Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Sweet Valley Missionary Baptist Church filed a complaint against its insurance carrier, Alfa Insurance Corporation. Based on Sweet Valley’s failure to cooperate in discovery, the trial court entered an order of dismissal. Sweet Valley then filed a motion to set aside judgment, or, in the alternative, a motion for new trial. The trial court denied the motion, and, in response, Sweet Valley filed a second complaint against Alfa the same day. The trial court dismissed the second claim based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. Sweet Valley appealed. On rehearing, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Alfa filed a petition for writ of certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted it. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that a motion filed pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) tolls the applicable statute of limitations, and it reversed the decision of the trial court. View "Sweet Valley Missionary Baptist Church v. Alfa Insurance Corporation" on Justia Law

Levi Jenkins was indicted and on two counts of sexual battery and one count of statutory rape against his then-five-year-old niece. He was convicted only of fondling, a lesser-included offense of the second count of sexual battery. Jenkins appealed, raising various issues. Finding his arguments to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court's judgment. View "Jenkins v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss because of insufficient service of process. Plaintiff appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, even though service of process was improper, good cause existed and the action should not have been dismissed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari because the plaintiff never raised the issue at trial. Because the Court found it was improper to raise this issue for the first time on appeal, it reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and reinstated and affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court. View "Lewis v. Forest Family Practice Clinic, P.A." on Justia Law

In 1987, Johnny Ray Magee was convicted of robbing a liquor store and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment as a habitual offender. The Supreme Court affirmed his conviction in 1989 and dismissed his motion for post-conviction relief in 1992. In 2010, the Court granted Magee’s request to amend his PCR on the basis of his claim of newly discovered evidence of juror misconduct. The Circuit Court held an evidentiary hearing to consider this new evidence. The judge found that, when the prospective jurors were asked whether any of them had family or close friends in law enforcement, a juror’s failure to disclose her belief that a local deputy sheriff was her fourth cousin did not amount to juror misconduct and did not prejudice jury selection. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the issues of whether the circuit court erred in finding no juror misconduct and whether the circuit court violated Rule 9.04 of the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court by allowing the last-minute testimony of a witness at the evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of postconviction relief, finding that no juror misconduct occurred and that, even if a violation of Rule 9.04 occurred, the error was harmless and the issue was waived due to lack of a defense request for a continuance or mistrial. View "Magee v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Gloria Richmond Jackson appealed the Circuit Court Special Judge’s dismissal with prejudice of her petition for judicial review of an election contest, which contested the result of a Democratic primary runoff election. Jackson’s petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, because she failed to attach two attorney certificates to her petition, as required by statute. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the special judge erred by dismissing Jackson’s petition with prejudice for the nonmerits issue of lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the order of dismissal with prejudice was vacated and the case remanded back to the circuit court special judge with instruction to enter an order dismissing this action without prejudice. View "Jackson v. Bell" on Justia Law

Following his convictions for one count of sexual battery and three counts of gratification of lust, Joe Earl Cole argued on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay and evidence of alleged prior unindicted acts of sexual misconduct with two of his minor granddaughters. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Cole v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Rodrique Watson appealed his burglary conviction. When the victim returned home from shopping, she parked her car in an open garage, which was attached to her home. The applicable statute required the State to prove two elements: (1) unlawful breaking and entering the dwelling house and (2) the intent to commit a crime therein. At the jury instruction conference, the State submitted the following: "The Court instructs the Jury that 'breaking' as used in the indictment and in the Court’s instructions, means any act of force, regardless of how slight, which is necessary to be used in entering a building, whether the building be locked or unlocked; The Court further instructs the Jury that the 'force' used to enter the building may be accomplished through the passage of a door, which breaks the plane. Watson objected to the second part of the instruction as a misstatement of the law. The Supreme Court agreed that the trial judge incorrectly instructed the jury that breaking the plane of a door satisfied the force element of burglary of a dwelling. Therefore, the conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. View "Watson v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on local ad valorem taxes on real estate developments that use federal tax credits to construct and maintain restrictive properties that rent only to lower-income households. Specifically, the question was whether local governments could include the value of federal tax credits in their valuation of the properties for tax assessment purposes. The Court held that Mississippi Code Section 27-35-50(4)(d) prohibits them from doing so. View "Willow Bend Estates, LLC v. Humphries County Board of Supervisors " on Justia Law

Lisa Sandlin was convicted of murder for the death of her stepson Kirk Sandlin, for which she was sentenced to a term of life in prison. Sandlin appealed, arguing: (1) the trial court erred by allowing Lisa’s husband Sammy Sandlin to testify for the State; and (2) she received ineffective assistance of counsel. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court concluded the first issue was barred from review. But the record was insufficient to consider two of her ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, Sammy’s testimony and a 911 call, on direct appeal. Thus, the Court dismissed those two claims without prejudice to Lisa’s right to bring these claims later in a properly filed motion for post-conviction relief. View "Sandlin v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Kenton McNeese appealed the dismissal of his Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment and Other Relief. This Rule 60(b) motion was filed with respect to a judgment of divorce from which he already had perfected an appeal. At that time, his first appeal was pending with the Supreme Court. In response, his former wife Katherine (“Katye”), filed a motion to dismiss and requested that Kenton be required to pay attorneys’ fees. The trial court denied Kenton’s motion for relief and granted Katye’s motion to dismiss and request for attorneys’ fees. The trial court ruled that the Rule 60(b) motion was not timely and that the court lacked jurisdiction “due to the pendency of the case’s appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court. . . .” The trial court also found that Kenton’s motion was frivolous and without substantial justification and that it was interposed for delay and harassment and, therefore, imposed a $1,000 sanction against Kenton to be applied toward Katye’s attorneys’ fees. Finding that the trial court erroneously ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Kenton’s Rule 60(b) motion, but concluding that the trial court did not err in denying the motion, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Kenton Hal McNeese v. Katherine J. McNeese (Graves)" on Justia Law