Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case before the Supreme Court was a fifteen-year old contract dispute regarding the construction of Kevin Clark's house. During the litigation, the contractor and counter-plaintiff William Knesal, died. His defense attorney, provided to him by his insurance company upon commencement of the suit, filed a suggestion of death in the deceased's name. When no substitution motion was filed within the prescribed ninety-day period, Knesal's attorney moved to dismiss. Knesal filed the appropriate motion for substitution well after the mandatory ninety-day period, asserting that Knesal's attorney had no standing to submit a suggestion of death and that, additionally, he never received proper notice of the filing until the motion to dismiss was served. The trial court dismissed the action, and Clark appealed. The issue before the Court centered on determining who may file a suggestion of death with the trial court and what circumstances surrounding a failure to file an appropriate substitution motion within the statutory period constitute "excusable neglect." The Court found that the plain language of Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 25 permitted Knesal's attorney to file to suggestion of death without naming Knesal's successors or representatives. Similarly, there was no requirement under the rule that a motion to dismiss be filed at all prior to dismissal, so the fact that a motion to dismiss was filed by Knesal's attorneys did not provide grounds to overturn the trial court's decision. Furthermore, the Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it did not find Clark's delay in responding to the suggestion of death resulted from excusable neglect. Therefore, the decision of the trial court was affirmed. View "Clark v. Knesal" on Justia Law

Ronnie and Pamela Goss filed suit against defendants Rickey Wilkerson and Phenix Transportation, Inc. alleging that "Rickey Wilkerson fraudulently induced the plaintiffs to settle their workers' compensation claims and to release all claims against Phenix Transportation, Inc." in return for $65,000. The Gosses further alleged that Wilkerson knew, or should have known, that the checks would not clear due to insufficient funds. The Gosses did not allege any specific facts in their complaint nor did they present any cognizable evidence to establish venue in Smith County. Defendants timely answered the complaint, including in their answer a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to transfer jurisdiction and venue. Defendants argued that the Gosses' claims were legal in nature and were improperly brought in chancery court. Defendants also argued that venue was not proper in Smith County because Wilkerson resides in Scott County and Phenix has its principal place of business in Scott County. Defendants further argued that venue was not proper because no substantial act or omission or substantial event that allegedly caused the injury occurred in Smith County. The Gosses never filed a response to Defendants' motion. The chancery court heard oral argument on Defendants' motion. No transcript exists of the hearing. The chancery court found that the settlement checks and other documents were sent to the Gosses in Smith County, and the Gosses attempted to negotiate the checks in Smith County. Therefore, the chancery court concluded that venue was proper in Smith County because the "cause of action occurred/accrued in Smith County." The chancery court also found that the Gosses' claims were "more legal than equitable in nature" and transferred the case to the Circuit Court of Smith County. On appeal, Defendants argued that the chancery court erred in denying their motion to transfer venue. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the Chancery Court of Smith County erred in its interpretation of Mississippi Code Section 11-11-3 and in denying Defendants' motion to transfer venue. View "Wilkerson v. Goss" on Justia Law

Bobby Batiste was convicted of capital murder with the underlying felony of robbery for the slaying of his roommate, Andreas Galanis. After a sentencing hearing, the jury determined that Batiste should be sentenced to death. The Circuit Court denied Batiste's post-trial motions. Batiste appealed, raising fifteen assignments of error. After carefully reviewing the record and Batiste's arguments, the Supreme Court found no reversible error occurred and therefore affirmed Batiste's conviction and sentence. View "Batiste v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Dondrego Bolton was charged with burglary of a dwelling in 2010. He was found guilty and sentenced to twenty years in prison. Bolton's indictment originally charged him with breaking and entering a dwelling with the intent to commit larceny. At trial, the jury was instructed on burglary of a dwelling and the lesser-included offense of trespassing. The jury was told that if it found that Bolton had broken and entered into the home "[w]ith the intent to commit the crime of larceny or any other crime," he was guilty of burglary. Bolton did not object to the jury instructions at the time. The Court of Appeals found these jury instructions to be sufficient. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that under its recent holding in "Daniels v. State," (107 So. 3d 961 (Miss. 2013)), the jury did have to find that Bolton had intended to commit larceny, since that was the intended offense specified by the grand jury. Here, however, the Court of Appeals found it sufficient that "[t]he jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Bolton intended to commit a crime in Vance's house . . . ." Bolton argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the jury instructions were improper because they permitted the jury to convict him of burglary if it found that he had intended to commit any crime while inside the dwelling. Because the jury was improperly instructed on the essential elements of burglary consistent with the Court's recent decision in "Daniels," the Court reversed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Circuit Court and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Bolton v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Carl Patterson Jr. sustained serious injuries in a single-vehicle motorcycle accident. He sued T. L. Wallace Construction, Inc. and Turtle Creek Development, Inc. for damages. T. L. Wallace and Turtle Creek both filed motions for summary judgment. The Circuit Court of Marion County granted each motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals, finding the circuit court erred by granting summary judgment, reversed and remanded for a trial. Both defendants filed writs of certiorari, which were granted. After considering the parties' arguments and applicable law, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and reinstated and affirmed the Circuit Court's judgment. View "Patterson, Jr. v. T. L. Wallace Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

Melvin Grayer was convicted of burglary and sentenced as a habitual offender to seven years without the possibility of parole or probation. Grayer appealed, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to request a circumstantial-evidence jury instruction and that he was sentenced as a habitual offender without competent evidence of his prior felony convictions. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed Grayer's conviction and sentence of seven years, but vacated his habitual-offender sentence enhancement, because the State failed to prove Grayer was a habitual offender by competent evidence. View "Grayer v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Martin Vance filed a medical-malpractice/wrongful-death action on behalf of Mamie Vance Hemphill, alleging that Dr. Charles H. Laney was negligent in his treatment of the decedent, Hemphill. Vance initially sued other medical providers, but all but Dr. Laney were dismissed. Trial was held; Dr. Laney was the sole defendant. The jury returned a verdict of $1,000,000 to Vance. In response, Dr. Laney filed this appeal, presenting three issues to the Supreme Court: (1) whether the trial court erred in remitting plaintiff's economic damage award to $103,688 when the substantial weight of the evidence proved that the award should have been zero; (2) whether the trial court erred in its jury instructions; and, (3) whether plaintiff's counsel made inappropriate comments, and, when taken with the erroneous jury instructions, should have warranted Dr. Laney a new trial. Because the trial judge committed reversible error in instructing the jury that they could consider the "value of life" of the deceased in awarding damages, and because counsel for Vance made improper and prejudicial comments to the jury during closing arguments, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. View "Laney v. Vance" on Justia Law

Blayde Grayson was indicted for capital murder while in the commission of burglary with the intent to steal personal property. A jury found him guilty of capital murder and, in a separate sentencing proceeding, sentenced him to death. The Supreme Court affirmed Grayson's conviction and death sentence. In early 2003, Grayson filed his first petition seeking post-conviction collateral relief (PCR). The Supreme Court denied relief. Grayson then filed his "Motion for Leave to File Successor Petition for Post-Conviction Relief" and "Motion for Access." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that PCR petitioners who have been sentenced to death do have a right to the effective assistance of PCR counsel. Grayson's counsel in his first PCR proceedings before the Supreme Court rendered deficient performance. However, Grayson failed to show that this deficient performance prejudiced him. Therefore, Grayson's claim that he received ineffective assistance of PCR counsel was deemed without merit. Furthermore, Grayson failed to show that his claims met any exceptions to the procedural bars, and his "Motion for Leave to File Successor Petition for Post-Conviction Relief" was dismissed as procedurally barred. Grayson was hereby granted leave to proceed in the circuit court with a motion for access. "As a matter of due process, Grayson should be allowed access to his experts, subject to the rules and regulations of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). Because MDOC's rules and regulations presently require a court order, MDOC should be noticed with the request for access and afforded an opportunity to show cause why its present policies do not violate petitioner's due-process rights." View "Grayson v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Travis Keithley was convicted for aggravated assault. On appeal, he argued that it was plain error to admit into evidence the "statements" of two anonymous people, that the verdict was not supported by the evidence, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Keithley's conviction and sentence, and dismissed his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims without prejudice. View "Keithley v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Twonia Renee Williams was convicted for the murder of Katrina Sergeant. She was sentenced to life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MADOC). On appeal, Williams contended that jury instructions S-2A, S-4, and/or S-6 were given in error. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court erred in granting instruction S-4, and such error could not be considered harmless in this case. Therefore, Williams's conviction and sentence were reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. View "Williams v. Mississippi" on Justia Law