Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case concerns an altercation in an apartment between Sapireya Smith and Denise Neely. Smith, her boyfriend, and her brother shared the apartment, and Neely, who was married to Smith’s brother, entered to help him collect his belongings. A verbal argument between Smith and Neely escalated, culminating in Smith striking Neely in the head with a frying pan. Neely sustained significant injuries, including a fractured orbital bone and a deep laceration, requiring medical treatment and surgery. Smith admitted to throwing the pan but denied beating Neely with it, while another witness, Smith’s boyfriend, claimed not to have seen the fight’s initiation.The Circuit Court of Oktibbeha County conducted a jury trial, during which two of Neely’s treating physicians testified as lay witnesses about Neely’s injuries and treatment. Smith did not object to their testimony at trial. The jury found Smith guilty of aggravated assault, and she was sentenced to ten years in prison. Smith appealed, arguing that the physicians’ testimony constituted improper expert opinion and that her counsel was ineffective for failing to object.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. It found that while some of the treating nurse practitioner’s testimony about potential future complications from Neely’s injuries exceeded the permissible scope of lay opinion, the error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of aggravated assault. The court also held that the radiologist’s testimony was permissible as lay opinion based on his direct observations and medical records. Regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, the court determined that the failure to object did not amount to constitutional ineffectiveness, as the decisions fell within trial strategy and did not prejudice Smith’s defense. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed Smith’s conviction. View "Smith v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

A dispute arose when a private company constructed and operated a large LED billboard on property owned by a state agency, the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce (MDAC), within the City of Jackson. The billboard was built pursuant to a licensing agreement between MDAC and the company, Busby Outdoor, LLC, and was located on the State Fairgrounds. The City of Jackson, joined by other plaintiffs, claimed that the billboard violated the City’s sign and zoning ordinances because it was erected without a permit or variance and sought to enjoin its operation, also alleging it constituted a public nuisance.The Hinds County Chancery Court reviewed the matter after the City, The Lamar Company, LLC, and a former mayor filed suit. The court required MDAC to be added as a necessary party. After considering motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, the chancery court found that the City had standing but dismissed the other plaintiffs for lack of standing. The court held that MDAC and Busby were required to comply with the City’s sign ordinance, though it found the zoning ordinance did not apply due to a specific exemption for state institutions. The court further determined the billboard was a public nuisance because of its violation of the sign ordinance and issued an injunction halting its operation until compliance.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case de novo. The Court held that, absent a specific statutory provision subjecting the state or its agencies to municipal ordinances, the City could not enforce its sign ordinance against the state on state-owned property. The Court found that the relevant statutes did not expressly or by necessary implication grant the City such authority over MDAC’s property. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the chancery court’s judgment, vacated the injunction, and rendered judgment in favor of MDAC and Busby, dismissing the City’s complaint with prejudice. View "Busby Outdoor LLC v. City of Jackson" on Justia Law

In this case, law enforcement responded to a 2017 homicide in which the victim was found shot in the head, with evidence suggesting robbery and drug involvement. The investigation initially stalled due to lack of leads, but in 2019, new information led to the identification of three suspects, including the appellant. The case remained unresolved until 2021, when the appellant was arrested on unrelated charges and questioned about the murder. During two recorded interviews, the appellant first denied involvement but later admitted to being present and participating in a plan to rob the victim. Other suspects were also interviewed, and ultimately, the appellant and three others were indicted for capital murder. Two co-defendants pleaded guilty to lesser charges, and another pleaded guilty to murder.The case was tried in the Alcorn County Circuit Court. The appellant moved to suppress his statements from both interviews, arguing they were involuntary due to intoxication and coercion, and that his right to counsel was violated. The trial court denied the motion after a suppression hearing, finding the statements voluntary and the right to counsel not unequivocally invoked. At trial, the appellant’s statements and testimony from co-defendants were admitted. The jury convicted the appellant of capital murder, and he was sentenced to life without parole. Post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial were denied.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed claims regarding the denial of the suppression motion, alleged improper witness vouching, the admission of a co-defendant’s prior statement, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the appellant’s statements, found no reversible error in the handling of witness testimony, and determined that any procedural errors were either barred or did not amount to ineffective assistance. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "Reyes v. State" on Justia Law

A state port authority and a group of related companies entered into a series of letters of intent (LOIs) regarding the possible expansion and operation of a port facility. The final LOI, signed in December 2019, included provisions for confidentiality, exclusivity, and certain legally binding terms, but also stated that it was not a binding agreement to consummate the potential transaction. The port authority’s board approved the LOI and several subsequent extensions, but the board minutes did not include the terms or conditions of the LOI. After negotiations failed, the port authority terminated the LOI. The companies claimed significant losses and alleged the port authority had breached the LOI and misused confidential information.The Harrison County Circuit Court found that the LOI was unenforceable under Mississippi’s “minutes rule,” which requires that public board contracts be sufficiently detailed in the board’s official minutes. The court dismissed all claims based on the LOI, including breach of contract and quantum meruit, but allowed claims for unjust enrichment and misappropriation of trade secrets to proceed. Both parties sought interlocutory appeal, and the appeals were consolidated.The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the LOI was unenforceable because the board minutes did not contain enough terms to determine the parties’ obligations, and held that the minutes rule was not superseded by the Open Meetings Act. The court also held that unjust enrichment, as an implied contract claim, was barred by the minutes rule and reversed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment on that claim. However, the court affirmed that the companies’ notice of claim regarding misappropriation of trade secrets was sufficient under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the remaining claim. View "The Mississippi State Port Authority at Gulfport v. Yilport Holding A.S." on Justia Law

K.S. gave birth to her daughter, Jane, in August 2018 and struggled with ongoing methamphetamine abuse before, during, and after her pregnancy. Jane’s early life was marked by instability, with K.S. frequently leaving her in the care of relatives and exposing her to unsafe environments. After a series of rehabilitation attempts and relapses, Jane was adjudicated a neglected child by the Rankin County Youth Court in November 2019, and custody was transferred among family members. By early 2022, Jane was in the durable legal custody of M.F.D. and M.D., K.S.’s cousin and her husband.M.D. and M.F.D. filed a petition in the Rankin County Chancery Court in August 2022 to terminate K.S.’s parental rights and adopt Jane. Before trial, they requested the youth court to transfer jurisdiction to the chancery court, which the youth court granted, finding all matters resolved and the transfer in Jane’s best interest. The chancery court then held a trial, denied K.S.’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and terminated her parental rights based on abandonment, desertion, unfitness, and failure to provide for Jane’s needs. The court also found reunification was not in Jane’s best interest and subsequently granted the adoption. K.S. appealed the termination and later filed a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the adoption, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which was denied.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the consolidated appeals. It held that the chancery court had subject-matter jurisdiction to terminate K.S.’s parental rights because the youth court had formally relinquished jurisdiction, and no statute prohibited such transfer. The Court also found no manifest error in the termination decision, as substantial evidence supported the chancellor’s findings. Finally, the Court declined to adopt a rule requiring automatic stays of adoption proceedings pending appeals of termination orders. The judgments of the chancery court were affirmed. View "K.S. v. M.D. and M.F.D." on Justia Law

After being suspended from his long-term employment at a Walmart in Southaven, Mississippi, following an incident involving a coworker, the defendant planned and executed a violent attack targeting those he blamed for his suspension. Three days after the suspension, he shot and killed two Walmart managers, set fire to the store, and, during his attempted escape, shot a responding police officer. Surveillance footage captured the events, and the defendant admitted to the killings, arson, and shooting the officer during trial.A jury in the Circuit Court of DeSoto County convicted the defendant of two counts of capital murder and one count of attempted murder. The jury sentenced him to death for each capital murder conviction and to life imprisonment for the attempted murder. The defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the circuit court denied.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed several claims: that the trial court erred in admitting evidence from locations other than the crime scene; that the evidence was insufficient to support the capital murder convictions because the arson and murders were not part of one continuous transaction; that the verdicts were against the overwhelming weight of the evidence; and that the court should abandon the M’Naghten Rule as the standard for insanity. The Supreme Court found no error in the admission of evidence, held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions under the one-continuous-transaction doctrine, determined the verdicts were not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and declined to abandon the M’Naghten Rule. The court also found the death sentences were not disproportionate. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "Abram v. State" on Justia Law

Jonathan Harrelson was convicted of statutory rape and sentenced to forty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The incident involved Harrelson, who was forty-four, picking up two minors, Kendall and Valerie, and taking them to various locations, including a motel and a resort. Kendall testified that Harrelson had sexual intercourse with her at the motel, while Harrelson denied any sexual contact and claimed he believed the girls were older.The case was initially tried in the Jones County Circuit Court, where a jury found Harrelson guilty of statutory rape. Harrelson was sentenced to forty years and required to register as a sex offender. He filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. Harrelson argued that prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The court found that although the prosecutor's comments about the absence of certain witnesses were improper, Harrelson did not suffer prejudice due to the substantial evidence of his guilt. The court also determined that the weight of the evidence supported the jury's verdict, noting that the testimony of the victim, Kendall, was corroborated by other evidence and that issues of credibility were for the jury to decide.The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed Harrelson's conviction and sentence, concluding that the trial was fair and the evidence supported the jury's decision. View "Harrelson v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

In 2008, the former Attorney General of Mississippi entered into a retention agreement with the Kilborn Firm to sue Entergy Corporation over electricity rates. The Kilborn Firm then agreed to split any compensation with Roedel Parsons, a Louisiana law firm. After years of litigation, the trial judge granted Entergy’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case with prejudice. The State did not appeal. Roedel Parsons then sued the State, claiming it was entitled to $34,625,000 as a third-party beneficiary under the retention agreement or, alternatively, for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit recovery.The Hinds County Circuit Court granted the State’s motion to dismiss under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court found that Roedel Parsons was not a third-party beneficiary under the retention agreement, as the agreement specified that any associated attorneys would be at the Kilborn Firm’s expense and at no cost to the State. The court also found that Roedel Parsons failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit recovery, as the State had no obligation to compensate Roedel Parsons under the terms of the agreement.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The court held that Roedel Parsons was not a third-party beneficiary under the retention agreement and had no standing to sue the State for breach of contract. The court also held that Roedel Parsons failed to state a claim for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit recovery, as the State had no reasonable expectation to compensate Roedel Parsons. The court further found that the common-fund doctrine did not apply, as Roedel Parsons failed to identify a specific fund or class of beneficiaries. View "Roedel Parsons Blache Fontana Piontek & Pisano v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

Mississippi Methodist Hospital and Rehabilitation Center Inc. appealed the Hinds County Chancery Court's decision affirming the Mississippi State Department of Health's grant of a certificate of need (CON) to Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital of Flowood LLC. The Department identified a need for additional comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR) beds, prompting Encompass to apply for a CON to build a new facility in Flowood. Methodist opposed the application, arguing that Encompass's proposed facility would not meet indigent care requirements and would unnecessarily duplicate existing services.The Hinds County Chancery Court initially reversed the Department's decision, finding that the hearing officer failed to consider the relevance of a CON granted to Baptist Memorial Rehabilitation Hospital - Madison LLC. However, the Mississippi Supreme Court vacated this decision, ruling that the hearing officer had considered the relevance of the Baptist CON and found it irrelevant. On remand, the chancery court affirmed the Department's grant of the Encompass CON, finding that the decision was supported by substantial evidence.The Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the chancery court's decision. The Court held that the hearing officer's findings were based on substantial evidence, including Encompass's commitment to providing indigent care and the unmet need for CMR services in the Jackson metro area. The Court also rejected Methodist's argument that the state health officer should have considered the impact of the Baptist CON, noting that this issue had already been resolved in the previous appeal. The Court remanded the case to the chancery court to determine the amount of attorneys' fees to which Encompass is entitled under Section 41-7-201(2)(f). View "Mississippi Methodist Hospital and Rehabilitation Center Inc. v. Mississippi State Department of Health and Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital of Flowood, LLC" on Justia Law

A minor, M.Y., was injured after falling into an open manhole on the lawn of Wingfield High School in Jackson, Mississippi, during a homecoming event. M.Y.'s mother, LaQuita Maxie, filed a lawsuit on his behalf against the City of Jackson and the Jackson Public School District (JPS), alleging negligence, gross negligence, premises liability, and res ipsa loquitur, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages.The Hinds County Circuit Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss and later their motions for summary judgment. The trial court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the defendants' notice of the dangerous condition and their duty to maintain the manhole. The court also determined that the defendants were not entitled to discretionary-function immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA).The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case de novo and found that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that either the City or JPS had actual or constructive notice of the open manhole. The court noted that the defendants provided evidence of no prior complaints or notifications about the manhole, while the plaintiff relied solely on the complaint and general premises liability principles without presenting probative evidence.The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that the trial court erred in denying the defendants' motions for summary judgment. The court reversed the trial court's decision and rendered summary judgment in favor of the City of Jackson and JPS, concluding that the plaintiff did not establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendants' notice of the dangerous condition. View "City of Jackson v. Maxie" on Justia Law