Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A divorced couple with one child became embroiled in post-divorce litigation over visitation and the enforcement of prior court orders. After the divorce, the mother had primary physical custody, but the father was granted substantial visitation. In 2015, a chancellor found the mother had interfered with visitation and ordered her to pay the father for medical debt related to her other child. Years later, the father again sought to enforce visitation and recover the debt, leading to a series of contentious proceedings. The mother failed to comply with orders regarding visitation and payment. The court ultimately found her in contempt, incarcerated her, and awarded custody to the father. During these proceedings, allegations arose that the mother’s attorney had advised her not to follow the court’s orders.The case was heard in the Hinds County Chancery Court, where the new chancellor enforced the previous order for payment, found the mother in contempt, and sanctioned her attorney, Matthew Thompson, for his actions related to the case and his failure to appear at a show-cause hearing. The mother and her attorney appealed several orders, including the contempt finding against the attorney and the enforcement of the 2015 order.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the appeals. It held that the chancellor improperly sanctioned Thompson for constructive criminal contempt without affording him due process, specifically notice and a hearing before a different judge. The court vacated the sanction against Thompson, remanded for further proceedings before another chancellor, and ordered the return of the $1,500 fine. The court affirmed the enforcement of the 2015 order against the mother and denied her requests for permanent recusal of the chancellor and referral to the judicial commission. All other issues related to visitation and custody were deemed moot after the father relinquished his parental rights. View "Jones v. Jones" on Justia Law

A woman suffered serious injuries when she struck a large pothole while riding her motorcycle on a city street in Jackson, Mississippi. Her view of the pothole was blocked by a truck in front of her, and the accident resulted in a severely broken ankle requiring surgery and extensive recovery. Prior to the incident, she owned a caregiving business but was unable to resume her work due to her injuries, leading to significant financial hardship. The City of Jackson had received notice of the dangerous pothole eight days before the accident, classified it as a high priority, but did not repair it or place any warnings until months later.The case was tried in the Hinds County Circuit Court. The court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment, granted the plaintiff’s partial summary judgment on liability, and after a bench trial on damages, awarded her both economic and noneconomic damages. The City appealed, arguing that it was immune from liability under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act based on discretionary-function immunity and challenged the interpretation of statutory duties as well as the denial of summary judgment.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. It held that while the City’s decisions about general street maintenance may involve policy discretion, its failure to warn about or timely repair a known dangerous pothole after receiving actual notice did not qualify for discretionary-function immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. The Court found that such failures were “simple acts of negligence” rather than protected policy decisions. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the judgment of the Hinds County Circuit Court, holding that the City was not immune from liability and upholding the award of damages to the plaintiff. View "City of Jackson, Mississippi v. Lawson" on Justia Law

The case concerns the conviction of an individual for first degree murder following the death of his former partner. On June 19, 2023, the defendant and the victim, who shared two sons, spent the day at a YMCA with their children. An argument occurred between the defendant and the victim, leading to further tension. That evening, the victim returned home with her children, and the next morning, the victim’s daughters found her unresponsive in her bed, with evidence of a fatal gunshot wound. The investigation revealed no murder weapon or direct physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime, but circumstantial evidence included text messages suggesting ongoing conflict, the defendant’s suspicious movements according to location data, and a statement reportedly made by the defendant to his brother confessing to the shooting.The Lowndes County Circuit Court held a jury trial where the State presented primarily circumstantial evidence, including testimony about the defendant’s ability to enter locked doors and his proximity to the victim’s home at critical times. After the State rested, the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict was denied. The jury found him guilty of first degree murder, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Post-trial motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial were also denied.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed whether the evidence was sufficient to prove deliberate design and whether the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The Supreme Court held that the circumstantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient for a rational juror to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court further concluded that the verdict did not represent an unconscionable injustice. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "House v. State" on Justia Law

A man was pursued by police after driving a car rented by his mother in a reckless manner to avoid a checkpoint, ultimately crashing in a residential area and fleeing the scene. His passenger, apprehended and interviewed the same night, identified him as the driver. The car contained cocaine, marijuana, and prescription bottles in his name. The defendant was later arrested after hiding from law enforcement in his home. At trial, the State presented testimony from law enforcement and the passenger identifying him as the driver. The defense called alibi witnesses who claimed he was at home during the incident, and the defendant himself denied involvement.The Circuit Court of Madison County found the evidence sufficient to convict him of cocaine possession and felony evasion. The court admitted his prior felony convictions for impeachment purposes after conducting an analysis under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1)(B) and the Peterson factors, and sentenced him as a nonviolent habitual offender and subsequent drug offender. The defendant appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient, the prior convictions were improperly admitted, the flight instruction was erroneous, and the habitual offender sentence was incorrect. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sufficiency of the evidence but reversed the convictions, finding the trial court’s Rule 609(a)(1)(B) analysis inadequate and the issue not procedurally barred.On certiorari, the Supreme Court of Mississippi found the challenge to the admission of prior convictions was procedurally barred due to the lack of a specific objection at trial. The court further held that the trial judge properly applied the Rule 609(a)(1)(B) standard and the Peterson factors, and that the flight instruction and habitual offender sentence were not erroneous. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ finding on sufficiency but reversed its decision to grant a new trial, reinstating and affirming the trial court’s judgment and sentences. View "Gardner v. State" on Justia Law

Mitchell Glenn Revette sought medical care from Dr. Andrew Mallette at The Surgical Clinic Associates, P.A. for abdominal pain and underwent surgery for diverticulitis in June 2021. He later returned for a follow-up surgery in January 2022, after which he died due to complications related to respiratory depression. His wife, Nitkia Revette, brought a wrongful death and medical negligence lawsuit on behalf of his estate, alleging that negligent anesthesia and pain management led to his death.The defendants, Dr. Mallette and the Clinic, moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement included in an intake packet mailed to Mitchell. The agreement was signed "Mitchell Revette," but during a hearing in the Hinds County Circuit Court, Nitkia testified that she signed her husband’s name without his knowledge or presence, and she stated she had no authority to sign for him. The Clinic’s staff testified that patients were required to sign such agreements personally. The circuit court found that Mitchell did not sign the arbitration agreement and that Nitkia lacked authority to bind him, thus ruling the agreement unenforceable and denying the motion to compel arbitration.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the circuit court’s findings, applying a deferential standard to factual determinations and de novo review to the denial of arbitration. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision, holding that substantial evidence supported the findings that Nitkia lacked both actual and apparent authority to sign for Mitchell and that there was no basis for binding the estate via direct-benefits estoppel. The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "Mallette v. Revette" on Justia Law

James Secrist, after recovering from COVID-19, began experiencing significant neurological symptoms, including leg weakness and inability to urinate. He was evaluated by various healthcare professionals at Rush Medical Foundation and Cardiovascular Institute of the South between March and June 2021. Ultimately, he was diagnosed with transverse myelitis attributed to COVID-19. James and his wife Dawn filed a medical malpractice suit against the involved healthcare providers, alleging negligence in failing to recognize and urgently address his worsening neurological condition.The case was brought in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court. The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting immunity under Mississippi Code Section 11-71-7, which provides legal immunity to healthcare professionals and facilities for acts or omissions related to healthcare services performed during the COVID-19 state of emergency. The circuit court found that the alleged negligent acts occurred during the COVID-19 state of emergency, that James’s condition was caused by COVID-19, and that the defendants’ actions were covered by the statutory immunity. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the statutory language and the facts alleged in the complaint de novo. The Supreme Court determined that Section 11-71-7 immunity applied because James’s injuries resulted from treatment for a condition caused by COVID-19 during the COVID-19 state of emergency. The court rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the statute should be construed more narrowly to exclude these facts, and also found extrajurisdictional cases cited by plaintiffs to be distinguishable. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s dismissal, holding that the defendants are immune from liability under Section 11-71-7. View "Secrist v. Rush Medical Foundation" on Justia Law

The case arises from a fatal shooting that occurred after a party in DeSoto County, Mississippi. The defendant, after becoming intoxicated and damaging the host’s bathroom, was confronted and struck by the host. He left the house and sat in his car, at which point several partygoers approached him, demanding that he leave. Testimony varied as to the exact sequence of events, but it was undisputed that the defendant, from inside his car, fired a weapon during a confrontation, killing one of the partygoers. The defendant later admitted in a recorded phone call that he fired into a group of people.A grand jury indicted the defendant for murder. His first trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury. In a second trial in the DeSoto County Circuit Court, the jury found him guilty of second-degree murder. He was sentenced to twenty years’ incarceration followed by ten years of post-release supervision. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Mississippi, he argued that his counsel was ineffective for not requesting an excusable homicide instruction, that a deliberate-design jury instruction prejudiced his defense, and that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.The Supreme Court of Mississippi rejected all of the defendant’s arguments. The court held that counsel’s decision not to request an excusable-homicide instruction was reasonable trial strategy, not deficient performance, and did not prejudice the defense. It further ruled that, although giving both deliberate-design and manslaughter instructions is generally error, any such error was harmless here because the evidence did not support a manslaughter instruction. Finally, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, and the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "McDaniel v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

A redevelopment project in Tunica County, Mississippi, involved a distressed property previously operated as a casino. The county sought to acquire the property from its private owner, TJM Properties, Inc., with plans to redevelop it into a convention center complex. Plaintiffs, including Don Hewitt, Advanced Technology Building Solutions, LLC (ATBS), and Tunica Hospitality & Entertainment, LLC (TH&E), invested significant sums in anticipation of becoming the developer and manager under a series of agreements and extensions. However, the purchase option was never exercised, and a senior lienholder ultimately foreclosed on the property.The Tunica County Chancery Court found that the plaintiffs never acquired title, held no enforceable lien, and were not parties to the key asset-purchase agreement. The court dismissed their claims with prejudice, holding that they lacked a legally cognizable property interest, standing to assert a claim, or entitlement to relief. Additionally, the chancery court enforced a previous agreed order requiring the plaintiffs to pay $200,000 to TJM for property maintenance, a payment that was never made.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the chancery court’s dismissal of all claims with prejudice. The court held that the plaintiffs had no valid or enforceable lien on the property because they were not licensed contractors, performed no actual construction, and had previously waived any lien rights by consent order. The court also found no error in enforcing the $200,000 judgment and concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the transfer of funds between the county and TJM. The judgment of the Tunica County Chancery Court was therefore affirmed. View "Hewitt v. TJM Properties, Inc." on Justia Law

The case concerns an altercation on Christmas Eve 2019 between Billy Ray Gibson and his girlfriend, Darcie Rich, at their shared residence in Hinds County, Mississippi. Police were called to the scene and found Rich unconscious; she died six days later due to multiple blunt-force injuries to the head. Evidence included bruising and abrasions on both individuals, blood in the residence, and a broken metal broomstick. Gibson initially told police that others had attacked Rich, but later admitted at trial that he and Rich had fought after she hit him with a barstool, and that he either pushed or hit her, causing her to fall and strike her head.Gibson was originally charged with assault, later upgraded to murder following Rich's death. His first trial ended in a mistrial. At his second trial in Hinds County Circuit Court, a jury convicted him of second-degree murder. During the trial, Gibson requested a jury instruction on excusable homicide under Mississippi Code Section 97-3-17, arguing that the death may have resulted from accident or misfortune during a sudden combat without undue advantage or a dangerous weapon. The trial court denied this instruction, finding the proposed language too abstract or not supported by Gibson’s specific testimony.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and held that Gibson was entitled to an excusable-homicide jury instruction, as his testimony provided a foundation for the jury to consider this defense. The court found that neither the instruction initially proposed nor the modified version incorrectly stated the law, and that the trial evidence warranted giving the instruction. The court reversed Gibson’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the failure to give the excusable-homicide instruction was reversible error. View "Gibson v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

A candidate filed to run in the Democratic primary for city marshal in Okolona, Mississippi, listing an in-city address. His opponent contended that the candidate did not truly reside within the city limits for the two years required before the election. Evidence was presented suggesting the candidate held homestead exemptions outside the city and had not lived at the addresses he claimed. The candidate argued he met the residency requirement, providing some documentation and his own testimony. Additional testimony from a city official cast doubt on whether the candidate had actually lived at the in-city address before the qualifying deadline.The Okolona Democratic Executive Committee initially found the candidate qualified. The opponent then petitioned the Chickasaw County Circuit Court for review. A special judge presided and, after a hearing, found the candidate failed to prove two years’ residency in the city as required by law, giving weight to evidence of out-of-city homestead properties and the lack of credible proof of in-city residence. The judge disqualified the candidate from the primary ballot.The candidate appealed the disqualification order to the Supreme Court of Mississippi. Meanwhile, both the primary and general elections took place, and the candidate was not on either ballot. The candidate also attempted a post-primary challenge, but did not pursue an appeal in time. The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that the candidate’s appeal under the preprimary-qualification statute was moot since the elections had already occurred and the statute provides no remedy after the fact. The Court also found that substantial evidence supported the judge’s finding that the candidate did not meet the two-year residency requirement. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the lower court’s decision. View "Randle v. Ivy" on Justia Law