Tag: jury instructions

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of September 27, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today (and one off-cycle opinion last Thursday). There are several criminal cases (including one with a “marijuana made me do it” defense), a real property case, a lawyer money-fight case, a workers’ comp case, a domestic case, and a couple of PCR cases.

Clemts v. State, 2021-KA-01013-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence which included testimony that the defendant, the victim, and others were in an argument and the victim grabbed the defendant in an effort to get the defendant to leave the house and the defendant “wheeled around” and stabbed the victim in the abdomen.
(10-0)

Edwards v. State, 2021-KA-00261-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of second-degree murder and the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s post-trial motion, holding that there was no error in denying the defendant’s lesser-included culpable negligence manslaughter instruction because there was “no evidence in the record that ingesting marijuana caused the defendant to stab a man eight times.”
(10-0)

NOTE – Might need to consider keeping the reefer madness defense on the shelf.

Loblolly Properties LLC v. Le Papillon Homeowner’s Association Inc., 2021-CA-00767-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Affirming the chancery court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a HOA over restrictive covenants on lots that were purchased after a foreclosure sale, holding that the bank that purchased the properties after foreclosure agreed that the property was bound by the covenants and the subsequent purchaser then obtained the property by warranty deed that provided that the conveyance was subject to restrictive covenants of record.
(3-3-4: Chief Judge Barnes, Judge McCarty, and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson dissented, joined by Judge Greenlee, Judge Lawrence, and Judge Smith)

NOTE – Put this one on your cert watch list. A fractured, 3-3 majority in favor of affirming carried the day, but the four-judge dissent raised some big-picture issues with the majority opinion.

Hollis v. Acoustics, Inc., 2021-WC-01261-COA (Civil – Workers’ Compensation)
Affirming the MWCC’s ruling that the claimant did not sustain a compensable injury, holding that a injuries from a physical fight with racial slurs stemming from a disagreement regarding the relative merits of playing Christian rap versus country music at the worksite was not a work-related injury where the claimant also admitted that he willfully shoved the other person in a manner not necessary for self-defense.
(10-0)

Scott v. Rouse, 2021-CP-01029-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancery court’s rulings on several divorce enforcement matters after the ex-husband faked his own death, was apprehended, and then (with the help of his mother) claimed his ex-wife had wrongful retained his property, holding that all issues were procedurally barred because they were either the subject of a prior timely judgment that had not been timely appealed or the pro se appellants had failed to designated an adequate record for their appeal.
(9-0: Judge Lawrence did not participate.)

Wess v. State, 2020-CP-00704-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the PCR motion asserting an illegal sentence, holding that the plaintiff’s argument that his sentence was illegal because he was not given the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea was without merit.
(6-3-0: Chief Judge Barnes and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Wilson concurred in the result only without separate written opinion; Judge Lawrence did not participate.)

Cooper v. State, 2021-CP-01004-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the “writ of habeas corpus” should have been denied because the plaintiff filed it in the circuit court of the county of incarceration (instead of the county of conviction) which lacked jurisdiction to hear the PCR motion.
(10-0)

Wooten v. State, 2021-KA-00737-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated domestic violence for shooting her boyfriend, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing evidence that the defendant had previously stabbed her ex-husband because it was admissible to show that the shooting of her boyfriend was not an accident or mistake and that the trial court did not err in (1) denying a motion to continue because the defendant had not availed herself of the court’s “considerable powers” to compel the witness’s attendance, (2) sustaining the State’s objection to some of the defendant’s testimony about alleged threats the victim made a month before the shooting, and (3) not sending law enforcement to obtain a witness’s presence after defense counsel declined the trial court’s offer to issue a bench warrant.
(7-3-0: Judge Wilson and Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result; Judge McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Virden v. Campbell Delong, LLP, 2021-CA-00478-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the trial court’s grant of the defendant’s motion for declaratory judgment, holding that a former partner’s claim for a greater share of proceeds from a settlement he obtained while working for the firm was barred by a written agreement governing the withdrawal, termination, or retirement of any partner from the firm.
(5-5: Judge Wilson dissented, joined by Chief Judge Barnes, Judge Greenlee, Judge Lawrence, and Judge Emfinger.)

NOTE – Here is another one for cert-watch: a lawyer-fight over money and a 5-5 decision that leaves the trial court’s ruling in place.

Davis v. State, 2021-KA-00416-COA (Sept. 22, 2022) (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of felonious abuse of a vulnerable person, holding that the sufficiency and weight of the evidence was adequate to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in refusing the defendant’s proposed jury instruction for the offense of simple domestic violence.
(4-1-5: Judge Greenlee concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Chief Judge Barnes concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge Wilson, Judge Westbrooks, Judge McDonald, and Judge Emfinger.)

Other Orders

Trotter v. State, 2020-CA-00094-COA (denying rehearing)
Thomas v. Boyd Biloxi, LLC, 2021-CA-00265-COA (denying rehearing)
McCarty v. State, 2021-KA-00418-COA (dismissing untimely pro se motion for rehearing)
Lennon v. Lowrey & Fortner, P.A., 2021-CA-00426-COA (denying appellee’s motion for appellate fees; denying motion for rehearing)
Avery v. The University of Mississippi, 2021-CA-00471-COA (granting motion for correction or modification of the Court’s opinion)
Gilmer v. State, 2022-TS-00257-COA (denying State’s motion to strike notice of appeal as untimely)
Morgan v. State, 2022-TS-00287-COA (dismissing appeal as untimely)
Rutledge v. State, 2022-TS-00677-COA (finding good cause to suspend the appeal deadline so the appeal can proceed on the merits)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of September 20, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down nine opinions today and only one was PCR! There are three criminal cases (one of which reversed a conviction as to one count on a jury instruction issue). There are two MTCA cases (one reversing summary judgment in a med mal case and one reversing a bench trial judgment finding police-protection immunity), two divorce cases, and an involuntary commitment case.

Johnson v. State, 2021-KA-00571-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming and part and reversing in part a conviction for burglary and automobile theft, holding that the conviction of burglary was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence but reversing the conviction for auto theft because the jury was not properly instructed as to the value of the stolen vehicle. The case was remanded for retrial on the auto theft count.
(10-0)

Brock v. State, 2021-KA-00739-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of possession of methamphetamine, holding that even if the defendant could prove that her counsel was ineffective she had not proven that but for such professional errors the result would have been different.
(10-0)

Guinn v. Claiborne, 2021-CP-00997-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision denying husband’s amended complaint for divorce, holding that the chancellor did not commit clear error in determining that the husband had failed to prove the elements for a divorce based on adultery or irreconcilable differences.
(10-0)

W.C. v. J.C., 2021-CA-00237-COA (Civil – Other)
Affirming chancellor’s decision setting aside an agreed order of involuntary commitment and dismissing the action after treatment was completed, holding (1) the agreed order was properly dismissed because the motion to set aside was not untimely, (2) the chancery court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the terms of the order had been substantively complied with, (3) evidence from an professional organization monitoring the treatment for professional licensure was admissible, (4) the chancellor did not err in ruling that the petitioner had no standing to object to the motion to set aside the agreed order, and (5) there was no ground for the chancellor to convene a hearing to “protect the interests of the minor children.”
(9-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Smith v. State, 2021-CP-00915-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of a PCR motion, holding that the plaintiff did not prove an exception to the statute of limitations, that the sentence was not illegal, and that the indictment was not defective.
(8-2: Judge McCarty and Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

German v. State, 2021-KA-00933-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of aggravated assault, holding that the circuit court’s finding that the defendant was sane when the crime was committed was supported by substantial evidence and the jury’s finding was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and that the defendant waived issues related to the reliability of a medical expert’s testimony by failing to object at trial.
(9-0: Judge Westbrooks did not participate.)

Moss v. Moss, 2021-CA-00452-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision granting the wife divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, holding that there was substantial evidence to support that finding (read the facts for yourself if you have doubts), that the subject matter of wife’s expert’s opinions was adequately disclosed and was not even a basis for the chancellor’s decision, and the husband’s claim for separate maintenance was moot since the divorce was affirmed.
(10-0)

St. Andrie v. Singing River Health System, 2021-CA-00042-COA (Civil – Medical Malpractice/MTCA)
Reversing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s independent negligence claim against the hospital on statute of limitations grounds, holding that the plaintiff’s claim that the hospital failed to protect the plaintiff from the doctor’s negligence arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the doctor’s negligence and therefore the independent negligence claims against the hospital related back to the date of the original complaint that asserted an independent negligence claim against the doctor and a vicarious liability claim against the hospital.
(7-2-0: Judge Greenlee concurred in result only, joined by Judge Emfinger and joined in part by Judge McDonald and Judge McCarty; Judge Lawrence did not participate.)

Phillips v. City of Oxford, 2021-CA-00639-COA (Civil – Personal Injury/MTCA)
Reversing the circuit court’s finding after a bench trial that the City was protected by police-protection immunity after an officer’s vehicle crossed an intersection against a red light and struck the plaintiff’s vehicle while the officer was responding to an emergency, holding that the facts of this case met the “exceptional circumstances” requirement for finding reckless disregard and that the officer acted with conscious indifference to the safety of the public and the certain parts of the police chief’s testimony were not credible.
( 5-4: Judge Lawrence dissented, joined by Judge Wilson, Judge Smith, and Judge Emfinger; Judge Greenlee did not participate.)

NOTE– The Court of Appeals declined the appellant’s invitation to adopt a “reckless disregard per se” rule and maintained the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis.

Other Orders

Ellis v. State, 2020-CP-00770-COA (denying rehearing)
Camphor v. State, 2021-CP-00048-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of September 1, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down three opinions today. Two are criminal cases (one affirmed and one reversed/remanded over a speedy trial issue and resentencing). The other is a breach of contract case with a tough result for a law firm stuck with the tab after dealings with the State Auditor’s office (while under previous management).

Haymon v. State, 2021-KA-00240-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming Pernell and Haymon’s convictions of armed robbery, kidnapping, and aggravated assault, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying Pernell’s motion for directed verdict and/or motion for new trial because the evidence was sufficient and the verdict was not against the overwhelming evidence or in denying her request for a lesser included offense jury instruction for simple assault, and that the circuit court did not err in denying Haymon’s motion to suppress a photo identification lineup over the defendant’s arguments that an officer tainted the procedure by providing the witness with the defendant’s name and that the features of the individuals used in the lineup were suggestive.
(9-0)

NOTE – On the issue of whether it was error to the lesser included instruction on simple assault, the Supreme Court explained that aggravated assault occurs when there is assault with a deadly weapon and that severity of the injury is irrelevant:

White v. Jernigan Copeland Attorneys, PLLC, 2020-IA-01404-SCT (Civil – Contract)
Reversing the circuit court’s denial of the Office of the State Auditor’s motion for summary judgment in a suit filed by a law firm seeking damages for a judgment it had to pay a public-relations firm that the law firm contracted with at the direction of then Auditor Pickering, holding that the retention agreement between the OSA and the law firm was void for lack of statutory compliance and that the law firm’s equitable claims against the OSA were barred by the MTCA’s statute of limitations, sticking the law firm with the (substantial) tab from the PR firm it contracted with at Pickering’s direction in anticipation of filing a suit that Pickering decided not to file.
(8-1-0: Chief Justice Randolph concurred in the result only without separate written opinion)

NOTE – This result is brutal. Pickering provided an affidavit to support the law firm’s quest to have the OSA pay the damages but the outcome of the case was controlled by statutes.

Ward v. State, 2021-KA-00664-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing the circuit court and remanding for a speedy trial-analysis and (assuming no violation is found) re-sentencing, holding that the circuit court did not conduct a proper analysis of the Barker factors when it denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial and erred in sentencing the defendant as a habitual offender because the proper evidence of the prior convictions was not admitted into evidence.
(7-2: Justice Maxwell concurred in part and dissented in part on the resentencing issue, joined by Justice Griffis)

COVID ADDENDUM – The COVID pandemic accounted for part of the delay in bringing this case to trial, but the Supreme Court explained that blaming COVID does not cure all delay:

Other Orders

In Re: Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi Bar, 89-R-99010-SCT (reappointing Hon. Johnnie McDaniels, Mack A. Reeves, Amy K. Taylor, Hon. Jennifer T. Schloegel, Renee M. Porter, Henry B. Zuber III, Hon. H. Craig Treadway, Jason D. Herring, and Rachel Pierce Waide to three-year terms as members of the Complaint Tribunals)

Shannon v. Shannon, 2020-CT-00847-SCT (granting cert) (COA opinion summary and link here)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of August 23, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down five opinions today. There is an arbitration enforcement decision, a legal malpractice settlement enforcement decision, an appeal of a second-degree murder conviction, a wrongful termination decision, and a PCR decision.

Chandler v. State, 2020-CP-01060-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that most of the claims were procedurally barred and all of them were without merit.
(10-0)

Young v. Freese & Goss PLLC, 2020-CA-01280-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the court court’s order granting in part a motion to compel arbitration, holding (1) that the circuit court did not err in granting arbitration to those plaintiffs whose attorney contracts had an arbitration provision, holding that the defendants did not waive arbitration under the peculiar facts of this case even though the motion to compel arbitration was not heard for more than five years, (2) that the plaintiffs had not specifically and clearly alleged fraudulent inducement, (3) that it was not error to compel arbitration over the plaintiffs’ argument that the attorneys breached their fiduciary duty and that the arbitration provision was procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and (4) that it was not error to apply the arbitration provision to conduct that occurred before it was executed.
(8-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McCarty did not participate.)

Turner & Associates P.L.L.C. v. Estate of Watkins, 2021-CA-00258-COA (Civil – Legal Malpractice)
Affirming the circuit court’s order enforcing a settlement release signed by a former client agreeing to release malpractice claims against a law firm for $300,000 and ordering the law firm to pay the $288,000 balance, holding that the settlement release was not barred by the statute of frauds, that the amount bargained was not unreasonable, that facts deemed admitted to requests for admissions that were not answered were conclusively established, that the law firm waived its defenses to the legal malpractice claim by negotiating a release, and that there was no requirement to file a suggestion of death.
(8-1-1: Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in result without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald dissented without separate written opinion.)

NOTE – These facts are wild and the opinion is worth you time. A non-lawyer employee lied to the plaintiff about filing suit and a trial date and the plaintiff only found out eight years later. The plaintiff negotiated with the same non-lawyer employee and received $18,000 and later a promise for $288,000 more, but the law firm did not sent a release. Litigation ensued over the agreement. Sadly, the plaintiff died of cancer during the litigation and did not get to see things made right.

Moffett v. State, 2021-KA-00622-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of second-degree murder, holding that (1) the defendant did not prove ineffective assistance of counsel related to the failure to request a culpable-negligence instruction, failure to request an accident or misfortune instruction, or for admitting that there was no evidentiary basis for a heat-of-passion manslaughter jury instruction; (2) the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress her statement on coercion grounds; and (3) the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(8-1-1: Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion.)

Avery v. The University of Mississippi, 2021-CA-00471-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision affirming the University Personnel Action Review Board’s (PARB) decision upholding the plaintiff’s termination, holding that (1) the circuit court had jurisdiction; (2) the plaintiff was afforded due process despite her arguments that she was not given proper notice, not provided with adequate reasons for her termination prior to her hearing, not given the PARB’s findings of fact, and the investigation was inadequate; (3) the termination did not violate the First Amendment; and (4) the termination was supported by substantial evidence including evidence of disrespectful and confrontational behavior towards coworkers.
(8-2-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Other Orders

Murray v. State, 2021-KA-00264-COA (denying rehearing)

Keys v. Military Department Gulfport, 2021-WC-00352-COA (denying rehearing)

Pipkin v. State, 2021-CA-00517-COA (denying rehearing)

Unifund CCR Partners v. Estate of Jordan, 2021-CA-00761-COA (denying rehearing)

Siggers v. State, 2021-CP-00985-COA (recalling mandate so appellant’s pro se motion for rehearing can proceed on the merits)

Hand Down List

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 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

Summaries of the Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of April 26, 2022

The Mississippi Court of Appeals dropped eight nine opinions today and there is a lot to sort through. Two divorce cases (one involving equitable distribution of a marital residence and the other a life estate via constructive trust for a mother-in-law), a PCR case, a workers’ comp case involving medical causation, an adverse possession/tax sale case, a personal injury via falling through a roof case, an appeal of an estate case dismissed for lack of final order, and two criminal cases. One of the criminal cases is the second “should the indictment for attempt have alleged an overt act” case we have gotten in a row and it sees a dissenting Judge Westbrooks align herself with Justice Coleman’s dissent last week.

I am always balancing the desire to post these summaries quickly and the need to get back to paying work with the desire to provide a reasonably polished [free] product. Due to the number of cases and the fact that I have to leave the office a little early to coach a little league baseball game, there is extra weight on the “speed” side of the balance today.
Thanks,
Management

Archie v. Archie, 2020-CA-01370-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Equitable Distribution/Marital Residence)
Affirming the chancellor’s modification of a final judgment of divorce as to equitable distribution of the marital residence, holding that there was no error in the chancellor ordering the ex-wife to sell the paid-off martial home in order to satisfy the ex-wife’s obligation to pay her ex-husband his share of the equity where the ex-wife had been unable to secure a loan on the paid-off house, even though the ex-husband had not pleaded a request for an order requiring the ex-wife to sell the residence. The court repeatedly noted that the chancellor had broad discretion to “fashion an equitable remedy” and held that the chancellor’s remedy here was appropriate.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and the in the result without separate written opinion.)

Bevalaque v. State, 2021-CP-00150-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming dismissal of a pro se plaintiff’s third PCR motion, holding that the motion was time-barred and successive-writ barred and that no exceptions applied.
(All judges concurred.)

Bowdry v. City of Tupelo, 2021-WC-00390-COA (Civil – Workers’ Compensation/Medical Causation)
Affirming the MWCC’s finding that the claimant’s neck claim was not related to his compensable work-injury, holding that the Commission’s finding that the claimant failed to prove causation was supported by substantial evidence.
(All judges concurred.)

PRACTICE POINT: The Court of Appeals noted that on appeal they do not review the AJ’s findings, but the Commission’s findings and did not address the claimant’s arguments about the AJ’s findings:

This is because the Commission does not function as an appellate court reviewing the AJs’ findings. This is because the Commission, not the AJ, is the ultimate trier and finder of fact for workers’ comp claims. See, e.g., Hugh Dancy Co. Inc. v. Mooneyham, 68 So. 3d 76 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)

Anderson v. Jackson, 2019-CA-01773-COA (Civil – Real Property/Adverse Possession/Unclean Hands/Tax Sale)
Reversing the chancellor’s findings granting title of real property to one party (Levon) based on findings that Levon had obtained title by adverse possession or by tax sale and that the opposing party (Rosie) had unclean hands, holding that the chancellor erred in granting title to Levon because he failed to prove the elements of adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence, that the tax sale was void due to flawed notice of redemption, and that the doctrine of unclean hands was erroneously applied to bar Rosie’s challenge because Rosie’s conduct was related to a forty-year-old estate case, not the transaction at issue.
(All judges concurred.)

Since accusations of “unclean hands” get thrown around in litigation on occasion, I thought this summary of the equitable doctrine of unclean hands is a useful refresher:

NOTE – As always, but only more so here, if this case applies to your practice you need to read it yourself. There are many details in this forty-page opinion that I have not even attempted to tease apart.

Herron v. Herron, 2021-CA-00090-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Constructive Trust/Property Valuation)
Affirming the chancellor’s findings in a divorce action granting a life estate via constructive trust in a home on the marital property to the ex-wife’s mother in assigning value to property awarded to the ex-husband, holding that there was clear and convincing proof that the house was intended to be owned by the mother in a life estate and that there was substantial credible evidence supporting the chancellor’s valuations of the personal property in question.
(All judges concurred.)

Gillespie v. Lamey, 2021-CA-00076-COA (Civil – Personal Injury/Summary Judgment/Duty to Warn)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of a defendant dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for personal injuries sustained when the plaintiff fell through a roof while working on a skylight on the defendant’s property, holding that (1) the plaintiff presented no evidence that the defendant failed to warn the plaintiff of any dangerous condition of which the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge and (2) the allegedly dangerous condition was “intimately connected” to the work he was hired to do.
(Judge Smith did not participate, all other judges concurred.)

Smith v. Richmond, 2020-CP-01064-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts, and Estates/Civil Procedure)
Dismissing the appeal, holding that the pro se appellant’s attempted appeal of the chancery court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside an interim order, a motion to recuse, and a “motion to change jurisdiction” must be dismissed because each of these motions was an interlocutory order not appealable as of right.
(All judges concurred.)

Wayne v. State, 2021-KA-00084-COA (Criminal – Felony/Rebuttal Evidence/Sufficiency and Weight of Evidence)
Affirming murder conviction, holding that there was no error (1) in allowing the State to recall a State’s witness and introduce and play the defendant’s recorded statement in rebuttal because the recorded statement contradicted the defendant’s trial testimony, (2) in introducing the defendant’s entire statement because it was proper impeachment evidence, or (3) in denying the defendant’s post-trial motion because the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the conviction was not against the weight of the evidence.
(All judges concurred.)

Beale v. State, 2020-KA-00614-COA (Criminal – Felony/Overt Act)
Affirming conviction two counts of attempted murder of two police officers, holding (1) an indictment for the crime of attempted murder does not require the description of an overt act, (2) that two jury instructions did not constitute a constructive amendment to the indictment, and (3) testimony from an officer about what a witness told him at the crime scene was not hearsay because they were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted but to explain the next steps in the course of his investigation.
(Judge Westbrooks dissented, joined in part by Judge McDonald. Judge McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without separate written opinion. Judge Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion. Judge Wilson concurred in result only without separate written opinion. All other judges concurred.)

NOTE – We have gotten an “is the indictment missing an alleged overt act” case in back-to-back hand-down days. In her dissent, Judge Westbrooks’s argues that she is taking a position consistent with the position that Justice Coleman took just last week in Brady v. State (my post here) (opinion link here).

Other Opinions

Durrant Inc. v. Lee County, Mississippi, 2019-CA-01826-COA (denying motion for rehearing)
Bell v. State, 2020-CT-00592-COA (denying motion for rehearing)

Hand Down List

Summaries of the Mississippi Supreme Court’s opinions of April 21, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today. One decides an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in a tire blowout case that hinged on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The other is a criminal case considering convictions for attempted willful trespass and auto burglary that addresses issues of whether the indictment was sufficient, whether evidence of other was acts should have been excluded, and whether the defendant’s “theory of the case” instruction was wrongly denied.

Darling Ingredients Inc. v. Moore, 2020-IA-01149-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury/Res Ipsa Loquitur)
On interlocutory appeal, reversing the circuit court’s denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in an auto liability case stemming from the failure of a tire on the defendants’ vehicle, holding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because a vehicle’s tire can fail for reasons other than negligence of the vehicle’s driver or owner. Because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable and the plaintiff had no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants, judgment was rendered for the defendants.
(This decision was unanimous)

NOTE: Although this opinion stops just short of specifically saying so, I read it as establishing a bright-line rule that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable to cases where a motorist is injured by the failure of a tire on another vehicle:

This opinion is also noteworthy for its succinct summary of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and its analysis of the second element (“the occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things it would not have happened if those in control of the instrumentality used proper care”) that will be useful in future RIL briefing.

Brady v. State, 2021-KA-00163-SCT (Criminal – Felony/Willful Trespass/Auto Burglary)
Affirming convictions of attempted willful trespass and two counts of auto burglary, holding (1) no error in denying a motion to quash the indictment for attempted burglary of a dwelling because the indictment adequately alleged an overt act, (2) no error in not sua sponte precluding evidence of other bad acts not related to the indicated charges, and (3) no error in denying a proposed instruction that the defense argued expounded on the defense’s theory of the case where the subject of the proposed instruction was adequately covered in other jury instructions.
(Justice Coleman dissented, arguing that the indictment failed to allege an overt act in furtherance of the attempted breaking and entering)

Other Orders

Carter v. State, 2019-CT-01854-SCT (denying cert petition)
Burgin v. State, 2020-CT-01031-SCT (denying cert petition)
The Mississippi Bar v. Sims, 2021-BD-01090-SCT (granting petition to transfer license to disability inactive status)
In Re: Administrative Orders of the Supreme Court of Mississippi (directing the disbursement of $160,623.66 in civil legal assistance funds among the MS Volunteer Lawyers Project, North MS Rural Legal Services, and MS Center for Legal Services)

Hand Down List

In other news, congratulations to Professor Christopher Green of Ole Miss Law who was cited four (4) times in Justice Thomas’s concurrence in United States v. Madero that was decided today.

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

Summaries of the Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of April 5, 2022

After a slow week on the opinion front the Mississippi Court of Appeals is back in action with eight opinions today. There is a domestic relations case dealing with a slew of arguments about child support and child custody, a criminal appeal addressing waiver of potential conflicts with codefendants being represented by a single attorney, a disability opinion, an unemployment opinion, and several PCR opinions.

Wallace v. Wallace, 2020-CA-01148-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations/Custody/Child Support)
Affirming the chancellor’s decisions related to a series of motions related to child support and custody modification:
1. No error in finding the father in arrears for child support for the period of time during which the mother had voluntarily modified the custody arrangement, but not the child support arrangement.
2. No error in finding the father in arrears for nonapyment of daycare and after-school expenses even though the mother “stockpiled” receipts for years rather than presenting them every 30 days as required by the MDA.
3. No error in decision that the mother was not in contempt for withholding visitation in light of the “substantial discretion regarding contempt matters” afforded to chancellors and evidence in the record that visitation was never withheld.
4. No error in no awarding both parents the right to claim the children as dependents for tax purposes because in the absence of specific findings of fact the court assumes the chancellor resolved any factual disputes in favor of the appellee.
5. No error in declining to hold the mother in contempt over the aforementioned stockpiling of daycare/after-school receipts.
6. No error in awarding the mother attorney’s fees in light of the fact that the father was held in contempt.
7. No error in awarding just $1,000 in attorney’s fees to the father for the mother’s violation of the morals clause considering the discretion chancellor’s enjoy on such decisions.
8. No error in ordering the father to provide for the children’s health insurance considering the children’s loss of access to employment-related insurance after the mother’s job was eliminated due to COVID-19.
(Judge Westbrooks and Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Magee v. State and Haynes v. State, 2020-KA-01378-COA (Criminal – Felony/Waiver of Potential Conflicts/Dual Representation/Sufficiency of the Evidence/Jury Instructions)
Affirming convictions of co-defendants in consolidated appeals. The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court’s ruling giving the defendants what they asked for by allowing them to waive potential conflicts with being represented by the same attorney, finding that the defendants knowingly and intelligently waived the potential conflicts. The court of appeals held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of both defendants for kidnapping and conspiracy, and the conviction of one defendant for sexual battery. Finally, the court of appeals held that there was no error in denying two of the defendants’ proposed jury instructions or in the circuit court’s sua sponte conspiracy instruction.
(All judges concurred)

Hickerson v. State, 2021-CA-00176-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a petition for PCR, holding that there was no error in finding that the petition was procedurally deficient for failing to attach competent affidavits and that the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was meritless.
(Chief Judge Barnes concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge Lawrence did not participate)

Barbour v. Singing River Health System Employees’ Retirement Plan and Trust, 2020-CA-01407-COA (Civil – State Board and Agencies/Disability)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision denying disability benefits, holding that to the extent the chancellor’s reference to an incorrect standard of review was in error, it was harmless because the plaintiff was not an “employee” of Singing River at the time of his injury.
(Judge Wilson concurred in part and in result, joined by Judge Smith and Judge Emfinger and in part by Judge McCarty)

Handyman House Techs, LLC v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security, 2021-CC-00029-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies/MDES)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision affirming MDES’s determination that an applicant for unemployment benefits was a “employee” rather than an “independent contractor,” holding that the MDES Board of Review’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious.
(Chief Judge Barnes and Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Ford v. State, 2020-CP-00372-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of a PCR motion, holding that the circuit court correctly ruled that the second PCR motion was an impermissible successive motion.
(All judges concurred)

Thompson v. State, 2020-CP-01236-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s dismissal of a PCR, finding no merit to the claims that the indictment was defective, that the guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered, that the defendant’s attorney had a conflict of interest and provided ineffective assistance of counsel, or that the defendant’s statement and the victim’s statement were coerced.
(All judges concurred)

Booker v. State, 2018-CA-00664-COA (Civil – PCR/Miller)
On rehearing, withdrawing a previous opinion and substituting an opinion holding that the circuit court did not err in determining that the defendant did not have a statutory right to be resentenced under Miller, that the circuit court did not err in denying the defendant’s request for parole eligibility, that the defendant was not deprived of an opportunity to be heard on the issue of rehabilitation, that the defendant failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the sentence was not unconstitutional based on arguments about the defendant’s age and IQ.

Other Orders

Walker v. State, 2020-KA-228-COA (denying motion for rehearing)

Hand Down List