Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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 alleged: (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Ward was an habitual offender; and (2) that the trial court erred when it denied Ward’s motion to dismiss for a violation of his right to a speedy trial. After review, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed for the circuit court to conduct a Barker analysis and resentencing of Ward if he failed to establish that a speedy trial violation occurred. View "Ward v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

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 a witness' identification of him in a photo lineup was impermissibly suggestive. Finding no error, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. View "Haymon v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Derrick Burden was convicted by jury of aggravated assault, and 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 filed a motion for a directed verdict, which the court denied. Burden also filed a motion for a new trial, which was deemed denied. He appealed, arguing the State failed to offer evidence that the victim suffered any serious bodily injury and that the State also failed to present evidence to support an inference that Burden attempted to cause serious bodily injury. He also claims that the evidence was insufficient for a conviction of aggravated assault and, alternatively, that the verdict against him was contrary to the weight of evidence. After review of the trial court record, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. View "Burden v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

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. As this was Scott’s fourth robbery conviction, Scott was sentenced 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 insisted 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

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

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

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

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

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

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