Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Anthony Tyrone Thomas was convicted of aggravated assault and of being a felon in possession of a weapon, for which he was sentenced to two consecutive terms of life without parole as a habitual offender. The Court of Appeals affirmed both convictions, and the Supreme Court granted Thomas's petition for writ of certiorari. Because the Supreme Court found that Count II of Thomas's indictment did not charge him with a crime, it reversed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a weapon and dismissed the indictment in Count II. The Court affirmed the trial court in all other respects. View "Thomas v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

John Wrenn pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He appealed his conviction, arguing: (1) Mississippi’s concealed-weapon statute precluded his conviction; and (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Because Wrenn's conviction was the result of a guilty plea, the Supreme Court dismissed this appeal. View "Wrenn v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Frederick Wilson wounded one person and killed another when he fired gunshots at the decedent's car. Wilson was convicted of one count of aggravated assault and one count of murder. Wilson appealed his convictions, alleging the trial court erred: (1) by sustaining the State's relevance objections during his cross-examination of the wounded victim; and (2) by admitting into evidence his first two statements to law-enforcement authorities. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Wilson's convictions and sentences. View "Wilson v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Shirley Johnson sued the City of Belzoni and two city employees for employment discrimination and sexual harassment. A jury rendered a verdict in Johnson's favor, resulting in a monetary award against each of the three defendants severally. Defendants appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The City appealed from the circuit court's order granting Johnson's motion to enforce the defendants' supersedeas bond against the City alone. Finding that the trial court erred in enforcing a deficient supersedeas bond against the City to satisfy the judgments against the other two co-defendants, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for a correction. View "City of Belzoni v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Billy Dale Hill appealed his motion for post-conviction relief. He claimed that the circuit court had destroyed biological evidence without notifying him as required by statute. The evidence in question was a laboratory slide containing what was purported to be sperm cells collected during a 1974 autopsy. The only relief sought by Hill was that the Supreme Court “order appropriate remedies and impose sanctions” because of the failure to give proper notice. Given the uncontradicted proof that the circuit court did not have the evidence in question, the Supreme Court found no basis for Hill’s claim, and affirmed the trial court. View "Hill v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Malcolm Weeks Sr. was indicted and tried for sexually abusing his fourteen-year-old daughter. He was convicted of one count of child fondling and two counts of sexual battery. On appeal, he argued: (1) the trial court erred by allowing the State to substantively amend his indictment; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdicts; and (3) the verdicts were against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Weeks v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

In June 2004, Victor Jones pled guilty to two counts of sexual battery and was sentenced to two consecutive twenty-year terms in the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Jones filed a notice of appeal, which was dismissed for failure to pay the costs of appeal. In December 2004, Jones filed a motion for post-conviction relief (PCR) which was later denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. In April 2011, Jones filed a second motion for post-conviction relief, which was dismissed by the trial court because the motion was time-barred and barred as a successive writ. The trial court also found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims because Jones had not sought permission from the Supreme Court to proceed in the trial court. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the motion for post-conviction relief was time-barred and find that the motion also is barred based on res judicata. However, the Court found that the trial court and Court of Appeals erred in finding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear Jones's claims. View "Jones v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

David Waits was indicted by a grand jury on one count of deliberate-design murder of Wavious McGee. The indictment also charged him with a sentence enhancement for using a firearm during the commission of a felony. The jury found Waits guilty of manslaughter. According to the sentencing order, the trial judge sentenced Waits to twenty years imprisonment for the manslaughter conviction. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed Waits' manslaughter conviction and his twenty-year sentence for that conviction. But, because the jury did not specifically find Waits guilty of using a firearm in the commission of the crime of manslaughter, the Court reversed the trial court's sentence enhancement and remanded this case to the trial court, with the instruction that the gun enhancement notation be struck from the sentencing order. View "Waits v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Clayton Paul Bateman was convicted of two counts of sexual battery and two counts of touching a child for lustful purposes. He was sentenced to a total of thirty years' imprisonment. He appealed his conviction. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Bateman's convictions and sentences. View "Bateman v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

At the trial of this medical-negligence case, plaintiff’s only expert abandoned his pretrial opinion, and over the objection of the defendant, testified to a new opinion that was never disclosed in discovery. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court should have granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, reversed in part and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the defendant. View "Cleveland v. Hamil " on Justia Law