Tag: DUI

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of September 21, 2023

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down four opinions today. There is an estates case, a domestic relations case, and a direct criminal appeal. However, the main stage act is a decision on the constitutionality of HB 1020 (and part of that decision was unanimous).

In Re The Estate of Herbert Bernard Ivison, Jr.: Malouf & Malouf, PLLC v. The Estate of Herbert Bernard Ivison, Jr., 2022-CA-00837-SCT (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Reversing the chancellor’s ruling that a law firm’s probated claim against a state was barred by statute, holding that the law firm had no reason to pursue further additional legal actions to secure payment of its claim after timely probating the claim.
(8-0: Griffis did not participate.)

West v. West, 2020-CA-01206-SCT consolidated with 2022-CA-00147, 2002-IA-01158, 2008-CA-01700, 2009-CA-01877, 2010-CA-00316 (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Reversed on direct appeal and cross appeal, holding that the chancellor erred in his priority-of-liens analysis and remanding for a determination of whether capital stock certificates conspicuously noted bylaws restrictions, holding that the chancellor erred in failing to address a retroactive child support claim, and holding that because one party engaged in claim-splitting the chancellor’s decision in the consolidated case was reversed with orders to dismiss the case and reinstate a 2008 judgment, writs of garnishment, and writs of execution.
(8-0: Beam did not participate.)

NOTE – This is a 44-page opinion with a lot going on. Be advised that my summary is even broader than usual.

Jenkins v. State, 2022-KA-00754-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of DUI (third offense), holding that the trial court did not err in granting a jury instruction that the State was not required to prove that alcohol impaired the defendant’s ability to drive or level of impairment and did not err in refusing the defendant’s instruction on the defendant’s theory of the case where most of the language of that instruction was incorporated into another instruction.
(5-1*-3: Maxwell specially concurred, joined by four justices from the majority: Coleman, Beam, Chamberlin, and Griffis; Kitchens dissented, joined by King.)

NOTE – Justice Maxwell’s concurrence garnered four other votes giving it precedential effect. That special concurrence held that “an instruction like S-8’s potential to confuse weight heavily against giving it in Section (1)(a) common law DUI cases.” The concurrence also noted that even if this instruction was given in error, it would have been harmless due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

Here is the text of the instruction at issue:

Saunders v. State, 2023-CA-00584-SCT (Civil – Unconstitutional Statute)
Affirming in part and reversing in part in the HB 1020 case, holding (1) the creation of the CCID inferior court is Section 4 of HB 1020 is constitutional but (2) Section 1’s creation of four “temporary special circuit judges” to be appointed by the Chief Justice to “almost-four-year-terms” violates the Mississippi Constitution’s requirement that circuit judges be elected.
(6-2: Kitchens dissented as to the constitutionality of CCID inferior court, joined by King; Kitchens and King concurred as to the unconstitutionality of appointing the temporary judges; Randolph did not participate)

NOTE – Here is the crux of the reasoning behind the unanimous holding that the appointment process in HB 1020 is unconstitutional:

Other Orders

Moore v. State, 2021-M-00111 (denying application for leave to proceed in the trial court, finding the filing frivolous, and warning that future frivolous filings may result in sanctions)

Hull v. State, 2022-CT-00088-SCT (denying cert)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of June 23, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today in criminal cases. One is an appeal of a DUI conviction where the defendant refused a breathalyzer test. The other was certiorari review of the Court of Appeals’ remedy for a Batson error by the trial court. The Supreme Court also published an en banc order that garnered some national attention when it was entered on Tuesday.

Bullen v. State, 2021-KM-01081-SCT (Criminal – Misdemeanor/DUI)
Affirming a conviction of DUI (second offense), holding that substantial evidence supported the conviction despite the defendant’s refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test because there was also testimony that the defendant’s pupils were contracted (after some confusion by the officer who initially testified that they were dilated), his truck smelled of alcohol, and he admitted to consuming more than one beer and intentionally driving into a flooded area requiring extraction by the fire department. The Supreme Court also held that the circuit judge did not err in considering the defendant’s refusal to submit to breathalyzer tests.
(9-0.)

NOTE – The Supreme Court has never addressed the issue of whether “smell alone could support a DUI charge.” The Court declined to do so in this case because this conviction was based on other evidence. The right case may be set up for cert on this issue.

Miles v. State, 2019-CT-00895-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming the Court of Appeals affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court’s judgment, holding that the Court of Appeals applied the appropriate remedy for the circuit court’s “imprecise and incomplete” Batson analysis (specifically, the burden-shifting process after challenge of a peremptory strike) which was to remand to the trial court to conduct a hearing to complete the second and third steps of the Batson analysis for three of the challenged members of the venire.
(Justice King concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Other Orders

Powers v. State, 2017-DR-00696-SCT (holding that the plaintiff has no right to competency in post-conviction proceedings and denying his motion to stay his execution without prejudice)

Mississippi Department of Economic and Community Development v. General Reinsurance Corp., 2020-CT-00761-SCT (denying cert)

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