Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2000, Jay McCalpin pled guilty to one count of fondling and two counts of sexual battery involving a child under the age of fourteen and was sentenced to serve a term of fifteen years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), with ten years of his sentence suspended, and five years of post-release supervision upon his release from incarceration. In 2005, the circuit court revoked McCalpin's post-release supervision for the first time due to his failure to reside at the residence given to his supervising officer, failure to notify his supervising officer of at least three changes of residence, and failure of a drug test for marijuana. At that time, the circuit court judge revoked McCalpin's suspended ten-year sentence, ordering McCalpin to serve three years in the custody of the MDOC with seven years to remain suspended, conditioned upon McCalpin's "good behavior and that he does not violate any laws upon his release from custody." After his second release from incarceration, McCalpin's post-release supervision was revoked for a second time. McCalpin filed a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR) which was denied. He appealed the denial of his motion for PCR; the Court of Appeals affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that McCalpin did not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in seeking rehearing before the Court of Appeals. Therefore, the Court affirmed the appellate court's dismissal of McCalpin's motion for rehearing. View "McCalpin v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance filed a formal complaint against Hancock County Justice Court Judge Tommy Carver. It alleged that Judge Carver had ex parte communication with Steven K. Roche about his pending criminal case; failed to disclose such ex parte communication to the prosecutor; dismissed the charges against Roche without a hearing and without any motion to dismiss by the prosecutor; and falsified court records by noting on the file that two witnesses, Officers Bryce Gex and John Grimsley of the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources Marine Patrol, were absent when Roche's case was called for trial. A three-member committee appointed by the Commission recommended that Judge Carver be suspended thirty days from office without pay, publicly reprimanded, and assessed costs. The Commission adopted the committee's findings. After conducting an independent inquiry of the record and giving careful consideration to the findings of fact and recommendations of the Commission, the Supreme Court ordered that Judge Carver be publicly reprimanded and assessed costs. View "Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Carver" on Justia Law

Tamika Foster died after giving birth at the University of Mississippi Medical Center (UMMC). Her estate filed suit against the Center. After a verdict for the plaintiffs, UMMC appealed, claiming that the plaintiffs produced nothing more than an unreliable autopsy report to establish medical negligence, and that the trial judge erred in refusing to allow two doctors to testify about the autopsy. But because the Supreme Court found sufficient evidence in the record to support the verdict and because UMMC failed to make a proffer of the doctors' expected testimony, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstated and affirmed the circuit court's decision. View "University of Mississippi Medical Center v. Foster" on Justia Law

Donald Mitchell directly appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute and his habitual-offender sentence to the Supreme Court. Finding that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of Mitchell's prior convictions for possession of marijuana and cocaine, the Court reversed Mitchell's conviction, vacated his sentence, and remanded for a new trial. View "Mitchell v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

An incident occurred at West Lauderdale High School which led to the suspension and eventual expulsion of four male students. The principal notified the four students' parents and/or guardians of the immediate suspension. (The four male students were identified herein as C.D., E.F., G.H., and I.J.) The matter was pending before the school board, and if the board approved the recommendation, the students could request a hearing before the school board to continue the suspension until such hearing occurred. Three of the four students, E.F., C.D., and G.H., requested a hearing. Prior to the disciplinary hearing, parents of E.F. and C.D. applied for separate ex parte temporary restraining orders (TROs) in the Lauderdale County Youth Court. The ex parte temporary restraining orders were granted without notice ordering that E.F. and C.D. be allowed to return to school and enjoining the superintendent and school board from expelling them or assigning them to an alternative school. At the hearing for the TROs, the school district objected to reenrollment because the youth court lacked jurisdiction to order the students' return to school. Nonetheless, the court ordered the reenrollment. After a hearing, the school board expelled all four students for one calendar year on the basis that their presence in school was a safety concern for other students. C.D. and E.F., through counsel, moved the youth court for reenrollment. The youth court granted this motion and treated it as an appeal on the record of the expulsion and "not a matter de novo." The school board timely appealed the youth court's decision to the Supreme Court and moved the youth court to stay its judgment pending appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the youth court exceeded its statutory authority by reenrolling C.D. and E.F. in high school because the discretion in this situation lied with the school board. Accordingly, the Court reversed the youth court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Lauderdale County School Bd. v. Brown" on Justia Law

H. Gordon Myrick, Inc. (Myrick) contracted with Harrison County Commercial Lot (HCCL) to build HCCL an executive office building. The parties' contract contained an arbitration provision, which excluded aesthetic-effect claims from arbitration. The issue before the Supreme Court in this case concerned which, if any, of the parties' claims were subject to arbitration. The trial court determined that the arbitration agreement was valid and ordered arbitration on designated, nonaesthetic claims. HCCL appealed and Myrick cross-appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the parties' claims were without merit, "but it is difficult to determine why the trial court ordered certain punch-list items to arbitration and others not. Thus, [the Court] remand[ed the case] to the trial court to provide further explanation on the punch-list items alone." View "Harrison County Commercial Lot, LLC v. H. Gordon Myrick, Inc." on Justia Law

After the trial judge granted the defendants summary judgment, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for trial. More than four years later, the trial judge, finding the plaintiff had failed to prosecute his claim, entered a final judgment as to all defendants. Because the Court was unable to say the trial judge abused his discretion, affirmed. View "Hanson, Jr. v. Disotell" on Justia Law

Dante Lamar Evans was convicted of the murder of his father and sentenced as an adult to a mandatory term of life imprisonment. Evans petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, raising six issues: (1) whether the trial court erroneously refused to permit the jury to consider Evans's theory of imperfect self-defense; (2) whether the trial court erred in excluding testimony concerning Darold Evans's alleged abuse of Evans and his mother; (3) whether the trial court erred in refusing funds to hire a post-traumatic stress-disorder (PTSD) expert; (4) whether the trial court improperly prohibited the jury from considering Evans's age in its deliberations; (5) whether the trial court erred in admitting Evans's statements made to security guards and law-enforcement officers; and (6) whether Evans's life sentence was unconstitutional. Upon review, the Supreme Court found find that Evans demonstrated an actual need for an expert on PTSD. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in denying funds to hire such an expert. The Court reversed the judgment of both the Court of Appeals and the trial court and remanded for a new trial. View "Evans v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Marcus O'Neal Flowers a/k/a Tupac a/k/a Marcus Flowers was convicted of murder for fatally shooting Charles Wash. He claimed on appeal that the jury's verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and asked the Supreme Court for a new trial. He believed he was entitled to such relief because there were conflicts between the State's evidence and his evidence, and the credibility of the State's main witness was called into question. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Flowers's arguments were without merit. View "Flowers v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case involved a dispute over custody of B.S. Diana Crosby, the child's maternal grandmother, claimed the Youth Curt erred in awarding custody of B.S. to the child's father, Robert Sims, Jr. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Youth Court. View "In the Interest of B.S., a Minor" on Justia Law