Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around a contested municipal general election for the Ward 4 Alderman seat in Coldwater, Mississippi. Levon Hayes was declared the winner, but his opponent, Alice Thomas, filed an election contest, suspecting irregularities in the vote count. Hayes was served with the contest and a Rule 4 summons but did not respond or appear in court. Almost a year later, Thomas applied for a default judgment, which the Tate County Circuit Court granted, declaring Thomas the winner and ordering her immediate swearing in.The case was initially heard in the Tate County Circuit Court, where Thomas applied for a default judgment due to Hayes' failure to respond to the election contest. The court granted the default judgment, declared Thomas the winner, and ordered her immediate swearing in.The case was then brought to the Supreme Court of Mississippi. The court was tasked with determining whether a default judgment was permissible in this general election contest under Mississippi Code Section 23-15-951 and the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. The court found that a default judgment was not permissible and that Thomas's failure to diligently prosecute her contest required its dismissal with prejudice. The court reversed the default judgment and remanded the case to the circuit court to dismiss Thomas's contest with prejudice and to reinstate Hayes as the elected candidate. The court also noted that the Rule 4 summons served to Hayes was improper and that Thomas's delays in prosecuting her contest violated the public's interest in having elections promptly decided. View "In Re: Contest of the Municipal General Election for the Ward 4 Alderman Seat" on Justia Law

The case involves Joshua Archie, who was convicted of conspiracy and capital murder. The incident occurred on October 26, 2012, when the Ridgeland Police Department responded to a "shots fired" call at Party City. Upon arrival, they found store manager Bobby Adams shot dead. The police were informed by store manager Regina Blake and store employee Undra Ward that a masked gunman with dreadlocks had entered the store, demanded money, and fled with the cash. The police suspected an inside job due to the nature of the crime. Ward later confessed to his involvement and implicated Archie as the gunman.In the lower courts, Archie was found guilty of both conspiracy and capital murder. He appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred by denying two of his requested jury instructions, that unauthenticated evidence was wrongfully presented to the jury, that the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and that his trial counsel was ineffective.The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed Archie’s conviction. The court found no error in the trial court's decisions, including the denial of Archie's requested jury instructions, the admission of an unauthenticated photograph of Archie, and the verdict's alignment with the weight of the evidence. The court also found that Archie's trial counsel was not ineffective. The court concluded that the evidence against Archie was overwhelming, and any errors in the trial process did not contribute to the verdict. View "Archie v. State" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over approximately one acre of coastal land in Mississippi. The disagreement is between John Aldrich and the State of Mississippi, with the main point of contention being whether the land in question is privately owned by Aldrich or is State-owned tideland. The dispute originated from a map published by the secretary of state in 1994, which marked the boundaries between private property and Public Trust Tidelands. According to the map, the land in question was designated as State-owned tideland. Aldrich disagreed with this designation and challenged the boundary in Harrison County Chancery Court in 1998. The State responded with a counterclaim, asserting that it held fee simple title to the property.After more than two decades of inactivity and extended litigation, the chancellor ruled in favor of Aldrich in 2022, vesting title in him and adjusting the tideland boundary. The chancellor made five consequential findings, all of which the State labeled as error on appeal. The most significant finding was that a 1784 Spanish land grant, which is the root of Aldrich’s title, negated the State’s claim to fee simple title. This finding called into question which lands passed from the federal government to Mississippi upon statehood.The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the chancery court’s decision. The court found that the 1784 Spanish land grant was valid and vested title in Aldrich. The court also found that the State failed to meet its burden of proof that the artificial filling of the land was not done pursuant to a constitutional legislative enactment and for a higher public purpose. Therefore, the court concluded that the property belongs to Aldrich. View "State v. Aldrich" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Mississippi was asked to decide whether the Mississippi State Department of Health (MSDH) was required to admit evidence of a concurrent Certificate of Need (CON) application during the CON hearing for another healthcare facility. The MSDH had simultaneously considered two CON applications, one from Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital and one from Baptist Memorial Rehabilitation Hospital, for the same category of services. The MSDH did not admit the Baptist application or certificate, and the chancery court reversed the decision solely on this issue.The Supreme Court of Mississippi ruled that the chancery court was in error, and that the MSDH's decision on relevance or its decision not to reopen a closed hearing was not reversible error. The Supreme Court found that the MSDH did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in determining that the Baptist CON application was not relevant to the Encompass' CON application proceedings.The Supreme Court vacated the chancery court’s decision and remanded the case to the chancery court for a decision on the merits of Methodist’s appeal. The chancery court had failed to address the substance of Methodist’s appeal regarding the granting of a CON to Encompass, and the issue was not squarely before the Supreme Court. View "Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital of Flowood, LLC v. Mississippi Methodist Hospital and Rehabilitation Center, Inc." on Justia Law

In this criminal case heard before the Supreme Court of Mississippi, the appellant, Ronald Owens, was convicted by a jury for burglary of a business and was sentenced to serve seven years as a habitual offender. Following the guilty verdict, Owens moved for a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (J.N.O.V.) or, alternatively, for a new trial; both motions were denied by the trial judge. Owens appealed the denial of a new trial, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court of Mississippi granted Owens's petition for certiorari, focusing on the question of whether the trial judge abused his discretion by denying Owens's motion for a new trial.The case centered on a burglary that occurred at a closed pharmacy, with security footage showing an individual leaving the premises carrying a dark bag shortly after the pharmacy's alarm was triggered. A subsequent video from a nearby gas station showed Owens with a bag that matched the one seen in the first video. The prosecution also presented evidence of a stock bottle from the pharmacy found in Owens's home following his arrest.Owens argued that the state presented no evidence linking him to the burglary and that the bag he was seen carrying in the gas station video, which appeared to be red, could not be the same as the black bag seen in the video from the pharmacy. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the jury's verdict and the trial court's decision, arguing that the jury had enough evidence to rationally conclude that Owens was the individual involved in the burglary. The court held that the verdict was not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and thus the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Owens's motion for a new trial. View "Owens v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

In this case, Dwan Wakefield aided Byron McBride after McBride committed a car theft, kidnapping, and murder. Wakefield was convicted under Mississippi Code Section 97-1-5 for three counts of aiding McBride in the aforementioned crimes. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Mississippi, arguing that being charged multiple times for being an accessory after the fact for each felony committed by the principal violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy.The court found that, under the unit of prosecution test, the State may charge multiple violations of Section 97-1-5 for each felony committed. The court argued that each felony committed by the principal constitutes a separate unit of prosecution, allowing for multiple convictions under the statute. Wakefield's argument was based on the belief that he committed a single act (giving McBride a ride home) while McBride committed three distinct acts (auto theft, kidnapping, and murder). However, the court disagreed and upheld the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the Madison County Circuit Court.In conclusion, the court held that for the purposes of Mississippi’s accessory after the fact statute, Section 97-1-5, each felony committed by a principal offender constitutes a single unit of prosecution. Therefore, Wakefield was not put in jeopardy by being charged with three separate counts under Section 97-1-5. The court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "Wakefield v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

In the Supreme Court of Mississippi, two interlocutory appeals were consolidated, both arising from the same wrongful-death lawsuit. Beverly Butts, on behalf of the wrongful-death beneficiaries of John Albert Hemphill, Sr., alleged that four years prior to Hemphill's death, Dr. Reese Lindsey failed to remove part of a bladder catheter, leading to recurring infections and ultimately Hemphill's death. Additionally, she claimed that the staff at Greenwood Leflore Hospital, where Lindsey treated Hemphill, provided substandard care.Regarding Lindsey, the court found that he had not been lawfully served with process. Despite multiple summons, Butts failed to comply with the Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 4, which outlines the requirements for serving process. As a result, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Lindsey, leading the Supreme Court to reverse the trial court's decision and render judgment dismissing Lindsey from the lawsuit.Concerning the Hospital, the court found that Butts had failed to provide the necessary medical expert testimony to support her medical negligence claim against the Hospital. Despite her argument that the Hospital's summary judgment motion was preemptive as no scheduling order had been set, the court noted that a defendant can file for summary judgment at any time. Given Butts's failure to present necessary expert testimony, the Supreme Court reversed the denial of summary judgment and rendered judgment in favor of the Hospital. View "Lindsey v. Butts" on Justia Law

The case before the Supreme Court of Mississippi involved the Estate of Christian Andreacchio, who died under circumstances that his family believes were suspicious. Dissatisfied with the official ruling that Andreacchio took his own life, his family sought to compel the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County to appoint a district attorney pro tempore to investigate his death. The Circuit Court denied the petition, in part because it concluded that Andreacchio's Estate and family did not have standing.The Supreme Court of Mississippi agreed with the Circuit Court's ruling. It noted that the Estate's argument that it has standing under the Mississippi Crime Victims' Bill of Rights fails because all the rights under that law assume that there is an ongoing investigation or prosecution. In this case, there was no ongoing investigation or proceeding. The Meridian Police Department had already conducted two separate investigations into Christian's death, both of which were completed. The Attorney General's Office also presented the case to a grand jury, which returned a no true bill, thus ending the process due to a lack of reasonable grounds to indict.The court also pointed out that the victims' rights statutes cited by the Estate do not confer standing to allow its petition, and all indications from Mississippi's prosecutorial structure and case law suggest that allowing private direction of prosecutions, which must be brought on behalf of the state, is disallowed. Therefore, the court affirmed the Circuit Court's decision, finding that the Estate lacks standing to file the petition. View "In Re: Death Investigation of Christian Andreacchio" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the conviction and sentence of Timothy Marbley for aggravated domestic violence. The case originated from an incident in April 2020, where officers responded to a disturbance at an apartment complex. They found Sherita Lynch, Marbley's girlfriend, with injuries and a trail of blood leading from the apartment. Marbley was not present at the scene. Lynch and Marbley both testified at the trial, providing different accounts of the incident.The court noted that Marbley's counsel had filed a brief asserting that there were no arguable issues for review and complied with the procedures set out in Lindsey v. State when an attorney believes there are no appealable issues. Despite being given an opportunity, Marbley did not file a pro se brief. After reviewing the entire record, the court concurred with Marbley's counsel and found no issues that warranted appellate review.Consequently, the court affirmed Marbley's conviction for aggravated domestic violence and his sentence of ten years, five of which were suspended with nonreporting, supervised probation. View "Marbley v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

The case before the Supreme Court of Mississippi involves an appeal by Joe Exson, who was convicted of burglary of a dwelling, grand larceny, and first-degree arson. Exson was identified in a video committing these crimes, wearing a distinctive hoodie that was later found in his possession. He stole numerous items from the property and set it on fire, causing it to burn down entirely. The primary issue in Exson's appeal was the valuation of the stolen items, which was used to determine the charge of grand larceny. The property owner estimated the value of the stolen goods to be over $1,000, which is the minimum threshold for grand larceny under Mississippi law.Exson argued that the state failed to provide sufficient evidence of the fair market value of the stolen property and that the jury was improperly instructed on the value element of the larceny statute. However, the court noted that Exson failed to raise these arguments during his trial and thus, they were procedurally barred. Besides, the court found no merit in Exson's arguments as he was clearly seen committing the crime in the video. Moreover, reversing his larceny sentence would not substantially change his overall sentence since his arson sentence was longer and was to run concurrently.The court also examined the jury instructions and found that they tracked the language of the grand larceny statute correctly, even though they did not further define the element of value. Since Exson did not object to the instructions or request a definitional instruction during his trial, the court found no reversible error. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed Exson's convictions. View "Exson v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law