The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions in direct criminal appeals today. One involved the adequacy of the indictment and sentencing as a habitual offender. The other raised issues of weight and sufficiency of evidence, the trial court’s failure to rule on an objection during trial, closing argument, and the racial composition of the jury. One ended in a reversal and the other an affirmance.
Young v. State, 2021-KA-00940-SCT (Criminal – Felony) Reversing sentence as a habitual offender, holding that the indictment failed to comply with Rule 14.1(b)(1) but defendant waived the issue of defective indictment by failing to object to it in the trial court but also holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the habitual offender sentence and remanding for resentencing. (9-0)
Redd v. State, 2022-KA-00175-SCT (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of aggravated assault causing bodily injury, holding that the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the overwhelming weight of it, that the defendant waived his objection to testimony by failing to request corrective action from the trial court, that the State was entitled to draw inferences from facts in the record during closing, and that the issue of the racial composition of the jury was procedurally barred and without merit because the defendant did not object to the racial composition and the record was silent about the composition. (9-0)
Other Orders
In Re: Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure, 89-R-99027-SCT (amending Miss. R. App. P.)
Parker v. Ross, 2020-CT-01055-SCT (denying motion for costs)
Yarborough v. Singing River Health Systems, 2021-CT-00668-SCT (denying cert)
The Banking Group, Inc. v. Southern Bancorp Bank, 2021-CT-01077-SCT (denying cert)
The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down six opinions today. There are four criminal cases including one with an interesting issue that arose when only eleven jurors were polled about the verdict. There is also a termination of parental rights case and a PCR case.
Braziel v. State, 2021-KA-00603-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of burglary upon receipt of a Lindsey brief and in the absence of a pro se brief, holding that there were no arguable issues on appeal. (9-0: Judge Smith did not participate.)
C.P. v. Lowndes County Dept. of Child Protection Services, 2019-CA-01739-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations) Affirming the chancery court’s decision terminating parental rights of both natural parents, holding that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting the termination and that reunification efforts were not required, that the GAL’s efforts were “suboptimal” but harmless because there was other sufficient evidence, that it was error to not inform the parents of their rights at the outset of the bearing but it was harmless since the parents were represented and exercised their rights, and that the court did not commit reversible error adopting CPS’s proposed order verbatim without specific findings of fact. (6-4-0: Judge Wilson and Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Westbrooks and Judge Lawrence concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)
Maye v. State, 2020-KA-00100-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, holding that the trial court did not err by refusing a heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction where the defendant denied killing the victim and there was no evidence to support the instruction and holding that there was no error in admitting a gruesome photo that had probative value. (6-3: Judge McDonald and Judge Lawrence concurred in part and in the result only without separate written opinion; Judge Westbrooks concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)
O’Quinn v. State, 2021-KA-00534-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of armed robbery, holding that there was no merit to the defendant’s argument that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to multiple instance of hearsay. (9-1-0: Judge Westbrooks concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)
ASIDE – The opinion provides a colorful description of events that unfolded in the parking lot immediately after the robbery. It reads like a scene from Raising Arizona, complete with a two-year-old in the getaway car. Here is a portion:
Price v. State, 2019-KA-01890-COA (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted first-degree murder, and possession of a firearm by a felony, holding that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the overwhelming evidence, that the defendant could not complaint on appeal about the denial of a motion he opposed at trial, that ineffective assistance claims were denied without prejudice, that the defendant waived arguments that the trial judge should have recused, that there was no error in several jury-related issues including the trial court’s failure to poll all 12 jurors that was cured by retroactively polling the juror at an evidentiary hearing order by the Court of Appeals. (7-3: Judge McDonald dissented, joined by Judge Westbrooks and joined as to Parts I and II by Judge McCarty. The dissent took issue with the notion that the trial court’s failure to poll all 12 jurors could be cured on remand by a supplemental hearing.)
Skinner v. State, 2021-CA-00080-COA (Civil – PCR) Denying motion for rehearing, withdrawing original opinion, and substituting this modified opinion affirming the denial of a PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff was procedurally barred by res judicata and without merit and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider evidence of a potential defense for the plaintiff’s 1994 conviction in sentencing him for his 2011 felony evasion. (5-4: Judge McCarty concurred in part dissented in part; Judge McDonald dissented, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, and Judge Westbrooks, and joined in part by Judge McCarty. Judge Emfinger did not participate.)
Other Orders
Ford v. State, 2020-KA-00278-COA (dismissing untimely pro se motion for rehearing) Garlington v. State, 2020-KA-00392-COA (denying rehearing) Towns v. Panola County Board of Supervisors, 2020-CA-01364-COA (denying rehearing) Skinner v. State, 2021-CA-00080-COA (denying rehearing) Robinson v. State, 2021-CP-01215-COA (dismissing appeal as moot)
The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today. Two are criminal cases dealing with issues that occurred during voir dire. In one, the issue was an inculpatory exclamation by the defendant. In the other, the issue was two jurors’ undisclosed connection the defendant. The third opinion is a journey through contempt law.
Scott v. State, 2021-KA-01015-SCT (Criminal – Felony) Affirming conviction of burglary, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion denying the defendant’s attorney’s request for a mistrial after the defendant exclaimed during voir dire that he was “guilty as hell.” (9-0)
Note – This decision seems correct to me.
Watts v. State, 2021-KA-00873-SCT (Criminal – Felony) Affirming denial of a JNOV after the defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and a denial, holding that although two jurors did not disclose that they were related to a man who was murdered by the defendant’s brother in 2006 the court did not commit clear error in determining after an evidentiary hearing that those jurors lacked substantial knowledge of their connection with the defendant during voir dire. (9-0)
Seals v. Stanton, 2020-CA-00741-SCT (Civil – Domestic Relations) This decision waded into a morass of contempt and affirmed the chancellor in part, reversed and remanded in part, and vacated in part. The Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor’s finding that two attorneys handling a divorce proceeding were in direct criminal contempt for missing a hearing, vacating the penalty for that because it exceeded statutory authority and remanded on that issue, and affirmed an award of attorney’s fees to the other side. The Supreme Court vacated judgment of direct criminal contempt against another attorney and remanded for proceedings on under the constructive criminal contempt standards. The Supreme Court held that the chancellor erred in finding these attorneys in direct criminal contempt for violating a court order and remanded for a determination of whether an indirect civil contempt proceeding should be commenced. (6-3: Justice Kitchens dissented, joined by Justice King and Justice Coleman.)
Practice Point – Don’t miss hearings. Don’t violate orders. If you have further questions about what went wrong here or about the intricacies of direct criminal contempt, indirect/constructive criminal contempt, and civil contempt I refer refer you to the opinion and wish you the best.
Other Orders
Hamer v. State, 2019-CT-01633-SCT (denying cert) Nowell v. Stewart, 2020-CT-00728-SCT (denying cert) Johnson v. State, 2022-CT-01308-SCT (dismissing cert sua sponte)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 