Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Dewayne Small was convicted by jury of felony exploitation of a vulnerable adult. The charge stemmed from Small and his girlfriend cashing twenty checks totaling more than $12,000 written by 79-year-old Charlotte Davis. Small claimed he was performing yard work for Charlotte, a widow who lived alone. But after viewing photographs of a half-cut tree, piles of debris, unraked leaves, overgrown shrubs, and other evidence of a scam, the jury rejected his argument. Based on the guilty verdict, the trial judge sentenced Small as a habitual offender to ten years in prison without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Small challenged the weight and sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial. Small also filed a pro se supplemental brief: challenging his habitual- offender status; and claiming the jury was tainted because the trial court did not strike for cause a juror who had previously worked with the police officer who testified against Small. Finding no reversible errors, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Small's conviction. View "Small v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Paul Barton appealed his conviction for possession of a stolen firearm. To the Mississippi Supreme Court, Barton argued the evidence was insufficient to show that he knew the firearm was stolen. At trial, Barton was also convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon, but he conceded that sufficient evidence supported that conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed Barton’s convictions, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support Barton’s conviction for possession of a stolen firearm. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that Barton knew the firearm was stolen and, therefore, that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support Barton’s conviction of possessing a stolen firearm beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the judgments of the Court of Appeals and of the Circuit Court. The Supreme Court acquitted Barton as to the possession-of-a-stolen-firearm charge. View "Barton v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Murphy Burnett was arrested and detained for several years. The State eventually moved to nolle prosequi its criminal case against Burnett, and he was released from detention. Burnett filed suit against several governmental entities based on torts connected to his arrest, prosecution, and detention. All the entities moved to dismiss based on a failure to file proper notices of claims and based on the statutes of limitation. The trial court granted these motions. Because proper notices of claims were not sent, because most of the claims were barred by one-year statutes of limitation, and because Burnett did not specifically raise the remaining claims on appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Burnett v. Hinds County, Mississippi" on Justia Law

Bobby Batiste was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Mississippi Supreme Court. The Court later granted him the right to file a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), finding he was entitled to a hearing regarding alleged communications between bailiffs and/or others and members of the jury. During the hearings, a motion was made requesting that the trial judge recuse. This motion was denied, and, ultimately, the PCR was denied. Batiste appealed both the denial of the request to recuse as well as the denial of the PCR on its merits. Because the Supreme Court found that evidentiary questions remained relating to the recusal issue, it did not address the merits of the PCR. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Batiste v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Robert Casey was convicted by jury of possession of cocaine, for which the circuit court sentenced him to serve twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with four years suspended pending completion of four years’ post-release supervision. Casey appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by declining to suppress cocaine found on his person and that his constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy trial were violated. Because Casey’s arguments were without merit, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "Casey v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Cynthia Robinson was convicted of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute hydrocodone after being intercepted by police on her way to meet a confidential informant. On appeal, Robinson contended the trial court erred by denying her motion for a mental evaluation. Robinson’s counsel asserted that Robinson was not effectively assisting in her own defense and pointed to Robinson’s YouTube videos espousing conspiracy theories and to her prior diagnosis of a drug-induced psychotic disorder. Robinson personally asked the court to deny the motion, which it ultimately did: the trial judge cited his prior experience with Robinson and his prior findings that she was “reasonable and rational” and had “presented herself well . . . before the Court.” Robinson testified in her own defense, and she appeared fully aware of the allegations against her and presented a coherent theory of her defense. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Robinson’s convictions and sentences. View "Robinson v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Dontorius Ware was indicted, charged and convicted for the murder of Roy Lee Washington. He appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial. Because the Mississippi Supreme Court determined sufficient evidence supported the verdict, because the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and because Ware did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel, it affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "Ware v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Eddie Howard was sentenced to death for the rape and murder of eighty-four-year-old Georgia Kemp. Howard was tied to the crime by Dr. Michael West, who identified Howard as the source of bite marks on Kemp’s body. At trial, Dr. West testified that he was a member of the American Board of Forensic Odontology (ABFO) and that he had followed its guidelines in rendering his opinion. But since Howard’s trial, the ABFO revised those guidelines to prohibit such testimony, and this reflected a new scientific understanding that an individual perpetrator could not be reliably identified through bite-mark comparison. This, along with new DNA testing and the paucity of other evidence linking Howard to the murder, compelled the Mississippi Supreme Court to conclude that Howardwasis entitled to a new trial. The Court therefore reversed the trial court’s denial of postconviction relief and vacated Howard’s conviction and sentence. View "Howard v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Michael Willis appealed his conviction for aggravated assault following a fight outside Kedarious' grandmother's home in which one person was shot and paralyzed. Counsel for his codefendant and nephew Kedarious Willis (Kedarious) filed a Lindsey brief with the appellate court, averring there were no meritorious arguments for appeal. After reviewing the errors Willis alleged, the Mississippi Supreme Court found no merit to his arguments. Therefore, the Court affirmed conviction. View "Willis v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Dalvin Latham was convicted by jury of robbery. He was sentenced to serve five years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Latham appealed, arguing that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in two ways: (1) by failing to object to the admission of an overly suggestive photographic lineup; and (2) by refusing the trial court’s proffered jury instruction C–8: an instruction concerning the accuracy and reliability of the victim’s out-of-court identification of Latham as one of the persons who robbed her. After review, the Mississippi Supreme Court found Latham failed to show the victim’s out-of-court identification was unreliable, and Latham failed to rebut the strong presumption that his trial counsel’s refusal of jury instruction C–8 was anything other than tactical and strategic. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed Latham’s conviction and sentence, and dismissed his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim with prejudice. View "Latham v. Mississippi" on Justia Law