Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Larry Wells was convicted of possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute. The trial court sentenced Wells to sixty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections without parole, as a recidivist under Mississippi Code Section 99-19-81 and as a subsequent drug offender under Section 41-29-147. The Supreme Court reviewed Wells' arguments on appeal, and affirmed his conviction and mandatory thirty-year sentence under Section 99-19-81. The Court found, however, that the trial court erred in reading Section 41-29-147 as requiring that Wells be sentenced to twice the time authorized for a second or subsequent drug conviction. Section 41-29-147 provided for discretionary (not mandatory) sentencing. Therefore, the Court vacated that portion of Wells’s sentence and remanded the matter for resentencing. View "Wells v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Willie Manning appealed a trial court order denying him post-conviction relief. This appeal stemmed from Manning’s conviction of brutally murdering two elderly women in Starkville. The only witness to testify that he saw Manning entering the women’s apartment shortly before their bodies were discovered was Kevin Lucious, a convict serving two life sentences without parole in Missouri. No witness testified to seeing Manning leave the apartment. Considerable evidence was presented to the jury, which found Manning guilty, and Manning was sentenced to death. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Manning’s convictions and sentences. Manning filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). The Supreme Court granted Manning leave to proceed with post-conviction proceedings on three grounds: (1) withheld evidence; (2) Kevin Lucious’ testimony; and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel related to those two claims. The trial court denied Manning relief, and appealed that order. Upon further review, the Supreme Court found that the State violated Manning’s due-process rights by failing to provide favorable, material evidence. The Court therefore reversed the denial of post-conviction relief, reversed Manning’s conviction and sentence and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial. View "Manning v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Terry Hye, Jr. was convicted of capital murder, for which he received a life sentence without the possibility of parole. The Court of Appeals affirmed Hye’s conviction but vacated and remanded his sentence as unconstitutional, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in "Miller v. Alabama," (132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012)). Hye was sixteen years old at the time of the crime. Hye filed a petition for writ of certioriari with the Mississippi Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court violated his right to a fair trial by denying him an accessory-after-the-fact instruction and an accomplice instruction. Hye also claimed that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the underlying felony of armed robbery, which resulted in a constructive amendment of the indictment. The Mississippi Court granted Hye’s petition, and, pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 17(h), addressed only the question of whether the trial court erred by denying Hye an accessory-after-the-fact instruction. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the trial court properly denied Hye’s request for an accessory-after-fact instruction because there was no evidentiary basis for it. The Court also found that a criminal defendant no longer has the unilateral right under Mississippi law to insist upon an instruction for lesser-related offenses which are not necessarily included in the charged offense(s) ("lesser-non included-offense instructions"). And the Court overruled "Griffin v. Mississippi," (533 So. 2d 444 (1988)), and its progeny, to the extent they held otherwise. View "Hye, Jr. v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Marvin Kirk was tried and convicted of aggravated domestic violence. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The State alleged that Kirk twice had strangled his wife, Casey. At trial, witnesses testified that Casey had red marks on her neck shortly after the alleged assaults had occurred, and Casey testified that Kirk had strangled her. Kirk denied the allegations, arguing: (1) the trial court erred in permitting law enforcement to testify to medical causation with regard to Casey's injuries appearing to be the result of strangulation, since the crime charged was in the indictment; (2) the trial court erred by denying Kirk's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (or in the alternative, for a new trial); (3) the trial court erred in excluding certain letters and a text message; (4) the trial court erred by prohibiting defense counsel from cross examining Casey on a drug hair follicle test on grounds of relevancy; and (5) the trial court erred with regard to jury deliberations after the trial. Finding Kirk’s assignments of error to be without merit, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "Kirk v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Richard Pierce had silicosis. Having worked for many years as a sandblaster, preparing surfaces for painting, Pierce sued, among multiple defendants, sellers of sand including Dependable Abrasives, alleging that Dependable's failure to provide adequate warnings of the dangers of the inhalation of respirable silica caused his silicosis and rendered Dependable strictly liable. The jury returned a verdict for Dependable Abrasives and the trial court granted Pierce a new trial. Dependable Abrasives filed an interlocutory appeal with the Supreme Court. But, although the injury to Pierce was substantial, no causal link was established between the Dependable Abrasives product, Diamond Blast sand, and Pierce's injuries. As such, the Supreme Court concluded the jury's verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. View "Dependable Abrasives, Inc. v. Pierce" on Justia Law

Yvonne Lovett was employed as a security guard for Delta Regional Medical Center. While on duty, Lovett slipped and fell. As a result of her fall, Lovett experienced injuries to her back and to her right knee. Months after returning to work at Delta, Lovett experienced dizziness and weakness and sought treatment. Subsequently, Lovett was diagnosed as having suffered a mini-stroke. Delta covered the costs of Lovett's related medical treatments and paid her disability benefits during the time in which she could not work. Lovett filed two workers' compensation claims based on the two events, which were consolidated. The administrative judge found certain subsequent medical expenses were not related to her employment and would not be covered. Both parties sought review by the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission. After review, the Supreme Court found that substantial evidence supported the Commission's finding that Lovett did not receive a thirty percent loss of wage-earning capacity. However, when the Commission reversed the administrative judge's finding, it failed to then consider Lovett's functional loss. The case was remanded for the Commission to conduct findings on Lovett's functional loss; the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission in all other respects. View "Lovett v. Delta Regional Medical Center" on Justia Law

Early one morning in 2010, Chantel Jobes’ vehicle left the southbound lane of Highway 11, crossed the northbound lane and crashed into a concrete railroad trestle. Jobes was seriously injured in the accident, and she filed a complaint against Norfolk Southern Railway Company, the Mississippi Transportation Commission, and the Mississippi Department of Transportation. The trial judge denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Although stated in a variety of ways, defendants argued simply that the trial judge erred when he did not grant summary judgment in their favor. After review, the Supreme Court agreed, reversed and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of defendants. View "The Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co. v. Jobes" on Justia Law

Katherine Robertson pled guilty to aggravated assault in 2006. In 2012, Governor Haley Barbour granted Robertson a pardon, and she filed a motion to have her record expunged. The circuit judge denied the motion, and Robertson appealed. The issue presented was novel when Robertson filed her appeal, but it has since been decided. The Mississippi Supreme Court held that statutory authority did not provide for expungement of a pardoned conviction. Therefore, the Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Robertson’s motion to expunge. View "Robertson v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

In 2006, Tellus Operating Group, LLC, sought to integrate the interests of various owners for the purpose of drilling a well unit in Jefferson Davis County. In accordance with its statutory duty to make a good-faith effort to negotiate the voluntary integration of the owners’ interests on reasonable terms, Tellus mailed option forms to the owners in June and July of 2006. In this case, the issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was a challenge to a Mississippi Oil and Gas Board pooling order force-integrating various owners’ interests in a proposed drilling unit. After review, the Court held that the Board’s order was supported by substantial evidence. The Court also found that one owner’s attempt to voluntarily integrate his interest within twenty days of the Board’s pooling order did not satisfy Section 53-3-7(2)(g)(iii). View "Tellus Operating Group, LLC v. Maxwell Energy, Inc." on Justia Law

Craig Sallie was convicted of aggravated assault for shooting Gregory Johnson in the back with a firearm, as well as of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced to twenty years for the aggravated assault conviction and ten years for the possession of a firearm conviction, to run concurrently. The trial court also sentenced Sallie to an additional ten years pursuant to the firearm sentence enhancement statute, with that sentence to run consecutively to the other sentences. The Court of Appeals affirmed Sallie’s convictions and sentence. Sallie moved for rehearing, which the Court of Appeals denied. The Supreme Court granted Sallie’s petition to address the issue of whether Sallie was entitled to notice of the firearm enhancement to his sentence. The Court found that Sallie did not receive timely or sufficient notice that the State intended to enhance his sentence using the firearm enhancement. Using the firearm enhancement to increase Sallie’s sentence resulted in unfair surprise. Accordingly, the Court reversed in part the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the trial court, vacated Sallie’s sentence, and remanded the case to the Circuit Court for resentencing. View "Sallie v. Mississippi" on Justia Law