Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
Favre v. Jourdan River Estates
A property dispute between neighbors came before the Supreme Court in this case. The issue centered on the rights of the various parties as to Nicola Road, a road that allows the various property owners access to Highway 603. Plaintiffs Jourdan River Estates, LLC, and Jourdan River Resort and Yacht Club, LLC (together, "JRE") owned of a 269-acre tract of land in a rural area in Hancock County. Nicola Road leads from Highway 603 to the JRE tract, and passes by and provides access to three parcels. In its Final Judgment, the Chancery Court of Hancock County determined that Jourdan River Estates held a private 947-foot right-of-way, and it shared a public 340-foot right-of-way with neighbors and surrounding property owners Scott and Cindy Favre, Jefferson and Constance Parker and Hancock County. The neighbors constructed a gate that limited JRE's access to Nicola Road. The trial court entered an injunction against the Favres and Parkers forbidding them from erecting any gates which would impede JRE and from further harassment, and they appealed. Finding the trial court’s judgment to be "well reasoned," the Supreme Court affirmed its decision. View "Favre v. Jourdan River Estates" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Real Estate & Property Law
Gales v. Mississippi
Brandon Q. Gales was convicted of armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery for the 2011 robbery of a Hyatt Food Mart convenience store. Gales received sentences of life and five years. On appeal, he argued: (1) the trial court erred in not suppressing fruits of an impermissible stop of his vehicle shortly after the robbery, and that police conducted an illegal search of his person following the stop; (2) the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest and conduct a subsequent warrantless search; (3) the trial court erred in allowing certain testimony of witnesses and the arresting officer; and (4) the trial court erred in denying his motion to set aside the jury verdict (or in the alternative, a new trial) due to insufficient evidence. The Mississippi Supreme Court, after careful consideration of each issues raised on appeal, found no reversible error and affirmed Gales' convictions and sentences. View "Gales v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Polk v. Mississippi
Zachary Polk was indicted on three counts for the sale of methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), hydrocodone, and alprazolam. Polk entered a plea of guilty as to Count I for the sale of MDMA, and he was sentenced to serve ten years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections and ordered to pay a $5,000 fine. The district attorney “retired to files” Count II and Count III, based upon Polk entering a plea of guilty as to Count I. In 2012, Polk received a “full, complete, and unconditional pardon” from Governor Haley Barbour. Thereafter, Polk filed a petition for expungement seeking to have all records expunged relating to his earlier arrest and indictment. The trial court determined that it was without statutory or constitutional authority to expunge Polk’s record. There being no statutory basis for expungement of the record of the criminal conviction for which Polk was pardoned, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court correctly denied Polk’s petition to expunge the record(s) pertaining to his criminal conviction. As to Polk’s criminal records pertaining to Counts II and III, the Court found that those records were eligible for expungement pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 99-15-26(5). View "Polk v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Borden v. Borden
In a divorce and child-custody dispute between Shannon and Mary Jane Borden, the chancellor awarded custody of their two sons to father-Shannon. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. Finding that the chancellor gave undue weight to Mary Jane’s misconduct under three separate "Albright" factors, and that the chancellor erred in rejecting the guardian ad litem’s recommendation without providing reasons and a summary of the guardian’s report, the Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the lower courts and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Borden v. Borden" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Family Law
Hingle v. Mississippi
Danielle Hingle was convicted of sale of morphine, and sentenced to fifteen years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. On appeal, Hingle argued that admission of the testimony of a crime laboratory analyst who reviewed and signed the lab report but did not test the pills violated her Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. Furthermore, she argued that the trial court erred by admitting the pills due to flaws in the chain of custody. Upon further review, the Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err by allowing the reviewing analyst to testify or by allowing the pills to be admitted. View "Hingle v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Howell v. Mississippi
Marlon Howell was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. On direct appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed. Howell then sought post-conviction relief (PCR), claiming he was entitled to a new trial. The Court granted Howell’s petition for PCR in part, holding that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on certain delineated issues. The trial court held the evidentiary hearing and, finding no merit in the issues, denied Howell’s request for a new trial. Howell appealed. Howell’s claims regarding recanted testimony and witness statements were without merit, and the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not err in denying his motion for a new trial. Howell was not under arrest for capital murder at the time of a police lineup, and he was not entitled to counsel at the pre-indictment lineup (even if Howell had been entitled to counsel, the failure to provide counsel during the lineup would have been harmless error because the lineup was not suggestive, and the witness' identification was reliable). Howell’s claims about Attorney General Hood participating in his trial lacked merit, and the trial court did not err in allowing him to participate. And finally, the Supreme Court concluded the trial judge did not err in denying Howell’s motion to supplement the record with new evidence after the evidentiary hearing. View "Howell v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Barriffe v. Estate of Nelson
This case stemmed from a family dispute. Eugene Barriffe, and his wife, Ernie, gave money to Ernie’s brother, Lawson Nelson, to start a landfill business in Jackson County. The Barriffes testified that Lawson approached them for an initial “investment” of $100,000—and later, a second “investment” of $65,000—into his idea to start a landfill business. In return, the Barriffes understood they were to receive two-thirds of the profits from the landfill business, with payments to begin when Eugene retired. Nelson denied the conversation and denied receiving the “investments” from the Barriffes. The Barriffes sued to receive compensation for the money they gave to Nelson to start the business business, and for improvements they made to an apartment on his land. The chancellor found that Nelson held the money and improvements in a constructive trust. But because the Barriffes failed to establish the existence of a constructive trust, the Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.
View "Barriffe v. Estate of Nelson" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Business Law, Contracts
Smith v. Express Check Advance of Mississippi, LLC
Lacie Smith worked for Express Check Advance of Mississippi, LLC. A condition in her employment papers was that she agreed to submit “any employment-related dispute” to arbitration. Later, in response to her termination, Smith sued Express Check in circuit court. The trial judge compelled arbitration and Smith appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed.
View "Smith v. Express Check Advance of Mississippi, LLC" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Arbitration & Mediation, Labor & Employment Law
McBroom v. Jackson County
In 1972, the Board of Supervisors of Jackson County, Mississippi, approved the final plat for Spring Lake Subdivision. At that time, the only vehicular access to the subdivision was Spring Lake Drive East, which crossed Spring Lake Dam. The McBrooms, who owned three subdivision lots on Spring Lake, and the dam forming the lake and providing access to the subdivision, contended that Jackson County was obligated to maintain the deteriorating roadway by virtue of the McBrooms’ dedication of the roadway to public use and Jackson County’s acceptance of their dedication. The Chancery Court held that the McBrooms were entitled to no relief. Finding that the Spring Lake Dam and the roadway over it were dedicated to public use and accepted by Jackson County under common law (as evidenced by more than thirty years of continuous use by the public), the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment for the McBrooms.
View "McBroom v. Jackson County" on Justia Law
Ravenstein v. Ravenstein (Hawkins)
John Ravenstein appealed a 2012 Chancery Court judgment appointing his ex-wife Elisha Ravenstein Hawkins as conservator for the couple’s adult son Ryan. John also appealed the court’s denial of his motions for relief from judgment and modification of child support, through which he attempted to terminate his duty to support Ryan financially. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the chancellor correctly denied John’s motion for relief from the divorce judgment and motion for modification of child support. However, the Court found that the chancery court applied an incorrect legal standard for appointing a conservator for Ryan. Accordingly, it reversed the chancery court’s appointment of Elisha as Ryan’s conservator and remanded the case for further proceedings.
View "Ravenstein v. Ravenstein (Hawkins)" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Family Law