Tag: Personal Injury

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of September 19, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down four opinions today. There are two direct criminal appeals (including a reversal on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds), an appeal of summary judgment in an MTCA negligence claim, and claim by a constable for wrongful removal.

Love v. State, 2021-KA-01014-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming in part and reversing in part after the defendant was convicted of capital murder, aggravated assault, and armed robbery x3, holding that the trial court did not err in denying motion to sever, in denying motion for mistrial after brief exposure of wrist restraints to the jury venire, or in refusing a Milano instruction; that the indictment for capital murder was legally sufficient and the jury instruction on that count not erroneous; and that the defendant was not placed in double jeopardy, but that the evidence was not legally sufficient to support the armed robbery conviction.
(10-0)

J&A Excavation, Inc. v. City of Ellisville, 2022-CA-00533-COA (Civil – Other) consolidated with J&A Excavation, Inc. v. Jones County, 2022-CA-00547-COA (Civil – Other)
Reversing the circuit court’s decision that affirmed the Board of Aldermen and Board of Supervisors, holding that the decisions were not supported by substantial evidence and were arbitrary and capricious where the plaintiff’s low bid on a public construction contract was rejected and the next-lowest bid was accepted with no record evidence regarding qualifications, reputation, or capabilities of the bidder selected.
(10-0)

Bailey v. Jefferson County Board of Supervisors, 2022-CP-00950-COA (Civil – Other)
Reversing the circuit court’s decision affirming the Board of Supervisors’ decision to removal a constable, holding that there was not substantial evidence to support the removal, rendering judgment in favor of the constable, and remanding for a determination of damages.
(8-1: Emfinger dissented without separate written opinion.)

Moore v. Jackson Public School System, 2022-CA-00595-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Reversing summary judgment dismissing a negligence claim under the MTCA, holding that the circuit court erred by granting summary judgment on other grounds where the actual motion was based only on “broad legal arguments” that did not challenge the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence.
(6-3: Carlton dissented, joined by Greenlee, Westbrooks, and McDonald)

Others Orders

Carroll v. State, 2021-CP-00959-COA (denying rehearing)

Ehrhardt v. State, 2021-KA-01143-COA (denying rehearing)

Jordan v. State, 2021-KA-01421-COA (denying rehearing)

In the Matter of the Estate of Roosa v. Roosa, 2022-CA-00128-COA (denying rehearing)

Rhodes v. RL Stratton Properties LLC, 2022-CA-00338-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of July 25, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down five opinions today covering diverse subject matter. There is a zoning exception case, a custody case, a personal injury case considering a grant of summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case, a marital property division case analyzing whether a PSA was ambiguous, and a PCR case with a concurrence discussing Howell/Rowland I/Rowland II.

Keenum v. City of Moss Point, 2021-CA-01044-COA (Civil – Other/Zoning)
Reversing the circuit court’s decision that affirmed the mayor’s decision to approve a special exception to a zoning ordinance, holding that the decision to allow a for-profit development in a residential-zoned area under an exception for “semi-public recreational area” (which was not defined in the ordinance) was reversible error because that reading would render the prohibition against “commercial use” in the ordinance meaningless.
(8-1-0: McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Lawrence did not participate.)

D.W.K. v. Youth Court of Lincoln County, 2019-CP-00451-COA; 2020-CP-01307-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the youth court’s denial of motions to consider new evidence two years after adjudication of abuse and neglect and placement of five minor children with their maternal aunt, holding that the youth court had jurisdiction; service of process was proper; that the youth court’s decision was not manifestly wrong or erroneous, was based on substantial evidence, and favored the best interest of the children; and that the record on appeal was sufficient.
(10-0)

Babin v. Wendelta, Inc., 2022-CA-00341-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Reversing the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment for a fast food restaurant in a slip-and-fall case, holding that “the record contained ample proof” of a dangerous condition where multiple witnesses including restaurant employees testified that the mat was slippery on the date of the fall and that the vestibule where the mat was located held condensation.
(9-1-0: Lawrence concurred in result only WOSWO.)

Practice Point – I have noticed ANSI standards appearing more frequently in my practice. I suspect these two sentences will make their way into more than one brief:

Blanchard v. Blanchard, 2022-CA-00356-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Reversing the chancery court’s ruling based on parol evidence after finding that a Property Settlement Agreement was ambiguous, holding that the PSA was unambiguous and that it entitled the ex-husband to half of the net proceeds of the sale of the former marital home even though the ex-wife had refinanced the home.
(10-0)

Roberson v. State, 2021-CA-01182-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming order granting in part and denying in part a PCR motion, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to an exception from the statutory bars and that, in any event, there was no merit to his claim that his plea was involuntary or that his counsel was ineffective.
(6-4-0: Westbrooks, McDonald, and McCarty concurred in part and in the result WOSWO; Wilson concurred in part and in the result, joined by McDonald and McCarty and joined in part by Westbrooks.)

Note – Judge Wilson’s concurrence discussed the state of the “fundamental-rights exception” in light of the Mississippi Supreme Court in Howell overruling Rowland I and Rowland II, and noted that the Supreme Court had not squarely addressed whether the successive motions bar is substantive or procedural:

Other Orders

Buchanan v. State, 2021-CP-01069-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of June 29, 2023 (catch-up post)

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions on June 29. The first was an estate case addressing claims of undue influence. The other was a personal injury case on interlocutory appeal of the denial of an insurer’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether an employer’s CGL policy provided coverage for an employee’s motor vehicle accident using company equipment.

Estate of Biddle v. Biddle, 2021-CP-00513-SCT (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Affirming the chancellor’s decisions in an estate matter, holding that venue and jurisdiction were waived by the testator’s sons because those issues were raised for the first time in response to their stepmother’s motion for summary judgment and that the evidence did not create a genuine issue of material fact concerning the existence of “suspicious circumstances” rising to the level of undue influence of the wife over her husband.
(9-0)

Penn-Star Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 2022-IA-00106-SCT (Civil- Personal Injury)
Reversing the trial court’s denial of an insurer’s motion for summary judgment in a motor vehicle negligence action, holding that there was no coverage under the company’s CGL policy where an employee of a welding company was involved in a collision while operating a forklift owned by the company to tow his personal truck to the company’s premises to self-perform repairs because the collision did not “arise out of or relate to” the welding operations.
(9-0)

Other Orders

Watts v. Watts, 2021-CT-00321-SCT (denying cert)

$41,000 v. State, 2021-CT-00692-SCT (denying cert)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of May 23, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down five opinions today in five different areas of law: custody, PCR, wills and estates, criminal, and personal injury.

Culver v. Culver, 2021-CA-01108-COA (Civil – Custody)
Affirming the chancellor’s ruling changing physical custody from the mother to the father, holding that the chancellor did not err in finding an impending move out-of-state would constitute a material change in circumstances that would adversely impact the children’s welfare and that the chancellor’s analysis of the Albright factors was not manifestly wrong.
(6-3-0: Wilson, Westbrooks, and McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion; Lawrence did not participate.)

Brown v. State, 2022-CP-00069-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that the ineffective assistance of counsel claims were untimely, barred as successive, and precluded by res judicata; the circuit court was not required to grant the plaintiff’s MSJ or find the State in contempt for not responding to it; and the circuit court was not obligated to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
(10-0)

Roosa v. Roosa, 2022-CA-00128-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Affirming the chancellor’s estate orders in a 15-year-long legal saga over the estate of an astronaut, holding that the challenging beneficiary (1) waived the argument that the executor did not have authority to donate property to a foundation and (2) did not secure a ruling from the chancellor on the issue of whether the donation met the requirements of a valid inter vivos gift.
(9-1-0: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Practice Point – This decisions is a good reminder that you have to get a ruling from the trial court on an issue before you can appeal the issue:

Trest v. State, 2021-KA-00968-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of molestation, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of prior bad acts (of molestation) or denying a mistrial when the witness to the prior molestation said that the defendant had molested “us” or by admitting evidence under the tender-years exception, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
(8-1-0: Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Rhodes v. RL Stratton Properties LLC, 2022-CA-00338-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of a building owner in a suit filed by a roofer who fell through a framed opening in the attic floor while looking for the source of water leaks, holding that the failure to warn an experienced roofer claim failed as a matter of law and that the fall through the opening was “intimately connected” to the work the plaintiff was hired to do.
(10-0)

Other Orders

Obert v. AABC Property Management, LLC, 2021-CA-00612-COA (denying rehearing)

Colenberg v. State, 2021-CA-00673-COA (denying rehearing)

Smith v. Minier, 2021-CA_01284-COA (denying rehearing)

Mallard v. State, 2022-CA-00152-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down List

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of April 27, 2023

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today. Both decisions are 6-3 reversals. One is an appeal of a summary judgment ruling in a slip-and-fall case and the other is an appeal of a zoning decision.

Thomas v. Boyd Biloxi, LLC, 2021-CT-00265-SCT (Civil – Personal Injury)
Reversing the COA’s decision affirming summary judgment in favor of a resort in a slip-and-fall on a pool deck case, holding that two prior falls and evidence that water pooled in the area where the plaintiff fell was sufficient evidence of breach and that there was evidence that a breach of duty proximately caused the fall.
(6-3: Griffis dissented, joined by Coleman and Ishee.)

City of Ocean Springs v. Illanne, 2021-CA-01100-SCT (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Reversing the circuit court’s reversal of a City’s zoning decisions, holding that remand was necessary for a hearing to determine whether a zoning applicant was a “petitioner” under Section 11-51-75 such that the failure to name him and give him notice deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction.
(6-3: Coleman dissented, joined by Randolph and Griffis)

Other Order

La Casa I, LLC v. Gottfried, 2021-CT-00347-SCT (denying cert)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Decisions of December 15, 2022

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down two opinions today. One is a criminal case dealing with a Confrontation Clause violation and the other is a judicial estoppel case that reversed the trial court because of an intervening decisions with a special concurrence that garnered a majority of the Court. The Supreme Court also granted cert in a slip-and-fall case that I had not summarized because the decision from the Court of Appeals was handed down back in June on a Thursday instead of Tuesday so it escaped my notice.

Saunders v. NCAA, 2020-CA-01146-SCT (Civil – Torts)
Reversing the trial court’s dismissal of claims based on judicial estoppel, holding that the plaintiff had no duty to disclose claims for declaratory relief during his Chapter 7 bankruptcy and that the dismissal of the money damages claim was in error per an intervening special concurrence that held that judicial estoppel should not be presumed and is, rather, a fact-specific inquiry that must include how the bankruptcy could dealt with the omission.
(7-2: Justice Coleman concurred in part and dissented in part; Justice Griffis concurred in part and dissented in part)

PRACTICE POINT – Regular readers might recall a discussion about the special concurrence referenced in today’s decision. The case is Jones v. Alcorn State University, 337 So. 3d 1062 (Miss. 2022) and Justice Maxwell’s special concurrence in that case was joined by four other justices. I wondered aloud about the precedential effect of a five-justice special concurrence and then later passed along the answer. In Saunders, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the trial court based upon the holding of the special concurrence in Jones.

Willis v. State, 2021-KA-00734-SCT (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first degree murder, holding that the trial court violated the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause by not allowing cross-examination of the lead investigator about prior inconsistent statements but that the error was harmless, that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s self-defense instruction, and that the conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.
(6-3-0: Justice Beam concurred in part and in the result, joined by Chief Justice Randolph and Justice Maxwell)

NOTE – For some reason it jumped out that both Kitchens’s majority opinion and Beam’s concurrence utilized the superior (per Strunk & White) “-s’s” to make Williams’s name possessive.

Other Orders

In Re: Rules of Discipline for the Mississippi Bar, 89-R-99010-SCT (appointing Hon. Mark A. Maples as a member of the Complaint Tribunal)

In Re: Tavares Reed, 2017-M-01391 (denying application for leave to proceed in the trial court, finding it frivolous, and restricting the petitioner from filing further applications in forma pauperis)

Moffett v. State, 2018-DR-00276-SCT (denying rehearing and/or reconsideration)

Thomas v. Boyd Biloxi LLC, 2021-CT-00265-SCT (granting cert)
NOTE – I did not recall this case from June. I looked back and realized it escaped my notice because it was an an off-cycle hand-down from the Court of Appeals on Thursday, June 2. The plaintiff slipped and fell on a pool deck after exiting a hot tub. A 5-1-4 Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment dismissing the case, holding that the evidence did not satisfy the standard to defeat summary judgment and that the trial court did not err in denying part of the plaintiff’s 56(f) request.

Hand Down List

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of October 11, 2022

I did not post summaries last week because was out of town all week. I plan to do a post summarizing last week’s decisions at some point, but today is not that day because the Court of Appeals just handed down nine more opinions.

Today was a big day for Rule 4 and for workers’ comp, with two decisions for each of those subject areas. One of the workers’ comp decisions has a significant amount of analysis of the issue of whether the claimant overcame the presumption of no loss of wage-earning capacity. The other workers’ comp decision provides some clarity (and teeth) to the affirmative defense of intoxication. Additionally, we learned today that you should not white-out the defendant’s name on a summons after it is issued, write the name of the defendant to be served over the white-out, and then serve that altered summons on your defendant. There is also a divorce case dealing with child support, several criminal cases, and a lone PCR case.

Carnley v. State, 2021-KA-00438-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of rape, declining to reverse based on the exclusion of the victim’s prior inconsistent statement because no proffer was made and holding there was no error in the admission of expert testimony, that the defendant’s trial counsel was not ineffective, that the jury was properly instructed to continue its deliberation in lieu of a Sharplin instruction, and that the trial court did not commit cumulative error.
(9-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Wharton v. State, 2021-CA-00136-COA (Civil – Other/Civil Procedure)
Reversing a default judgment on a civil asset forfeiture petition, holding that the State failed to “strictly” comply with the Rule 4 requirements for service by publication, that the respondent did not waive the defense of insufficiency of service of process by failing to plead it in his answer because the answer was filed after the entry of default, and that the case should be remanded to give the State an opportunity to show good cause for failing to serve process before the statute of limitations expired.
(8-1-0: Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion and Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

NOTE 1– There is a lot of civil and appellate procedure in this opinion (Miss. R. Civ. P. 4, 55; Miss. R. App. P. 2, 31). The appellate procedure ruling was interesting because the appellant missed his briefing deadline, but the Court of Appeals held that he should have been afforded 14 days to correct this “deficiency” and since he filed two days late he was within that window. This is interesting, but not a maneuver I plan to attempt.

Note 2 – I also want to point out this holding that although it is a fact-bound holding, these are facts one could find oneself bound up in.

Howard Industries v. Hayes, 2021-WC-00694-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the MWCC on direct appeal and cross appeal, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s award of sanctions against the Employer’s counsel for attempting to mislead the Commission, the Commission’s finding that the claimant had overcome the presumption of no loss of wage-earning capacity and awarding permanent disability benefits for her 2007 injury, and the Commission’s award of 38% industrial loss of use of her right upper extremity for her 2015 injury.
(5-4: Judge Wilson concurred in part and dissented in part (on the sanction issue), joined by Judge Greenlee, Judge McCarty, and Judge Smith. Judge Emfinger did not participate.)

Meek v. Cheyenne Steel, Inc., 2021-WC-01219-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the MWCC’s finding that the claimant was not entitled to benefits based upon the affirmative defense of intoxication, holding that the Employer’s payment of benefits did not estop the Employer from asserting the intoxication defense that was pleaded in the answer and that the very presence of marijuana in the claimant’s system raised the presumption of intoxication.
(10-0)

PRACTICE POINT – This case seems to answer a question that has lingered since the MWCA was amended to add the intoxication defense about what the effect of a positive drug test that does not give any indication of the degree of intoxication. In this case, the Court of Appeals decisively that any amount of intoxication triggers the presumption. A claimant can still seek to overcome that presumption, but based on the Meek decision a claimant cannot overcome the presumption by pointing to a lack of proof of the level of marijuana in the claimant’s system.

Ponder v. Ponder, 2020-CA-01196-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part in a divorce case, holding that the chancellor did not err or abuse his discretion in awarding child support retroactive to a date prior to the filing of the petition for modification but holding that there was no legal basis for an award of attorney’s fees against the father for failing to comply with an agreed order.
(9-1-0: Judge McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Villareal v. State, 2021-CP-00440-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of the plaintiff’s PCR motion, holding that the defendant’s sentence was not illegal.
(9-0: Judge Lawrence did not participate.)

Carruthers v. State, 2021-KA-00654-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of meth trafficking as subsequent offender in possession of a firearm near a church and possession of firearm by felon, holding that the defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel for alleged failures to object at various points in the trial or for alleged failure to investigate or for alleged failure to stipulate to a prior felony to keep evidence of the prior felony.
(7-2-0: Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion; Judge McDonald concurred in the result only without separate written opinion.)

Arrington v. Anderson, 2021-CA-00233-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming dismissal of two identical negligence lawsuits, holding that a summons that was altered after issuance to change the name of the party to be summonsed to the defendant’s name and then served on the defendant was not valid service of process, that since process was not served the statute of limitations had expired the first lawsuit, and that the second lawsuit was not a “refiling” of the first since it was filed while the first suit was still pending.
(8-2-0: Judge Wilson and Judge McDonald concurred in result only without separate written opinion.)

Daniels v. State, 2021-KA-01067-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of two counts of armed robbery, two counts and aggravated assault, one count of house burglary, and one count of grand larceny, holding that the circuit court did not err in telling the jury panel that the defendant was charged as a habitual offender or in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial and holding that there was no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence about the defendant’s apprehension, arrest, and felony charges that immediately followed the activities for which he was convicted in this trial.
(8-2-0: Judge Wilson and Judge Emfinger concurred in the result without separate written opinion.)

Other Orders

Short v. State, 2021-KA-00499-COA (denying rehearing)
Daniels v. Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, Inc., 2021-CA-00781-COA (denying rehearing)
Watkins v. State, 2021-CP-01301-COA (granting appellant’s pro se motion for leave to file an out-of-time brief)
Young v. State, 2022-CP-00141-COA (denying State’s motion to dismiss appeal)

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 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