Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

On August 26, 2015, the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance found that former Municipal Court Judge Latisha Nicole Clinkscales had engaged in judicial misconduct constituting willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the judicial office into disrepute, in violation of Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution. Clinkscales served as Municipal Court Judge for the City of Columbus from 2010 until her resignation on June 23, 2015. While serving as a Municipal Court Judge, she also served as the Columbus Drug Court Judge until her resignation on February 6, 2014, following a meeting with the Administrative Office of Courts concerning irregularities in her operation of the Drug Court program. The misconduct to which Clinkscales admitted involves four separate areas: her statements on social media, her operation of the Columbus Drug Court program, her statements in a newspaper interview, and her conduct in the courtroom. The Commission entered a recommendation that Clinkscales be publicly reprimanded and assessed costs of the proceeding, and the Commission and Clinkscales filed a joint motion requesting the Supreme Court to approve the Commission’s recommendation. The Supreme Court accepted the recommendation, imposed a public reprimand and assessed Clinkscales the costs of the proceeding. View "Mississippi Comm'n on Jud. Perf. v. Clinkscales" on Justia Law

During jury selection, plaintiff H.A.S. Electrical Contractors (HAS) challenged defendant Hemphill Construction Company’s use of two peremptory strikes. HAS argued Hemphill’s strikes were racially discriminatory. The Supreme Court found that the trial court failed to follow the "Batson" criterial when it analyzed the challenged strike of one juror. The Supreme Court remanded this case back to the trial court for a limited "Batson" hearing for Juror 7. View "H.A.S. Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Hemphill Construction Company, Inc." on Justia Law

Sweet Valley Missionary Baptist Church appealed a circuit court order denying its request for prejudgment interest against Alfa Insurance Company. This suit arose from a 2005 insurance claim Sweet Valley filed with Alfa Insurance Corporation (“Alfa”), following storm damage to its property caused by Hurricane Katrina. Sweet Valley had a commercial insurance policy with Alfa Insurance. Sweet Valley filed suit against Alfa for breach of contract and alleged that Alfa had undervalued its claim. Sweet Valley requested prejudgment interest in its complaint. It was determined that Sweet Valley was entitled to $462,761.89. Alfa remitted the full amount to Sweet Valley. Subsequently, Alfa filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that, since an appraisal had been conducted and it already had paid Sweet Valley $462,761.89, no genuine issues remained. The trial court granted Alfa’s motion. Because there was no judgment in this instance upon which interest could accrue, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. View "Sweet Valley Missionary Baptist Church v. Alfa Insurance Corporation" on Justia Law

Dequane Lomax was indicted by grand jury on two counts of forcible rape and two counts of simple assault on a law-enforcement officer. The circuit court severed Count I from Counts II, III, and IV. Lomax then proceeded to trial on Counts II, III, and IV in March 2014. Lomax was convicted of Count II, forcible rape, and found not guilty of Counts III and IV, simple assault on a law enforcement officer. The Mississippi Supreme Court found cumulative error occurred at trial that deprived Lomax of the right to a fair trial. Therefore, the Court reversed the judgment and remanded this case for a new trial. View "Lomax v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Propst Pittman filed a complaint for divorce against Ty Pittman on the grounds of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. After the presentation of Propst’s evidence, Ty moved for a dismissal under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The chancery court found insufficient evidence to grant the divorce, and thus granted the motion to dismiss. Because the chancery court applied an erroneous legal standard, the Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the Panola County Chancery Court and the Court of Appeals and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Pittman v. Pittman" on Justia Law

In an interlocutory appeal, defendants the Mississippi Transportation Commission (“MTC”) and the Mississippi Department of Transportation (“MDOT”) moved for summary judgment to dismiss the case against them on immunity grounds under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (“MTCA”). Christopher Adams died from injuries he sustained when his motorcycle wrecked on Interstate 10 in Jackson County. After traveling north on Interstate 110 in Harrison County, Adams merged onto an eastbound lane of I-10, where he entered a construction zone. According to the complaint, Adams inadvertently drove into a closed lane and then, when he tried to navigate back into an open lane, his motorcycle hit an uneven surface between lanes and “rotated.” Adams was thrown from his motorcycle and into traffic, where two other vehicles hit him, causing injuries from which he later died. Adams' estate raised a number of claims against defendants all sounding in negligence and relating to the condition of the road, failure to place proper warnings, and creating hazardous driving conditions. The trial judge rejected the defendants’ argument that, notwithstanding certain narrower regulations requiring specific actions, they were immune from liability because the broader function of traffic-control-device placement was discretionary. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of immunity. View "Mississippi Transportation Commission v. Adams" on Justia Law

After hearing all the evidence in a medical-malpractice trial, the jury retired to deliberate. At some point during their deliberations, they requested a copy of the jury instructions, which the bailiff provided. But instead of providing the approved set of instructions, the bailiff mistakenly provided a set that the defendants previously had proffered, which included a peremptory instruction. The jury returned a unanimous defense verdict, and the parties left the courthouse. When the trial judge discovered the instruction mistake, he called the parties back to the courthouse and later ordered a new trial. But the defendants then filed a motion to enforce the high/low settlement agreement that the parties had entered into prior to trial. The trial judge agreed with the defendants that a new trial was not allowed under the agreement and rescinded his previous order granting it. Plaintiff appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that the jury verdict lacked validity, and as such, no verdict was "achieved," leaving the condition precedent to the high/low agreement unsatisfied. Furthermore, the Court found the term "appeal rights" in the agreement was not ambiguous, and nothing else in the agreement precluded a new trial. The Court therefore reversed the trial judge’s decision to void his initial order, and remanded the case with instructions to the trial court to reinstate that order, which denied a mistrial but granted a new trial. View "Reynolds v. Allied Emergency Services, PC" on Justia Law

Herbert Williams sued the City of Vicksburg after he had been arrested after informing police officers that he had discharged a firearm to prevent an attack by a neighbor’s dog. The city moved for dismissal, which the Circuit Court denied. The city was granted permission to file an interlocutory appeal. Because it could not be said beyond doubt that Williams would have been unable to prove any set of facts in support of his claim, the Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court’s denial of the city’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "City of Vicksburg v. Williams" on Justia Law

John Hale was convicted on four counts of sale or transfer of a controlled substance and was sentenced as a habitual offender to serve a total of sixteen years’ imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On appeal, Hale, represented by the Office of Indigent Appeals, argued that the trial court erred in denying his proffered jury instructions on the defenses of involuntary intoxication and entrapment. Hale also has filed a pro se supplemental brief, in which he raised various other issues. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed Hale’s convictions and sentences. View "Hale v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Archie Quinn of capital murder, and the trial judge sentenced him to life in prison, without the possibility of parole. Quinn appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing: (1) that the jury was incompletely instructed on the elements of the crime; and (2) that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court found that the trial judge properly instructed the jury and therefore affirmed on that issue. The Court also found that the record in this case did not “affirmatively show” ineffective assistance of counsel. As such, the Court affirmed Quinn’s conviction, but dismissed his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim without prejudice to his right to raise it in a proper petition for post-conviction relief. View "Quinn v. Mississippi" on Justia Law