Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Attorney Zachary Jex was hired to defend Jerrell Davis on charges of first-degree murder and aggravated assault. After a mistrial in January 2022, a second trial was scheduled for September 12, 2023. During jury selection, the trial was delayed due to a malfunctioning air conditioner. The next day, Jex negotiated a plea deal for Davis, which included dropping the aggravated assault charge and pleading guilty to two counts of manslaughter. The prosecution agreed, but the judge required Jex to pay the jury costs as a condition for accepting the plea.The Claiborne County Circuit Court issued an order requiring Jex to pay $4,141 for the jury costs. Jex contested this order, arguing that he should not be responsible for the costs. The court treated his argument as a motion to reconsider and denied it. Jex then submitted a written motion to reconsider, which was also denied, leading to his appeal.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. The court found that Jex had voluntarily agreed to pay the jury costs during the plea hearing and that the trial judge had the authority to impose these costs under Rule 3.13 of the Uniform Civil Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice. The court also rejected Jex's arguments that he was under duress, that Rule 3.13 was misapplied, and that the prosecution's actions constituted misconduct.The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the order of the Claiborne County Circuit Court, holding that Jex was required to pay the jury costs as he had agreed during the plea negotiations. View "In Re: Jex" on Justia Law

The case involves the Mississippi Apartment Association (MAA) and other property owners challenging an ordinance adopted by the Jackson City Council. The ordinance imposed registration and inspection requirements on rental housing units in Jackson. MAA appealed the city council's decision in the Hinds County Circuit Court but did not request a stay of the ordinance's implementation. Subsequently, MAA filed a separate action in the Hinds County Chancery Court seeking injunctions against the ordinance's enforcement, arguing that the planning department's interpretation and enforcement of the ordinance were unlawful.The Hinds County Chancery Court dismissed MAA's claims for lack of jurisdiction, stating that the circuit court had exclusive jurisdiction over the appeal of the city council's decision under Mississippi Code Section 11-51-75. The chancery court found that the circuit court also had pendent jurisdiction over MAA's equitable claims regarding the ordinance's enforcement.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the chancery court's decision. The court held that the circuit court had exclusive jurisdiction over the appeal of the city council's decision and pendent jurisdiction over related claims regarding the ordinance's enforcement. The court emphasized that allowing a separate action in the chancery court could lead to contradictory rulings and confusion. The court also noted that MAA had an adequate remedy at law in the circuit court and could have requested a stay of the ordinance's implementation under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 62. View "Mississippi Apartment Association v. City of Jackson" on Justia Law

A sixteen-year-old female, through her mother, filed a petition to change her legal name to a more masculine one as part of her gender transition. Both parents consented to the name change. The Mississippi State Board of Health (MSBH) was named as a respondent and acknowledged the petition, stating it would annotate the minor’s birth certificate if the court ordered the name change.The Hinds County Chancery Court held a hearing on the petition, where the minor and her parents were present. The chancellor decided to dismiss the petition without prejudice, stating that the minor needed to mature more before the court would consider the name change.The petitioner appealed the decision. The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and upheld the chancellor’s decision. The court emphasized that under Mississippi law, a chancellor may only grant a minor’s name change if it is clearly in the best interest of the child. The court found that the chancellor did not manifestly err in determining that the minor needed to mature more before making such a significant decision. The court also noted that the chancellor’s decision was consistent with Mississippi’s public policy against children receiving life-altering gender-transition assistance due to their lack of maturity. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the chancellor’s dismissal of the name-change petition. View "In The Matter of The Petition of S.M.-B. v. Mississippi State Board of Health" on Justia Law

Eltory Hawkins was convicted by a jury of one count of sexual battery and two counts of fondling his girlfriend’s minor daughter. The Desoto County Circuit Court sentenced him to thirty-five years for sexual battery, ten years for each count of fondling (to run consecutively with the thirty-five years and concurrently with each other), and five years of post-release supervision. Hawkins was also required to register as a sex offender.Hawkins's first trial in March 2022 ended in a mistrial due to juror misconduct. Juror 86 was dismissed for inappropriate behavior, including communicating with other jurors and an audience member. Another juror, Juror 3, disclosed knowing a defense witness but claimed impartiality. The circuit court declared a mistrial, citing potential jury taint. Hawkins's motion to dismiss the case on double jeopardy grounds was denied, and a second trial was scheduled.In the second trial in November 2022, the State presented testimony from several witnesses, including the victims. Lily testified that Hawkins had sexually assaulted her multiple times. Hawkins moved for a directed verdict, arguing insufficient evidence, but the motion was denied. The jury found Hawkins guilty on three counts, and he was sentenced accordingly.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the conviction and sentence. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, as Lily's testimony alone was enough for a reasonable juror to find Hawkins guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also found that the jury's verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Lastly, the court ruled that the mistrial in the first trial was justified due to manifest necessity, given the juror misconduct, and did not violate Hawkins's protection against double jeopardy. View "Hawkins v. State" on Justia Law

An eight-year-old student, J.S., was sexually assaulted by her bus driver, Sergio Sandoval, multiple times over a month. J.S.'s parents filed a lawsuit against the Ocean Springs School District under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, alleging negligence, negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training, failure to adopt and follow policies, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and civil assault, battery, and false imprisonment. The Jackson County Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of the District, finding it was entitled to discretionary-function immunity and that Sandoval’s actions were not reasonably foreseeable.The plaintiff appealed the decision. The Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that while the District was protected by discretionary-function immunity regarding the failure to adopt sufficient policies and procedures, the claims related to negligent hiring, supervision, and training were not barred by this immunity. The court found that these claims involved simple negligence and did not involve policy decisions.The court also held that the plaintiff had demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact regarding the foreseeability of the injuries. The court noted that the District’s own measures to screen and monitor its bus drivers indicated that a person of ordinary intelligence could anticipate that failure to properly do so could lead to the type of injury sustained by J.S.The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its findings. View "J.S. v. Ocean Springs School District" on Justia Law

Nancy and Carlos Sistrunk were married in 1984 and separated in 2021. Nancy filed for divorce citing irreconcilable differences or, alternatively, adultery. They have four adult children, including Emily, who has Down syndrome and other health issues, making her incapable of self-support. Both parties agreed to proceed with the divorce based on irreconcilable differences. In 2023, Nancy filed a motion regarding the marital residence and child support for Emily, which Carlos opposed.The trial, primarily focused on financial issues and property division, was held in September 2023. The chancery court granted the divorce, divided the real and personal property approximately equally, and declined to award alimony, child support for Emily, or attorneys’ fees. The court failed to make specific findings of fact regarding the factors required for equitable distribution of assets, and many of its findings were unsupported by the record.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. The court found that the chancery court did not make sufficient findings of fact regarding each applicable Ferguson factor, which is necessary for equitable distribution of marital property. The court noted that the chancery court's findings were not supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding the parties' incomes and the dissipation of marital assets. The Supreme Court also highlighted the lack of consideration for the emotional value of the marital home and the financial needs of the parties, especially Nancy's role as Emily's primary caregiver.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the chancery court's judgment on the equitable distribution of assets and related matters and remanded the case for further consideration. The chancery court was instructed to make specific findings of fact regarding each applicable Ferguson factor and to rectify unsupported findings. The court may also reconsider issues related to alimony, child support for Emily, and attorneys’ fees on remand. View "Sistrunk v. Sistrunk" on Justia Law

Effie Mae Autry had three children, Steve, Michael, and Melvin. Michael and Melvin predeceased their mother, leaving behind children. In 2014, Effie and her husband Eugene executed wills that distributed their assets equally among their children and grandchildren. Eugene passed away in 2017, and his assets were transferred to Effie. In 2019, Effie executed a new will and several warranty deeds, leaving all assets to Steve and disinheriting her grandchildren. This new will was drafted by attorney Anna Kate Robbins after their long-time attorney, Sidra Winter, refused due to concerns about Effie's mental capacity and potential undue influence by Steve.The Pontotoc County Chancery Court invalidated the 2019 will and the warranty deeds, citing undue influence by Steve and failure to properly authenticate the will. The court found that the affidavits of the attesting witnesses did not include their addresses, as required by Mississippi Code Section 91-7-7. The court also found that Steve had a confidential relationship with Effie and did not rebut the presumption of undue influence.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the chancery court's decision. The court held that the 2019 will was not duly authenticated due to the missing addresses on the affidavits. The court also agreed with the chancery court's finding of undue influence, noting that Steve's actions and Effie's declining mental capacity supported this conclusion. The case was remanded to the chancery court for further proceedings regarding the probate of the 2014 will. View "In Re The Matter of the Estate of Autry" on Justia Law

Jakeviyon Hunter was convicted of first-degree murder and shooting into an occupied vehicle. The incident occurred after Hunter and the victim, Jaquarius Ross, were involved in a traffic stop where marijuana and guns were found in the vehicle. Hunter and Ross were both charged with possession of a controlled substance. Later, Hunter shot Ross multiple times while Ross was in his truck, resulting in Ross's death. The prosecution argued that Hunter's motive was related to the earlier drug charge, which could have negatively impacted Hunter's military career.The Madison County Circuit Court sentenced Hunter to life imprisonment for first-degree murder and five years for shooting into an occupied vehicle. Hunter's post-trial motion was denied by the circuit court. He appealed, arguing that the admission of evidence related to his prior misdemeanor charge was improper and raised several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and found no error in the circuit court's admission of the evidence. The court held that the evidence of Hunter's prior drug charge was admissible under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show motive, intent, plan, and identity. The court also provided a limiting instruction to the jury regarding the use of this evidence. The court found that the evidence was necessary to provide a complete story of the events leading to Ross's murder.Hunter's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not addressed on direct appeal because his pro se supplemental brief was filed untimely. The court affirmed Hunter's conviction and sentence, finding no plain error in the admission of the evidence. Hunter may still pursue his ineffective assistance claims under the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act. View "Hunter v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

Emmett Hotard acquired two lots in Hancock County in 2006 and used one as security for a loan from The Peoples Bank. After defaulting on the loan and failing to pay property taxes, Lot 17 was sold at a tax sale to Ken Foreman in 2012. The bank later assigned its interest to Emmett's brother, Eric Hotard, who initiated foreclosure proceedings. Eric's company, DHP1, LLC, purchased the lots at a foreclosure sale in 2014. The chancery clerk sent a notice of the tax sale to Emmett, which was returned undelivered. Notices were also sent to lienholders, including Eric.The Hancock County Chancery Court found that the chancery clerk failed to satisfy statutory notice requirements for the tax sale and declared the sale void. The court granted summary judgment in favor of DHP1, LLC, and voided the tax deed to Ken Foreman and the subsequent quitclaim deed to Baron Foreman, who had acquired Lot 17 from Ken.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the chancery court's decision. The court held that Emmett, as the record owner 180 days before the redemption period expired, was entitled to notice. The chancery clerk failed to provide proper notice by certified mail or personal service and did not conduct a diligent search for Emmett's address, which was easily discoverable in the land records. The court emphasized that any deviation from the statutory notice requirements renders a tax sale void. Consequently, the tax sale was declared void, and summary judgment in favor of DHP1, LLC, was affirmed. View "Foreman v. DHP1, LLC" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Pitts was convicted in February 2021 for sexually battering his four-year-old daughter, AGC. The incident came to light when AGC told her grandmother and mother about inappropriate touching by Pitts. AGC later provided consistent details during a forensic interview and at trial. Pitts was indicted by a Rankin County grand jury and his trial began in February 2021. During the trial, a tender years hearing was held to determine the reliability of AGC's statements, and the trial judge found them reliable. AGC testified in court with a screen obstructing her view of Pitts, which was contested by the defense.The Rankin County Circuit Court allowed the use of the screen, and AGC's testimony was presented to the jury. The jury found Pitts guilty, and the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction. Pitts then petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which was granted by the Supreme Court of Mississippi.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed whether the use of the screen violated Pitts's right to confrontation. The court held that the statutory provision allowing the screen did not require a specific finding of emotional trauma and that all essential elements of confrontation were met. The court emphasized that the statute was enacted under the authority granted by the Mississippi Constitution to protect crime victims' rights. The court found that Pitts's right to cross-examine AGC and observe her demeanor was preserved, and thus, the use of the screen did not violate his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the lower court's decision. View "Pitts v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law