Tag: Due Process

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of December 12, 2024

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today. One ends a chapter in the NCAA-Ole Miss saga, one is an interesting case discussing administrative remedies exhaustion and exclusive remedy immunity under the MWCA, and the other is a direct criminal appeal reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating a conviction.

NCAA v. Farrar, 2023-IA-00282-SCT (Civil – Torts)
Reversing the trial court’s denial of the NCAA’s motion for summary judgment, holding that there was no evidence in the record to support the plaintiff’s due process and malicious interference with employment claims.
(6-1: Randolph dissented dubitante; Coleman and Maxwell did not participate)

Harris v. Hemphill Construction Company, Inc., 2023-CA-00973-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming the trial court’s decision dismissing a work-related personal injury claim by an employee/officer of a subcontractor against a general contractor, holding that the plaintiff was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a negligence suit but that the defendant-GC was entitled to exclusive remedy immunity from the plaintiff’s suit because the GC required the subcontractor to carry comp coverage and plaintiff was an officer of the subcontract who rejected workers’ comp coverage for himself.
(9-0)

Practice Point – This is case is worth a deeper dive:

Harris then filed the negligence lawsuit and the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the GC was entitled to exclusive remedy immunity:

The Court concluded:

Quinn v. State, 2022-CT-00962-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the circuit court’s judgment and conviction of sexual battery, holding that the State sufficiently proved venue, that expert DNA testimony was properly admitted, that the indictment was properly amended, that the trial court did not err by not granting a mistrial sua sponte during closing arguments, and that the trial court did nto err by allowing the State to use birth certificates to refresh a witness’s memory.
(7-2: Kitchens dissented, joined by King)

Other Orders

  • Howard v. State, 2022-KA-00430-SCT (denying rehearing)
  • Crawford v. East Mississippi State Hospital, Inc., 2022-CT-00753-SCT (denying cert)
  • Course v. State, 2022-CT-00760-SCT (denying cert)
  • Collins v. Collins, 2022-CT-00903-SCT (denying cert)
  • McLellan v. McLellan, 2022-CT-01006-SCT (denying cert)
  • McKenzie v. McKenzie, 2022-CT-01175-SCT (denying cert)
  • Designer Custom Homes, LLC v. U.S. Coating Specialties & Supplies, LLC, 2023-CT-00207-SCT (denying cert)
  • Deep South Today v. Bryant, 2024-M-00659-SCT (denying petition for interloc)
  • McPhail v. McPhail, 2024-TS-00849 (denying motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissing bond-related request without prejudice, and granting request to enlarge the notice of appeal)

Hand Down Page

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