Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Sixteen-year-old Bernard Taylor fired multiple shots into a car containing five people, wounding three of them. He was charged with three counts of aggravated assault, with each count alleging a firearms enhancement. The trial court denied Taylor’s proposed jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of simple assault. Taylor was granted a self-defense instruction. The jury was not instructed on the firearms enhancement. Taylor was convicted of one count of aggravated assault. Taylor received a twenty-year sentence for aggravated assault and a five-year sentence for a firearms enhancement, to run consecutively. On appeal, Taylor argued that the district court erred by denying the assault instruction, and that the five-year sentence enhancement should be vacated either under “Apprendi v. New Jersey,” (530 U.S. 466), or, alternatively, under double jeopardy. Upon review, the Mississippi Court found that Taylor’s arguments were without merit and affirmed the circuit court.View "Taylor v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Brad Hardy appealed his conviction of two counts of manslaughter by culpable negligence and one count of aggravated boating under the influence of alcohol resulting from a boating collision. He was sentenced to forty-four years, with twenty-six to serve. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed.View "Hardy v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Gregory Hopkins was convicted as a habitual offender of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. On appeal he challenged the sufficiency and the weight of the evidence as well as the admission of evidence of his prior bad acts. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed.View "Hopkins v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Charles Ervin (a convicted felon) of armed robbery and as a felon in possession of a handgun following the armed robbery of the Healthy Body Store. Police were able to identify Ervin as a suspect after his brother, also a convicted felon, pointed the police in his brother’s direction. At trial, the trial court gave a flight instruction over Ervin's objection. The trial court sentenced him and included a gun enhancement in the sentencing. This appeal followed. Because the trial court improperly limited the defense’s cross-examination of a key State witness, the Supreme Court reversed Ervin’s convictions and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial.View "Ervin v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Eric Moffett was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by a jury. Moffett was convicted of a savage sexual assault on a five-year-old girl, resulting in her death. Moffett’s conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Supreme Court on direct appeal, and his motion for rehearing was subsequently denied. Moffett presented a motion, an amended motion, and a supplemental motion seeking post-conviction relief. Moffett's argument to the Supreme Court was focused primarily on ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, but finding to merit to any of them, the Supreme Court denied relief. View "Moffett v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Scott Smith was convicted of capital murder for the death of seventeen-month-old child and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Smith appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting several Facebook messages and that the testimony of an investigator violated the Confrontation Clause. The Court of Appeals found no reversible error and affirmed. Smith then appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the Court of Appeals erred: (1) in holding that the Facebook messages were sufficiently authenticated; (2) that the Court of Appeals erred by finding that an email from Facebook was not inadmissible hearsay; and (3) that the Court of Appeals erroneously applied a harmless-error analysis to the violation of Smith’s confrontation rights. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and limited its review to Smith’s claim that the Facebook messages were not sufficiently authenticated. The Court found that Smith’s claim had merit; however, because the error was harmless, the Court affirmed Smith’s conviction and sentence.View "Smith v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Derrick Henley appealed his conviction by jury of possession of burglary tools. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that the tools were intended to be used in aiding the commission of a burglary. The Court therefore reversed and remanded Henley's conviction and sentence. View "Henley v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Charles Ferguson rode as a back-seat passenger with Lazeric Yarbrough and Oratio Robinson, unaware of Yarbrough’s and Robinson’s intent to purchase marijuana once the car arrived in West Point. On their return to Starkville, the men approached a Mississippi Highway Patrol checkpoint. As they approached the checkpoint, Yarbrough (in the front seat) opened the door and threw the bag of marijuana from the vehicle. The officers at the checkpoint watched as the bag was thrown from the vehicle and subsequently arrested all three men. Ferguson was indicted for possession of marijuana in an amount greater than 250 grams but less than 500 grams, with the intent to distribute. The State presented that it had learned during the break that Ferguson was a habitual offender, and it had just then filed its motion to amend the indictment to reflect his habitual-offender status. The trial court moved forward with a hearing on the State’s motion to amend the indictment. Defense counsel argued that, because of the timing of the motion, an amendment would unfairly prejudice Ferguson. The trial court recessed to give defense counsel an opportunity to speak with Ferguson; during the recess, the State communicated its plea offer to Ferguson for his consideration. Thereafter, the trial court allowed the amendment. An additional “brief recess” was taken to give Ferguson and defense counsel one last chance to confer. Ferguson chose to reject the State’s plea offer. Ferguson was convicted of the lesser-included offense of possession of marijuana in an amount of 250 grams but less than 500 grams, and sentenced to serve eight years as a habitual offender. On appeal, he argued that: (1) the verdict was against the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the indictment to be amended after jury selection had been completed; (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance; and (4) his counsel was ineffective. The Supreme Court concluded after review, the trial court erred in allowing the amendment to the indictment, because Ferguson did not receive proper notice and was unfairly surprised. Accordingly, the Court reversed in part the judgments of the Court of Appeals and trial court that ruled otherwise. The Court vacated only the portion of Ferguson’s sentence that was based on his status as an habitual offender. The case was remanded for resentencing.View "Ferguson v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Robert Reith was convicted by jury for the murder of his ex-wife and sentenced to life. He appealed, but his conviction and sentence was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Reith argued the trial court erred in granting pattern jury instruction S-5, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to that instruction. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court erred in granting instruction S-5, and that the error was not harmless. "Deliberate design may not be presumed, and we overrule our prior cases to the extent that they conflict with this principle. We admonish the circuit courts not to grant an instruction which relies upon a presumption of intent, as it conflicts with the presumption of innocence, relieving the State of its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on an essential element of the offense." View "Reith v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Craig Williams was convicted by jury of armed robbery. Williams appealed his conviction, claiming: (1) a broken "BB gun" did not meet the definition of a deadly weapon for purposes of Mississippi's armed-robbery statute; (2) the trial court failed to instruct the jury regarding the legal definition of a deadly weapon; and (3) because the jury was instructed that they "need not actually see a deadly weapon," they were misinstructed on the legal necessity of the use of a deadly weapon. Finding no merit in any of these contentions, the Supreme Court affirmed Williams's armed robbery conviction. View "Williams v. Mississippi" on Justia Law