Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of July 15, 2025

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down two decisions today. One is a youth court permanency plan case and the other is an appeal of a dismissal and judgment of acquittal.


In the Interest of J.S., a Minor, and I.S., a Minor: P.S. v. Pearl River County Department of Child Protection Services, 2023-CA-00932-COA (Civil – Custody)
Reversing the youth court’s order modifying permanency plan from reunification to adoption and ordering CPS to begin termination of parental rights proceedings, holding that the record did not reflect substantial credible evidence to support the finding that CPS made reasonable efforts over a reasonable period of time to diligently assist the mother in complying with the service plan.
(10-0: Weddle for the Court)


State v. Mitchell, 2023-KA-00771-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Reversing the circuit court’s order granting motion to dismiss and judgment of acquittal, holding that it had appellate jurisdiction under section 99-35-103(a) and that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process was not violated where the alleged victim was a resident of Tennessee and the Tennessee probate court denied the defendant’s effort to compel the alleged victim to testify.
(5-4: Emfinger for the Court; Barnes dissented, joined by Carlton, Westbrooks, and McDonald; Westbrooks dissented, joined by McDonald; Weddle did not participate)


Other Orders

  • Chambers v. State, 2023-KA-00626-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Star v. State, 2023-KA-00788-COA (denying rehearing)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Court of Appeals Decisions of March 18, 2025

The Mississippi Court of Appeals handed down five opinions on Tuesday. There is something for everybody with a workers’ comp case, an unemployment case, a direct criminal appeal, a premises liability case, and a PCR case.


King v. State, 2023-CA-00770-COA (Civil – PCR)
Reversing the circuit court’s dismissal of the claimant’s motion for PCR wherein he claimed the circuit court improperly revoked probation and participation in drug court and imposed his original suspended sentence, holding that the claimant was statutorily barred from participating in drug court because he was charged with and pleaded guilty to a crime of violence, and since his probation was revoked only twice for violations of drug court conditions, the circuit court lacked authority to impose the full sentence, and remanding with instructions to reinstate the probation.
(5-2-3: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without writing; Emfinger concurred in result only without writing; Lawrence dissented, joined by Weddle and St. Pe’, joined in part by Emfinger)


Porter v. State, 2023-KA-00809-COA (Criminal – Felony)
Affirming conviction of capital murder, holding that the trial court did not err in denying a motion to suppress the defendant’s (who was 17 at the time) statements to police, that the defendant had no viable Sixth Amendment claim based on the size and composition of the jury venire without proof that minorities were intentionally or systematically excluded because of their race, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the defendant’s attorney’s opening statement, that the trial court did not err in limiting the defendant’s questioning of a witness for impeachment purposes, that the trial court did not err by excluding two character witnesses, that the trial court did not err by refusing the defendant’s lesser-included offense instruction of manslaughter because they had no foundation in the evidence and because a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty of capital murder, that the trial court did not err by not granting a mistrial for the State’s remarks during closing, and that the trial court did not err by not granting a mistrial when the jury sent out its first note because the defendant did not obtain a ruling and because the assignment was meritless, and that the cumulative error doctrine did not apply.
(8-2-0: Wilson and Westbrooks concurred in result only without separate written opinion)


Animal Rescue Fund of Mississippi v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security, 2024-CC-00152-COA (Civil – State Boards & Agencies)
Affirming an award of unemployment benefits after MDES initially determined that the claimant voluntarily left his employment, holding that the Board of Review’s decision was supported by substantial evidence so the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in affirming it.
(9-1-0: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without writing)


Harris v. Casino Vicksburg, LLC, 2023-CA-00959-COA (Civil – Personal Injury)
Affirming summary judgment in favor of a casino in a premises liability case arising from a chair that slipped out from under the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff failed to show the existence of a dangerous condition.
(7-3: Westbrooks dissented, joined by Carlton and McDonald)


Caffey v. Forrest Health, 2023-WC-01232-COA (Civil – Workers’ Comp)
Affirming the MWCC’s decision reversing the AJ’s finding that the claimant sustained a 50% loss of wage-earning capacity, holding that the though the MWCC erred in its Jordan analysis on whether employment was offered post-MMI the claimant nonetheless did not make a prima facie case under Jordan because he never reported back to work after MMI or under Thompson because there was no evidence the claimant independently searched for employment.
(8-1-1: Wilson concurred in part and in the result without writing; McDonald concurred in part and dissented in part without writing)


Other Orders

  • Ellzey v. State, 2022-KA-00797-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Allred v. Tishomingo County, Mississippi, 2023-CA-00569-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Old Hattiesburg High, L.P. v. Harris Construction Services, LLC, 2023-CA-00579-COA (denying rehearing)
  • Sullivant v. Freeland, 2023-CP-01393-COA (granting appelles’ motion for monetary sanctions)

Hand Down Page

Mississippi Supreme Court Hand Downs for February 10, 2022

Brown v. State, 2020-KA-1366-SCT (Criminal – Felony/Constructive Possession Instruction)
Affirming a conviction for three counts of possession of a controlled substance and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon with a sentence of twenty-four years to under the habitual offender statute, holding that the circuit court did not err in granting the State’s jury instruction on constructive possession or in denying the defendant’s proposed instruction on circumstantial evidence.

Copes v. State, 2019-CT-302-SCT (en banc) (Criminal – Felony/Right to Counsel of Choice)
Affirming a conviction for two counts of sexual battery of two minors and a sentence of twenty years, holding that the defendant was not denied his right to his counsel of choice under the Sixth Amendment when his lead counsel was removed during trial from questioning witnesses and making closing arguments due to repeated misconduct including violation of the judge’s orders.

Augustine v. State, 2019-CT-1467-SCT (en banc) (Criminal-Felony/Impeachment Testimony)
Reversing the court of appeals and reinstating/affirming a conviction for second-degree murder, holding that the circuit court did not err by allowing an officer to testify to the content of a prior witness’s statement for impeachment purposes and, assuming arguendo that it was error, that the overwhelming weight of the evidence supported the conviction.

Alexander v. State, 2019-CT-1612-SCT (en banc) (Criminal-Felony/Habitual Offender Status/Miller Hearing)
Reversing the court of appeals and reinstating/affirming a 1998 conviction for capital murder and sentence to life without parole, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendant’s motion to fund a mitigation expert and holding that the defendant was not deprived of his right to have a jury impose his sentence.

Other Orders
1 Denial of a “Motion for Review by Supreme Court of Court of Appeals’ Denial of Attorney’s Fees”
1 Denial of a Cert Petition
1 Denial of a Motion for Rehearing

Complete Hand Down List


BONUS CONTENT

Every so often, one needs to find support for a proposition that is so obvious that a citation is elusive. See generally Orin S. Kerr, A Theory of Law, 16 Green Bag 2d 111 (2012). The supreme court gifted the bar with this pithy statement that will come in handy in the future:

"It is axiomatic that a judge's rulings during trial are to be followed." Copes v. State, No. 2019-CT-00302-SCT (¶ 11) (Miss. 2022)

Enter your email address to have the hand down summaries and other posts emailed to you as soon as they are published. (You can always unsubscribe later.)