Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Roger Gillett was convicted of two counts of capital murder for which he was sentenced to death. Gillett petitioned for post-conviction relief, raising six issues for the Supreme Court's review: (1) the underlying capital-murder aggravator of robbery was improperly expanded; (2) conviction of capital murder under the “continuous-action doctrine” was unconstitutional; (3) Gillett’s trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate Gillett’s background and to present an adequate mitigation case; (4) Gillett’s trial counsel were ineffective in failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct during the sentencing portion of his trial; (5) Gillett’s due-process rights were violated when the Mississippi Supreme Court reweighed the aggravating and mitigating factors; and, (6) cumulative error. Upon review of the briefs submitted by Gillett and the state, the Supreme Court found issues one and two were without merit; however, under issue five, Gillett’s due-process rights were violated in sentencing. Therefore, the Court granted Gillett’s petition in part and denied in part, vacated his death sentences and remanded the case to the circuit court for a new sentencing hearing. View "Gillett v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

After receiving a diagnosis of mesothelioma, Russell Nix filed suit against Union Carbide based on his exposure to its asbestos products. A jury returned a verdict for Nix on his inadequate warning claim, awarded Nix $250,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. The trial court then awarded Nix nearly $500,000 in attorney’s fees and costs. Union Carbide appealed. Upon review of the trial court record, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the jury’s award of compensatory damages, reversed the jury’s award of punitive damages, vacated the award of attorney’s fees, and remanded the case for a new trial on punitive damages. View "Union Carbide Corporation v. Nix" on Justia Law

After observing LaMarcus Butler turn off the lights of his vehicle and make a u-turn in an apparent effort to avoid a police roadblock, police pursued Butler, at varying speeds, until a superior officer instructed him by radio to desist. The fleeing Butler collided with a vehicle occupied by Margaret Stephens, Lee B. Lewis, and Oda Mae Green. Stephens died as a result of the crash, and Lewis and Green suffered severe injuries. Plaintiffs Lewis and Green, individually, and Sonya Stephens, on behalf of Margaret Stephens’s wrongful-death beneficiaries, filed suit against the City of Jackson, Mississippi. Following a bench trial in 2008, the trial court assessed 100% of the fault to the City and entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the circuit court’s holding, finding that police had not acted in “reckless disregard for the safety and well-being of persons not engaged in criminal conduct,” and therefore, governmental immunity shielded the City from liability. Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that the Court of Appeals: (1) misinterpreted the factors for determining reckless disregard by law enforcement personnel; (2) improperly weighed the evidence on appeal, made credibility determinations, and improperly rejected evidence that supported the findings of the trial court; and (3) improperly substituted its judgment for the trial court’s credibility determination regarding expert testimony. Upon review, the Supreme Court found dispositive the question of whether the Court of Appeals misinterpreted and misapplied case law for determining reckless disregard by law enforcement officers. Finding that the Court of Appeals erred, the Supreme Court reversed its judgment, and reinstated and affirmed the circuit court's judgment. View "City of Jackson v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Timothy Pryer sought from the circuit court: “the Order givin[g] Carol Gates the Office of Judge de facto or pro tempore and the order givin[g] Carol Gates authority to appoint indigent counsel for December 2, 2004 [hearing] and the names of the 40 plus souls and their addresses according to the record.” The Itawamba County Circuit Court issued an order “denying Pryer records and construing a request for records as a petition for Post-Conviction Relief (PCR)." Pryer then filed a petition for writ of mandamus to the Supreme Court, requesting that it direct the circuit judge to enter an order on a “Motion to Show Cause.” The Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of mandamus, and the circuit court proceeded to enter an order that denied Pryer’s motion, explaining that the documents requested were “not contained with the Circuit Clerk’s file” and that “[t]his motion contains the exact same requests as the previously filed motions.” The court continued, “the Motion to Show Cause contains completely unfounded and slanderous allegations against several court officials.” The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Itawamba County Circuit Court, holding that “we have no reason to believe that any such documents do exist. It further appears that Pryer is merely on a ‘fishing expedition’ for grounds upon which to attack his conviction and sentence.” Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision. View "Pryer v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

LeDarius Bonds was convicted by jury of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Bonds appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting "Exhibit 39," a gruesome photograph that he contended was more prejudicial than probative, and that the trial court erred in allowing a jury instruction which informed the jury that it could infer malice from the use of a deadly weapon. Finding that Exhibit 39 was far more prejudicial than probative, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.View "Bonds v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

James Forbes settled a personal-injury action while he was represented by Louis St. Martin. Forbes later sued St. Martin, challenging the validity of his contingency-fee arrangement and the associated attorneys’ fees. The Chancery Court granted summary judgment to St. Martin; the Court of Appeals reversed the chancery court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment, finding that summary judgment in favor of St. Martin was proper. View "In the Matter of the Estate of Louis St. Martin, Deceased: Forbes v. Hixson" on Justia Law

Rickesha Larry filed suit against Hospital M.D., LLC, and Hospital M.D. of Yazoo City, Inc. (collectively Hospital M.D.) in a medical-malpractice action. Hospital M.D. moved for summary judgment, arguing Larry had failed to provide it with notice pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 15-1-36(15); thus the sixty-day tolling period was not triggered and the statute of limitations had expired prior to Larry filing her initial complaint. The trial court denied Hospital M.D.’s motion for summary judgment and entered two orders. Hospital M.D. filed an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Court found that the motion should have been granted because Larry failed to send Hospital M.D. the statutorily required pre-suit notice and subsequently filed her complaint outside the applicable statute of limitations. Furthermore, the Court concluded the medical-malpractice-discovery rule did not serve to toll the two-year statute of limitations. View "Hospital MD, LLC v. Larry" on Justia Law

Andrea Gaiennie and Michael McMillin entered a divorce decree on the ground of irreconcilable differences. In conjunction with the divorce decree, the parties entered into a property-settlement agreement. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Chancery Court’s finding that Gaiennie was required to pay for one-half of her children’s private-school tuition, and a related contempt issue were in error. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that, because private-school tuition was not specified in the agreement, the chancellor’s holding requiring Gaiennie to pay for one-half of the children’s private-school tuition was in error. With respect to the contempt issue, the Court found the Chancery Court abused its discretion: under the terms of the property-settlement agreement, Gaiennie was required to contribute $500 annually to the “Mississippi Impact Fund.” Trial testimony established that no fund existed. Instead, McMillin’s father had established a “Mississippi Education Savings Program.” Neither party sought to modify the agreement to reflect the correct fund. It was impossible for her to comply with the agreement as written. Thus, it was an abuse of discretion to hold her in contempt. View "Gaiennie v. McMillin" on Justia Law

A jury found Daryl Conner guilty of burglary and felony fleeing a police officer, and the Circuit Court sentenced him as a habitual offender to two consecutive life sentences. Conner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed his convictions and sentences. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Conner argued the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for felony fleeing, that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the elements of larceny, and that, because the pen packs establishing Conner’s habitual-offender status were not admitted at the sentencing hearing, the trial court erred by sentencing him as a habitual offender. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate and trial courts, finding the evidence was sufficient to support Conner’s felony-fleeing conviction and that the jury was fully and fairly instructed. Furthermore, the pen packs establishing Conner’s status as a habitual offender were admitted at the sentencing hearing. View "Conner v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Roy and Mitzi Conn sued their neighbor Joel Misita, who had placed a structure on his land. The Conns sought to enforce a warranty deed restriction placed by their predecessors in title that prohibited Misita from erecting any “structures” on three acres of his land. The chancery court ruled in favor of the Conns and ordered the removal of the structure. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Conns’ authority to enforce the restrictive covenant but reversed the chancery court’s determination that it was a structure. After review of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court found the structure was indeed a structure. View "Misita v. Conn" on Justia Law