Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in Constitutional Law
Watts v. Mississippi
Cortez Watts was convicted by jury for conspiracy to commit armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, he argued the failure of two jurors to properly respond to questions asked during voir dire deprived him of the right to intelligently participate in the jury selection process. Therefore, Watts contended that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, alternatively, for a new trial. Because the trial court did not clearly err by finding that the jurors lacked substantial knowledge of the information sought to be elicited during voir dire, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Watts v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Baby Boy Moore a/k/a Lavell v. Mississippi
Baby Boy Moore appeals his conviction of aggravated assault and argues both that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and that the prosecutor erred by using Moore’s past convictions as impeachment evidence. Moore was indicted by grand jury in 2020 for aggravated assault; he was ultimately convicted by jury as charged in 2021. The trial court sentenced Moore to serve a term of eight years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with six years suspended. Because the Mississippi Supreme Court concluded Moore’s claims lacked merit, it affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "Baby Boy Moore a/k/a Lavell v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Jones County School District v. Covington County School District, et al.
Jones County School District (JCSD) alleged Covington County School District (CCSD), the custodial district, failed to share sixteenth-section income as required by statute for a period of eighteen years or more. JCSD requested, among other things, an accounting going back to 1997. The chancellor ultimately ordered what JCSD called a “partial” accounting, lacking some requested details and going back only to 2003, when the two districts began exchanging lists of educable students as required by statute. JCSD then petitioned the Mississippi Supreme Court for permission to file an interlocutory appeal, which the Court granted. JCSD contended on appeal that certain statutes prescribing time periods relating to the distribution of sixteenth-section incomes were statutes of limitation, which the Mississippi Constitution prohibited from being enforced against political subdivisions of the State. This appeal also presented questions of statutory interpretation regarding how income from shared townships is to be managed. The Supreme Court concluded that the statute conditioning the annual payment of sixteenth-section funds on the exchanging of lists of educable children was a constitutional exercise of the Legislature’s authority to decide the method and procedure for allocating funds. The statute giving the noncustodial district one year to contest the sufficiency of the payments (in those years in which lists of educable students were exchanged) was likewise not a statute of limitations. The Court recognized there might still be a need for an accounting, as the custodial district is required to pay a pro-rata share of the interest derived from the principal fund associated with each of the sixteenth-section lands to the noncustodial district on an annual basis. "Maintenance of the principal fund is potentially subject to an action in equity for an accounting." The Court vacated the chancery court's accounting order and remanded for that court to consider a new claim for accounting, if JCSD pursues one, in light of the Supreme Court's holding here. View "Jones County School District v. Covington County School District, et al." on Justia Law
Moffett v. Mississippi
Eric Moffett was convicted of a savage sexual assault on a five-year-old girl, culminating in her death. Compelling evidence supported his conviction including, inter alia, conclusive DNA evidence, eyewitness testimony, and a confession. The jury determined that the victim’s murder was: (1) committed while Moffett was engaged in felonious abuse and/or battery of a child and (2) especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. On February 25, 2006, the jury sentenced Moffett to death. Moffett filed a motion for leave to file successive petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) from his capital murder conviction and sentence of death. Not only was the motion untimely, the Mississippi Supreme Court found no merit to Moffett’s motion for leave to file successive petition for PCR: "The first claim does not pass the first prong set forth in Strickland. The second claim is barred by res judicata and, notwithstanding the bar, also fails to pass the first prong of Strickland." Accordingly, Moffett’s motion for leave to file successive petition for PCR was denied. View "Moffett v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Baby Boy Moore a/k/a Lavell v. Mississippi
Baby Boy Moore appealed his conviction of aggravated assault, arguing both that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and that the prosecutor erred by using Moore’s past convictions as impeachment evidence. Because Moore’s claims lacked merit, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "Baby Boy Moore a/k/a Lavell v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Watts v. Mississippi
Cortez Watts argued that the failure of two jurors to properly respond to questions asked during voir dire deprived him of the right to intelligently participate in the jury selection process. Therefore, Watts contended the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, alternatively, for a new trial. The Mississippi Supreme Court found the trial court did not clearly err by finding that the jurors lacked substantial knowledge of the information sought to be elicited during voir dire. Therefore, the trial court's judgment was affirmed. View "Watts v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Scott v. Mississippi
Kendrick Scott was on trial for robbery. While the State and his defense lawyer were selecting a jury, Scott proclaimed to the courtroom that he was “guilty as hell[!]” After hearing testimony from the robbery victims and listening to Scott’s recorded confession, the jury agreed. Scott had previously been convicted for robbery four other times. So based on these convictions, the judge sentenced Scott as a habitual offender to a mandatory term of life in prison. Scott appealed, arguing he was substantially and irreparably prejudiced by his own outburst during voir dire. Scott insistd the trial judge abused his discretion by denying his attorney’s request for a mistrial. To this, the Mississippi Supreme Court disagreed: "Because it was Scott who made the unprovoked outburst, from which he suffered no substantial prejudice, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by denying a mistrial." View "Scott v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Burden v. Mississippi
Derrick Burden was convicted by jury of aggravated assault but acquitted of arson. The trial court sentenced Burden to ten years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with five years suspended and full credit for time served. After sentencing, Burden moved for a directed verdict, which the court denied. Burden also filed a motion for a new trial, which was deemed denied. The Mississippi Supreme Court found the trial court record showed ample evidence in the form of testimony, medical records, and photos, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient to sustain an aggravated assault conviction, and the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Accordingly, judgment was affirmed. View "Burden v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Ward v. Mississippi
Alphonso Ward was charged in a multi-offense indictment for automobile burglary and as an habitual offender. Ward was convicted by jury of automobile burglary. At Ward’s sentencing hearing, the State offered evidence attempting to prove Ward’s habitual offender status, but the documents offered were not in the record. Ward was convicted and sentenced as an habitual offender. On appeal, Ward argued: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Ward was an habitual offender; and (2) the trial court erred when it denied Ward’s motion to dismiss for a violation of his right to a speedy trial. The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed and remanded this case to the trial court to determine whether the specific facts of the instant case justified the finding that good cause existed for the delay in bringing Ward to trial. "If good cause existed, then the trial court should apply the proper Barker analysis. Should it be determined that Ward’s right to a speedy trial has not been violated, then his conviction stands. However, Ward should be resentenced on the substantive crime only." View "Ward v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Haymon and Pernell v. Mississippi
Crystal Pernell and Tajarvis Haymon were convicted of two counts of armed robbery (Counts I and II), kidnapping (Count III) and aggravated assault (Count IV). On appeal, Pernell challenged the weight and sufficiency of the evidence used to support her conviction and argued that her request for a lesser offense jury instruction for simple assault should have been granted. Haymon argued that Danzel Williams’s (Danzel) identification of him in a photo lineup was impermissibly suggestive. Finding no error, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. View "Haymon and Pernell v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law