Tag: Recusal

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of November 4, 2025

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down ten opinions yesterday. The Court covered a lot of ground including wills,the MTCA, felony convictions, an arbitration award, and arbitration agreement enforceability.

Pittman v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 2024-CA-00619-COA (Civil – Torts)
Reversing the circuit court’s grant of a motion to compel arbitration, holding that the circuit court erred in finding that the plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of an arbitration agreement.
(9-1: Weddle for the Court; Wilson dissented)

Ward v. State, 2024-KA-00341-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming in part and reversing in part after a judgment of convictions of voyeurism and first-degree murder, holding that trial counsel was not ineffective for not requesting a severance or for failing to object to the State’s peremptory strikes and that the evidence was sufficient to support each of the convictions, but holding that the circuit court erred in refusing a heat-of-passion manslaughter instruction.
(7-3: Emfinger for the Court; Wilson and Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part without writing; Lawrence concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Carlton and Westbrooks, joined in part by Wilson)

Roberts v. State, 2024-CA-00988-COA (Civil – PCR)
Reversing the trial court’s denial of a PCR motion, holding that because only one petition for revocation of Roberts’s PRS had been filed, the circuit court did not have the authority to impose her full sentence under section 47-7-37.
(6-4*-1: McDonald for the Court; Emfinger specially concurred, joined by Barnes, Weddle, and Lassitter St. Pe’, joined in part by Lawrence and McCarty; Wilson concurred in result only without writing; Lawrence dissented, joined in part by Emfinger and Weddle)

Fields v. State, 2024-KA-01204-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of twenty-five counts of child exploitation, holding searches of the defendants laptops in Harrison County pursuant to a George County warrant were proper, and holding that the defendant cannot complain on appeal about the absence of a jury instruction his counsel strategically withdrew.
(10-0: McDonald for the Court)

Williams v. State, 2024-KA-00257-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of manslaughter, holding that any error in limiting evidence related to the victim’s character did not warrant reversal in light of other evidence of guilt.
(8-2-0: Westbrooks for the Court; Wilson and Emfinger concur in result only without writing)

Jones v. Madison County Nursing Home, 2024-CA-00561-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming the dismissal of a suit against a nursing home, holding that it was time-barred because it was filed outside of the MTCA’s one-year statute of limitations, holding that the County was not estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense after the Board of Supervisors had responded to a pre-suit notice letter stating that the county was not a proper party.
(9-1-0: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without writing)

Chavers v. State, 2024-KA-00551-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of two counts of manslaughter and one count of aggravated assault after driving a UTV into a group of people leaving a party, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving a voluntary intoxication instruction, that the circuit court’s error in giving the jury the wrong set of jury instructions that error was harmless because it was corrected during deliberations, and that the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence.
(9-0: Wilson for the Court; Lawrence did not participate)

Estate of Fleishhacker: Ward v. Edwards, 2024-CA-00418-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision denying in a will contest, holding that the chancellor did not err in denying a request to probate a lost holographic will and finding an earlier will valid.
(7-2-0: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without writing; McDonald concurred in result only without writing; Weddle did not participate)

Practice Point – Though it did not affect the holding in the case, the Court held that the trial court erred in finding that one witness’s testimony was insufficient under section 91-7-10 because she was the primary beneficiary under the purported will. But the Court of Appeals noted that neither the chancellor nor the parties accounted for the repeal of the Dead Man’s Statute.

Gillespie Funeral Home, LLC v. Magnolia Guaranty Life Insurance Company, 2024-CA-00427-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision after an arbitration award, holding that the chancellor did not err in denying a motion to set aside an arbitration award or in entering a final judgment confirming the award.
(9-1-0: Barnes for the Court; McDonald concurred in the result only without writing)

Sanford v. State, 2024-KA-00683-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming a conviction of gratification of lust, statutory rape, and sexual battery, holding that the argument that the circuit judge should have recused himself after he was contacted by the victim’s father prior to trial was waived and without merit where the judge said he explained to the father that the could not talk about matters that could come before the court.
(9-1-0: Barnes for the Court; Westbrooks concurred in result only without writing)

Other Orders

  • Younger v. Southern, 2022-CA-01228-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Mangum v. State, 2023-KA-01198-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Morsi v. JB Hunt Corp., 2024-WC-00399-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Summaries of the Mississippi Court of Appeals opinions of March 8, 2022

There are six opinions from the Mississippi Court of Appeals today on a wide range of topics, including a holding that a defendant’s failure to respond to a complaint filed on March 6, 2020, until thirty-one days after service of process constituted “excusable neglect” in light of the COVID shutdowns at the time.

Hamer v. State, 2019-KA-01633-COA (Criminal – Felony/Evidence/Rule 403/Golden Rule)
Affirming conviction on two counts of capital murder and armed robbery and sentence to life in prison without parole, holding primarily that (1) wiretapped phone calls between the convicted and his father, whose drug trafficking enterprise the convicted had worked for, were admissible to show motive and tell “the complete story” to the jury, (2) the evidence was sufficient to establish nexus between the killing and the underlying felony to constitute capital murder, (3) and there was no impermissible Golden Rule argument at closing.
(Judge Westbrooks wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Judge McDonald.)

Crockett v. State, 2021-CP-00022-COA (Civil – PCR/Time Bar)
Affirming circuit court’s denial of a pro se motion for post-conviction collateral relief, holding that the claim of an involuntary guilty plea was both time-barred and meritless.
(All judges concurred, Chief Judge Barnes and Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Erves v. Hosemann, 2020-CA-00467-COA (Civil – Property/Daubert)
Affirming chancellor’s decision denying relief in an action for an injunction to stop the use of a driveway and for monetary damages, holding that the petitioners failed to establish legal title to the subject property and specifically holding that the defendants’ expert witnesses were qualified and that the chancellor’s ruling was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Practice Point: Appellants got dinged on their Daubert challenge for arguing reliability on appeal when the only issue raised at the trial court was the experts’ qualifications:


(All judges concurred, Judge McCarty concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion.)

Archer v. Harlow’s Casino Resort & Spa, 2020-CP-00930-COA (Civil – Other/Default/Excusable Neglect)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the circuit court’s grant of the defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the defendant showed excusable neglect when it sought an extension of time to answer the complaint thirty-one days after being served and holding that the circuit clerk did not err by correcting a mistake and removing an entry of default, but holding that the trial court should have dismissed the complaint without prejudice and allowed the plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint under Rule 15(a).

ADDENDUM – COVID AND THE LAW: The defendant casino blamed the COVID-19 pandemic for being late to respond to the complaint. The casino was served with process on March 9, 2020, three days before the governor of Kentucky (where the casino’s counsel is located) issued a state of emergency and one week before Governor Reeves entered an order in Mississippi closing the casino. The casino asserted that these restrictions made it difficult to gather information from the closed casino in order to prepare and answer. The circuit court granted the late-filed extension request “in light of the current pandemic and government orders restricting operations and travel.” The court of appeals held that this was not an abuse of the circuit court’s broad discretion in this realm. In this case: COVID shutdown in March 2020 = “excusable neglect.”
(All judges concurred, Judge Wilson concurred in part and in the result without written opinion.)

Everett v. Dykes, 2020-CP-01331-COA (Civil – Property Damage/Recusal/Rule 48B)
Dismissing a pro se appeal of an order denying a motion for recusal of the circuit judge, holding that the appellant failed to comply with the procedure required by Rule 48B of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure for an interlocutory appeal of the denial of a recusal motion.
(Judge Lawrence dissented without separate written opinion.)

Rives v. Ishee, 2020-CA-01328-COA (Civil – Contract/Statute of Limitations)
Affirming the chancellor’s dismissal of a breach of contract lawsuit, holding that the plaintiffs’ second lawsuit was time-barred because they did not file suit until more than three years after they learned they would receive no money from the restaurant and the statute of limitations was not tolled during the first lawsuit because it was dismissed for want of prosecution. The court of appeals also held that the remedy of quantum meruit was inapplicable because there was a contract between the parties.
(Judge Westbrooks concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Judge Greenlee.)

Other Orders

Westmoreland v. State, 2020-KA-00509-COA (denying motion for rehearing)
Winters v. State, 2020-KA-00809-COA (denying motion for rehearing)

Complete Hand Down List