Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Deric Bailey was convicted by a jury of deliberate-design murder for which he was sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, Defendant's conviction and sentence were reversed by the Court of Appeals and the case was remanded for a new trial. At his second trial, Defendant again was convicted of deliberate-design murder and sentenced to life in prison. The trial court denied his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, a new trial, and Defendant timely filed this appeal. Defendant Bailey presented five issues on appeal to the Supreme Court: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying certain jury instructions; (2) whether the trial court erred in excluding from evidence the statement Defendant gave at the time of his arrest; (3) whether the jury selection process was constitutionally infirm under "Batson"; (4) whether the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to grant a speedy trial; and (5) whether Bailey was deprived of his right to a fair trial, or at the very least, denied his right to a fair and impartial judge. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Defendant's claims were without merit, and affirmed Defendant's conviction and life sentence.

Defendant Gary Lee pled guilty to accessory after the fact to armed robbery in 1982. In 2010, he filed a petition for habeas corpus (post-conviction relief under Mississippi law) at the circuit court. The court denied Defendant's petition, finding it barred by the three-year statute of limitations in Mississippi Code Section 99-39-5(2) (Supp. 2011). Because Defendant's petition fell outside the three-year statute of limitations and because the trial court may dismiss a petition when it plainly appears from the face of the motion that the movant was not entitled to any relief, the Supreme Court affirmed.

A jury convicted Defendant Edna Mae Sanders of murdering her husband, and she was sentenced to life in prison. The Court of Appeals reversed her conviction and remanded for a new trial based on the trial court's error in denying a "no duty to retreat" jury instruction, and based on an error in suppressing evidence. Defendant threw a pot of hot cooking oil on her husband while he was sleeping, testifying that she threw the oil to protect herself and her children after she had been violently attacked. The State argued on appeal that the Court of Appeals erred when it (1) found that Defendant was entitled to a "no duty to retreat" instruction, because the evidence showed that she reinitiated the attack after the husband had stopped attacking her; (2) incorrectly conflated the applicable statute such that the court "created precedent" for defendants to claim entitlement to the presumption of reasonable fear, even where the person "against whom 'defensive force' was used was a resident of the dwelling"; and (3) improperly invoked plain error to review the exclusion of testimony regarding the husband's alleged sexual molestation of Defendant's daughter. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals' ultimate disposition, and found "no merit" in the State's claims on certiorari.

In 2010, sixteen death-sentenced inmates, including Steve Knox (the inmates), filed a complaint in the Chancery Court. The essence of their complaint was that due to defects in both the statutory structure and the performance of the Mississippi Office of Capital Post-Conviction Counsel (MOCPCC), they were deprived of their right to obtain meaningful state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus review of their convictions and death sentences. The inmates requested injunctive relief against the State due to alleged violations of their rights to competent, appointed, post-conviction counsel. The State moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. After a hearing, the chancery court found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint because the inmates' "attack on the death sentences and post-conviction judicial reviews of [their] convictions" was cognizable under the Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act (UPCCRA). The chancery court dismissed the complaint. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, finding the chancery court lacked jurisdiction over the inmates claims because the claims were embraced by the UPCCRA.

Defendant Brian Holliman was convicted for killing his wife. He was sentenced to life in prison. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing to the Supreme Court that the prosecutor in his case made an impermissible "golden-rule" argument to the jury and that the trial court failed to instruct the jury to disregard the argument. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found that the prosecutor's argument was a blatant violation, and the trial court erred in overruling both objections from Defendant's counsel. The Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Defendant Gary Glidden was convicted of one count of possession of a controlled substance. The circuit court sentenced him to serve a term of four years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The court also sentenced Defendant to serve his imprisonment as an habitual offender. After entering an order denying Defendant's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, for a new trial, Defendant perfected his appeal to the Supreme Court. Finding that no reversible error occurred at trial, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence of the circuit court.

Defendant Leo Wales was tried in absentia for two counts of armed robbery and two counts of aggravated assault. A jury found Defendant guilty on all counts, and the Circuit Court of Hinds County sentenced Defendant to twenty years, and forty years for each count of armed robbery and assault, each sentence to run concurrently in the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Defendant's consecutive and concurrent sentences required him to serve a total of eighty years. On appeal, Defendant argued that (1) the trial court erred in trying him in absentia; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction in Count I, aggravated assault or, alternatively, the verdict of guilty in Count I was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence; and (3) the trial court erred by denying his proffered jury instruction on the specific intent required for armed robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentence, because it found substantial evidence supported the trial courtâs finding that he had waived his right to be present at trial, because the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of guilty in Count I, and that verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and because the jury instructions, taken as a whole, fully and fairly informed the jury of each element of the crime of armed robbery.

Jules Corbin, Tammy Louis, and James Henry, Jr. were involved in an automobile wreck that left Louis dead and Henry severely injured. Corbin was indicted for capital murder, aggravated assault, and felony fleeing the scene of an accident. However, he was convicted by a jury on the lesser-included offense of murder, as well as aggravated assault and felony fleeing the scene. Corbin was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, ten years for aggravated assault, and three years for felony fleeing. Corbin appealed, and claimed among other things, that his Sixth-Amendment right to confrontation was violated. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court agreed that Corbin's constitutional rights were violated, and that the error was not harmless as to the charges of murder and aggravated assault, but that it was harmless as to the charge of felony fleeing the scene of an accident. Thus, the Court reversed and remanded part, and affirmed part of the trial court's decision.

Defendant Amanda Goforth, a former high-school teacher, was indicted on five counts of sexual battery involving one of her former students. She was convicted on two counts and acquitted on the remaining three. Because the Supreme Court in its review found that Defendant was not afforded a constitutionally adequate opportunity to confront one of the witnesses against her, the Court reversed the trial court's decision. Further, the Court found that Defendant's conviction and sentence must be reversed and rendered: "[a]ny subsequent reprosecution would subject Goforth to the dangers of double jeopardy due to the multiple, identically worded counts in her indictment and the juryâs split verdict."

Defendant Michael Richardson was convicted by a jury capital murder and of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. The State sought the death penalty at the sentencing phase, but the jury returned a verdict of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the capital murder charge. The trial judge sentenced Defendant to serve a term of life without parole for the capital-murder conviction, and to serve a term of ten years imprisonment for the felony-possession-of-firearm conviction. These two sentences were ordered to be served consecutively, all in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. After the trial court denied Defendant's motion for a new trial, or in the alternative, motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdicts, Defendant appealed, alleging errors at the trial court level. Finding Defendant's assignments of error to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.