Justia Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case, Dwan Wakefield aided Byron McBride after McBride committed a car theft, kidnapping, and murder. Wakefield was convicted under Mississippi Code Section 97-1-5 for three counts of aiding McBride in the aforementioned crimes. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Mississippi, arguing that being charged multiple times for being an accessory after the fact for each felony committed by the principal violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy.The court found that, under the unit of prosecution test, the State may charge multiple violations of Section 97-1-5 for each felony committed. The court argued that each felony committed by the principal constitutes a separate unit of prosecution, allowing for multiple convictions under the statute. Wakefield's argument was based on the belief that he committed a single act (giving McBride a ride home) while McBride committed three distinct acts (auto theft, kidnapping, and murder). However, the court disagreed and upheld the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the Madison County Circuit Court.In conclusion, the court held that for the purposes of Mississippi’s accessory after the fact statute, Section 97-1-5, each felony committed by a principal offender constitutes a single unit of prosecution. Therefore, Wakefield was not put in jeopardy by being charged with three separate counts under Section 97-1-5. The court affirmed the lower court's decision. View "Wakefield v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

In the Supreme Court of Mississippi, two interlocutory appeals were consolidated, both arising from the same wrongful-death lawsuit. Beverly Butts, on behalf of the wrongful-death beneficiaries of John Albert Hemphill, Sr., alleged that four years prior to Hemphill's death, Dr. Reese Lindsey failed to remove part of a bladder catheter, leading to recurring infections and ultimately Hemphill's death. Additionally, she claimed that the staff at Greenwood Leflore Hospital, where Lindsey treated Hemphill, provided substandard care.Regarding Lindsey, the court found that he had not been lawfully served with process. Despite multiple summons, Butts failed to comply with the Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 4, which outlines the requirements for serving process. As a result, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Lindsey, leading the Supreme Court to reverse the trial court's decision and render judgment dismissing Lindsey from the lawsuit.Concerning the Hospital, the court found that Butts had failed to provide the necessary medical expert testimony to support her medical negligence claim against the Hospital. Despite her argument that the Hospital's summary judgment motion was preemptive as no scheduling order had been set, the court noted that a defendant can file for summary judgment at any time. Given Butts's failure to present necessary expert testimony, the Supreme Court reversed the denial of summary judgment and rendered judgment in favor of the Hospital. View "Lindsey v. Butts" on Justia Law

The case before the Supreme Court of Mississippi involved the Estate of Christian Andreacchio, who died under circumstances that his family believes were suspicious. Dissatisfied with the official ruling that Andreacchio took his own life, his family sought to compel the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County to appoint a district attorney pro tempore to investigate his death. The Circuit Court denied the petition, in part because it concluded that Andreacchio's Estate and family did not have standing.The Supreme Court of Mississippi agreed with the Circuit Court's ruling. It noted that the Estate's argument that it has standing under the Mississippi Crime Victims' Bill of Rights fails because all the rights under that law assume that there is an ongoing investigation or prosecution. In this case, there was no ongoing investigation or proceeding. The Meridian Police Department had already conducted two separate investigations into Christian's death, both of which were completed. The Attorney General's Office also presented the case to a grand jury, which returned a no true bill, thus ending the process due to a lack of reasonable grounds to indict.The court also pointed out that the victims' rights statutes cited by the Estate do not confer standing to allow its petition, and all indications from Mississippi's prosecutorial structure and case law suggest that allowing private direction of prosecutions, which must be brought on behalf of the state, is disallowed. Therefore, the court affirmed the Circuit Court's decision, finding that the Estate lacks standing to file the petition. View "In Re: Death Investigation of Christian Andreacchio" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the conviction and sentence of Timothy Marbley for aggravated domestic violence. The case originated from an incident in April 2020, where officers responded to a disturbance at an apartment complex. They found Sherita Lynch, Marbley's girlfriend, with injuries and a trail of blood leading from the apartment. Marbley was not present at the scene. Lynch and Marbley both testified at the trial, providing different accounts of the incident.The court noted that Marbley's counsel had filed a brief asserting that there were no arguable issues for review and complied with the procedures set out in Lindsey v. State when an attorney believes there are no appealable issues. Despite being given an opportunity, Marbley did not file a pro se brief. After reviewing the entire record, the court concurred with Marbley's counsel and found no issues that warranted appellate review.Consequently, the court affirmed Marbley's conviction for aggravated domestic violence and his sentence of ten years, five of which were suspended with nonreporting, supervised probation. View "Marbley v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

The case before the Supreme Court of Mississippi involves an appeal by Joe Exson, who was convicted of burglary of a dwelling, grand larceny, and first-degree arson. Exson was identified in a video committing these crimes, wearing a distinctive hoodie that was later found in his possession. He stole numerous items from the property and set it on fire, causing it to burn down entirely. The primary issue in Exson's appeal was the valuation of the stolen items, which was used to determine the charge of grand larceny. The property owner estimated the value of the stolen goods to be over $1,000, which is the minimum threshold for grand larceny under Mississippi law.Exson argued that the state failed to provide sufficient evidence of the fair market value of the stolen property and that the jury was improperly instructed on the value element of the larceny statute. However, the court noted that Exson failed to raise these arguments during his trial and thus, they were procedurally barred. Besides, the court found no merit in Exson's arguments as he was clearly seen committing the crime in the video. Moreover, reversing his larceny sentence would not substantially change his overall sentence since his arson sentence was longer and was to run concurrently.The court also examined the jury instructions and found that they tracked the language of the grand larceny statute correctly, even though they did not further define the element of value. Since Exson did not object to the instructions or request a definitional instruction during his trial, the court found no reversible error. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed Exson's convictions. View "Exson v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed a case where a city was sued for negligence due to its failure to disclose a juror's potential conflict of interest during a trial. The City of Picayune had originally sued Landry Lewis Germany Architects, alleging defects in an addition to the Picayune City Hall. A juror, Lorenzo Breland, was the son of a Picayune city councilman. The City's representative informed the City's counsel of this relationship, but took no further action. At the end of the trial, the court was informed of this relationship, leading to the dismissal of Breland and a mistrial. Landry Lewis then counter-sued the City for negligence due to its failure to disclose this familial relationship.The trial court found in favor of Landry Lewis, awarding them $210,000 in damages. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed this decision. The court held that the City of Picayune did not owe a duty of care in tort to Landry Lewis that was breached by its failure to inform the trial court of the potential juror's familial relationship. The court reasoned that trials and voir dire are adversarial processes, and that it is incumbent upon both sides to perform their due diligence in identifying potential conflicts of interest. The court further noted that there were other mechanisms, such as sanctions or bar complaints, to address any perceived misconduct. Therefore, the award of damages for negligence was reversed and rendered. View "City of Picayune v. Landry Lewis Germany Architects, P.A." on Justia Law

In this case conducted by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, the defendant, Keith Montrago Jackson, was charged and convicted of sexual battery and sentenced to life imprisonment. The case stemmed from an incident involving Jackson and his girlfriend's twelve-year-old daughter, Anna. Jackson and Anna went to a store late at night, and upon their return, Jackson sexually assaulted Anna in his truck. Anna reported the incident to her school, and law enforcement was contacted.At trial, Anna testified about the incident and identified Jackson as the perpetrator. Forensic evidence, including sperm cells found in Anna that matched Jackson's DNA, was presented. Jackson testified in his own defense, denying the allegations. However, he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.Jackson appealed the conviction, but his appellate counsel found no arguable issues for appellate review. The Court, having independently reviewed the record, also found no arguable issues. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Keith Montrago Jackson a/k/a Keith Jackson v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the convictions and death sentences of Willie Cory Godbolt, who was found guilty of several counts of murder, kidnapping, attempted murder, and armed robbery. The Court addressed numerous issues raised by Godbolt, including whether the trial court erred by denying his motions to sever the charges, transfer the trial venue, limit voir dire, suppress certain evidence, and exclude victim impact testimony. Godbolt also claimed that his counsel provided ineffective assistance and that his death sentences were unconstitutional.The Court rejected all of Godbolt's claims, finding no error in the trial court's decisions or in the handling of his case. It affirmed Godbolt's convictions and sentences, holding among other things that the evidence supported the jury's findings of guilt and the imposition of the death penalty, the trial court properly admitted certain evidence, and Godbolt's counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. The Court also found that Godbolt's death sentences did not violate the constitution. View "Godbolt v. State of Mississippi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Mississippi has once again ruled on the case of Robert Stratton, who has been fighting for the possession of his 1949 International KB 3/4-ton truck. In 2006, Stratton left his truck at a repair shop. In 2009, Jerry McKey, who had bought the shop, refused to return the truck unless Stratton paid storage fees. This led to a series of legal battles, with Stratton ultimately being awarded possession of the truck and $1350 in damages, and McKey being denied his claim for storage fees.In 2021, Stratton discovered his truck, which he had believed to be destroyed, restored and in Brookhaven, Mississippi. He filed a motion to vacate the previous court decisions, arguing that the truck's existence invalidated the previous rulings. However, the Supreme Court of Mississippi disagreed. It affirmed the trial court's denial of Stratton's motion to vacate, stating that Stratton is entitled to immediate possession of the truck and $1350 in damages, and he owes McKey no storage fees.The court found no grounds for Stratton's claims of fraud or new evidence, and it emphasized the importance of finality in court judgments. It also noted that the trial court had considered the potential of a double award to Stratton, but chose not to alter its judgment because Stratton's initial complaint had requested damages on multiple claims. The court concluded that the decision to deny Stratton's motion to vacate was within the trial court's discretion and should remain undisturbed. View "Stratton v. McKey" on Justia Law

The case involves the Mississippi Division of Medicaid and the Women’s Pavilion of South Mississippi, PLLC. Women's Pavilion, a physician-owned OBGYN clinic, challenged Mississippi Division of Medicaid's calculation of the "encounter rate," a set amount of money per visit by a Medicaid patient. Medicaid set the clinic’s encounter rate at $157.94, which was partially based on the compensation of the five physician owners of the clinic.Women’s Pavilion appealed this decision and requested an administrative hearing. The hearing officer evaluated whether Medicaid’s initial decision was supported by substantial evidence, affirming the reimbursement rate. However, Women’s Pavilion appealed again, arguing that the hearing officer applied the wrong standard of review.The Hinds County Chancery Court agreed with Women’s Pavilion, holding that the hearing officer should have made his own findings of fact and determinations of the issues presented, rather than merely evaluating whether Medicaid’s initial decision was supported by substantial evidence. The court vacated Medicaid’s final decision and remanded the matter back to Medicaid.The Mississippi Division of Medicaid appealed to the Supreme Court of Mississippi. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Hinds County Chancery Court, stating that the hearing officer had erred by applying the standard of review for courts reviewing a final administrative decision, rather than following Medicaid’s own administrative rules governing provider appeals. The case was remanded back to Medicaid for further proceedings under the proper standard of review. View "Mississippi Division of Medicaid v. Women's Pavilion of South Mississippi, PLLC" on Justia Law