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)
Mississippi Appeals Blog 