Anderson, et al. v. McRae's, Inc.
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-02180-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-13-2006 Opinion Author: MYERS, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Slander - Mistrial - New trial - Improper verdict Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-29-2004 Appealed from: WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Isadore Patrick Disposition: JURY VERDICT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT Case Number: 000082-CI-P |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | RUTHIE ANDERSON, COURTNEY ANDERSON,
BYRON ANDERSON AND NEKEIDRA ANDERSON |
BERNARD C. JONES |
||
| Appellee: | MCRAE’S, INC. | TARA STRICKLAND CLIFFORD, ROY A. SMITH |
|
|
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: | Slander - Mistrial - New trial - Improper verdict |
| Summary of the Facts: | Ruthie Anderson, on behalf of herself and three children, Nekeidra, Courtney, and Byron, filed a civil lawsuit against McRae’s Department Store alleging liable for negligently, gross negligently, or intentional slandering, threatening with eminent bodily harm or arrest. The jury returned a verdict in favor of McRae’s. The Andersons appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Mistrial The Andersons argue that the court should have granted a mistrial due to the questions McRae’s counsel asked Ruthie and Courtney. At the conclusion of the first day of trial the Andersons’ counsel moved for a mistrial on the grounds that McRae’s counsel had violated Mississippi Rules of Evidence 403 and 404. The trial court took the motion under advisement until the next morning when the trial resumed. At the beginning of the second day of trial, the court did not rule on the motion nor did the Andersons’ counsel bring it to the court’s attention. It is the responsibility of the movant to obtain a ruling from the court on motions filed by him, and failure to do so constitutes a waiver of same. The Andersons’ counsel’s failure to bring the motion for a mistrial back before the court’s attention and to proceed with his witnesses operated as wavier of the motion. Issue 2: New trial The Andersons argue that the court committed error by not granting their motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. As testimony from both the Andersons and McRae’s established a question for the jury, this issue is without merit. The jury determined that the Andersons created a disturbance in the store and McRae’s was within its rights to request that the Andersons leave the premises. There is substantial evidence to support the verdict reached by the jury. Issue 3: Improper verdict The Andersons argue that the verdict was the result of statements made by McRae’s trial counsel that resulted in jury bias, prejudice or passion. There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict in this case. Testimony was given by witnesses to the incident that would support the jury finding that the Andersons caused a scene in the McRae’s store and were rightfully removed. The record does not contain any statements by trial counsel for McRae’s that would produce a prejudice by the jury against the Andersons. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
