Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
McQuirter v. Archie
Following a narrow loss to David Archie in the Hinds County Mississippi Board of Supervisors for District 2 Primary Election, Darrell McQuirter filed a Petition to Contest Qualifications of Archie as nominee for supervisor, claiming that Archie was not a resident of District 2 at the time of the primary election. The Hinds County circuit court found in favor of Archie. Specifically, the trial court found Archie established he domicile within Hinds County District 2. The record did not indicate that the trial judge acted alone. But the trial judge’s final order did not expressly mention elections commissioners’ concurrences, and there was no evidence of any dissent. McQuirter argued on appeal: (1) the trial judge erred by failing to allow the election commissioners to either concur or dissent on either the record or in the trial judge’s order; and (2) the trial court erred by finding that Archie qualified as a resident of the district. The Mississippi Supreme Court concluded McQuirter bore the burden of supplying the Court with evidence through the record that established his claim of error, but failed to do so. If the requisite number of election commissioners attend and none dissent, per the applicable statute, the “facts shall not be subject to appellate review.” A majority of the Supreme Court found the statute did not require concurrences of commissioner be placed in the record: "Together, Sections 23-15-931 and -933 bar appellate review of the factual findings without evidence of any commissioner’s dissent or lack of attendance, not concurrence. Here, the commissioners were in attendance, and none dissented." If actual dissents existed, the Court held McQuirter had a duty to supply the Court with a record that evidenced a dissent or the inability to provide record of a dissent; the trial judge’s lack of indicating the commissioners’ concurrence does not suggest that one or more had dissented. The Court thus determined review of Archie's residence was precluded. Judgement of the trial court was affirmed. View "McQuirter v. Archie" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Election Law
Venture, Inc. d/b/a Save-A-Lot v. Harris
Mattie Harris filed a premises-liability action against Venture, Inc., d/b/a/ Save-A-Lot after Harris allegedly tripped over the base of a temporary iron display rack while shopping at a Save-A-Lot grocery store. Harris claimed that Venture created a dangerous condition on the premises by placing a temporary iron display rack on the edge of a shopping aisle so that the base and the legs of the display rack protruded into the aisle and obstructed the walking clearance of customers. Harris claimed that Venture negligently maintained the premises by creating a dangerous condition on the premises and failed to warn invitees of the condition. The dangerous condition, Harris claimed, was the proximate cause of her fall and the resulting injuries. Both Harris and Venture moved for summary judgment, and Venture filed a motion to stay proceedings for the parties to complete discovery. The trial court granted in part Harris' motion on the issue of liability, and denied Venture's two motions. Aggrieved, Venture sought interlocutory appeal and argued the trial court abused its discretion by denying its Rule 56(f) motion and by granting Harris’s motion for summary judgment. Venture further asserted that the trial court erred by denying its motion for summary judgment because no unreasonably dangerous condition existed on the premises. Because this case was fact intensive and the two parties submitted conflicting evidence as to whether the rack constituted a dangerous condition, the Mississippi Supreme Court found that summary judgment in favor of either party was inappropriate and that the question of whether the rack constituted a dangerous condition should have been resolved by a trier of fact in a trial on the merits. Judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Venture, Inc. d/b/a Save-A-Lot v. Harris" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Civil Procedure, Personal Injury
Keller v. Mississippi
Jason Keller robbed and murdered Hat Nguyen in her Biloxi, Mississippi convenience store. A jury later convicted him of capital murder and sentenced him to death. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the conviction. On May 25, 2017, the Court granted Keller’s motion for leave to proceed in the trial court with a petition for post-conviction relief. Keller argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and discover significant mitigating evidence. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge entered an order denying Keller’s request for a new sentencing hearing before a newly empaneled jury. Keller appealed. Based on the strong presumption that trial counsel provided adequate assistance and on the highly deferential standard of review, the Mississippi Supreme Court determined trial judge did not clearly err by finding that trial counsel provided adequate assistance. "[T]he trial judge did not ignore evidence or conjure a tactical decision for trial counsel. Any error in conducting factual research beyond what was in the record was harmless error." View "Keller v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Rollins v. Hinds County Sheriff’s Department et al.
Quality Choice Correctional Healthcare entered a contract with Hinds County, Mississippi to provide comprehensive medical care to inmates. Delorise Rollins was hired by Quality Choice as a nurse at the Hinds County Detention Center in Raymond and was injured in the course of her duties. At that time, Quality Choice did not carry workers’ compensation coverage. As a result, Rollins filed a petition to controvert with the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission. The Commission found that the Hinds County Sheriff’s Department (HCSD) was not Rollins’s statutory employer and denied workers’ compensation benefits. Rollins then appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s decision. The Mississippi Supreme Court granted Rollins’s petition for writ of certiorari, and found that because the HCSD was not Rollins' statutory employer, workers’ compensation benefits were not available. The Court therefore affirmed decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Commission. View "Rollins v. Hinds County Sheriff's Department et al." on Justia Law
McGraw v. Mississippi
Andrew McGraw appealed his conviction for forcible rape. The victim, SR, was a thirty-three-year-old woman with a standing condition of bacterial meningitis. She contracted bacterial meningitis as a two-year-old; the infection was "neurologically devastating." SR weighed less than fifty pounds, and spent most of her time bent in a fetal position. Muscles in her upper and lower body were severally underdeveloped. SR could not walk or talk. She required twenty-four-hour care and supervision. After SR's mother took SR to the hospital for a checkup, it was discovered SR was pregnant. Some time after SR’s admittance, her mother requested that SR’s child be terminated. The hospital Ethics Committee met and found this was an appropriate course of action. Three days later, SR was induced into labor. The child was born unresponsive. Individuals with access to SR's home were identified; in addition to the DNA samples from five men, DNA samples were also taken from the deceased child. After testing the samples, the laboratory was able to say with 99.999999998 percent certainty that Andrew McGraw fathered his daughter’s child. McGraw was indicted on one count of forcible rape and one count of incest; he was tried and convicted on both counts. He appealed only the rape charge, arguing the State failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that his victim was incapable of consenting to intercourse. After examining the record, the Mississippi Supreme Court found there was sufficient evidence and affirmed McGraw's conviction. View "McGraw v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Carver v. Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi
Brian Carver was employed by the Jackson Police Department as a patrolman for twenty years. In 2004, Carver was involved in an officer-involved shooting in which he shot and killed a suspect. In 2011, Brian Carver applied for non-duty-related and duty-related disability benefits due to his suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder relating ot that 2004 shooting. The Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi “granted [Carver] non-duty related disability benefits but denied his request for duty-related disability benefits.” The denial by PERS was affirmed by the Disability Appeals Committee, the PERS Board of Trustees, the Hinds County Circuit Court, and the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals determined that “[a] plain-language reading of [Mississippi Code S]ection 25-11-114(7)(b) clearly distinguishes mental and physical disabilities.” The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the plain language of Section 25-11-114(6) required, at the time Carver applied for benefits, a physical injury arising from an accident or traumatic event occurring in the line of duty. "Post-traumatic stress disorder may cause physiological changes to the brain and manifest in physiological symptoms; however, no physical injury occurred in the line of duty in the case sub judice. The PERS Board’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious, and it was based on substantial evidence." View "Carver v. Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi" on Justia Law
Brown v. Mississippi
A jury found Joseph Patrick "Peanut" Brown shot and killed a convenience store clerk during a robbery. He was sentenced to death, and had been on death row since 1994. Brown filed a successive petition for post-conviction relief in which he raised numerous issues. Most of the claims raised at this point were subject to the time bar, the successive-writ bar, and/or were barred by res judicata. The Mississippi Supreme Court determined the remaining issue was without merit. The successive petition was therefore denied. View "Brown v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
RW Development, LLC v. Mississippi Gaming Commission
In appeals consolidated for the Mississippi Supreme Court's review, the circuit court affirmed the decision of the Mississippi Gaming Commission (MGC) to deny the gaming site application of RW Development, LLC (RW). The MGC and the circuit court found that RW’s proposed gaming site failed to meet the governing statutory and regulatory requirements under Mississippi Code Section 97-33-1 (Rev. 2014) in the first instance, and 13 Mississippi Administrative Code Part 2, Rule 1.4(d) (adopted May 1, 2013), Westlaw, in the second. The Supreme Court concurred with the Commission and circuit court that: (1) in case No. 2019-SA-01813-SCT, RW failed to provide evidence that its proposed gaming site was within eight hundred feet of the MHWL; and (2) in case No. 2019-SA-01815-SCT, RW failed to establish that the mean high water line point of reference was located on RW’s premises, that RW owned or leased the land contiguous to the point of reference and its proposed gaming site, and that the land would play an integral part in RW's project. View "RW Development, LLC v. Mississippi Gaming Commission" on Justia Law
Barton a/k/a Jorgensen v. Barton
Christine Barton (Jorgensen) appealed a chancery court ruling, arguing it was an abuse of the court's discretion in failing to enter a final domestic-violence protection order and by failing to appoint a guardian ad litem. The pleadings revealed that Jorgensen not only failed to seek an extension of the temporary domestic-abuse protection order previously issued by a justice court judge but she also failed to request a final domestic-violence protection order. By statute, the justice court order expires thirty days after entry, as here, when the party seeking protection and the respondent have minor children in common. The Mississippi Supreme Court concluded there was no abuse of discretion and affirmed. View "Barton a/k/a Jorgensen v. Barton" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Family Law
Wilson v. Mississippi
William Wilson was charged with capital murder and felonious child abuse. A trial court set aside William Wilson's death sentence, but not his guilty plea. Wilson did not appeal that decision in the time allowed under Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. Wilson argued that the failure to file an appeal was through no fault of his own and that good caused existed to grant his out- of-time appeal. The circuit court found that it did not have jurisdiction to grant the out-of- time appeal or, in the alternative, that Wilson had failed to demonstrate that good cause existed to grant an out-of-time appeal. Wilson appealed. After review, the Mississippi Supreme Court determined Wilson’s attorney failed to advise him regarding his right to appeal the trial court’s refusal to set aside his guilty plea. The attorney also advised him that he was no longer his attorney. Wilson, therefore, not knowing he could appeal the refusal to set aside the guilty plea, and believing that he did not have an attorney, failed to timely perfect his appeal. The Supreme Court granted Wilson’s application for an out-of-time appeal and allowed the case to proceed on the merits. View "Wilson v. Mississippi" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law