Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Handy Willis, Jr. appealed his conviction of first degree murder under Mississippi Code Section 97-3-19(1)(a) (Rev. 2020). Willis was found guilty of shooting and killing his former girlfriend, Tamaneka Alexander for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole. He argued "[t]he trial court erred in three critical ways that deprived [him] of a fair trial:" (1) by violating his constitutional right to confront Police Captain Pete Williams, the lead investigator assigned to his case, about the officer’s prior inconsistent statement; and (2) the trial court erroneously denied his self-defense jury instruction. He also asserted the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The Mississippi Supreme Court concluded Willis’s right to cross examine fully and confront Captain Williams was violated. "Willis should have been allowed to confront Captain Williams with the recording of his prior inconsistent statement." Although the Court found there was a violation of the Confrontation Clause, the Court also found this was harmless error. The record did not support the giving of a self-defense jury instruction. Giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences, the Supreme Court concluded the evidence supported Willis’s conviction for first degree murder. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Willis v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Joseph Bland was convicted by jury of first-degree murder after he shot and killed his girlfriend, Olletta Jones. Bland appealed, claiming the trial court erred by excluding Bland’s testimony regarding his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), thereby depriving him of the right to assert his defense. Finding no error in the trial court’s decision, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Bland’s conviction. View "Bland v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Robert Fisher appealed his convictions for several drug possession and trafficking charges, and his sentence as a habitual offender. Fisher argued his right to testify was violated, that officers unlawfully searched a storage unit he was leasing, and that the trial judge sentenced him as a habitual offender without sufficient evidence. Finding no reversible error in the circuit court's judgment, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. View "Fisher 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 that was wholly derived from Green’s excluded statement. This evidence was admitted over Green’s objection. The jury convicted Green. On appeal, both Green and the State agreed the trial judge wrongly admitted the tainted evidence. Though the State claimed the error was harmless, this evidence strongly contributed to Green’s guilty verdicts. So the Mississippi Supreme Court concluded the evidence's admission was not harmless error. Green’s conviction and sentence were reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial. View "Green v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

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