Tag: Marijuana

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of June 16, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court took advantage of a slow inning from the Mississippi Court of Appeals and plated five opinions today to answer the COA’s two. These are big cases. There is an inverse condemnation decision, a legal malpractice decision stemming from a workers’ comp claim, a decision on whether Eight Amendment was violated by a life sentence without the possibility of parole for possession of marijuana by a habitual offender, and a case deciding whether Mississippi courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear claims stemming from the termination of a former employee of the Catholic Diocese of Jackson in light of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine of the First Amendment.

City of Gulfport, Mississippi v. Cowan Road & Highway 90, LLC, 2020-CA-01286-SCT (Real Property)
Affirming on direct appeal and affirming in part/reversing in part on cross-appeal of an inverse condemnation ruling, holding that (1) the landowners were entitled to reasonable fees and costs because they fell within the purview of section 43-37-9, (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees or in reducing the attorney’s hourly rate, (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not awarding prejudgement interest under section 75-17-7, and (4) the circuit court did abuse its discretion by not awarding post judgment interest.
(7-0: Chief Justice Randolph and Justice Beam did not participate.)

Lairy v. Chandler, 2019-CT-01423-SCT (Civil – Legal Malpractice)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals in a legal malpractice claim stemming from a workers’ compensation, holding that the trial court’s award for damages was sufficiently supported by the evidence and that while the plaintiff had to “pass the trial-within-a-trial test” she did not have to satisfy the “exacting statutory requirements” of the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Act that would have applied to her workers’ compensation claim to pass that test.
(7-2: Justice Coleman dissented, joined by Justice King.)

Russell v. State, 2019-CT-01670-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming a life sentence without the possibility of parole for possession of marijuana as a habitual offender, holding that “the trial judge followed the letter of the law” and did not have sentencing discretion and that the defendant presented no evidence related to the Solem factors for an Eighth Amendment analysis.
(5-1-3: Chief Justice Randolph specially concurred with separate written opinion, joined by Justice Beam and Justice Ishee, but the Chief did not join the majority opinion. Justice Coleman dissented, joined by Justice Kitchens and Justice King.)

NOTE – This is a heavy case in terms of public policy, legal analysis, and outcome. The Court of Appeals below split 5-5. Judge Wilson wrote the main dissent, joined by Judge Westbrooks, Just McDonald, Judge Lawrence, and Judge McCarty. The grouping of judges and justices in majority and dissent is interesting as well.

Eubanks v. State, 2020-KM-00110-SCT (Criminal – Misdemeanor)
Affirming conviction of simple assault domestic violence, holding that there was no violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to speedy trial or statutory right to speedy trial, that an objection to testimony was waived because it was not asserted at trial, that the defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel, that there was no error in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict, that the jury’s finding that the victim suffered bodily harm was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, that the State did not violate the defendant’s due process rights by failing to investigate and preserve exculpatory evidence, and that the trial court did not err by giving the State’s simple assault domestic violence jury instruction.
(5-4: Justice Coleman, with his white-hot dissenting pen, wrote a dissent that was joined by Justice Kitchens, Justice King, and Justice Ishee.)

Catholic Diocese of Jackson, Mississippi v. De Lange, 2021-IA-00159-SCT (Civil – Torts)
Reversing and rendering the circuit court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss claims stemming from the termination of the plaintiff, holding that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to hear the plaintiff’s claims of wrongful termination, defamation, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
(9-0)

NOTE – I watched the oral arguments in this case and found it fascinating. It was argued well by both sides, and the bench was thoughtful and fully engaged.

Other Order

Knox v. State, 2014-DR-00849-SCT (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

My summaries are late because I spent much of the day lawyering in Smith County this morning.

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