Tag: Hearsay

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of May 1, 2025

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions yesterday. One is a MDOR case and the other is a direct criminal appeal. The Court also entered orders amending the Rules for Court Reporters and the Justice Court Rules.

Mississippi Department of Revenue v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, 2023-SA-01079-SCT (Civil – State Boards & Agencies)
Affirming the chancery court’s grant of summary judgment against the MDOR, holding that MDOR improperly included freight charges in the taxpayer’s use-tax base where the taxpayer hired a third-party carrier for the shipment of the goods in a closed transaction.
(7-1-0: Sullivan specially concurred, joined by Ishee; Randolph did not participate)

Tubbs v. State, 2023-KA-01124-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of desecration of a human corpse, holding that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not commit plain error by not excluding a deputy’s testimony about the defendant’s confession.
(9-0)

Other Orders

  • Rules for Court Reporters, 89-R-99021-SCT (granting Petition of the Mississippi Court Reporters Association to Amend Rules I(U) and IX(E)(6) of the Rules and Regulations Governing Certified Court Reporters)
  • In Re: Justice Court Rules, 89-R-99024-SCT (amending Rules 9, 14, and 27 of the Rules of Justice Court)
  • Shanks v. State, 2023-CT-00271-SCT (denying cert)
  • Johnson v. SW Gambling LLC, 2023-CT-00505-SCT (denying cert)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of February 6, 2025

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions in direct criminal appeals today. The Court also issued five cert denials and granted a petition for interlocutory appeal in a premises case.

Broome v. State, 2023-KA-01163-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that an officer’s testimony about steps in the investigation was not hearsay, that it was improper hearsay for the officer to repeat a witness’s identification of the defendant but that it was harmless since that witness gave identification testimony at trial, and that an investigator’s lay testimony regarding the ultimate issue of fact was harmless if in error.
(7-2: Griffis concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Sullivan)

Mackabee v. State, 2023-KA-00644-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of fourth-offense DUI, holding that there are no issues warranting appeal after reviewing counsel’s Lindsey brief and the record.
(9-0)

Other Orders

  • Smith v. State, 2019-DR-01492-SCT (denying motion for leave to file successive PCR motion)
  • Simmons v. State, 2023-CT-00130-SCT (denying cert)
  • Hyland v. State, 2023-CT-00256-SCT (denying cert)
  • Weeks. Weeks, 2023-CT-00427-SCT (denying cert)
  • Neal v. Cain, 2023-CT-00625-SCT (denying cert)
  • Davis v. State, 2023-CT-00663-SCT (denying cert)
  • Premier Entertainment Biloxi, LLC v. Ryan, 2024-IA-01175-SCT (granting interloc petition)

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 Court of Appeals Decisions of November 19, 2024

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down two opinions today. Both are direct criminal appeals. I will be out of the office on Thursday, so I’ll include this week’s Mississippi Supreme Court decisions in a post next week.

Smith v. State, 2023-KA-00703-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of of burglary of a dwelling and possession of a weapon as a felon, holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence where the jury was presented with two different narratives of the altercation and performed its duty to weight the credibility of the competing evidence.
(10-0)

Ellzey v. State, 2022-KA-00797-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of three counts of fondling, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to quash the indictment, in finding that an alleged statement by a juror regarding the incompetency of a government agency did not constitute impermissible outside influence, in limiting cross-examination of a witness, in not excluding or limiting counseling records under the plain error doctrine, in overruling the defendant’s objection to allegedly speculative testimony, in overruling a hearsay objection because the testimony was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, in overruling an objection to other allegedly speculative testimony (or committed harmless error), in overruling an objection to testimony that allegedly vouched for the victim’s credibility, or in not sua sponte objecting to statements in closing argument, and dismissing the ineffectively assistance of counsel claim without prejudice, holding that there could be no cumulative error where there was at most one harmless error, and holding that other issues were waived for failure to raise them in the trial court.
(9-1-0: McCarty specially concurred, joined by Westbrooks and McDonald)

Other Orders

  • Martin v. Arceneaux, 2022-CA-01035-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Smith v. Mitchell, 2023-CA-00259-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Carpenter v. State, 2023-KA-00580-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Shipp v. State, 2023-KA-00655-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of September 7, 2023

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today. One is a panic-inducing civil procedure case and the other is a direct criminal appeal.

Thomas v. Bolivar County, Mississippi, 2022-CA-00445-SCT (Civil – Other)
Reversing the trial court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings in an MTCA case where the complaint was delivered to the circuit clerk on the last day of the limitations period but it was not entered into MEC until the following day (after the deadline), holding (1) when the MTCA statute of limitations falls on a Sunday, Miss. Code Ann. § 1-3-67 authorizes an extension to the following Monday; (2) delivery of the complaint, civil cover sheet, and filing fee constituted “filing” the complaint; and (3) the delay in having a summons issued did not delay the commencement date of the action.
(9-0)

PRACTICE POINT – The underlying facts of this case are nightmare fuel for civil litigators. As if the background facts weren’t enough, this part the opinion also caught my attention:

McCollum v. State, 2021-KA-01276-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of grand larceny, holding that the investigator had presented sufficient probable cause to the magistrate to justify a search warrant, that there was no hearsay admitted that would warrant reversal, and there was no error in denying a mistrial based on the presence of witness during the testimony of a State’s witness because the trial court excused the witness who violated the sequestration rule.
(7-2: King dissented, joined by Kitchens)

Other Orders

Crump v. State, 2018-M-00410 (denying application to proceed in the trial court and restricting the petitioner from filing further applications for PCR in forma pauperis)

Garcia v. State, 2021-CA-01214-SCT (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

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

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of August 2, 2022

In five opinions handed down today, the Mississippi Court of Appeals tackled implied trusts, trespass to timber, hearsay exceptions, and more.

Bays v. State, 2021-KA-00244-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming a conviction of one count of sexual battery by a person in a position of trust or authority, holding that it was error to admit testimony containing a hearsay statement by the 12-year-old victim under the 801(d)(1)(C) statement of identification hearsay exception but that the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence supporting the guilty verdict and holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s untimely request to submit evidence of another perpetrator or in denying the defendant’s request to re-call the victim.
(9-1-0: no separate opinion)

Ainsworth v. Plunk, 2021-CA-00488-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates)
Affirming the chancery court’s order requiring a father to transfer title of real property back to his two daughters, holding that the chancery court properly applied the remedy of an implied trust under the peculiar facts of this case where (1) the father deeded land to his daughters and reserved a life estate for himself prior to his upcoming marriage in case the marriage ended in divorce, which it did, (2) the father then told the daughters to deed the land back to him and he would execute a new deed where the daughters would be tenants in common with full rights to devise their half interest, (3) the daughters quitclaimed their interest back to the father, (4) and the father then said he would only deed back the land if one of the daughters gave up an African-American baby she had adopted.
(8-2-0: no separate opinions)

NOTE – In addition to its startling facts that would make a compelling movie, this opinion contains a helpful discussion of constructive trusts and resulting trusts, and the differences between the two that would not necessarily make a compelling movie.

Terpening v. F.L. Crane & Sons, Inc., 2021-CA-00544-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming summary judgment in a wrongful death action against an employer stemming from a fatal collision involving its employee, holding that the employer was not vicariously liable for the employee’s negligence because the employee was driving home from a week at a remote job site in a personal vehicle when the accident occurred and thus was not in the course and scope of his employment.
(10-0)

NOTES – The Court of Appeals held that the circuit court did not err in declining to apply the workers’ comp “traveling employee doctrine” outside of the workers’ comp arena. Additionally, the Court of Appeals dropped this handy paragraph to cite when the opposing party’s argument relies on out-of-state authorities:

(Please disregard this if I am ever the opposing party citing out-of-state authorities.)

Nalls v. State, 2021-KA-00592-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming convictions of attempted murder and possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for JNOV because the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and then rejecting several arguments made in the defendant’s additional, pro se brief.
(10-0)

Green v. Poirrier Properties, L.L.C., 2021-CP-00704-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision in a timber-trespass case, holding that the chancellor’s finding that the defendant’s removal of timber constituted a willful act and the chancellor’s award of damages were supported by substantial evidence.
(8-2-0: no separate opinions)

Other Orders

Booker v. State, 2018-CA-00664-COA (denying rehearing)

Manuel v. State, 2020-KA-00711-COA (denying rehearing)

Bridges v. State, 2020-CA-00816-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of May 10, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals set a new record since the launch of this blog by handing down fourteen opinions. After briefly contemplating a dash to the exit, I decided to slog through all of them so you don’t necessarily have to. Needless to say, there is something for everybody today!

(Apologies for the all-but-certain uptick in typos)

Fugler v. Bank of Brookhaven, 2021-CA-00303-COA (Civil – Personal Injury/Premises Liability)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a slip and fall case, holding that the plaintiff, who allegedly tripped on a floor mat but testified she did not see the mat before tripping, failed rebut the defendant’s summary judgment motion and supporting affidavit stating that the bank had no knowledge of prior incidents with its floor mats or any issues with the mat involved, that around 300 customers entered the bank daily and the bank was not aware of any prior mat-related trips or complaints, that the mat was heavy-duty commercial grade and was replaced annually to prevent wear, and that bank employees constantly monitored the floors.
(All judges concurred.)

Keys v. Military Department Gulfport, 2021-WC-00352-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Reversing the Commission’s finding that the Employer/Carrier was entitled to a credit for indemnity payments that the claimant received but assigned back to the employer during the time the claimant was receiving paid sick leave, holding that since the claimant was awarded permanent total disability benefits, section 25-3-95(2)(b) (prohibiting a state employee from using accrued personal and/or medical leave and receiving workers’ comp to earn more than 100% of his state-employment wages) did not apply.
(Judge Wilson specially concurred, joined in part by Judge McCarty.)

NOTE – I think Judge Wilson’s special concurrence provides a clearer path forward in workers’ comp cases: Regardless of whether the indemnity benefits during the time in question were classified as TTD or PTD, the claimant was entitled to a total of 450 weeks of indemnity benefits (however classified) and since the claimant did not receive any indemnity benefits during the period he was assigning benefits back to the Employer, the Employer/Carrier were not entitled to a credit for those weeks.

Smith v. State, 2021-CP-00099-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a pro se plaintiff’s PCR petition, holding that the plaintiff presented no evidence to show a reasonable ground for the trial court to believe he was incompetent to plead guilty.
(All judges concurred.)

Prystupa v. Rankin County Board of Supervisors, 2020-CA-01049-COA (Civil – MTCA/Statute of Limitations/Latent Injury)
Affirming the dismissal of a flooding damage MTCA claim based on the running of the statute of limitations, holding that this claim was an MTCA negligence claim subject to a one-year statute of limitations that began to run when the plaintiff knew or should have known of both the injury and its probable cause. In this case, the Court of Appeals held that the statute of limitations began to run when the plaintiff knew of the flooding (the injury) and knew it was due to a blocked drain (the cause) as opposed to when he found out that crushed pipe caused the blocked drain (i.e. caused the cause). The Court of Appeals also affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion to aleter or amend based on fraudulent concealment and the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint to add claims of nuisance and trespass.
(Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

TAKE HEED, lest you fall victim to the distinction between “statutory tolling” and “MTCA tolling”:

Schmidt v. Schmidt, 2020-CA-01253-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision granting sole physical custody to the mother, holding that there was no error in finding that the deterioration of the parties’ ability to co-parent constituted a material change in circumstances entitling the mother to sole physical custody and no error in the application of the Albright factors.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Smith v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety, 2021-SA-00020-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the circuit court’s judgment affirming the Mississippi Employee Appeals Board’s decision upholding the claimant’s termination, holding that the claimant’s procedural due process rights were not violated because he was provided notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard, that his substantive due process rights and rights under the MS State Personnel Board rules were not violated because the MEAB’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, and that the claim that the claimant was terminated because of communications with his wife and that the MEAB’s decision was based on uncorroborated hearsay was without merit.
(All judges concurred.)

McIntosh Transport, LLC v. Love’s Travel Stop & Country Stores, Inc., 2021-CA-00154-COA (Civil – Contract/Arbitration)
Reversing the circuit court’s order granting the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that the contract containing the contract was not binding on the plaintiff because it was signed by a 19-year-old who signed his grandfather’s name and whose only authority was the actual authority to retrieve the truck following repairs that did not include the authority to bind the company to arbitration.
(Chief Judge Barnes concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge Carlton concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Case v. Case, 2020-CA-01047-COA (Civil – Custody/Equitable Distribution of Marital Property/Albright Factors/Ferguson Factors)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision on child custody, but reversing the chancellor’s decision on the equitable distribution of marital property. Regarding custody, the Court of Appeals held that the chancellor’s application of the Albright factors was supported by substantial evidence. Regarding equitable distribution, the Court of Appeals affirmed all of the chancellor’s findings except his valuation of the marital property which it reversed and rendered due to a calculation error.
(Judge Wilson and Judge Westbrooks concur in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

MY TAKE – Few, if any, of us are in the legal field because of a proclivity for math yet it still haunts us all.

Wadley v. Hubbs, 2021-CA-00866-COA (Civil – Real Property/Notice of Appeal)
Reversing the circuit court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s appeal from a county court judgment as untimely, holding that the plaintiff’s notice of appeal that was stamped “Filed” after the county court’s judgment but before disposition of the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the judgment was effective and timely even though the header of the notice said “IN THE COUNTY COURT” because the body of the notice made it clear the plaintiff was appealing to the circuit court and the notice was stamped “Filed” by the circuit clerk.
(All judges concurred.)

Murray v. State, 2021-KA-00264-COA (Criminal – Felony/Hearsay/Rule 412)
Affirming conviction of statutory rape, holding that the circuit court erred in allowing the victim’s mother’s to testify about a neighbor’s out-of-court statement, but that it was harmless and “essentially cumulative evidence of non-criminal activity that [the defendant] admitted.” The Court of Appeals also held that the circuit court did not err in denying the defendant’s ore tenus request to compel the victim’s counseling records because even though a determination of whether the records were privileged could not be made until the records were examined, the defendant did not comply with Rule 412 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence. The Court of Appeals also held that the plaintiff’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to request an alibi instruction, failure to object to hearsay, failure to request a limiting instruction regarding the hearsay testimony, and failure to make a timely request for the victim’s counseling records did not entitled him to relief on this appeal.
(All judges concurred.)

Bailey v. State, 2021-KA-00281-COA (Criminal – Felony/Lindsey Brief)
Affirming conviction of fondling of a six-year-old and sentence to life imprisonment as a violent habitual offender, noting that the defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a Lindsey brief and holding that the defendant’s pro se brief arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction and that his indictment was not marked “filed” was factually mistaken and without merit.
(Judge Smith did not participate.)

Finley v. PERS, 2021-SA-00089-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies/PERS/Disability)
Reversing the circuit court’s judgment affirming PERS Medical Board’s denial of the plaintiff’s claim for non-duty-related disability retirement benefits, holding that PERS’s assessment of the plaintiff’s job requirements and ability to perform her job was arbitrary and capricious. The case was remanded for PERS to determine if the plaintiff could perform the true duties of registrar with her disability and the support staff, if any, she had at the time.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and in result without separate written opinion.)

Boyd v. MDOC, 2021-CC-00459-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies/MDOC)
Affirming the MDOC’s disciplinary actions against the plaintiff whose oversight led to MDOC’s failure to issue an arrest warrant for a probationer who did not report to his assigned probation office upon release from MDOC custody who then killed two Brookhaven police officers in the line of duty, holding that the plaintiff failed to meet her burdens of proof and persuasion to overcome the presumption of correctness due MDOC’s decision.
(All judges concurred.)

Parker v. Ross, 2020-CA-01055-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the chancery court’s grant of summary judgment in a claim alleging mismanagement of a trust and to recover real property that was allegedly improperly sold. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancellor’s judgment in part, holding that any claims governed by the three-year statute of limitations were time-barred. The Court of Appeals also reversed the chancellor’s judgment in part, holding that the allegations related to the mismanagement of the trust were subject to a ten-year statute of limitations and that one of the plaintiffs had created a genuine issue of material fact as to his unsoundness of mind and remanded this matter to the chancery court for further proceedings.
(Judge Emfinger dissented, joined by Judge Wilson and Judge Greenlee and joined in part by Judge McDonald.)

Other Orders

Lawrence v. State, 2021-TS-1324-COA (providing, on the court’s own motion, the appellant and his attorney, Wayne Dowdy, one final opportunity to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely)

Phew…

We did it, folks.

Mississippi Supreme Court decisions of April 28, 2022

After some sort of technical hiccup with the State’s web domain that knocked the Mississippi Supreme Court’s website offline for a spell, they are back in business. The Court handed down one hearty opinion in a wrongful death case that involves § 1983, qualified immunity, the MTCA, the appealability of summary judgment denials, and hearsay.

City of Jackson v. Johnson, 2020-CA-00318-SCT (Civil – Tort/Wrongful Death/1983/MTCA)
Reversing and rendering a jury verdict holding the City liable under § 1983 and affirming the trial court’s judgment finding the City liable under the MTCA for the decedent’s wrongful death. The victim was murdered shortly after calling 911 to report a prowler. The dispatcher did not tell the victim to remain on the line, in violation of the City’s policies and procedure. Two JPD officers went to the victim’s house, did not detect that the prowler had entered a window, did not make contact with the victim, and left. The victim was found dead the next day. The victim’s family filed suit under § 1983 and under the MTCA.

The 911 operator and officers got out via qualified immunity on summary judgment. The § 1983 case was tried by a jury and the MTCA case was tried “simultaneously” before the bench. The jury found that the City violated the victim’s constitutional rights to due process and awarded $1M in damages. The trial court awarded $500,000 (i.e. the statutory maximum) under the MTCA.

On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the City was entitled to a directed verdict on the § 1983 claim, reasoning that our constitutional due process rights do not include the right to be protected by the state from acts of private violence. Regarding the MTCA claim, the Supreme Court held that the 911 dispatcher’s conduct in responding to the victim’s call did not involve an element of choice or judgment and the City was therefore not protected by discretionary function immunity from liability under the MTCA.

There was a hearsay issue involving the defendant’s statement contained in the police report that warrants a brief discussion. The trial court admitted the police report, but with the assailant’s statement to police redacted, finding that the assailant could not be compelled to testify against himself and that hearsay exception in Rule 804(b)(3) did not apply because the statement was not being used against the assailant/declarant. Later in the trial, the court allowed the plaintiff’s expert to reply on the assailant’s statement in forming his opinions over the City’s objection that the expert had relied on inadmissible hearsay. The Mississippi Supreme Court did not have to address the argument that the expert’s testimony was a “conduit for otherwise inadmissible hearsay” because it held that that the assailant’s statement to police was admissible under the Rule 804(b)(3) exception after all, so there was no error in admitting the expert testimony that relied upon it.

(Chief Justice Randolph wrote a special concurrence, joined in part by Justice Maxwell, Justice Chamberlin, Justice Ishee, and Justice Griffis. Justice Griffis also wrote a special concurrence.)

Practice Point – I found it remarkable that the Mississippi Supreme Court heretofore had not addressed the issue of whether the denial of a motion for summary judgment can be appealed after a trial. They did here, and now we know:

One More Thing – We were this close (maybe) to the Mississippi Supreme Court addressing one of my pet issues: When a case involves an MTCA defendant and a non-MTCA defendant how, exactly, should a hybrid bench/jury trial proceed?

resolving-the-conflictDownload

Other Orders

Hutto v. State, 2017-DR-01207-SCT (granting the plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Rebuttal to Opposition to Motion for Appointment of Counsel for Representation for Successive Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and the State’s Motion for Leave to File Surrebuttal in Opposition to Motion for Appointment of Counsel for Representation for Successive Petition for Post-Conviction Relief)

Randle v. Randle, 2020-CT-0033-SCT (granting cert)

McPhail v. McPhail, 2020-CA-00739-SCT (denying Motion Pursuant to Rule 8 and Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure is hereby denied and remanding to the chancery court of Grenada County for an adjudication of a request for release on bond pending appeal in light of his child support payment subsequent to the February 24, 2022 denial of his prior motion)

HL&C Marion, LLC v. DIMA Homes, Inc., 2020-CT-00750-SCT (CORRECTION: granting cert 6-0)

Williams v. State, 2020-KA-772-SCT (denying rehearing)

Morningstar v. Perkins Law Firm, 2020-CT-1203-SCT (denying cert)

Embrey v. Young, 2021-CT-91-SCT (denying cert)

Hand Down Page

Summaries of the Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of April 12, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down two opinions today, one criminal and one civil. The criminal opinion affirmed a conviction, finding no merit on a litany of issues. The civil opinion affirmed summary judgment on a breach of contract claim based on a personal guaranty included in a credit application with a business’s supplier.

Barnes v. State, 2021-KA-00404-COA (Criminal – Felony/Hearsay/Jury Instructions/Rule 404(b))
Affirming conviction of two counts of fondling, holding (1) no error in jury instruction re: sufficiency of unsubstantiated/uncorroborated, but not contradicted/discredited, testimony of victim of a sex crime to support guilty verdict; (2) no error in allowing testimony by investigator “based on professional experience” because not expert opinion; (3) error in allowing hearsay was harmless because the same information was also introduced through admissible source; (4) Rule 404(b) objection re: other students who reported misconduct waived because not made contemporaneously and because it showed why the school initiated an investigation; (5) no error in admitting recorded conversations between victim and defendant where intelligible recording was not produced until the first day of trial (at least partially because defense did not request more time to prepare); (6) no error in admitting purported statement of the defendant over discovery violation objection because the statement had produced in discovery and defense counsel admitted being familiar with it; (7) no merit to ineffective assistance of counsel claim; and (8) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The court of appeals invoked the plain error doctrine to remand the case for correction of a scrivener’s error in the sentencing order.
(Judge Westbrooks and Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge McCarty concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Devine v. Cardinal Health 110, LLC, 2020-CA-01101-COA (Civil – Contract/Personal Guaranty/Affirmative Defenses)
Affirming the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff/supplier, holding that there was no error in finding that the owners of a company had personally bound themselves to pay their company’s debt to the plaintiff/supplier per the terms of a credit application that contained a personal guaranty. The court of appeals noted that the defendants did not attach affidavits in response to the summary judgment motion that addressed the guaranty:

The court of appeals then held that the plaintiff/supplier–a secured creditor– had no duty to mitigate before filing a lawsuit for damages and that the defendant that asserted fraud in response to the motion for summary judgment had waived that affirmative defense by failing to plead it in his answer to the complaint.
(All judges concurred.)

Other Orders

Hartzler v. Bosarge, 2019-CT-01606 (granting motion to dismiss appeal as interlocutory)

Doe v. Doe, 2020-CA-00853-COA (denying motion for rehearing)

Braswell v. Braswell, 2020-CA-01090-COA (denying motion for rehearing)

Nunn v. State, 2021-TS-01371-COA (granting pro se motion for out-of-time appeal and granting motion to withdraw and substitute counsel)

Hand Down List