; Judge Greenlee did not participate.)

NOTE– The Court of Appeals declined the appellant’s invitation to adopt a “reckless disregard per se” rule and maintained the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis.

Other Orders

Ellis v. State, 2020-CP-00770-COA (denying rehearing)
Camphor v. State, 2021-CP-00048-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of September 1, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today. Two are criminal cases (one affirmed and one reversed/remanded over a speedy trial issue and resentencing). The other is a breach of contract case with a tough result for a law firm stuck with the tab after dealings with the State Auditor’s office (while under previous management).

Haymon v. State, 2021-KA-00240-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming Pernell and Haymon’s convictions of armed robbery, kidnapping, and aggravated assault, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Pernell’s motion for directed verdict and/or motion for new trial because the evidence was sufficient and the verdict was not against the overwhelming evidence or in denying her request for a lesser included offense jury instruction for simple assault, and that the circuit court did not err in denying Haymon’s motion to suppress a photo identification lineup over the defendant’s arguments that an officer tainted the procedure by providing the witness with the defendant’s name and that the features of the individuals used in the lineup were suggestive.
(9-0)

NOTE – On the issue of whether it was error to the lesser included instruction on simple assault, the Supreme Court explained that aggravated assault occurs when there is assault with a deadly weapon and that severity of the injury is irrelevant:

White v. Jernigan Copeland Attorneys, PLLC, 2020-IA-01404-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Reversing the circuit court’s denial of the Office of the State Auditor’s motion for summary judgment in a suit filed by a law firm seeking damages for a judgment it had to pay a public-relations firm that the law firm contracted with at the direction of then Auditor Pickering, holding that the retention agreement between the OSA and the law firm was void for lack of statutory compliance and that the law firm’s equitable claims against the OSA were barred by the MTCA’s statute of limitations, sticking the law firm with the (substantial) tab from the PR firm it contracted with at Pickering’s direction in anticipation of filing a suit that Pickering decided not to file.
(8-1-0: Chief Justice Randolph concurred in the result only without separate written opinion)

NOTE – This result is brutal. Pickering provided an affidavit to support the law firm’s quest to have the OSA pay the damages but the outcome of the case was controlled by statutes.

Ward v. State, 2021-KA-00664-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing the circuit court and remanding for a speedy trial-analysis and (assuming no violation is found) re-sentencing, holding that the circuit court did not conduct a proper analysis of the Barker factors when it denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial and erred in sentencing the defendant as a habitual offender because the proper evidence of the prior convictions was not admitted into evidence.
(7-2: Justice Maxwell concurred in part and dissented in part on the resentencing issue, joined by Justice Griffis)

COVID ADDENDUM – The COVID pandemic accounted for part of the delay in bringing this case to trial, but the Supreme Court explained that blaming COVID does not cure all delay:

Other Orders

In Re: Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi Bar, 89-R-99010-SCT (reappointing Hon. Johnnie McDaniels, Mack A. Reeves, Amy K. Taylor, Hon. Jennifer T. Schloegel, Renee M. Porter, Henry B. Zuber III, Hon. H. Craig Treadway, Jason D. Herring, and Rachel Pierce Waide to three-year terms as members of the Complaint Tribunals)

Shannon v. Shannon, 2020-CT-00847-SCT (granting cert) (COA opinion summary and link here)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of August 16, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down seven opinions today. There are three criminal cases that address jury instructions, improper prosecutorial argument, and the admissibility of a letter aimed at the credibility of a State’s witness. There is also a divorce case addressing issues several issues related to alimony, a case deciding whether the right to arbitration was waived, a case seeking to impose a constructive trust on land, and an unemployment case.

Vector Transportation Co. v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security, 2021-CC-00574-COA (Civil – State Board and Agencies)
Affirming the circuit court and MDES Board of Review’s finding that the claimant was entitled to unemployment benefits, holding that the circuit court’s determination that the employer failed to prove that the claimant was discharged for misconduct was not contrary to law, arbitrary or capricious, or not supported by substantial evidence.
(9-0: Chief Judge Barnes did not participate.)

Clay v. State, 2021-KA-00790-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of uttering a forgery and sentence as a nonviolent habitual offender, holding that the circuit court did not err in refusing the defendant’s mistake-of-fact jury instruction considering all jury instructions read together.
(9-1-0: Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Murry v. State, 2020-KA-01363-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding (1) that that the prosecutor made an improper “send-a-message” argument during closing but that absent the prosecutor’s improper argument the jury would have found the defendant guilty and (2) that the circuit court did not commit plain error in admitting photographs that the defendant did not object to. The Court of Appeals also declined to decide the defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim and recognized that it was preserved for PCR.
(10-0)

NOTE – Here are the “send-a-message” comments that the Court of Appeals held “[w]ithout question . . . run afoul of the clear direction given by the highest appellate courts in our state and nation” and that the defendant’s attorney did not object to at trial:

Lewis v. State, 2021-KA-00736-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming convictions of conspiracy and armed robbery, holding that the trial court did not err by excluding a letter the defendant sought to introduce that accused a witness of past instances of false accusations because it was hearsay and did not fall within an exception to the inadmissibility of hearsay.
(9-1-0: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Phang v. Phang, 2021-CA-00752-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part several aspects of the chancery court’s judgment of divorce, holding that the chancellor (1) did not err in the award of permanent alimony, (2) erred in not specifying what happened to the alimony obligation if the ex-husband predeceased the ex-wife, (3) erred in requiring the ex-husband to maintain an excessive life insurance policy naming the ex-wife as the beneficiary, (4) erred in ordering the ex-husband to provide annual proof of income to his ex-wife.
(10-0)

White v. White, 2021-CP-00333-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court’s dismissal of a son’s complaint against his mother seeking damages and to impose a constructive trust on land he had deeded his mother, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that the claim for damages was barred by the statute of limitations but did err to the extent it dismissed the claim to recover and impose a constructive trust because the 10-year statute of limitations had not run on those claims when the complaint was filed.
(10-0)

Note – There was a lengthy footnote to remand declaration, discussing the odd situation presented where the Court of Appeals was remanding to the Harrison County Circuit Court a claim seeking to impose a trust on land located in Pike and Lincoln County.

Purvis v. Mar-Jac Poultry MS, LLC, 2021-CA-00039-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision granting the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the defendant did not waive arbitration by refusing the plaintiff’s pre-suit arbitration demand or by filing a counterclaim contemporaneously with its motion to compel arbitration and holding that the arbitration provision requiring an arbitration demand within 120 days after notice of a claim did not and could not alter the three-year statute of limitations.
(6-1-2: Judge Westbrooks dissented, joined by Judge McDonald and joined in part by Judge McCarty; Judge Smith did not participate.)

Other Orders

Wofford v. State, 2020-KA-01341-COA (denying rehearing)

Adams v. State, 2020-KA-01383-COA (denying rehearing)

Smith v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety, 2021-SA-00020-COA (denying rehearing)

Frost v. State, 2021-CA-00152-COA (denying rehearing)

Edwards v. State, 2021-KA-00259-COA (denying rehearing)

Carter v. Total Foot Care, 2021-CA-00610-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List