Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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

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

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

A probation officer improperly induced L.J. Green III to give a statement that led to the discovery of the linchpin evidence used against Green at his robbery trial. While the trial judge suppressed Green’s statement, the judge still admitted evidence that Green possessed the victim’s car keys - evidence wholly derived from Green’s excluded statement. This evidence was admitted over Green’s objection; a jury convicted Green. On appeal, both Green and the State agreed the trial judge wrongly admitted the tainted evidence. Though the State argued the error was harmless, the Mississippi Supreme Court concluded the evidence strongly contributed to Green’s guilty verdicts. “So its admission was not harmless error.” Judgment was therefore reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial. View "Green v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Ladarius Garrett was convicted by jury of burglary of a hotel room. He claimed his convictions as not supported by sufficient evidence, and that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Finding no merit to either claim, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Garrett’s conviction. View "Garrett v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

A grand jury indicted Dwayne Wilson on one count of aggravated assault. The indictment charges that Wilson “unlawfully, willfully, purposely and feloniously attempt[ed] to cause or knowingly caused bodily injury to . . . Stacy Pierce[] by striking him multiple times in the ribs and mouth with a bat, a means likely to produce death or serious bodily harm[.]” Wilson pled not guilty, but he was ultimately convicted on that charge when his first trial ended in a mistrial. On appeal, Wilson contended the second trial violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Additionally, Wilson claimed the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The Mississippi Supreme Court concluded that although the protections against double jeopardy had attached, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding manifest necessity to grant a mistrial. Further, the Court found the verdict in the second trial was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence presented. Accordingly, judgment and conviction were affirmed. View "Wilson v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Soon after the Mississippi Supreme Court appointed counsel to represent death-row inmate Alberto Garcia in post-conviction proceedings before it challenging his death sentence, the Attorney General preemptively filed in the trial court a “Motion for Notice of and an Opportunity to Be Heard on Requests for Litigation Expenses.” Relying on Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(c)(3), the Attorney General asserted her office was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard on Garcia’s requests for litigation expenses. Even though Garcia’s counsel had made no such request, the trial court granted the motion. The Supreme Court vacated this ruling: "Under Rule 22(c)(3), the Attorney General is not entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard on a request for litigation expenses that was never made—and will never be made—because Garcia’s appointed attorneys are not compensated and reimbursed through court-approved expenses but rather through their state employer. ... So the Attorney General’s request was not only premature; it was inapplicable. Thus, the trial court lacked authority to grant the Attorney General’s motion." View "Garcia v. Mississippi" on Justia Law