Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant James Wayland Mosley was sentenced to a total of 126 years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) after a jury convicted him on one count of selling cocaine, one count of selling methamphetamine, and one count of selling marijuana (less than thirty grams). Mosley appealed the sentence to the Supreme Court claiming that the trial court’s sentencing order is disproportionate to the crimes he committed and violated his constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment. Because the Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, Mosley’s sentences were neither disproportionate to the crimes he committed nor outside the limits prescribed by statute, the Court affirmed the trial court’s sentencing order. View "Mosley v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Glenn Wane Hawkins was convicted by a jury of murdering his girlfriend, Rita Fair, and given a mandatory life sentence. Hawkins timely filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. Hawkins also raised issues regarding a jury instruction which outlined the distinctions between depraved heart murder and culpable negligence manslaughter. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "Hawkins v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Mississippi Department of Human Services ("DHS") retained a law firm for a large number of paternity and child-support cases. The law firm contracted process-service companies to serve defendants in the DHS cases. Individual process servers were instructed to serve process on a defendant, complete a proof-of-service affidavit, and send it to the owners of the process-service companies. In four cases, the DHS defendants testified that they had not been served personally. The chancellor then issued show-cause orders for a hearing and issued subpoenas instanter, requiring the process servers (the appellants in this case) to appear and demonstrate why they should not be held in contempt for failing to serve process as set forth in their proof-of-service affidavits and for signing the affidavits outside the notary's presence. Appellants directly appealed criminal contempt orders for failing to serve or improperly serving process on defendants in paternity and child-support proceedings and for notarizing proof-of-service affidavits outside the presence of the affiants. The chancellor initially found Appellants in civil contempt and ordered a sentencing hearing. However, after conducting that hearing, he proceeded to hold all in direct criminal contempt. Appellants submitted, and the State conceded, that the alleged conduct was not direct criminal contempt, but constructive criminal contempt. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that because the conduct was not civil contempt or direct criminal contempt, the chancellor should have recused himself from the proceedings. The Appellants were entitled to the due-process safeguards required for constructive criminal contempt proceedings. Accordingly, the Court reversed the contempt judgments and remanded the cases for entry of an order of recusal, and for further proceedings. View "Corr v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Cecil Ben was convicted of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment by circuit court. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence. In his petition for writ of certiorari, Ben argued: (1) that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated; (2) that Otis Mingo's testimony was inadmissible due to a discovery violation by the State; (3) that the admission of Maurice Hines's hearsay testimony was not harmless error; (4) that the admission of Nurse Sharon Hockett's statement concerning Monica's veracity was improper; and (5) that the verdict was contrary to the weight and the sufficiency of the evidence. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed Ben's conviction and sentence.

Henry Taylor and Eddie Ray Jones were tried jointly for aggravated assault and possession of a firearm by a felon. Taylor was found guilty on both charges, and Jones was acquitted on the latter charge but convicted on the former charge. Jones appealed his aggravated-assault conviction, and the Court of Appeals affirmed Jones's conviction and sentence. After the Court of Appeals denied his motion for rehearing, Jones filed a petition for writ of certiorari which the Supreme Court granted to consider, inter alia, Jones's claims of inconsistent verdicts and erroneous jury instructions. The Court held that Jones's claims of error were without merit; thus the Court affirmed the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the circuit court.

Three death-row inmates, Robert Simon, Rodney Gray, and Benny Stevens, along with the groups, Mississippians Educating for Smart Justice and Mississippi CURE, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners) filed a complaint in circuit court, seeking a writ of mandamus, injunctive relief, and/or a declaratory judgment against the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). The complaint alleged that the MDOC's newly-adopted execution protocol was invalid pursuant to Mississippi Administrative Procedures Law (MAPL) because the MDOC had adopted a new rule with regard to the MDOC's lethal injection protocol without first meeting the notice-and-comment requirements set forth by the MAPL. The circuit court denied relief, finding that the MDOC's lethal injection protocol was exempted from the MAPL because the MAPL specifically excludes matters "directly related to inmates." Accordingly, the Supreme Court found that the MDOC execution protocol was a "regulation or statement" related only to inmates of the MDOC and is therefore exempt from the provisions of the MAPL. The protocol is an internal policy concerning lethal injections and the manner in which executions are carried out and is therefore not subject to the notice and comment requirements of the MAPL. Thus, the Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment.

Allen Rogers, Jr. was convicted by a jury of two counts of child sex abuse and was sentenced to a total of thirty-three years' imprisonment. In Count One, Rogers was convicted of sexual battery against eight-year-old "Benjamin Hicks". In Count Two, Rogers was convicted of fondling "William Hicks," Benjamin's eleven-year-old brother. Rogers appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by overruling his hearsay objection to statements made by Benjamin to a forensic psychologist. He also argued that the State failed to prove that Count Two occurred in Scott County, as alleged in the indictment. Finding error on both counts, the Supreme Court reversed Rogers's convictions and sentences and remanded the case for a new trial.

Marshall Keith Watkins was convicted of possession with intent to distribute five separate controlled substances and simple possession of one controlled substance. Watkins appealed his conviction, arguing the trial court erred by: 1) refusing to dismiss Counts Two through Six of his indictment based on double jeopardy; 2) granting several jury instructions submitted by the State on the morning of closing arguments; 3) permitting a jury instruction based upon constructive possession; and 4) excluding evidence related to the disposition of the two other individuals indicted with Watkins. Watkins also argued that the cumulative effect of the alleged errors deprived him of a fair trial, and asks the Supreme Court to reverse his conviction. Upon review, the Court found all of Watkins's assigned errors are without merit and affirmed his conviction and sentence.

In this case, the trial judge erroneously denied Defendant Merlin Hardison's peremptory strike during voir dire, holding that the juror's previous service on a jury in a criminal case was not a race-neutral reason for the strike: the juror had expressed regret that the jury was unable to reach a verdict. Defendant's jury ultimately convicted him, and this appeal followed. Defendant raised nine alleged issues of error at the trial court. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial judge's denial of Defnedant's peremptory strike to be dispositive. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's conviction.

Defendant Matthew Miller was tried and convicted of aggravated assault and forcible rape of his girlfriend's minor daughter. The Supreme Court assigned the case to the Court of Appeals who affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences. Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, which found reversible error in the trial judge's failing to recuse himself after having served as the county prosecutor in an earlier youth-court shelter hearing regarding the minor victim's custody as a result of Defendant's actions at issue in this case. Accordingly, the Court reversed the appellate court's and the trial court's judgments and remanded the case for a new trial.