William Joel Blass

This consolidated appeal involved two cases stemming from a 1986 car accident in which Ruby McCoy was injured by a driver making deliveries for Colonial Baking Company. Ruby sued Colonial for negligence and lost at trial; her husband Jerry then sued for loss of consortium, but the trial court dismissed his claim on the ground that the prior verdict collaterally estopped relitigation of the negligence issue. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a loss-of-consortium claim is derivative of the underlying personal-injury action, that the spouses are in privity for preclusion purposes, and that collateral estoppel therefore bars the second spouse from relitigating issues already decided against the first. The court emphasized judicial economy, avoidance of inconsistent judgments, and the need for compulsory joinder of such claims.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Earl Wesley Berry, who was indicted in Chickasaw County for the capital murder and kidnapping of Mary Bounds as a habitual offender under Mississippi law. Following a bifurcated trial, Berry was convicted and sentenced to death. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding no merit in the claims of error during the guilt phase, including challenges to the admissibility of Berry's statements. However, the court vacated the death sentence and remanded for a new sentencing trial due to an error in the sentencing proceedings related to jury instructions on the implications of a life sentence under the habitual offender statute. A dissent argued that the sentencing should have been upheld without requiring additional instructions not requested by the defense.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case arising from a two-car collision in Jackson, Mississippi, plaintiff Charlotte Ball sued defendant Laverne Sloan for personal injuries allegedly sustained in the accident, but the jury returned a verdict for the defendant after a trial in which Ball's credibility was challenged through evidence of an altered prescription. Ball appealed, contending that the trial court violated Mississippi Rule of Evidence 608(b) by permitting extrinsic evidence and cross-examination regarding the alteration and that the court erred in overruling objections to the defense closing argument. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the judgment, reasoning that Rule 608(b) limits proof of specific instances of conduct for impeachment to cross-examination where probative of truthfulness and that any error did not require reversal given the overall record and the jury's role in assessing credibility.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Tokman, the defendant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death after robbing and killing a taxicab driver in 1980. Following affirmance of the conviction and sentence on direct appeal, Tokman sought post-conviction relief on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. The circuit court denied relief as to the guilt phase but vacated the death sentence after finding that appointed counsel had failed to investigate mitigating evidence or conduct an adequate psychiatric examination for the sentencing phase. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed both rulings, holding that counsel's performance met constitutional standards during the guilt phase but fell below reasonable professional norms during sentencing under the Strickland test, warranting a new sentencing hearing. The court remanded the case for resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Robert Moore, elected to the Leflore County Board of Supervisors, who was accused of moving out of his district; after an evidentiary hearing, the Board found he had established residency elsewhere and declared the office vacant under Miss. Code Ann. § 25-1-59. Moore sued in chancery court for injunctive relief to block the removal, but the court denied the petition. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Moore had an adequate remedy at law via a statutory appeal of the Board's decision to circuit court under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-51-75, which made equitable relief unavailable.

electionsprocedure

The Mississippi State Bar brought a disciplinary action against attorney Carey R. Varnado after he pleaded guilty to a federal misdemeanor charge of making harassing phone calls to collect a debt. Following an evidentiary hearing, a Complaint Tribunal unanimously dismissed the complaint, finding that Varnado's background, reputation, and the circumstances did not warrant discipline. On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed the record de novo, applied the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, and agreed with the Tribunal that the Bar had not met its burden to support any disciplinary action. The Court therefore affirmed the dismissal and adopted the Tribunal's findings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a disciplinary complaint filed by the Mississippi State Bar against an attorney for alleged violations of professional conduct rules, including DR 1-102(a) provisions against dishonesty or conduct prejudicial to justice, DR 7-101(a)(3) on prejudicing a client, and the lawyer's oath, stemming from the attorney's in-person solicitation of a client injured in a railroad accident and subsequent handling of her case. A hearing tribunal dismissed the complaint by a 2-1 vote, ruling that the Bar failed to prove the allegations by clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the evidence did not support a finding of misconduct under the applicable standards despite the questionable actions of the attorneys involved.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the Mississippi Judicial Performance Commission charging Mayor and Municipal Judge Johnny B. Thomas with judicial misconduct after he pleaded guilty to a federal felony charge of operating an illegal gambling business and was convicted of several state misdemeanor offenses related to alcohol sales. The Commission found that Thomas's criminal convictions violated judicial conduct canons and constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, recommending his suspension from the judicial role while serving as mayor and challenging the constitutionality of a statute allowing mayors to act as judges. The court decided to suspend Thomas from serving as municipal judge pro tempore as long as he remains mayor, agreeing that his conduct brought the judicial office into disrepute, but declined to rule on the statute's constitutionality. The reasoning centered on the requirement that judges must comply with the law to maintain public confidence in the judiciary, even for off-bench conduct, and that such actions justify severe sanctions analogous to removal.

criminal law