In the Interest of T. B.
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-02283-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-CA-02283-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-14-2006 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Expulsion from school - Constitutional rights - Substantial evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Southwick, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-19-2004 Appealed from: WARREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Isadore Patrick Disposition: AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VICKSBURG WARREN SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPELLING T.B. FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE 2003-2004 SCHOOL YEAR. Case Number: 03,0197-CI-P |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | IN THE INTEREST OF T. B., A MINOR, BY AND
THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND AND PARENT, C. B. |
MARK W. PREWITT |
||
| Appellee: | BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VICKSBURG WARREN SCHOOL DISTRICT | BEN J. PIAZZA |
|
|
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: | Expulsion from school - Constitutional rights - Substantial evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | T.B., a ninth grade student at Warren Central High School, was expelled for the remainder of the 2003-2004 school year for alleged possession and sale of controlled substances while at school. T.B., by and through his father as next friend, appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Constitutional rights T.B. argues that his due process rights were violated when no list of witnesses that would testify about the specific charges was provided to him prior to the hearing, he was not given an explanation of the evidence against him, he was denied the right of confrontation and cross-examination, and he was not notified that a key witness had changed his story. There is no question that a student facing suspension or expulsion has a property interest that qualifies for protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The standards of procedural due process are not wooden absolutes and the sufficiency of procedures employed in a particular situation must be judged in light of the parties, the subject matter, and the circumstances involved. T.B. was not denied due process when the school failed to provide a list of witnesses prior to his hearing. T.B. was apprised of the charges against him. He was informed that the charges stemmed from the incident in which T.S. and other students said that he possessed and sold controlled substances at school. T.B. also knew that the hearing before the district’s discipline review committee was in relation to his suspension for possession and selling controlled substances. Also, T.B. was allowed to have legal counsel present to aid his defense against the charges. Although T.B. and his attorney were not told of the T.S. recanting his original statement implicating T.B. in the November 5th sale of the pill, his suspension and expulsion were not predicated upon a particular date in which he possessed and sold controlled substances, but were the result of continuous incidents in which T.B. allegedly possessed and sold controlled substances while on school property. The date of the incident was immaterial under the circumstances. T.B. maintains that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing before the discipline review committee because the committee considered hearsay testimony, i.e., the principal testified to what other students had told him about the incident. Admitting this type of hearsay does not deprive a student of due process. Moreover, T.B.’s attorney was allowed to question Principal Douglas about the statements from the unnamed individuals. Issue 2: Substantial evidence T.B. argues that the committee and the school board should not have believed the testimony of T.S. because he admitted that he had previously lied and falsely implicated T.B. in the sale of pills. Credibility of witnesses is the sole province of the trier of fact. Moreover, T.S.’s testimony was corroborated by the testimony from Principal Douglas concerning the results of his investigation. T.B. also argues that there was not substantial evidence because he was never actually found be in possession of any controlled substances. Although there was no evidence of actual possession of a controlled substance by T.B., there was a substantial basis from which the committee and the school board could reasonably infer that T.B. possessed and sold controlled substances while at school. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
