Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Charles Ferguson rode as a back-seat passenger with Lazeric Yarbrough and Oratio Robinson, unaware of Yarbrough’s and Robinson’s intent to purchase marijuana once the car arrived in West Point. On their return to Starkville, the men approached a Mississippi Highway Patrol checkpoint. As they approached the checkpoint, Yarbrough (in the front seat) opened the door and threw the bag of marijuana from the vehicle. The officers at the checkpoint watched as the bag was thrown from the vehicle and subsequently arrested all three men. Ferguson was indicted for possession of marijuana in an amount greater than 250 grams but less than 500 grams, with the intent to distribute. The State presented that it had learned during the break that Ferguson was a habitual offender, and it had just then filed its motion to amend the indictment to reflect his habitual-offender status. The trial court moved forward with a hearing on the State’s motion to amend the indictment. Defense counsel argued that, because of the timing of the motion, an amendment would unfairly prejudice Ferguson. The trial court recessed to give defense counsel an opportunity to speak with Ferguson; during the recess, the State communicated its plea offer to Ferguson for his consideration. Thereafter, the trial court allowed the amendment. An additional “brief recess” was taken to give Ferguson and defense counsel one last chance to confer. Ferguson chose to reject the State’s plea offer. Ferguson was convicted of the lesser-included offense of possession of marijuana in an amount of 250 grams but less than 500 grams, and sentenced to serve eight years as a habitual offender. On appeal, he argued that: (1) the verdict was against the sufficiency of the evidence; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the indictment to be amended after jury selection had been completed; (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance; and (4) his counsel was ineffective. The Supreme Court concluded after review, the trial court erred in allowing the amendment to the indictment, because Ferguson did not receive proper notice and was unfairly surprised. Accordingly, the Court reversed in part the judgments of the Court of Appeals and trial court that ruled otherwise. The Court vacated only the portion of Ferguson’s sentence that was based on his status as an habitual offender. The case was remanded for resentencing. View "Ferguson v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Robert Reith was convicted by jury for the murder of his ex-wife and sentenced to life. He appealed, but his conviction and sentence was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Reith argued the trial court erred in granting pattern jury instruction S-5, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel with regard to that instruction. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court erred in granting instruction S-5, and that the error was not harmless. "Deliberate design may not be presumed, and we overrule our prior cases to the extent that they conflict with this principle. We admonish the circuit courts not to grant an instruction which relies upon a presumption of intent, as it conflicts with the presumption of innocence, relieving the State of its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on an essential element of the offense." View "Reith v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Craig Williams was convicted by jury of armed robbery. Williams appealed his conviction, claiming: (1) a broken "BB gun" did not meet the definition of a deadly weapon for purposes of Mississippi's armed-robbery statute; (2) the trial court failed to instruct the jury regarding the legal definition of a deadly weapon; and (3) because the jury was instructed that they "need not actually see a deadly weapon," they were misinstructed on the legal necessity of the use of a deadly weapon. Finding no merit in any of these contentions, the Supreme Court affirmed Williams's armed robbery conviction. View "Williams v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

In a matter of first impression, the issue before the Supreme Court centered on whether one wrongfully convicted of a crime and placed in the Intensive Supervision Program, commonly known as house arrest, is entitled to compensation under Mississippi Code Sections 11-44-1 to -7. Frank Sanders Tipton was convicted of extortion and served time in Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) facilities as well as in the Intensive Supervision Program. After the Court vacated his judgment, Tipton filed a claim for compensation for wrongful conviction and incarceration. The State agreed to pay Tipton for his time served in prison but not for his time in the Intensive Supervision Program. After both sides filed for summary judgment, the Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the State, which Tipton appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment. View "Tipton v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

David Lee Rice filed a petition for post-conviction relief in Circuit Court, arguing that he had been improperly sentenced to life without parole as a habitual offender after a 1996 conviction for auto burglary. Finding Rice's arguments on appeal to be without merit, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Rice v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Johnny Ray Sims was charged with three counts of aggravated assault, with each count alleging a separate victim. The trial court subsequently accepted the defendant’s best-interest guilty plea to one count of aggravated assault and dismissed the remaining counts. As part of his sentence, Sims was ordered to pay restitution to an alleged victim named in one of the dismissed counts. More than three years later, Sims filed a petition for post-conviction relief, raising a claim of illegal sentence, among several other claims. The trial court dismissed Sims’s petition as time-barred and successive, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court granted Sims’s petition for writ of certiorari to review his claim that restitution related to a dismissed charged was improper. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that in exchange for his plea of guilty, two aggravated-assault charges against Sims were dismissed. The Court found Sims waived any objection to the restitution order: neither Sims nor his attorney ever objected – either at the plea hearing or two weeks later at the sentencing hearing – to the imposition of the restitution or the amount or the distribution of the restitution ordered. "Sims should not now be allowed to complain." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Sims’s petition for post-conviction relief. View "Sims v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Robert Sherman was indicted for willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously possessing pseudoephedrine and sodium hydroxide with the unlawful intent to manufacture a controlled substance. He was tried and convicted then sentenced to twelve years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, with eight years to serve and four years suspended, plus five years of post-release supervision. Sherman appealed, arguing that his conviction: (1) was based upon insufficient evidence; or (2) was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Sherman's conviction and sentence. View "Sherman v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Angela Johnson of one count of possession of methamphetamine, one count of possession of precursor chemicals, and one count of false pretense. The Court of Appeals affirmed Johnson's convictions, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the question of whether the admission of two search warrants and an underlying facts-and-circumstances affidavit which included hearsay statements attributed to a confidential informant constituted reversible error. Because the Court concluded that the warrants and affidavits were admitted in error, the Court reversed the trial and appellate courts and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Johnson v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Troy Chaupette was convicted of fondling his four-year-old great-niece. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred by: (1) allowing two fact witnesses to provide expert testimony; (2) permitting an improper comment on the victim’s truthfulness; and (3) admitting cumulative, hearsay testimony from six witnesses under the tender-years exception. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Chaupette's convictions. View "Chaupette v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Ricky Franklin was convicted on one count of kidnapping and on one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to thirty years and twenty years, respectively, to run consecutively. A mistrial was entered for one count of forcible rape, and a not-guilty verdict was entered for one count of sexual Franklin was denied his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, in the alternative, for a new trial. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred: (1) in refusing to instruct the jury on simple assault as a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault, (2) in allowing improper opinion testimony from numerous witnesses concerning whether a bottle could cause serious bodily injury, (3) in allowing prejudicial hearsay statements allegedly made to police; (4) in allowing inflammatory statements in the prosecution's closing argument to violate his right to a fair trial; and (5) in denying Franklin's motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial. Upon careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded Franklin's conviction of aggravated assault under issue one; the Court did not reach issue two, and affirmed the trial court on all other issues raised on appeal. View "Franklin v. Mississippi" on Justia Law