jury instructions – Page 9 – Mississippi Appeals Blog

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, 202 1-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

Mississippi Supreme Court Hand Downs for February 10, 2022

Brown v. State, 2020-KA-1366-SCT (Criminal – Felony/Constructive Possession Instruction)
Affirming a conviction for three counts of possession of a controlled substance and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon with a sentence of twenty-four years to under the habitual offender statute, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting the State’s jury instruction on constructive possession or in denying the defendant’s proposed instruction on circumstantial evidence.

Copes v. State, 2019-CT-302-SCT (en banc) (Criminal – Felony/Right to Counsel of Choice)
Affirming a conviction for two counts of sexual battery of two minors and a sentence of twenty years, holding that the defendant was not denied his right to his counsel of choice under the Sixth Amendment when his lead counsel was removed during trial from questioning witnesses and making closing arguments due to repeated misconduct including violation of the judge’s orders.

Augustine v. State, 2019-CT-1467-SCT (en banc) (Criminal-Felony/Impeachment Testimony)
Reversing the court of appeals and reinstating/affirming a conviction for second-degree murder, holding that the circuit court did not err by allowing an officer to testify to the content of a prior witness’s statement for impeachment purposes and, assuming arguendo that it was error, that the overwhelming weight of the evidence supported the conviction.

Alexander v. State, 2019-CT-1612-SCT (en banc) (Criminal-Felony/Habitual Offender Status/Miller Hearing)
Reversing the court of appeals and reinstating/affirming a 1998 conviction for capital murder and sentence to life without parole, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendant’s motion to fund a mitigation expert and holding that the defendant was not deprived of his right to have a jury impose his sentence.

Other Orders
1 Denial of a “Motion for Review by Supreme Court of Court of Appeals’ Denial of Attorney’s Fees”
1 Denial of a Cert Petition
1 Denial of a Motion for Rehearing

Complete Hand Down List

BONUS CONTENT

Every so often, one needs to find support for a proposition that is so obvious that a citation is elusive. See generally Orin S. Kerr, A Theory of Law, 16 Green Bag 2d 111 (2012). The supreme court gifted the bar with this pithy statement that will come in handy in the future:

"It is axiomatic that a judge's rulings during trial are to be followed." Copes v. State, No. 2019-CT-00302-SCT (¶ 11) (Miss. 2022)