Hyundai Motor Am. v. Applewhite

• Citation: 319 So.3d 987
• Decision Date: 11 March 2021
• Docket Number: NO. 2015-CA-01886-SCT,2015-CA-01886-SCT
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Parties: HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA and Hyundai Motor Company v. Ola Mae APPLEWHITE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Dorothy Mae Applewhite, Deceased, Ceola Wade, as Personal Representative of the Estate of and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Anthony J. Stewart, Deceased, and Kenneth Cordell Carter, as Personal Representative of the Estate of and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Cecilia Cooper, Deceased

319 So.3d 987

HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA and Hyundai Motor Company

v.Ola Mae APPLEWHITE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Dorothy Mae Applewhite, Deceased, Ceola Wade, as Personal Representative of the Estate of and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Anthony J. Stewart, Deceased, and Kenneth Cordell Carter, as Personal Representative of the Estate of and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Cecilia Cooper, Deceased

NO. 2015-CA-01886-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 11, 2021

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: J. COLLINS WOHNER, JR., Jackson, MICHAEL JAMES BENTLEY, Jackson, JIMMY B. WILKINS, WALTER EDGAR McGOWAN, WILLIAM O. LUCKETT, JR., Clarksdale, ROBERT WILLIAM MAXWELL

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: RALPH EDWIN CHAPMAN, Clarksdale, EDUARDO ALBERTO FLECHAS, Jackson, DANA J. SWAN, Clarksdale, DENNIS C. SWEET, III, Jackson, SARA BAILEY RUSSO

EN BANC.

RANDOLPH, CHIEF JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. This case arises from a two-car accident in which a Hyundai Excel was traveling southbound on U.S. Highway 61 at a closing speed of 68 to 78 mph and, for reasons unknown, crossed the center line into the oncoming lane of traffic. Unfortunately for the three occupants of the Excel, that lane was occupied by a Lincoln Continental passenger car traveling northbound. None of the three Excel occupants survived the collision. This case is before this Court again following an earlier appeal and remand for a new trial. See Hyundai Motor Am. v. Applewhite , 53 So. 3d 749 (Miss. 2011) (" Applewhite I ").

¶2. Following an adverse verdict,¹ Defendants moved for a new trial. Subsequently, Defendants filed a supplemental motion for new trial, praying for an investigation of possible outside influences on the jury. The same jury rendered a $10.5 million verdict (comprised of three identical $3.5 million verdicts awarded to each of the Plaintiffs.) A hearing on Defendants’ original motion was set for April 20, 2015. Three days before the scheduled hearing date, Defendants filed the aforementioned supplemental motion. Defendants requested that the trial court "should allow discovery of Mr. [Carey] Sparks and his activities and then conduct an investigation and hearing into possible outside influences on the verdict. ..." The trial court denied both requests, after receiving and considering what was later proved to be false testimony by the witness, Carey Sparks, and deceptions by one of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Dennis Sweet, III. That ruling, after a deception was visited upon the trial court, resulted in a favorable ruling for the Plaintiffs. Defendants appealed that ruling, inter alia . Based on the record developed posttrial and presented in this appeal, this Court vacated the trial court's order denying relief and remanded not only for discovery, but we also ordered a separate Mississippi Rule of Evidence 606(b) hearing to be conducted after discovery was completed.²

¶3. During the remand proceedings, multiple discovery disputes ensued before the trial court ultimately held two 606(b) hearings on October 30, 2018, and January 23, 2019 (nearly four years after the trial court's original denial of relief). The trial court expressly found that one of Applewhite's counsel, Dennis Sweet, III, misrepresented his relationship with Carey Sparks during the April 2015 hearing. It was not until a January 25, 2018 hearing, that Sweet admitted that he had paid Sparks to perform services during the Applewhite trial. This admission was made only after documents evidencing multiple payments to Sparks by Sweet surfaced in the discovery ordered by this Court. See Applewhite , 2017 WL 4684093. During discovery, multiple witnesses, including six attorneys, testified that Sparks stated that he had knowledge of discussions of the jurors during the trial. Following the 606(b) hearings, the trial court issued a one-paragraph order, finding that the posttrial testimony of the jurors offered no evidence supporting Defendants’ allegations.

¶4. The total record before this Court evinces that a fair and impartial trial was not had. We find overwhelming evidence of actual impropriety, which destroys any confidence in the jury verdict. The facts developed in this record threaten the public's confidence in our system of justice. We find that this case is permeated by actual deception upon the trial court, which led to Plaintiffs’ obtaining a favorable ruling. Such improper acts of misconduct leave a indelible stain on these proceedings. We are loathe to overturn jury verdicts, yet justice dictates a reversal and a retrial, unencumbered by extraneous assaults on our justice system. We considered the ultimate sanction of dismissal of this case with prejudice. We decline to impose such a severe sanction, for no evidence suggests that any Plaintiff employed Sparks or had knowledge of Sparks's actions. But the judgment must be reversed. This case is remanded for a new trial.

Posttrial Proceedings

¶5. After this case was tried in September 2014, Defendants received communications that the verdicts were tainted by outside influences on the jury. Due to the influx of information by numerous disinterested persons, Defendants requested that the trial court permit a full and complete investigation into the actions of one Carey Sparks. A host of witnesses testified that Sparks repeatedly told others how jurors were influenced in this very case.

¶6. Initially, at a posttrial hearing in April 2015 before the trial court, Defendants offered three attorneys who met Sparks in Jackson at a Hinds County trial. The plaintiff in that trial was represented by Sweet. Attorney Kevin Gay testified that he recently had been in a trial with Sweet in Hinds County. Gay further related that during a break in that trial, Sparks introduced himself. Sparks informed Gay that he was helping Sweet with the Hinds County jury. Gay testified that Sparks "was trying to pitch me a resume as a jury consultant, slash, investigator, slash, case runner." Gay also testified that Sparks "told me ... Sweet hires him to show up a couple of weeks before a trial in an area and preach revivals and get to know the people."

¶7. Gay's wife, Mary Margaret, also an attorney, and one of her associates, attorney Sara Budslick, also attended a portion of the Hinds County trial. Both of those attorneys were approached by Sparks, who identified himself as a preacher. Mary Margaret testified that Sparks told her that he

worked for Sweet and was ... helping pick a jury. That's what he did for a living. He was giving me a pretty good sales pitch. He said that Sweet paid him to go out and preach revivals two or three weeks out, when they pick a jury in different spots so that the jury would know him when they came in. Told me that they had juries that would come in, and women would cover their mouth and say, "That's the preacher that preached at our revival this weekend."

[Sparks] told me that he had worked with Sweet on a case up in Clarksdale where it should have been a 21 million dollar verdict, but it was a 10 million dollar verdict.³ That there were a lot of uneducated people up that way. People couldn't read and write. There was a lady on the jury that couldn't count. And they spent two days trying to teach her how to count, and that just never worked out.

....

He told me that his best friend called him. He traveled all over the Delta working, and that he never knew where he was going to be with Sweet, and that in fact, his best friend didn't even know where he was. He called him on the phone; said, "Are you up in Clarksdale?" He said, "I am." He said, "My aunt is on the jury."

....

Um, he said something about the jury saying that, um, people didn't need to get any richer, which is why they wouldn't give them 21 million dollars.

¶8. Budslick confirmed that she and Mary Margaret were approached by Sparks at the Hinds County trial.

He, uh, introduced himself and talked about some politics and some other things. And then said that he was from Chicago, and he was a reverend or a bishop, a man of God of some sort. He said the best thing that you can do for a plaintiff's attorney is to go preach on the revival circuit shortly before trial. And then whenever the jurors, or potential jurors see you, they recognize you from that. And so you, I guess, get some notoriety from ... doing the revivals.

Budslick further testified that Sparks said

a couple of weeks back, he had preached at a revival, and then he received a phone call from a friend that, apparently, the friend's aunt was sitting on this jury. And, um, I guess the friend was surprised that he was in Clarksdale and not in Chicago.

....

And he mentioned that there was - - there was a difference in that particular case in Clarksdale between a 10 million dollar verdict and the 21 million dollars that was requested. And he said that it took them a number of days⁴ because, I think he said, the jurors could not -- or someone on the jury couldn't read or write. So they spent a substantial amount of time working with that.

....

And he -- I think he said, a couple of days that it took to you know, get the jury verdict.

He also said ... someone on the jury said that they did not need to be that rich, I guess, in the difference between the 10 and 21 million.

¶9. Gay testified that the weekend after completing the Hinds County trial, he decided to Google "Bishop" and "Clarksdale trial," and the first thing that popped up was the Applewhite case. "And the thing that surprised me about the case was that it was the verdict he told my wife about." Gay saw that an acquaintance, attorney Collins Wohner, was associated on the case. The following Monday, Gay called Wohner.

When I called Collins, I think I asked him, I said, this is going to come out of left field. Did you try a case, and was there a guy there that went by the name of Bishop. And that's when he said, "I got his name; I got his card." And he told me what his name was.

At that point, Gay suggested that Wohner might want to call his...