Tag: Cruel and Inhuman Treatment

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of March 14, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down seven opinions today. There was nary a dissent, but a conviction of child exploitation was reversed. The are other felony opinions, two divorce cases, a contract case involving a defunct LLC, and a PCR case.

Nunn v. State, 2021-KA-01371-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of having meth within 1,500 feet of a church, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for mental competency evaluation where the trial court twice held a hearing to determine whether the defendant understood and appreciated the significance of the trial proceedings and had the ability to rationally aid in his defense or in denying the defendant’s entrapment instruction.
(10-0)

Singh v. State, 2022-CP-00273-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding no error in revoking post-release supervision since the plaintiff absconded from supervision.
(10-0)

Williams v. Williams, 2021-CA-00758-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming judgment of divorce, holding that the chancellor’s valuation of the marital residence was based on evidentiary support in the record.
(10-0)

Wakefield v. State, 2021-KA-00187-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of accessory after the fact to murder, to kidnapping, and to auto theft, holding:
1. The circuit court had jurisdiction because it sat in one of the counties where the crimes were committed;
2. That the convictions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause even though the defendant gave just one car ride because he was an accessory to three distinct felonies so the merger doctrine did not apply;
3. That there was no error based on the weight or sufficiency of the evidence;
4. That the indictment was not defective for failing to include “intent” where it did include “willfully;” and
5. That there was no error in admitting autopsy and crime scene photos.
(8-1-0: McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion; Emfinger did not participate)

NOTE – These convictions stemmed from the kidnapping and murder of six-year-old Kingston Frazier in 2017.

Holmes v. Lankford, 2022-CA-00203-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming summary judgment for the defendant in a dispute over a sand and gravel operation agreement, holding that the plaintiff did not have standing to enforce the agreement that was between the defendant and the plaintiff’s administratively dissolved LLC and that the plaintiff did not otherwise show he was entitled to relief.
(10-0)

NOTE – Conducting business through an LLC can cut both ways:

Mason v. State, 2021-KA-00964-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing conviction of child exploitation, holding that the trial court erred in denying funds for an independent computer forensics expert because the State’s witness/detective should have been considered an expert and that this error hindered the defendant’s jurisdictional challenge and led to evidentiary errors that contributed to an unfair trial.
(7-3-0: Wilson, Smith, and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result)

Moss v. Moss, 2021-CA-00452-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Modified opinion on motion for rehearing 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.
(9-0)

Other Orders

Hornsby v. Hornsby, 2020-CA-01091-COA (dismissing motion for attorney’s fees)

Blount v. State, 2021-KA-00204-COA (denying rehearing)

Mayberry v. Cottonport Hardwoods, 2021-CA-00246-COA (denying rehearing)

Anderson v. State, 2021-KA-01340-COA (granting pro se motion for extension of time to file motion for rehearing and recalling mandate)

Easterling v. State, 2022-CA-00796-COA (vacating circuit court’s order and rendering judgment dismissing motion for PCR)

Hunter v. State, 2022-TS-01269-COA (dismissing appeal as untimely)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of May 24, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today. Today’s offerings include a divorce case, a DUI/marijuana case, a personal injury case, a malicious mischief case, a jurisdiction case with Rule 54(b) claiming more victims, and a handful of PCR cases.

Camphor v. State, 2021-CP-00048-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that the circuit court’s decision was not clearly erroneous.
(All judges concurred.)

Powell v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, 2021-CA-00055-COA (Civil – Real Property/Appellate Jurisdiction/Rule 54(b))
Dismissing appeal of the chancery court’s order dismissing the debtor’s complaint with prejudice and granting the lender’s counterclaim seeking to proceed with a judicial foreclosure, holding that (1) because the counterclaim for judicial foreclosure was still pending the chancery court’s order did not adjudicate all claims against all parties and (2) the chancery court’s order did not contain the certification required by Rule 54(b).
(All judges concurred.)

Klis v. State, 2021-CA-00349-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the PCR motion, holding that the circuit court did not err in determining that the motion was time-barred and that his ineffective-assistance of counsel claim did not provide an exception to the bar.
(Judge Smith did not participate.)

Short v. State, 2021-KA-00499-COA (Criminal – Felony/Jury Instructions)
Affirming conviction of malicious mischief, holding that a jury instruction setting forth the elements of malicious mischief did not constructively amend the indictment because the record failed to show the alleged variance and, in light of the lack of objection by the defendant at trial, there was no plain error by the circuit judge.
(All judges concurred.)

Montgomery v. Montgomery, 2020-CP-01135-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Divorce/Habitual Cruel and Inhuman Treatment)
Affirming the chancery court’s judgment of divorce and final judgment regarding division of property and other financial matters, holding that the chancery court did not err in granting the husband a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment which included throwing items, death threats, and behavior that caused the wife’s family to try to get her to seek medical or psychiatric help. Regarding division of property, the Court of Appeals held that the chancery court did not err in dividing the property as the parties had agreed to. The Court of Appeals handled this case graciously, but appropriately noted that the pro se appellant had “waived consideration of the issues she raises on appeal.”
(All judges concurred.)

NOTE – Hiring an attorney to handle your appeal is generally a good idea. Relatedly, if you can’t find one to take your case, it might be a sign. The appellant in this case represented herself and it did not go well. For example:

Frost v. State, 2021-CA-00152-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s petition for expungement, holding that the circuit court did not err in ruling that it had no jurisdiction.
(Judge Wilson and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in result without separate written opinion. Judge Smith did not participate.)

Pipkin v. State, 2021-CA-00517-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s second motion for PCR, holding that the plaintiff failed to show that he had a procedurally-viable claim or an applicable exception to the procedural bar.
(Judge Wilson and Judge Lawrence concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Borsi v. State, 2021-KM-00643-COA (Criminal – Misdemeanor/DUI/Marijuana)
Affirming a conviction of DUI of marijuana, holding that the roadblock that led to the defendant’s arrest was for a proper purpose and conducted consistent with MHP’s general practice so there was no Fourth Amendment violation, that the defendant was not under custodial interrogation when he admitted to smoking marijuana so there was no Miranda violation, that the law was properly applied based upon “influence” rather than “impairment,” and that the trial court (in a bench trial) properly relied upon witness testimony and the evidence presented at trial. The defendant did not leave empty-handed, as the Court of Appeals reversed the assessment of an $85.00 transfer fee by the circuit clerk.
(Chief JUdge Barnes and Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

NOTE – This is the second opinion in the last few weeks where the defendant argued that he might have partaken of marijuana, but he was not impaired by it. And it is the second opinion where the Court of Appeals has held that “influence” is not synonymous with “impairment” in this context. (The other opinion was Briggs v. State summarized here.)

Brewer v. Bush, 2020-CA-00214-COA (Civil – Personal Injury/Jury Instructions)
Affirming a defense verdict in a personal injury lawsuit where the plaintiff was helping the defendant put up a barbed wire fence and a bungee cord snapped and struck the plaintiff in the eye, holding that (1) a rational jury could have found that there was no master-servant relationship or that the tools provided were reasonably safe and that the defendant did not breach any duty owed to the plaintiff, (2) the jury was fairly instructed on the issue of proximate causation, (3) the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by giving the defendant’s instruction on “simple tools,” (4) submitting four verdict forms was not reversible error, and (5) the fact that defendant offered fifteen instructions did not result in prejudice to the plaintiff.
(All judges concurred.)

Practice Point – Fight jury instructions with jury instructions. If you don’t like something about opposing counsel’s jury instructions, propose one that fixes it:

Other Orders

Ladner v. State, 2020-KA-00299-COA (denying rehearing)
Denham v. Denham, 2020-CA-00675-COA (denying rehearing)
Dew v. Harris, 2020-CA-01261-COA (denying rehearing)
Miller v. State, 2021-TS-01412-COA (denying motion to reinstate appeal)
Nelson v. State, 2022-TS-00413-COA (denying appellant’s motion to stay appeal and dismissing appeal without prejudice for lack of final judgment

Hand Down List