Slay v. Spell
| Docket Number: | 2003-CC-00217-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-14-2004 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Failure to submit swab samples for E. coli testing - Substantial evidence - Section 75-35-201(1) - 9 C.F.R. § 310.25(a)(2)(v)(A) - Statistical report - M.R.E. 803(8) - M.R.E. 901(b)(7) - Director of meat inspection - Section 75-33-11 - Conflict of interest Judge(s) Concurring: Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Chandler, Griffis and Barnes, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-30-2002 Appealed from: Clarke County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Bailey Disposition: TWO VIOLATIONS OF THE MEAT, MEATFOOD AND POULTRY REGULATION AND INSPECTION LAW OF 1960, FINE OF $250 FOR EACH VIOLATION AND SUSPENSION OF MEAT ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE FOR A ONE WEEK PERIOD FOR EACH VIOLATION Case Number: 2002-16B |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | John P. Slay d/b/a Slay's Processing Plant |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | Lester Spell, Jr., Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ROBERT W. GRAVES |
|
|
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: | Failure to submit swab samples for E. coli testing - Substantial evidence - Section 75-35-201(1) - 9 C.F.R. § 310.25(a)(2)(v)(A) - Statistical report - M.R.E. 803(8) - M.R.E. 901(b)(7) - Director of meat inspection - Section 75-33-11 - Conflict of interest |
| Summary of the Facts: | John Slay was cited and fined by the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce for two violations of failing to submit swab samples for E. coli testing for a three week period. Slay appealed to circuit court which affirmed the fine. Slay appeals, and the Department cross-appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Substantial evidence Slay was charged with violating 9 C.F.R. § 310.25(a)(2)(v)(A), which requires plants with a volume of less than 20,000 slaughtered swine per year, take an E. coli swab test of one slaughtered carcass a week, beginning with the first full week in June, until thirteen samples have been taken. Slay argues that the federal regulations do not apply because his plant is a state-inspected plant only shipping intrastate. Pursuant to section 75-35-201(1), the Department was required to adopt standards that were at least equal to federal regulations. The Department formally adopted the federal meat inspection rules and regulations, codified in 9 C.F.R § 310.25(a)(2)(v)(A), which include the requirement and procedure for E. coli testing. Slay also argues that the only evidence to support the finding of the agency and the circuit judge was an unverified, unsigned e-mail of a statistical report that was impeached by the Department’s key witness. The Department’s field inspectors prepare a weekly “kill report” for each inspected plant. The reports are prepared on-site, e-mailed to the Department’s main office in Jackson where they are printed, and then are sent to the USDA, Department of Agriculture Statistics. The documents, although available in e-mail form only and therefore unsigned, are admissible as government records prepared in the regular course of business pursuant to M.R.E. 803(8) and 901(b)(7). Therefore, there is no merit to Slay’s allegation that the records were impeached or improperly admitted. There is substantial evidence in the record that Slay violated 9 C.F.R.§ 310.25(a)(2)(v)(A), as lawfully adopted by the Mississippi Department of Agriculture. Issue 2: Director of meat inspection Slay argues that the appointment of James Meadows, with a 12th grade education, as Director of Meat Inspection, violates state law. Because the Commissioner is given great latitude in the appointment of personnel pursuant to section 75-33-11, there is no merit to this issue. Issue 3: Conflict of interest Slay claims that the hearing officer in his case had a conflict of interest because the allegations were brought by his superior. Slay must present evidence of a personal bias, financial interest arising from this fact, or evidence of misconduct. Slay’s sole evidence of a conflict of interest is that the allegations were filed by Boyd’s superior. This alone does not establish a conflict of interest. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
