In Re: Jernigan


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CA-01100-SCT
Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 10-04-2012
Opinion Author: Lamar, J.
Holding: Vacated and Remanded
Additional Case Information: Topic: Constructive criminal contempt - Due process - Recusal of judge - Notice - Service of process - M.R.C.P. 81(d)
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Randolph, Kitchens and Chandler, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Pierce and King, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-24-2010
Appealed from: Jackson County Chancery Court
Judge: D. Harris, Sr.
Disposition: Held the Respondents in contempt.
Case Number: 2010-1284
  Consolidated: 2010-CA-01099-SCT In Re: Thomas Corey McDonald and Edwin Cheshire; Jackson Chancery Court; LC Case #: 2010-1284; Ruling Date: 06/24/2010; Ruling Judge: D. Neil Harris, Sr.
Note: 2010-CA-01100-SCT In Re: Guy Jernigan; Jackson Chancery Court; LC Case #: 2010-1284; Ruling Date: 06/24/2010; Ruling Judge: D. Harris, Sr.; Consolidated with 2010-CA-01099-SCT In Re: Thomas Corey McDonald and Edwin Cheshire; Jackson Chancery Court; LC Case #: 2010-1284; Ruling Date: 06/24/2010; Ruling Judge: D. Harris, Sr.; Disposition: Motion to Take Appeal as Confessed and to Reverse filed by Guy Jernigan is denied.
Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.
Topic: Constructive criminal contempt - Due process - Recusal of judge - Notice - Service of process - M.R.C.P. 81(d)
Summary of the Facts: Chancellor D. Neil Harris conducted a hearing in which he found an individual process-server, Guy Jernigan; a notary, Thomas McDonald; and an owner of a process service company, Edwin Chesire, to be in civil contempt of court for causing the filing of false proof-of-service affidavits. Ten days after the initial contempt hearing, the chancellor held a “sentencing hearing” in which he made all the Defendants jointly and severally liable for $88,500 in sanctions, required Jernigan and McDonald to issue written apologies to the other chancellors in the Sixteenth Chancery Court District, and banned them from ever again serving process or notarizing documents for the Sixteenth Chancery Court District. The chancellor also ordered all the Defendants to be incarcerated every weekend until the reimbursements were received and the apologies were made. The Defendants each filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court for writ of habeas corpus, for stay pending appeal, and for temporary stay of incarceration order and separately appealed from the Judgment and Order and their individual Orders of Incarceration. The Supreme Court clarified that the Defendants actually were cited for constructive criminal contempt, not civil contempt.
Summary of Opinion Analysis: The chancellor did not hold the Defendants in contempt to compel compliance with an order, admonition, or instruction, but rather as punishment for past offenses. Thus, the judgments were for criminal contempt, not civil contempt. And the judgments were for constructive criminal contempt, because the alleged improper service, affidavit execution, and affidavit filing occurred outside the judge’s presence. Therefore, the Defendants were entitled to certain due-process safeguards, including the recusal of Chancellor Harris and notice of the specific criminal charges against them. A judge who initiates constructive contempt proceedings has substantial personal involvement and must recuse himself. Criminal-contempt defendants are entitled to notice under M.R.C.P. 81(d), which requires service of process. It is undisputed that the chancellor in this case did not issue summonses notifying any of the Defendants of the criminal nature of the proceedings. Therefore, the contempt judgments must be vacated.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court