Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Daryl Shinn was convicted of armed robbery for the 2011 robbery of Tiya's Market in Columbus. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison. He appealed, arguing that his conviction was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed his conviction. View "Shinn v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Angela Johnson of one count of possession of methamphetamine, one count of possession of precursor chemicals, and one count of false pretense. The Court of Appeals affirmed Johnson's convictions, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the question of whether the admission of two search warrants and an underlying facts-and-circumstances affidavit which included hearsay statements attributed to a confidential informant constituted reversible error. Because the Court concluded that the warrants and affidavits were admitted in error, the Court reversed the trial and appellate courts and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Johnson v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Based on a citizen’s complaint that "young men . . . young black men . . . are standing out on the sidewalks, corners, selling drugs" on a street corner in Greenville, police proceeded to that area, where they spotted Tazarius Cooper, a young, black male. The police officer turned on his blue lights, exited his vehicle, and attempted to conduct an investigatory stop by ordering Cooper to "come here and let me talk to you." Before the officers could restrain him, Cooper ran. The officers gave chase, following Cooper into a home, where Cooper abandoned a bag containing a blue substance that tested positive for the drug known as ecstasy. The trial court denied Cooper’s motion to suppress the evidence, and Cooper was convicted. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the citizen’s complaint was insufficient to establish a reasonable suspicion of Cooper, or to conduct a Terry stop. But because Cooper was not stopped, and because Cooper lacked standing to challenge the search of a home which did not belong to him, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. View "Cooper v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Charles Blackmon and Dexter Booth sued Malaco, Inc.; N.J. Pockets, Inc.; and Callop Hampton (owner of Hamp’s Place Night Club) on a premises-liability claim. Plaintiffs settled with Malaco. At trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Hampton. Hampton filed a post-trial motion, requesting the trial court to impose sanctions against Blackmon, Booth, and their attorney, Joe Tatum, for filing a frivolous lawsuit and to award attorney fees. The motion was denied, and Hampton appealed that judgment to this Court. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hampton v. Blackmon" on Justia Law

Dr. Steven Hayne appealed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of his former medical malpractice insurer, The Doctors Company and The Doctors Company Insurance Services (collectively, “The Doctors”). The Doctors refused to cover Hayne for lawsuits brought by exonerated criminal defendants against whom Hayne had testified as a State’s witness. Kennedy Brewer sued Hayne for malicious prosecution, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation in the Circuit Court of Noxubee County, Mississippi, and later in federal district court. Hayne sought coverage under a medical malpractice insurance policy he had purchased from The Doctors. The Doctors declined to provide coverage, arguing that Brewer was not a "patient" under Hayne’s medical malpractice insurance policy, and that the company therefore was under no obligation to cover Hayne in relation to the suit brought by Brewer. Hayne argued in his suit against The Doctors that The Doctors knew when it issued the policy exactly what kind of medicine he practiced, and that the insurance policy covered him for the types of medical malpractice suits he might face, including the suit filed by Brewer. The Doctors moved for summary judgment, arguing that the policy language was clear and unambiguous in the kind of coverage provided, and that the suit by Brewer did not fall within the policy’s coverage. The Circuit Court agreed, and, despite a lack of in-depth discovery, granted the motion for summary judgment. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hayne v. The Doctors Company" on Justia Law

Bronwyn Benoist Parker and William Benoist were siblings who litigated the will of their father, Billy Dean "B.D." Benoist. In 2010, B.D. executed a will which granted significantly more property to William and consequently, less to Bronwyn than did a previous will that B.D. had executed in 1998. Bronwyn alleged that William had unduly influenced their father, who was suffering from dementia and drug addiction, into making the new will, which included a forfeiture clause that revoked benefits to any named beneficiary who contested the will. Bronwyn lost the will contest and her benefits under the new will were revoked by the trial court. In this appeal, the issue this case presented to the Supreme Court was whether Mississippi law should recognize a good faith and probable cause exception to a forfeiture in terrorem clause in a will. The Court held that it should, and that Bronwyn has sufficiently shown that her suit was brought in good faith and was founded upon probable cause. Accordingly, the decision of the chancery court that excluded Bronwyn from the will was reversed, and granted judgment in her favor to allow her to inherit in accordance with her father’s 2010 will. The Court affirmed the chancellor’s decisions to permit William to pay attorneys with funds obtained from his father’s estate and to permit William to continue as executor, and the chancery court’s decision to deny attorney fees to the estate. View "Parker v. Benoist" on Justia Law

George Dukes and Joe Jordan sued Union Insurance Company Inc. as surety on the public official bond of Newton County Circuit Clerk Rodney Bounds. Union filed a crossclaim against Bounds for indemnity. The Circuit Court dismissed the case against Bounds, but found Union liable to Dukes and Jordan. However, it also found Bounds liable to Union for indemnity. Union appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Union was not liable to Dukes and Jordan, and that Bounds was not liable to Union for indemnity. The Supreme Court granted Union’s petition for certiorari. Union argued the Court of Appeals erred by finding that Bounds was not liable to Union for indemnity for its attorneys fees and costs incurred in defending the lawsuits filed on Bounds’s public official bond. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part. The Court of Appeals erred to the extent it found that Bounds was not obligated to indemnify Union for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. View "Newton County v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Troy Chaupette was convicted of fondling his four-year-old great-niece. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred by: (1) allowing two fact witnesses to provide expert testimony; (2) permitting an improper comment on the victim’s truthfulness; and (3) admitting cumulative, hearsay testimony from six witnesses under the tender-years exception. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Chaupette's convictions.View "Chaupette v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Karmjit Virk appealed an increase in his tax liability to the Mississippi Department of Revenue’s Board of Review. When Virk failed to appear at his Board of Review hearing, his appeal was involuntarily withdrawn. Virk’s appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals and the Chancery Court; both were dismissed. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Board of Review, the Board of Tax Appeals, and the Chancery Court.View "Virk v. Mississippi Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

In 2011, defendant was pulled over for suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI) after an officer observed him weaving between lanes. He resisted arrest and subsequently was indicted on two counts of assaulting a law-enforcement officer, possession of marijuana, possession of cocaine, and a first DUI. The indictment later was amended to reflect his habitual-offender status. The assault charges eventually were dropped. Defendant engaged Gerald Green, a Tennessee attorney, to represent him. Green submitted a verified application and affidavit to appear pro hac vice, listing the enumerated requirements of Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(b)(5), including the statement that Green "has associated Attorney Daniel O. Lofton, a member in good standing of the Mississippi Bar as local counsel in this case . . . ." The application included a Certificate of Local Attorney signed by Daniel Lofton and a Certificate of Payment for the pro hoc vice fee of $200 to the Clerk of the Mississippi Supreme Court. Green submitted a Motion to Dismiss Prosecution and a Request for Discovery on defendant's behalf. These two motions were signed and submitted only by Green. Additionally, Green's bar number as listed next to his signature on these motions did not indicate in which state Green was licensed. Green represented defendant at an August 7, 2012, hearing in which the court denied the Motion to Dismiss and granted the State's Motion to Amend the Indictment charging defendant as a habitual offender under Mississippi Code Section 99-19-81. Green had not at that time been approved to proceed pro hac vice, and associated attorney Lofton was not present at the hearing. The court subsequently denied an August 17, 2012, Motion to Continue Trial filed by Green. After the jury was selected, the court approved Green's application to proceed pro hac vice and waived the requirement that local counsel be present during trial. The State had no objection to the trial proceeding without the presence of local counsel. After a one-day trial, defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana, possession of cocaine, and first-offense DUI. The Supreme Court never received an order approving Green's admission to proceed pro hac vice. Green stated at the post-trial motions hearing that "I didn't submit any order. I didn't think anything else was required after we had our proceedings in this court. They [Mississippi Supreme Court Clerk] sent back the cases that I had been in, and they approved that I had paid the money." Daniel Lofton, the associated attorney, testified at the post-trial motions hearing that he understood his role and obligations to be limited to certifying that Green was an attorney in good standing in Tennessee on Green's pro hoc vice application, and that he would be notified if his involvement was further required. Lofton never met or communicated with defendant. At the post-trial motions hearing, defendant asserted that he never knew Green was not licensed to practice in Mississippi. Defendant hired a new attorney immediately following the trial and was represented by the new attorney at the post-trial motions hearing, sentencing hearing, and on this appeal. The Supreme Court reversed defendant's convictions and remanded for a new trial due to the trial court's and counsel's failure to comply with Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 46 governing the admission of foreign attorneys to practice pro hoc vice. Most significantly, the trial court erred in waiving the now-mandatory requirement that associated local counsel be present at trial. View "Newberry v. Mississippi" on Justia Law