Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Walter Tard was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to serve forty-five years, with ten years suspended and five years of post-release supervision, in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Tard appealed a Court of Appeals judgment affirming his conviction and sentence, arguing: (1) the trial court erred by failing to review his entire videotaped interrogation and by failing to suppress his statement; and (2) the Court of Appeals erred by not reviewing the videotaped interrogation on appeal and by affirming the trial court’s judgment. Because the record failed to indicate upon what evidence the trial court based its decision to deny Tard’s motion to suppress his interrogation, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction and sentence and remanded the case to the circuit court for a new trial. View "Tard v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Minor Zachary Stringer was charged with the murder of his younger brother, Justin. The jury found Zachary guilty of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. The trial court sentenced Zachary to twenty years, with ten years to serve and ten years of post-release supervision, with five years reporting. Zachary appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing: (1) the trial court erred by allowing multiple gruesome photographs of the victim and the crime scene into evidence; and (2) the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed Zachary's conviction and sentence. View "Stringer v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

J. C. Williams was convicted of the sale of cocaine. He was adjudicated a habitual offender and a subsequent drug offender, and as such, his sentence was enhanced to forty years in the custody of the Department of Corrections (MDOC), with thirty years to serve and ten years suspended. On appeal, Williams argued that the circuit court "erred in amending the indictment to charge him as a habitual offender." The Court of Appeals rejected that argument and affirmed. Following that denial, Williams filed a pro se petition for the writ of certiorari, which was granted. The Supreme Court found that Williams was provided adequate notice in advance of trial that, upon conviction, the State intended to seek enhanced punishment under Section 99-19-81. However, the State failed to provide adequate notice of its intent to seek enhanced punishment under Section 41-29-147. Thus, the Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the Circuit Court and remanded this case for a new sentencing hearing, where Williams was to be resentenced as a habitual offender under Section 99-19-81 only. View "Williams v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Justin Stewart appealed his convictions of armed robbery and felon in possession of a firearm. Stewart argued that the trial court improperly enhanced his sentence, in violation of his rights against double jeopardy, and erred in denying his motion to suppress out-of-court and in-court identifications. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Stewart v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Hill was indicted by a grand jury of possession of a firearm on educational property (the campus of Mississippi State University). In two jury trials, Hill represented himself with the assistance and advice of court-appointed counsel. Hill's first trial resulted in a hung jury. Hill was found guilty of the indicted offense in his second trial and was sentenced to three years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) and ordered to pay a fine. The trial court denied Hill's post-trial motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). On appeal to the Supreme Court, Hill challenged his conviction, arguing: (1) his right to counsel and a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment was violated when the trial court refused to allow Hill's court-appointed counsel to withdraw; and (2) the trial court erred when it failed to grant Hill's motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Finding error with regard to the first issue, the Supreme Court reversed Hill’s conviction and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial. The Court declined to address the second issue. View "Hill v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Jason Lee Keller appealed his conviction for capital murder stemming from the death of Hat Thi Nguyen. After careful consideration of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed. View "Keller v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

James Ferguson challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial. He was convicted on aggravated-assault charges. Furthermore, Ferguson argued he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions. View "Ferguson v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Two Winona police officers obtained an arrest warrant for defendant Joel Baskin for aggravated assault. Upon searching defendant, officers found cocaine, which lead to an indictment for possession of cocaine. This case turned entirely on whether the jury believed defendant’s witnesses’ testimony. The Supreme Court found that the trial judge clearly erred by allowing the State to impeach a key defense witness with a petty larceny conviction. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court and remanded this case for a new trial. View "Baskin v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Ralph Smith, Jr. appealed the circuit court's decision to deny his habeas corpus petition. After review of the habeas court's record and Smith's petition, the Supreme Court concluded Smith was not entitled to habeas relief. Therefore the Court affirmed the denial of Smith's petition. View "Smith, Jr. v. Banks" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Christopher Harrell of two crimes: felony murder, and for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Circuit Court sentenced Harrell to life without the possibility of parole and ten years, to run concurrently with the life sentence, for the possession charge. The Court of Appeals affirmed both convictions. Harrell raised four issues on direct appeal, but the Supreme Court addressed only two: (1) whether the circuit court erred in not instructing the jury on the elements of the underlying felony of robbery; and (2) whether the circuit court erred in granting the State’s requested flight instruction. The Court held that the failure to instruct the jury as to the elements of the charged crime deprived Harrell of due process in the form of his right to a jury trial, but that the circuit court did not err in granting the flight instruction. View "Harrell v. Mississippi" on Justia Law