Tag: Daubert

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of September 11 and September 18, 2025

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions on September 11 and two more on September 18. I think the most significant of the bunch is Pilot Travel Centers, LLC v. Womack where the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and granted a new trial in a premises liability case because improper expert testimony was admitted.

September 11, 2025

Patterson v. State, 2024-CA-00788-SCT (Civil – Wrongful Death)
Affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing an MTCA wrongful death claim, holding that the immunity requirements of Section 11-46-9(1)(l) were met and that the statute passed constitutional muster.
(9-0: Sullivan for the Court)

Watkins Construction v. Miss. Dept. of Revenue, 2024-SA-00662-SCT (Civil – State Boards & Agencies)
Affirming the chancery court’s decision denying a taxpayer’s motion for summary judgment “for reconsideration, clarification, and alternative relief,” finding that the chancellor properly denied the company’s post-judgment request and declining to “give advisory opinions about unraised legal questions.”
(9-0: Maxwell for the Court)

Other Orders

  • The Mississippi Bar v. Valley, 2008-BD-01884-SCT (granting motion to reopen case and file amended formal complaint)
  • Shelton v. State, 2010-M-01801 (denying petition to review issues re: possible judicial and/or criminal misconduct for possible impeachment and/or prosecution directed at the trial judge, finding that the filing was frivolous, and restricting the petitioner from filing in forma pauperis)
  • In Re: Judicial Election Oversight Committee, 2021-M-01306-SCT (appointing Spence Flatgard, James H. Heidelberg, and David F. Delgado to four-year terms as members of the judicial election oversight committee)
  • Carr v. State, 2023-DR-00503-SCT (granting motion to vacate stay and granting open time motions and giving 30 days to file post-conviction application)

Hand Down Page

September 18, 2025

In Re Estate of Ivision: Malouf & Malouf, PLLC v. Estate of Ivison, 2024-CA-00421-SCT (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Affirming the chancery court’s denial of a motion for payment of past due interest, holding that this second probated claim for compound interest was a new claim and was untimely filed.
(9-0: Griffis for the Court)

Pilot Travel Centers, LLC v. Womack, 2023-CT-00035-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury)
Reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision that held that the trial court’s error admitting expert testimony was harmless, holding that the expert was unqualified and his testimony was unhelpful where he read the defendant’s policies and identified alleged violations of them.
(9-0: Chamberlin for the Court)

Practice Point – This is a big Daubert case (though the opinion did not cite Daubert). The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that admitting the expert testimony was error, but the Supremes held it was not harmless. The Court adopted the rationale from Judge Wilson’s Court of Appeals dissent:

Other Orders

  • Crawford v. State, 2024-DR-01386-SCT (granting the State’s motion to dismiss a petition for post-conviction relief)
  • Galloway v. State, 2025-DR-00129-SCT (granting the State’s motion to dismiss successive motion for leave to proceed)
  • In Re: Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi Bar, 89-R-99010-SCT (appointing Robert R. Morris III as member of the Complaint Tribunal)
  • Crawford v. State, 24-DP-01016-SCT (granting renewed motion to set execution date)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of April 8, 15, and 22, 2025

After a few weeks of attending to other matters, I am back on the blogging horse. Fortunately, the appellate courts went relatively light on me in terms of the number of decisions handed down.

Summaries the hand downs from the Mississippi Court of Appeals from the past three weeks are below. There are several divorce cases, three mal cases (two opinions reached different results after the respective plaintiff’s expert testimony was struck), several MTCA cases, personal injury cases, felonies, an arbitration case, and more.

April 8, 2025

McFall v. Osborne, 2023-CA-01234-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision in a divorce action denying the ex-husband’s Rule 60(b) motion attacking the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the chancellor had subject matter jurisdiction, that the ex-husband could not attack the merits of the underlying judgment because it was not appealed in time, and that the chancellor did not err in finding the ex-husband in contempt for failing to pay as ordered in the underlying judgment.
(9-0: Westbrooks did not participate)

Estate of Boleware v. McPhail, 2024-CA-00156-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Affirming with modification the circuit court’s decision staying litigation and compelling arbitration, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the arbitration agreement was valid but modifying the judgment to clarify that the arbitrator must decide whether the claims are within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
(9-1-0: McDonald concurred in the result without writing)

Short v. Polles, 2023-CA-00607-COA (Civil – Torts)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of a farmer’s suit against MDWFP for issuing a permit permitting the farmer to kill deer to protect his soybean field but limiting it to does only, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the agency was immune from suit because permit decisions were within the agency’s power and its actions were not arbitrary and capricious.
(8-2-0: Barnes and Wilson concurred in part and in the result without writing)

Other Orders

  • Brooks v. State, 2023-KA-01081-COA (granting pro se motion for time to file motion for rehearing)
  • Bridget v. State, 2025-TS-00100-COA (dismissing appeal for lack of appealable judgment)

Hand Down Page

April 15, 2025

E. Cornell Malone Corp. v. Marshall Cnty. Sch. Dist., 2024-CA-00047-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of a complaint against the County related to a construction project, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that the tort claims were barred by the MTCA’s one-year statute of limitations or in denying the motion to amend the complaint.
(9-1-0: Carlton dissented without separate written opinion)

Anderson v. State, 2023-KA-00967-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of murder, holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(10-0)

Pinkton v. State, 2024-CP-00655-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming dismissal of a PCR motion, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that the claims were time-barred, waived, and without merit.
(6-4-0: McCarty concurred, joined by Wilson, Emfinger, and Weddle)

Goodson v. State, 2023-KA-00729-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of possession of meth, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress, in granting the State’s motion in limine preventing the defendant from raising the defense of bias against by the sheriff’s department, or in denying his motion for JNOV or for new trial.
(10-0)

Jordan v. State, 2023-KA-00965-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of shooting into a dwelling after reviewing the record and counsel’s Lindsey brief, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and no issues warranting reversal.
(9-1-0: McDonald concurred in result only without writing)

Holifield v. Highland Community Hospital, 2023-CA-01342-COA (Civil – Med Mal)
Affirming dismissal of MTCA claims against a community hospital, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that the community hospital was a division of a governmental entity and not a separate entity that could be sued or in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend to substitute the correct governmental entity because the claim would be time-barred.
(7-3-0: Wilson, McDonald, and McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing)

Lee v. Doolittle, 2023-CA-00969-COA (Civil – Med Mal)
Reversing summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a med mal case, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in striking the plaintiff’s expert and then in granting summary judgment for lack of expert testimony.
(5-1-4: Wilson concurred in part and in the judgment without writing; Carlton dissented, joined by Barnes, Emfinger, and St. Pe’)

Other Orders

  • Miller v. State, 2023-CP-00322-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Estate of Forkner: Berry v. Forkner, 2023-CA-00707-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

April 22, 2025

Nabors v. State, 2024-KA-00006-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault of law enforcement, holding that there was sufficient evidence of the defendant’s intent to commit aggravated assault, that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, that the trial court did not commit plain error in giving a flight instruction, and that trial counsel was not ineffective.
(10-0)

Crocker v. Daves, 2023-CA-00602-COA (Civil – Custody)
Dismissing appeal in a custody matter, holding that the chancellor’s order holding child support in abeyance due to insufficient information before the court to award child support based on statutory guidelines was not a final, appealable order.
(10-0)

Elmore v. Elmore, 2023-CA-00875-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming a judgment granting divorce and dividing marital property, holding that the chancellor did not err in classifying assets as marital property, in determining what property was marital property or in equitably distributing marital assets, or in denying the motion for new trial or to alter or amend the judgment.
(8-1-0: Wilson concurred in part and dissented in part; St. Pe’ did not participate)

Mallery v. State, 2024-CP-00220-COA (Civil – PCR)
Dismissing appeal of PCR denial, holding that there was no longer an actual controversy since the petitioner had been released from custody.
(9-0: Lawrence did not participate)

Simmons v. City of Picayune, 2024-CA-00092-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming summary judgment dismissing a premises liability claim stemming from a fall on a handicap ramp, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that the curb ramp constituted a dangerous condition.
(10-0)

Cox v. Coast 132 LLC, 2023-CA-01290-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of a restaurant in a slip-and-fall case, holding that the windowsill that allegedly caused the fall was not a dangerous condition and that even if it was a dangerous condition the plaintiff could not prove that the restaurant created it or had actual or constructive knowledge of it.
(8-2-0: Westbrooks and McDonald concurred in result only without writing)

Sandlin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 2023-CP-01347-COA (Civil – Insurance)
Affirming dismissal of a pro se UM claim, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that the defendant had not been properly served with process and that the statute of limitations on the claim had run.
(9-1-0: McDonald concurred in result only without writing)

Younger v. Southern, 2022-CA-01228-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming part and reversing in part the circuit court’s judgment after a bench trial in a personal injury claim under the MTCA, affirming the award for the loss of the plaintiff’s truck, but reversing the award of damages for past, present, and future pain and suffering and reversing the award of $21,120 in medical damages for lack of expert testimony and rendering an award of $399 for past medical expenses.
(7-3: Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by McDonald and McCarty; McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Westbrooks and McCarty)

Calvin-Williams v. The Greenville Clinic, P.A., 2023-CA-01021-COA (Civil – Med Mal)
Affirming the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, holding that the circuit court did not err in striking portions of the plaintiff’s expert’s testimony and then granting summary judgment based on the lack of expert testimony.
(8-2: McDonald dissented, joined by Westbrooks)

Other Orders

  • Parker v. State, 2023-KA-00550-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Estate of Roberts: Herd v. Stokes, 2023-CA-00713-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Gardner v. State, 2023-KA-00903-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Lawson v. State, 2023-CP-01008-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Jack v. City of Meridian, 2023-CC-01339-COA (denying pro se motion to recall mandate and dismissing motion for rehearing and amended motion for rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of December 17, 2024

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down six opinions in what appears to be the last slate of decisions from Mississippi’s appellate courts in 2024. There are two direct criminal appeals, three PCR cases, and a $1M+ personal injury verdict.

Williams v. State, 2023-KA-00346-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the trial court did not admit inadmissible hearsay by allowing an officer to testify about limited information that guided his investigation and that State did not improperly comment on the defendant’s failure to testify.
(4-4-1: McCarty dissented, joined in part by Barnes, Wilson, McDonald, and Lawrence; Westbrooks did not participate)

Parker v. State, 2023-KA-00550-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of two counts of fourth-offense simple domestic violence, holding that the trial court erred in admitting affidavits containing facts about the defendant’s prior offenses but that the error was harmless, that the trial court did not err in admitting the victim’s prior statement through her probation officer, and that because there was just one harmless error the doctrine of cumulative error did not apply.
(8-2-0: Westbrooks and McDonald concurred in part and in the result without writing)

Lawson v. State, 2023-CP-01008-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the trial court’s order denying a PCR motion, holding that there was no clear error or abuse of discretion.
(10-0)

Moore v. State, 2023-CP-01147-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR mtoion, holding that the claimant did not prove that his guilty plea was involuntary or that his counsel was ineffective.
(7-1-1: Westbrooks concurred in result only without writing; McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without writing; Weddle did not participate)

Pilot Travel Centers, LLC v. Womack, 2023-CA-00035-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming a judgment after plaintiff’s jury verdict in a slip-and-fall case where the plaintiff slipped and fell on a collapsed wet-floor sign, holding that a reasonable jury could find that the collapsed wet-floor sign constituted an unreasonably or unusually dangerous condition and that the defendant had constructive knowledge of the condition, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion denying the motion for new trial that argued that expert testimony should not have been admitted, that the plaintiff’s attorney made improper statements during closing arguments, and that the non-economic damages (that the trial court reduced from $3M to $1M) was still excessive in light of the $393,000 award of compensatory damages.
(6-2-2: Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without writing; Emfinger concurred in result only without writing; Wilson dissented, joined by Barnes and joined in party by Westbrooks)

Practice Point – The majority and the dissent agreed that the plaintiff’s “safety expert” should not have been allowed to testify as such.

Ball v. State, 2023-CP-00890-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the trial court’s denial of the claim for PCR, holding that the claimant waived his argument that his right to be free from Double Jeopardy.
(9-1-0: Westbrooks specially concurred, joined by Barnes and McDonald)

Other Orders

  • None.

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of October 17, 2024

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down four opinions today. There is a petition for back pay from reinstated utility commissioners, a reversal of a personal injury verdict in Madison County because the trial court abused its discretion admitting expert testimony, an appeal of the denial of a motion for remittitur/new trial after plaintiff’s verdict in a contract case, and a direct appeal of a drug possession conviction.

Slaughter v. City of Canton, 2023-CA-01102-SCT Civil – Other)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a petition of former commissioners of the Canton Municipal Utilities Commission seeking back pay, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction after the case became final upon issuance of the mandate affirming the circuit court’s prior reinstatement of the commissioners.
(9-0)

Scarborough v. Logan, 2022-CA-00965-SCT consolidated with 2023-CA-00720-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury)
Reversing on cross-appeal a plaintiff’s verdict in a personal injury case, holding that the trial court abuse its discretion by allowing expert testimony from a witness who was never qualified or tendered as an expert witness and dismissing the direct appeal issues as moot.
(9-0)

Stribling Equipment, LLC v. Eason Propane, LLC, 2023-CA-00862-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the trial court’s decision denying a new damages trial and/or remittitur, holding that the amount of damages was high but not shocking and was supported by the evidence.
(9-0)

Vivian v. State, 2023-KA-00338-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of felony possession of meth and misdemeanor possession of marijuana, holding that there were no errors wanting reversal based on counsel’s Lindsey brief and the record.
(9-0)

Other Orders

  • Roley v. Roley, 2022-CT-01104-SCT (dismissing petition for cert)
  • Nettles v. Nettles, 2023-CT-00041-SCT (granting cert)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of August 20, 2024

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today. There are several direct criminal appeals, a personal injury case, and two real property cases.

Allen v. State, 2023-KA-00264-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of armed robbery, kidnapping, and aggravated assault with firearm enhancement, holding that there were no issues warranting reversal after reviewing counsel’s Lindsey brief and the record.
(9-0)

Aldridge v. South Tippah County School District, 2023-CA-00418-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of a high school in a personal injury case, holding that there was no evidence that the school breached any duty that proximately caused student’s injuries sustained in a locker room fight.
(6-3: McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without writing; Carlton dissented, joined by Westbrooks, and joined in part by McDonald)

Galang v. State, 2023-KA-00006-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of sexual battery, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding videos from past sexual activity between the defendant and the victim or and that excluding a defense witness’s testimony for which no proffer was made was at most harmless error.
(9-0)

Connor v. State, 2022-KA-01288-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(9-0)

Howell v. State, 2023-KM-00265-COA (Criminal – Misdemeanor) consolidated with 2023-KM-00270 (Criminal – Misdemeanor)
Affirming convictions of speeding and driving without a tag, holding that the evidence was sufficient and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not accepting the defendant’s father as an expert in the field of radar technology.
(8-1-0: Westbrooks concurred in result only without separate written opinion)

Note – Here is the trial court’s voir dire of the defendant’s father:

Trevino v. State, 2022-KA-01292-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault and felon in possession of a weapon but reversing conviction of theft of a motor vehicle with a value of more than $5,000 and $25,000, holding that the State failed to offer any evidence of the stolen truck’s value (an error the State confessed) and rendering since the State did not argue for remand and resentencing for any lesser-included offense.
(9-0)

Brown v. State, 2023-KA-00299-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that section 97-37-5 does not violate the Second Amendment since the Mississippi Supreme Court has already said so.
(9-0)

Wiggs v. Boykin, 2023-CA-00496-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming order of partition and award of an equitable adjustment resulting from the partition, holding that the defendant waived his argument that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient deraignments by not filing a Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement, that the chancellor’s determination of the amount of owelty was supported by substantial credible evidence, and that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for new trial.
(9-0)

Richardson v. Estate of Richardson, 2023-CA-00650-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the chancellor’s grant of summary judgment for the Estate in a petition to confirm title and expunging liens from the county’s records, holding that the court of appeals’ prior mandate did not create a debtor-creditor relationship between the decedent and the petitioner and that there is no evidence of an enrolled money judgment that would provide the basis for the liens on the decedent’s property.
(9-0)

Other Orders

  • Collins v. Collins, 2022-CA-00903-COA (denying rehearing)
  • McLellan v. McLellan, 2022-CA-01006-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Lee v. City of Pascagoula, 2022-CA-01190-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Suarez v. State, 2023-KA-00526-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Summaries of the Mississippi Supreme Court opinions of April 7, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down five opinions today. I think Weber v. Estate of Hill will be a frequently cited case on the issue of medical expert causation testimony, especially in the medical malpractice context. There is also an insurance coverage decision (where the court granted interlocutory appeal and then affirmed the circuit court), another medical malpractice case dealing with a hospital’s lack of liability for treatment plans of independent physicians, a contempt of youth court case, and a Mississippi Bar disciplinary decision.

Donaldson v. Cotton, 2020–CA-00581-SCT (Civil – Other/Contempt)
Vacating the a youth court judge’s order of contempt against a county prosecutor fining him for past and continuing refusal to draft youth court orders, holding that youth court judges have inherent authority to order a county prosecutor to prepare orders in youth court matters but that the alleged contempt was constructive criminal contempt and thus the attorney’s due process rights were violated. The order was vacated, the case was remanded, and the youth court judge was direct to recuse for further proceedings.
(Justice Coleman dissented, joined by Chief Justice Randolph and Justice Beam.)

Weber v. Estate of Hill, 2020-CA-00293-SCT (Civil – Medical Malpractice/Causation/Experts)
Denying rehearing and and modifying two paragraphs (¶ 37 and ¶ 38) of the original opinion. On direct appeal, the supreme court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the defendants’ motion for JNOV that argued there was no admissible expert testimony on causation, holding that the testimony of one of the plaintiff’s medical experts provided a basis for a juror to reasonably conclude that a timely C-section delivery would have provided the baby with a greater-than-50-percent chance of a substantially better outcome even though that expert testified that he lacked the expertise necessary to quantify the degree to which the labor and delivery process aggravated the injury. On cross appeal, the supreme court reversed the circuit court’s reduction of the jury’s $2,538,322 award for non-economic damages, holding that this action filed in December 2002 was governed by Mississippi’s wrongful-death statute because the medical-malpractice noneconomic-damages cap was not in place until September 1, 2004.
(Justice Griffis dissented, joined by Justice Coleman and Justice Maxwell. Chief Justice Randolph did not participate.)

NOTE: This was a big win for the plaintiff and it is a must-read case on medical expert causation testimony, especially in the medical malpractice context. I have not read the record, but my understanding from the majority opinion and the dissent is that no expert specifically testified that a timely C-section delivery would have provided the baby with a greater-than-50-percent chance of a substantially better outcome. Instead, the supreme court allowed the jury to “connect the dots” (the “dots” being other pieces of expert testimony) in determining that the plaintiff satisfied that causation standard even though the plaintiff’s obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine expert testified he was not qualified to connect these dots and give an opinion as to the percentage aggravation would be.

Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company v. Powell, 2020-IA-00432-SCT (Civil – Insurance/Coverage)
On interlocutory appeal, affirming the circuit court’s denial of the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to provide coverage, no duty to defend/indemnify, and no duty to pay medpay benefits, holding that a fall from scaffolding that was erected on a trailer that was hitched to an insured pickup was an auto accident arising out of the use and ownership of the covered vehicles.
(Justice Maxwell concurred in result only, joined by Justice Chamberlain and Justice Griffis, and joined by Justice Coleman in part.)

St. Dominic-Jackson Memorial Hospital v. Newton, 2020-IA-00494-SCT (Civil – Medical Malpractice)
On interlocutory appeal, reversing the circuit court’s denial of the hospital’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the Mississippi law does not impose a duty on a hospital to require peer review of a treatment plan before allowing a doctor and patient to use its facilities.
(Justice Kitchens dissented, joined by Justice King.)

PRACTICE POINT: This is less-than-ideal feedback to receive from the supreme court…

Other Orders

Howell v. State, 2020-CA-00868-SCT (directing the parties to file supplemental briefs on the following issue: Whether the Court should overrule Rowland v. State, 42 So. 3d 503 (Miss. 2010), and any other case in which, and to the extent that, we have held the fundamental rights exception to the procedural bars may be applied to the three-year statute of limitations codified by the Legislature in the Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act)

Bryant v. Bryant, 2020-CT-00883-SCT (granting cert)

Newell v. State, 2020-CT-01137-SCT (denying cert)

Thornhill v. Walker-Hill Environmental, 2020-CT-01181-SCT (granting cert)

The Mississippi Bar v. Malone, 2021-BD-00467-SCT (suspending attorney Robert W. Malone for two years)

Hand Down List

Summaries of the Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of March 8, 2022

There are six opinions from the Mississippi Court of Appeals today on a wide range of topics, including a holding that a defendant’s failure to respond to a complaint filed on March 6, 2020, until thirty-one days after service of process constituted “excusable neglect” in light of the COVID shutdowns at the time.

Hamer v. State, 2019-KA-01633-COA (Criminal – Felony/Evidence/Rule 403/Golden Rule)
Affirming conviction on two counts of capital murder and armed robbery and sentence to life in prison without parole, holding primarily that (1) wiretapped phone calls between the convicted and his father, whose drug trafficking enterprise the convicted had worked for, were admissible to show motive and tell “the complete story” to the jury, (2) the evidence was sufficient to establish nexus between the killing and the underlying felony to constitute capital murder, (3) and there was no impermissible Golden Rule argument at closing.
(Judge Westbrooks wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Judge McDonald.)

Crockett v. State, 2021-CP-00022-COA (Civil – PCR/Time Bar)
Affirming circuit court’s denial of a pro se motion for post-conviction collateral relief, holding that the claim of an involuntary guilty plea was both time-barred and meritless.
(All judges concurred, Chief Judge Barnes and Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Erves v. Hosemann, 2020-CA-00467-COA (Civil – Property/Daubert)
Affirming chancellor’s decision denying relief in an action for an injunction to stop the use of a driveway and for monetary damages, holding that the petitioners failed to establish legal title to the subject property and specifically holding that the defendants’ expert witnesses were qualified and that the chancellor’s ruling was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Practice Point: Appellants got dinged on their Daubert challenge for arguing reliability on appeal when the only issue raised at the trial court was the experts’ qualifications:


(All judges concurred, Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Archer v. Harlow’s Casino Resort & Spa, 2020-CP-00930-COA (Civil – Other/Default/Excusable Neglect)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court’s grant of the defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the defendant showed excusable neglect when it sought an extension of time to answer the complaint thirty-one days after being served and holding that the circuit clerk did not err by correcting a mistake and removing an entry of default, but holding that the trial court should have dismissed the complaint without prejudice and allowed the plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint under Rule 15(a).

ADDENDUM – COVID AND THE LAW: The defendant casino blamed the COVID-19 pandemic for being late to respond to the complaint. The casino was served with process on March 9, 2020, three days before the governor of Kentucky (where the casino’s counsel is located) issued a state of emergency and one week before Governor Reeves entered an order in Mississippi closing the casino. The casino asserted that these restrictions made it difficult to gather information from the closed casino in order to prepare and answer. The circuit court granted the late-filed extension request “in light of the current pandemic and government orders restricting operations and travel.” The court of appeals held that this was not an abuse of the circuit court’s broad discretion in this realm. In this case: COVID shutdown in March 2020 = “excusable neglect.”
(All judges concurred, Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without written opinion.)

Everett v. Dykes, 2020-CP-01331-COA (Civil – Property Damage/Recusal/Rule 48B)
Dismissing a pro se appeal of an order denying a motion for recusal of the circuit judge, holding that the appellant failed to comply with the procedure required by Rule 48B of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure for an interlocutory appeal of the denial of a recusal motion.
(Judge Lawrence dissented without separate written opinion.)

Rives v. Ishee, 2020-CA-01328-COA (Civil – Contract/Statute of Limitations)
Affirming the chancellor’s dismissal of a breach of contract lawsuit, holding that the plaintiffs’ second lawsuit was time-barred because they did not file suit until more than three years after they learned they would receive no money from the restaurant and the statute of limitations was not tolled during the first lawsuit because it was dismissed for want of prosecution. The court of appeals also held that the remedy of quantum meruit was inapplicable because there was a contract between the parties.
(Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge Greenlee.)

Other Orders

Westmoreland v. State, 2020-KA-00509-COA (denying motion for rehearing)
Winters v. State, 2020-KA-00809-COA (denying motion for rehearing)

Complete Hand Down List