Tag: Rule 403

Double Issue: Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of February 6, 2024 and February 13, 2024

[Edited to correct the year in the title. I am behind, but I am not a whole year behind.]

I was about snowed under last week so I am trying to catch up here a bit. The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down four opinions on February 6 and another nine on February 13.

February 6, 2024

Porter v. State, 2023-CP-00091-COA (Civil – Other)
Vacating the trial court’s denial of a request to be reclassified as a non-habitual offender, holding that the petitioner was not a habitual offender but that his claims were filed in the wrong county so the case was remanded with instructions for the trial court to transfer to the appropriate county.
(9-0: Smith did not participate)

Gilmore v. State, 2023-CP-00527-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that the motion was time-barred and not subject to any of the exceptions.
(9-0: Emfinger did not participate)

Ellis v. Turner-Johnson Dodge, Inc., 2022-CA-01126-COA (Civil – Contract)
Affirming the county court’s order compelling arbitration, holding that there was a valid, binding arbitration agreement and that the dispute was within the scope of the agreement.
(7-2: Westbrooks and McDonald dissented; Smith did not participate)

Practice Point – Cite the record early and often in your briefs:

Moates v. State, 2022-KA-01062-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of first degree murder, burglary of a dwelling under circumstances likely to terrorize, and simple domestic violence, holding that the trial court did not err in denying a motion to sever the first-degree murder charge, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of prior bad acts, that the evidence was sufficient to support the simple domestic violence conviction, and that retroactive misjoinder argument was moot.
(10-0)

Practice Point – This is a good reminder that “prejudice” is not the test under Rule 403.

Other Orders

Gilbert v. State, 2021-KA-01265-COA (denying rehearing)

Kilcrease v. City of Tupelo, 2022-KM-00194-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

February 13, 2024

Williams v. Bryant, 2022-CA-00630-COA (Civil – Wills, Trusts & Estates)
Affirming the chancellor’s decision in a will contest, holding that the chancellor did not err in determining that there was a confidential relationship but that the evidence did not show abuse or suspicious circumstances or active involvement in procurement or execution of the will that would create a presumption of undue influence.
(9-1-0: McDonald concurred in part and in the result without separate written opinion)

Allen v. State, 2022-KA-00935-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of capital murder, holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the defendant’s alternative defense theory of heat-of-passion manslaughter.
(10-0)

Netherland v. State, 2022-CP-01236-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the circuit court’s denial of a PCR motion, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the petitioner’s Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were not violated when law enforcement recorded the petitioner selling drugs to an informant and that there was no merit to the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.
(10-0)

Brooks v. State, 2022-KA-01016-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of burglary of a dwelling, simple assault domestic violence, and possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that the conviction for possession of a firearm was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
(8-2-0: Barnes and Westbrooks concurred in part and in the result without writing)

EEECHO Inc. v. Mississippi Dept. Env’t Quality Permit Bd, 2022-SA-01068-COA (Civil – State Boards and Agencies)
Affirming the chancery court’s decision affirming MDEQ’s Permit Board’s decision to issue water quality certifications, holding that the Permit Board did not err by not making factual findings regarding the possible storage of explosive ammunition, that the Permit Board’s failure to issue a revise public notice was not arbitrary or capricious, that the Permit Board’s decision that the subject property was preferable to the alternative project sites, and that the Permit Board’s failure to conduct an environmental justice review.
(8-2: McDonald dissented, joined by Westbrooks; Westbrooks dissented without writing)

Smith v. Smith, 2022-CA-00183-COA (Civil – Domestic Relations)
Affirming in part and reversing in part the chancery court’s child custody and division or martial estate decisions, holding that the chancellor did not err or abuse his discretion in awarding custody to the father or in his visitation ruling, but that the chancellor erred by classifying one of the father’s businesses as separate property.
(10-0)

Wade v. State, 2022-CA-00370-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming the trial court’s denial of a PCR motion, holding that the trial court’s decision that the plea was voluntary and intelligent notwithstanding the petitioner’s low intellectual ability, that there was no merit to the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, and that Miller did not apply because the felony convictions did not mandate life imprisonment.
(6-4-0: Emfinger concurred in part and in the result without writing; Carlton, Westbrooks, and McDonald concurred in result only without writing)

Hunter v. State, 2022-CP-01269-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming denial of PCR motion, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the motion as untimely.
(10-0)

Clarksdale Pub. Utilities Comm’ v. Miss. Dept. of Emp’t Sec., 2022-CC-01085-COA (Civil – State Boards & Agencies)
Affirming the circuit court’s decision affirming MDES Review Board’s decision approving unemployment benefits, holding that MDES was not collaterally estopped from making the benefits decision as a result of MDEC and CPOC having different standards and definitions of misconduct, that the ALJ did not err in refusing the admit 900 pages of exhibits that the employer offered for lack of foundation, and that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s findings.
(3-2-3: Westbrooks and McCarty concurred in part and in the result without writing; Wilson concurred in the result only without writing; Greenlee concurred in part and dissented in part without writing; Carlton concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Greenlee and Lawrence; Barnesn did not participate)

Other Orders

Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 2017-CT-01731-COA (granting motion to seal file on appeal)

Odom v. State, 2021-KA-00676-COA (denying rehearing)

Harrison v. Harrison, 2022-CA-00274-COA (denying rehearing)

Litton v. Litton, 2022-CA-00712-COA (denying rehearing)

Johnson v. Drake, 2022-CA-00818-COA (denying rehearing)

Forrest v. State, 2022-KA-00844-COA (granting pro se letter motion to recall mandate)

Patel v. State, 2022-CA-00985-COA (denying rehearing)

Fox v. State, 2022-KA-00988-COA (granting motion to expedite mandate)

Harvey v. State, 2023-CT-00157-COA (recalling mandate sua sponte)

Clark v. State, 2023-TS-01116-COA (granting motion to proceed out of time)

Odom v. State, 2023-TS-01165-COA (granting public defender’s motion withdraw, to substitute counsel, and respond to order to show cause)

Winn Dixie Stores v. Little, 2023-WC-01177-COA (granting motion to dismiss appeal as interlocutory)

Holifiend v. State, 2023-TS-01320-COA (granting motion to proceed out of time)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of August 15, 2023

The Mississippi Court of Appeals six opinions today. The court served up two direct criminal appeals, an easement by necessity case, a workers’ comp jurisdiction case, a MDES case, and a PCR case.

Ramsey v. State, 2022-CP-00103-COA (Civil – PCR)
Affirming dismissal of PCR motion, holding that the circuit court did not err in dismissing it as successive.
(9-0: Smith did not participate)

Hobby v. Ott, 2021-CA-01305-COA (Civil – Real Property)
Reversing the chancellor’s order granting an easement by necessity, holding that the chancellor court erred in making this ruling without any supporting proof in the record regarding the costs of alternative routes of access, and rendering judgment denying the request.
(10-0)

Chatman v. State, 2022-KA-00386-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of sexual battery of a minor, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
(10-0)

Pritchett v. MDES, 2022-CC-00808-COA (Civil – State Boards & Agencies)
Affirming a finding that an employee was not entitled to benefits, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the determination by MDES that the employee had voluntarily abandoned her job without finishing her assigned duties.
(6-4-0: No separate opinions – Wilson and Emfinger concurred in part and in the result; Westbrooks and McDonald concurred in result only)

Boyington v. State, 2022-KA-00601-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming convictions of fleeing law enforcement and being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the trial court committed error in admitting a photograph of a swastika tattoo on the defendant’s body but that it was harmless error.
(7-3-0: No separate opinions – Wilson, Greenlee, and Smith concurred in part and in the result)

NOTE – Here is the Court’s summary of its analysis:

Wheeler v. Mississippi Limestone Corp., 2022-WC-00534-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the dismissal of a workers’ comp claim, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the claimant was neither hired nor regularly employed in Mississippi and that the employer did not assume liability for the injury by maintaining insurance under the MWCA.
(9-1-0: No separate opinions – McDonald concurred in the result only)

Other Orders

Clayton v. State, 2021-KA-00505-COA (denying rehearing)

Kirk v. Newton, 2021-CA-00684-COA (denying rehearing)

Smith v. State, 2021-KA-01003-COA (denying rehearing)

Dawson v. Burgs, 2021-CA-01038-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