Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After John Sykes died in the emergency room at Calhoun Health Services, his estate sued the hospital for wrongful death, claiming that Mr. Sykes should have been hooked up to a cardiac monitor. Mr. Sykes was admitted after complaining of chest pains. He did not appear to be in distress, was not short of breath and was not sweating. He denied having any other symptoms. Mr. Sykes would later be diagnosed with "severe cardiomegaly" and died of "sudden cardiac death" related to "severe. . . hypertensive heart disease." The trial judge held that the estate failed to prove that the hospital had deviated from an applicable standard of care, and failed to prove that use of the cardiac monitor would have made a difference for Mr. Sykes' care. The Supreme Court found that all of the estate's issues concerned factual determinations that were within the discretion of the trial court. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

In this wrongful death case, a prisoner escaped from the custody of the Hinds County sheriff. While evading capture, the prisoner struck a pedestrian with a stolen vehicle. The trial court denied the County's motion for summary judgment based on its claim of sovereign immunity, and the County appealed. Finding no right to appeal a pretrial denial of sovereign immunity, the Supreme Court dismissed this appeal, finding "no compelling reason to abandon our current practice regarding interlocutory review of pretrial denials of sovereign immunity."

Appellees Michael Howard and Shannon Poole were awarded a $4 million jury verdict against InTown Lessee Associates, LLC, an extended stay motel, for injuries they sustained as victims of an armed robbery in the motel. InTown appealed the verdict, challenging the trial court's denial of its motion for a directed verdict. Upon review of the trial record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court could not conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying InTown's motion. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision and the jury verdict in favor of Appellees.

Defendant Virgil Johnson was convicted of aggravated assault and armed robbery by the circuit court. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence. On appeal, Defendant asserted that his right to a speedy trial was violated because 860 days passed between the time he was arrested and the date of his trial. Upon careful consideration of the trial court record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court, finding "no merit in [Defendant's] averment."

Responding to a 911 call in November 2008, police observed a male sitting in the driver's seat of a vehicle facing forward. The victim was suffering from a gunshot wound to the left side of his head, and did not appear to be breathing. Defendant Roy Page was tried for murder and sentenced to life in prison for the shooting. On appeal, Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence against him. Upon careful consideration of the lengthy trial record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court found that the evidence presented to the jury was sufficient to support Defendant's murder verdict. Furthermore, the overwhelming weight of the evidence also supported the verdict. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the trial court.

Defendant Chad Booker was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. Defendant unsuccessfully appealed his sentence to the Court of Appeals. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant argued multiple errors at the trial court entitled him to a new trial. The majority for the Court of Appeals found no merit in Defendant's arguments. Though it affirmed the appellate court's holding, the Supreme Court took the opportunity to expand upon points in the Court of Appeals' discussion on "Weathersby v. State" and whether the "Weathersby Rule" was correctly interpreted by the lower courts in Defendant's case. In sum, the rule applies where a defendant or his witnesses are the only eyewitnesses to the homicide: "Their version, if reasonable, must be accepted as true unless substantially contradicted in material particulars by a credible witness or witnesses for the state, or by the physical facts of the common knowledge." In Defendant's case, the Weathersby rule was inapplicable because Defendant's own version of the incident satisfied the elements of manslaughter. Furthermore, Defendant's version was substantially contradicted "in material particulars" by witnesses presented at trial. The Supreme Court found that the trial judge correctly found Weathersby inapplicable and properly permitted this case to go to the jury.

A caller informed Claiborne County Sheriff's deputies that Wendell Barnes was in Port Gibson driving a car with Texas plates. Officers knew Barnes had three warrants against him. They happened upon a vehicle matching the caller's description and initiated an investigatory stop. A deputy searched and arrested the driver, Defendant Terrance Eaddy, for possession of cocaine and weapons. Defendant moved to suppress evidence of the drugs and gun discovered in the search. At the suppression hearing, on cross-examination of the arresting deputy, defense counsel pointed out that the deputy's report contained a different version of events that took place at the time of Defendant's arrest than his testimony. In ruling on Defendant's motion, the court recognized the deputy's report differed from his testimony, but that "an arrest report does not represent the officer's entire description of the arrest." Accordingly, the court denied Defendant's motion to suppress. A jury convicted Defendant of the charges against him. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant argued that the trial court should have suppressed the evidence presented at trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the deputies did not have reasonable grounds to justify the investigatory stop and subsequent search and seizure of evidence from Defendant. Accordingly, the Court vacated Defendant's conviction.

Defendant Curtis Gause was indicted on capital murder charges in addition to burglary, and aggravated assault. A jury found him guilty of manslaughter and burglary, and not guilty of assault. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to twenty years for manslaughter and twenty-five years for burglary, with sentences to run consecutively in the state Department of Corrections. Defendant appealed, arguing multiple errors at trial. Principal among them, Defendant contended the trial court erred when it allowed the jury to consider a verdict on burglary. Upon careful consideration of the trial court's record and the applicable legal authority, the Supreme Court found that the trial court erred by granting the burglary jury instruction. The Court found that burglary was not a "lesser-included" offense to capital murder, and only Defendant could have asked for the "lesser-included" instruction. The Court affirmed Defendant's conviction on manslaughter, but reversed his conviction on burglary. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance filed a formal complaint against Walthall County Justice Court Judge Marion McKenzie for alleged ticket-fixing and for certain ex-parte communications. During a three-year period from January 2006 to January 2009, the Judge disposed of or attempted to dispose of nine citations for misdemeanor offenses. The offenses involved hunting over bait, failing to wear hunter orange, hunting without a license, and littering. On three occasions, the Judge attempted to intervene in cases assigned to another judge. On each occasion, the Judge obtained the violator's ticket and asked the deputy clerk to give the ticket to the citing officer so that the officer could "help" the defendant. The Judge acknowledged his wrongdoing and joined the motion for approval of a recommended public reprimand and $500 fine. After conducting its independent inquiry and giving consideration to the Commission's finding of fact, the Supreme Court ordered a thirty-day suspension from office without pay in addition to the recommended sanctions.

A grand jury indicted Vanessa Decker under the state Vulnerable Adults Act of 1986 for using her elderly mother's money "without her consent." But at trial, the evidence established that Ms. Decker did obtain her mother's consent to use the money. The State requested a jury instruction that allowed the jury to find Ms. Decker guilty, even if her mother had given consent. The judge granted the State's request. Subsequently, Ms. Decker was convicted by the court and sentenced to four months' imprisonment. Additionally, Ms. Decker was sentenced to pay restitution, fines and court costs. Ms. Decker appealed her conviction. Upon review of the trial record, the Supreme Court found that the trial judge gave a jury instruction that materially changed the charge made by the grand jury in the indictment. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court's conviction and sentence. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.