Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

While responding to an emergency, City of Oxford Police Officer Matthew Brown collided with Patricia Phillips’s vehicle at an intersection. Phillips filed suit to recover for injuries suffered in the collision. After a bench trial, the circuit court found that Officer Brown did not act with reckless disregard in response to the emergency and determined that the City of Oxford was entitled to police-protection immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. Phillips appealed; the Court of Appeals reversed. The majority of the appellate court held that the trial court’s finding that Officer Brown’s actions did not rise to the level of reckless disregard is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and that Oxford was not entitled to police-protection immunity. IThe dissent’s opinion said that the circuit court’s judgment was supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, the Court of Appeals lacked the power to disturb the trial judge’s findings. After its review, the Mississippi Supreme Court found the record contained substantial evidence to support the trial court’s decision. Accordingly, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated and affirmed the decision of the trial court. View "Phillips v. City of Oxford" on Justia Law

Earl Young was indicted for gratification of lust and was sentenced to fifteen years without the possibility of parole as a habitual offender. The trial court held a sentencing hearing; prior to the hearing, a “Pre-Post Sentence Investigation” report was submitted to the court, containing a section detailing Young’s prior criminal record. The report did not contain any information regarding the length of Young’s prior sentences for these felony convictions or the dates on which the incidents took place. Based on the report, the court found that Young had been convicted of two prior felonies and, therefore, sentenced Young as a habitual offender. On appeal, Young challenged the sufficiency of both the indictment and the evidence presented at sentencing used as grounds for his sentence. The Mississippi Supreme Court found Young's indictment argument was not preserved for appeal: because the indictment was defective as to its form and could have been amended in the trial court, Young’s failure to object at trial waived the issue, and Young was barred from raising it for the first time on appeal. The Court found that the pre-post sentence investigation report only included generalities regarding Young’s alleged prior convictions. It did not specify the statutes under which Young was convicted, the term of any sentences or whether the convictions clearly arose out of separate incidents at different times. "In fact, that information is completely absent from the record in this case." Because the State failed to prove that Young had at least two prior felony convictions that were brought and arose out of separate incidents at different times and that Young was sentenced to separate terms of at least one year for the prior convictions, Young was improperly sentenced as a habitual offender. Therefore, the Court reversed Young’s habitual offender sentence and remanded the case for his resentencing as a nonhabitual offender. View "Young v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Daryl Redd was indicted on two counts of aggravated assault. A jury found Redd guilty of the first count—aggravated assault, causing bodily injury to April Stevenson by shooting her in the leg with a deadly weapon. The jury found Redd not guilty of the second count—aggravated assault, attempting to cause bodily injury to Jordan Gaston by shooting at him with a deadly weapon. Finding no reversible error in the trial court judgments, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Redd's convictions and sentence. View "Redd v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Aaron Mitchell shot and killed Marty Moore. Evidence indicated Moore was the initial aggressor, and Mitchell argued that he shot Moore in self-defense. Mitchell moved for the State to produce the autopsy report for Moore’s body. When it became clear that an autopsy report was not forthcoming because an autopsy had not been completed, Mitchell moved for an autopsy to be conducted, but the trial court denied his motion. The State’s representations on whether a partial or preliminary autopsy was performed were unclear and contradictory. Mitchell argued that the lack of autopsy violated his due process right to present a complete defense. Because the record did not contain sufficient information for it to make a determination that reversible error was committed, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Mitchell’s conviction. View "Mitchell v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Amondo Stewart was convicted of “possession of methamphetamine, a schedule II controlled substance.” On appeal, Stewart argued the trial court erred in admitting evidence that was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment and Miranda rights. The Mississippi Supreme Court found that Stewart failed to raise these arguments at trial court and was now barred from bringing them on appeal. Although, under the doctrine of plain error, the Court found it may evaluate whether a defendant’s substantive or fundamental rights have been affected, Stewart failed to ask the Court for such consideration until his reply brief, after which the State had already raised a waiver argument. Therefore, the Court found that although his arguments were barred, no error plainly appeared in the trial court record. Stewart’s conviction and sentence were thus affirmed. View "Stewart v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Penn-Star Insurance Company (Penn-Star) appealed a trial court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment. The Mississippi Supreme Court found after review of the trial court record that because the commercial general liability policy at issue did not cover the sustained losses, the trial court’s order was reversed, judgment was rendered in favor of Penn-Star, and this case was remanded to the trial court for consideration of the remaining issues. View "Penn-Star Insurance Company v. Thompson, et al." on Justia Law

Richard Biddle and Brian Biddle questioned whether the Chancery Court of Tishomingo County, Mississippi had jurisdiction over their father’s estate. Brian and Richard also appealed the chancery court’s finding that there was no evidence of undue influence by their stepmother. After review, the Mississippi Supreme Court found venue and jurisdiction were proper and that no evidence of undue influence was presented. View "In The Matter of The Estate of Frederick Adams Biddle" on Justia Law

Through an Asset Purchase Agreement, seller Huntcole, LLC (Huntcole), transferred to buyer 4-Way Electric Services, LLC (4-Way), all property necessary to conduct the refurbishment business. The Asset Purchase Agreement did not include the building where the refurbishment business was located. Instead, Huntcole leased that building to 4-Way through a separate Lease. Three years after buying the business, 4-Way announced it was moving to a new building in a different city. It began removing large pieces of commercial equipment it believed it had purchased from Huntcole to conduct the refurbishment business. Huntcole protested and argued that because the equipment was affixed to the building, it was not transferred to 4-Way through the Asset Purchase Agreement. The trial court ruled in favor of Huntcole, finding the affixed equipment had been excluded from the Asset Purchase Agreement. After its review, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court found that based on the plain language of the Asset Purchase Agreement, 4-Way, by purchasing all assets necessary to conduct the refurbishment business, did in fact purchase the very equipment needed to conduct the business. The Asset Purchase Agreement also clearly designated the equipment as personal property and not as building improvements or fixtures. The Supreme Court concurred with the trial court that 4-Way did not have the right to cause damage to the building in a way that breached the Lease. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the appropriate amount of damages to repair the building in accordance with the Lease, and to recalculate Huntcole's attorney fees' awards. View "4-Way Electric Services, LLC v. Huntcole, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

In this slip-and-fall case, the trial court denied the defendant business Dolgencorp’s summary judgment motion. The judge found there “may be a question of fact.” After de novo review, the Mississippi Supreme Court found clear that plaintiff Patsy Payton failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a material fact issue as to whether the alleged dangerous condition, Carpet Fresh powder on the floor of the main aisle of a Dollar General store, had existed long enough on the ground for the store to have constructive knowledge of the spill. The only evidence Payton produced was her deposition testimony that no other customer was in the store when she arrived. And soon after arriving, she slipped and fell, implying that the substance must have been spilled sometime before she entered the store. Payton admitted she had only been in the store less than a minute when she fell. On these facts, the Supreme Court found Payton's claims failed, and reversed the trial court's denial of Dolgencorp's motion. View "Dolgencorp, LLC v. Payton" on Justia Law

Leroy "Lucky" Turner (aka, "Chino") admittedly shot Jeffrey Johnson in the back following a confrontation outside a convenience store. At his trial for aggravated assault, Turner claimed he acted out of fear for himself and his sixteen-year-old nephew. But video surveillance and eyewitness testimony supported the State’s theory that Turner was the aggressor. A jury convicted Turner as charged, for which Turner was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment with three suspended. Turner appealed, but finding no reversible error, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Turner's conviction. View "Turner v. Mississippi" on Justia Law