I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 6 - I A- 0 0 4 5 5 - S CT O. TUCK A DAM

S , I NDI VI DUALLY

, AND AS ADM I NI S TRA TOR OF T

HE EST ATE OF M

ARY J ANE ADAM

S , DECEAS

ED v. BA P T I S T M EM O R I A L H O S P I T A L -D ES O TO , I

N C ., M ICHAEL A. DORRI TY, M . D. , J OLEE RUTHERFORD, M

. D. , M ANDALAY R ES ORT GRO U P f / k/ a CI RC U S CIRC U

S EN TERP

RISES, I NC. , AND CI

RCUSCI

RCUSM

I S S I S S I PP I , I NC. d / b / a GOLD ST

RI KE CAS I NO RES ORT D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 22/ 2006 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. KE NNE T H L . T HOMAS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: TUNI CA COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : S AR A B AI L E Y R US S O RA L P H E DW I N C HAP M AN DANA J . S W AN A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL EES: W A LTE R A LA N D A V I S BR ADL E Y KE I T H OVE RC AS H L . CA RL HAGW OOD E U G E N I A G . M c G O WN JO H N R A M S E Y M cC A R R O L L , III NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 08/ 16/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E W A L L E R , P . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D R A N D O L P H , JJ. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT:

### Th ese defen dants collectiv ely w ill be referredto as th e “medical d efend ants.” 1 

### 2

FA C TS A N D STA TE M EN T O F T H E C A SE ¶1. O n N ovember12, 2004, M ary J ane A dams ( “M ary J ane” ) , a r es i dentof R i chmond, V i r gi ni a, f

el l atthe G ol ds tr i ke C as i no ( “G ol ds tri ke”) i n T uni ca Count y, M i s s i s s i ppi , and s us t ai ned a ne ck inj ury, s ever e che s tw al l pai ns , and mul t i pl e r i b f r actur es . M ary J ane w as tr ans por t ed t o B apt i s tM emori al H os pi t al - D eSot o, ( “B apt i s tM emori al ”) i n D eSot o C ount y, M iss iss ip p i. M a ry Ja n e in fo rm e d p e rso n n e l at B a p tist M e m o ria l sh e w a s o n C o u m a d in therapy , and she al so w as w eari ng a m edic al ertbracel ett o indi cate such . W hil e atB apti st M em o ri al sh e w as tr ea ted b y D o ctors M icha el D o rri ty (“ D r. D o rri ty”) an d Jo lee R u therfo rd (“ D r. R u th e rf

o rd ” ). ¶2 . M a ry Ja n e w as release d the n ex t d ay an d g iven p erm issi o n b y h er p h y sici an s to fly hom e t o R i chmond. T he f ol l ow i ng m orni ng, herhus band att empt ed t o r ous e her , buthe w as u n a b le to d o s o . O n M a ry J a n e ’s d e a th re c o rd , the c a u se o f d e a th is liste d a s b lu n t trau m a to th e c h e s t s u ff

e re d a s th e re s u lt o f h e r f a ll a t th e G o ld s tr ik e . ¶3 . T h is interl o cu tory ap p ea l stem s from a C o m p lai n t fi led by T u ck A d am s (“A d am s”), M ary Jan e’s h u sb an d , ag ains t B a p tist M em o ri al H o sp it al-D eS o to, I n c.; D r. D o rri ty; D r. R uther f or d; M andal ay R es or tG r oup f / k/ a C i r cus Ci r cus Ent erpr i s es , I nc. ; a nd Ci r cus C i r cus 1 M i s s i s s i ppi , I nc. T he C om plai nt w as f i l ed i n T uni ca Count y. T he C om pl ai ntchar ged M andal ay R es or tG r oup f / k/ a C i r cus C i r cus and C i r cus C i r cus M i s s i s s i ppi w i th negl i gence i n the mai nt enanc e of

thei rcas i no , t he G ol ds tr i ke, i n T uni ca, M i s s i s s i ppi . T he C om pl ai nt char ged the medi cal def endant s w i th negl i gence i n the tr eatm entand ca r e of M ary J ane.

### In its Answ er, Go ldstrik e den ied th at Man da layR eso rt Gro up do es bu siness in 2 

### Tunica C ountyas the G old strike C asino andden ied th at the Circu it Co urt o f Tunica C ounty hadj urisdictio n o ver M and alay R esort G roup. T his issu e is no t addressed b y th e Circu it Court , and in a llof i ts ple adings, Circu s C ircus , Inc. re fe rs to i ts el f a s Circ us Circ us, Inc . d/b /a Go ldstrik e. 3 ¶4. C i r cus C i rcus M i ssi ssi ppi d/b/ a G ol ds tr i ke C as i no f i l ed i t s A ns w er . B apt i s t M emori al 2 fi le d a s e p a ra te A n s w e r c la im in g , in tera lia , thatvenue i n T uni ca Count y w as notprope ras t o i t , and thatvenue w as pr operonl y i n D eSot o C ounty, w her e B apt i s tM emori al i s l ocat ed. B apt i s tM emori al l at erf i l ed a s epar at e M ot i on t o T r ans f erV enu e, cit i ng M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect . 11- 11- 3( 3) ( R ev. 2004) , and averr i ng the ac t s of al l eged medi cal negl i gence by t he
m edi cal defe ndant s al l occurr ed onl y i n D eSot o C ounty. D r s . D orr i ty and R uther f or d f i l ed a s epar at e A ns w er , as w el l as a M ot i on t o T r ans f erV enue t o D eSot o C ounty. ¶5. G ol ds tr i ke f

i l ed a R es pons e t o and J oi nder i n the M ot i on t o T r ans f er V enue f

i l ed by B apt i s tM emori al . G oldstri ke ass ert ed a f orum no n co nven i ens ar gum entthati ti s l ocat ed adjacentt o D eS oto C ou nty, that m any of i t s em ployees w ho w ou l d be w i tnesses i n the case
w er e r es i dent s of

D eSot o C ount y, and thatvenue a s t o t he m aj ori t y of the def endant s w as pr operi n D eSot o C ounty. ¶6. I n R es pons e t o t he M ot i ons t o T r ans f er , A dams ar gued t hatpurs uant t o M i ss. C ode A nn. Sect . 11- 11- 3( 1) ( a) ( i ) , the ac t i on coul d be br oughti n T uni ca Count y, w her e “a s ubs t ant i al eventthatcaus ed the i nj ury occurr ed. ” See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -11 -3(1 )(a)(I ) ( R ev. 2004) . A dams asser t ed G ol ds tr i ke’ s f ai l ur e t o m ai nt ai n r eas onabl y s af e pr emi s es pr eci pi t at ed the i nj ury and ul t i m at e dea th of hi s w i f e. A dams f

ur therar gues t hati f

ot her , non-

### 4

m e d ica l d e fe n d a n ts w e re b e in g su e d , su b se c tio n 1 o f M iss . C o d e A n n . S e c t. 11 -1 1 -3 w o u ld a p p ly . ¶7. A hear i ng w as hel d on the m edi cal def endant s ’ M ot i on t o T r ans f er V enue, as w el l as G ol ds tr i ke’ s M ot i on f

orJ oi nderi n Bapt i s tM emori al ’ s M ot i on t o T r ans f erV enue. T he tr i al courtcorr ect l y gr ant ed the M ot i on t o Tr ans f eras t o the medi cal def

endant s and or der ed that the ac t i on agai ns tthe medi cal def endant s be tr ans f

err ed t o D eSot o C ounty. H ow ever , t he tr i al j udge deni ed G ol ds tr i ke’ s M ot i on. B ef or e the t r i al cour tent er ed i t s O r der , A dams f i l ed a M ot i on t o R econs i derand t o St ay Ent ry of O r der . A dams ar gued thatthi s i s a w r ongf ul death cas e and thatthe ca s e coul d notbe s ever ed pur s uantt o M i s s . Code A nn. Sect . 11- 7- 13,
w h ich sta tes , in p e rtin e n t p a rt, “[T ]he re sh a ll b e b u t o n e su it fo r th e sa m e d e a th w h ich sh a ll e n su e fo r th e b e n e fit o f all p a rties co n c e rn e d . . . .” A d a m s c ited M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il Pr ocedur e 82( c) and thi s C our t ’ s deci s i on i n L o n gv. McK in n e y, 8 9 7 S o . 2 d 1 60 (M i ss. 2 0 0 4 ). ¶ 8 . In its R e sp o n se , B a p tist M e m o ria l p lea d e d th e fa c ts su b ju d ice w e re d istin g u ish a b le f r o m McK

inney and f

ur therar gued thati f

A dams’ s cont ent i on thatthe cl ai m s agai ns tt he def endant s s houl d notbe s ever ed w as c orr ect , then pur s uantt o M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect . 11- 11- 3 (3 ), t h e o n ly p e rm is s ib le v e n u e fo r t h e o n e s u it w a s D e S o to C o u n ty . ¶ 9 . T h e trial c o u rt a ffirm e d it s e a rl ie r d e c is io n b y g ra n tin g th e M o tio n to T ra n sfe r to D eSot o C ounty as t o t he medi cal def endant s onl y. The tr i al j udge agai n de ni ed the j oi nder re q u e st o f G o ld strik e . T h e trial c o u rt “ [w a s] c o g n iza n t th a t th is o rd e r w ill in e ffe c t co n stitu te a s e v e ra n c e o f t h e c la im s p re s e n te d a g a in s t th e D e fe n d a n ts in th is c a s e .”

### 5

¶1 0 . A d a m s filed a s e co n d M o ti o n to R ec o n side r, w h ich w as d en ied b y the tri al co u rt. A dams appe al s f

r om thi s deni al and O rde rG r ant i ng T r ans f erof V enue a s t o the thr ee m e d ica l d e fe n d a n ts. A d a m s p re se n ts th e fo llo w in g iss u e s o n in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l: I . W hetherthe tr i al err ed i n s ever i ng the ca s e? I I . W hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n gr ant i ng the M ot i ons t o T r ans f erV enue? S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶ 1 1 . T h e r e s o l u t i o n o f th i s c a s e r e q u i r e s th e C o u r tt o e mp l o y s e p a r a t e s t a n d a r d s o f r e v i e w. “In rev iew ing a tri al co u rt ’s ruli n g o n a m o ti o n to ch an g e v en u e, th is C o u rt appl i es the abus e of

di s cr et i on st andar d”. . . . A t r i al j udge’ s rul i ng on s uch an ap p li ca ti o n “w il l no t be d istu rbe d o n ap p ea l un less itclea rl y ap p ea rs th at th ere has been a n abus e of

di s cr et i on orthatthe di s cr et i on has notbeen j us t l y or p ro p e rl y e x e rc is e d u n d e r t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f t h e c a s e .” W a y n e G e n e r a l Ho s

p ita l v . H

a y e s, 868 S o. 2d 997, 1001 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng G u i ce v. Miss. L if e I n s . Co ., 8 3 6 S o . 2 d 7 5 6 , 7 5 8 (M is s . 2 0 0 3 )) . ¶12. A dd i t i on al l y, t he C our tmusti nt erpr eta s t atut e, a nd “ s t atut ory i nt erpret at i on i s a m att erof l aw w hi ch thi s C our tr evi ew s de novo. ” Fr anklin Col lecti on S erv. , I

nc. v. K yle, 2 0 0 7 M is s . L E X IS 1 1 , * 5 (M is s . 2 0 0 7 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). A N A L Y S IS I. W het her t he t ri al court err ed i n se veri ng t he cas e? ¶13. A dams ar gues ther e i s no l egal bas i s t o s ever , r el yi ng on M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect . 11- 7- 13 and L o n gv. McK

in n e y, 897 So. 2d 160 ( M i s s . 2004) . T he medi cal def endant s , as w el l as G ol ds tr i ke, agr ee the cas e s houl d notbe s ever ed pur s uantt o M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect . 11- 7- 13. A l l part i es ar e corr ect . A n acti o n for w rongful death cann ot be severed pu rs uan tt o M i ss. C ode A nn. Sect . 11- 7- 13 and thi s C our t ’ s hol di ng i n L o n g. S e v e ra n c e o f th is c a se is

### 6

vi ol at i ve of

M i s s . C ode A nn. S ect . 1 1-7- 13 and w oul d cert ai nl y notpr om ot e j udi ci al e ff ic ie n c y . See M .R .C .P . 1 . ¶14. Sever ance of thi s act i on i s al s o i ncons i s t entw i th M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect . 85- 5- 7 ( R ev. 1 9 9 9 ) , wh i c h a d d r e s s e s th e l i mi t a t i o n o f j o i n ta n d s e v e r a l l i a b i l i ty f o rd a ma g e s c a u s e d b y t wo orm or e per s ons ; c ontr i but i on be tw een j oi ntt or t f eas or s ; a nd de t erm i nat i on of pe r cent age of faul t . A dam s corr ect l y asser t s i n h i s bri ef that s eparat e t ri al s w ou l d creat e, and al m ost c e rta in ly w o u ld re su lt i n , inc o n sis ten t h o ld in g s, in c lu d in g a p p o rtio n m e n t o f fa u lt. T h is analysi s i s appli cable no to nly i n w rongful d eat h act i on s, b ut i n othersui t s as w el l , becau se sp littin g th e c a u se o f ac tio n is pr o h ib ited b y p rio r d e c isio n s o f th is C o u rt a n d m o st c e rta in ly
w oul d l ead t o i ncons i s t entver di ct s by the se par at e j ur i es . M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect . 11- 7- 13 and 8 5 -5 -7 d is p a s s io n a te ly e lim in a te th is c o n u n d ru m . See A lex a n de rv . E lzie , 621 So. 2d 909, 910 ( M i s s . 1992) ( M i s s i s s i ppi is am ong t he maj or i ty of s t at es w hi ch do notal l ow s pl i t t i ng a c au se o f ac ti o n ). ¶15. Forthes e r eas ons , the tr i al courterr ed i n s ever i ng thi s w r ongf ul death cas e. I I . W het her t he t ri al court err ed i n grant i ng t he M ot i ons t o T rans f er V enue? ¶16. A dams as s ert s that w hi l e D eSot o C ounty m ay al s o be a pr oper venue f or thi s act i on, the act i on w as pr oper l y br oughti n T uni ca Count y and s houl d notbe tr ans f err ed. T he medi cal def endant s and G ol ds tr i ke count erthatthe o n ly p erm issi b le ve n u e fo r a ll d e fe n d a n ts is D eSot o C ounty, pur s uantt o M i s s . C od e A nn. Sect . 11- 11- 3( 3) . T he pert i nentpor t i ons of M iss . C o d e A n n . S e c t. 11 -1 1 -3 sta te: (1 ) (a ) (i) C iv il ac tio n s o f w h ich th e c irc u it c o u rt h a s o rig in a l ju risd ictio n sh a ll be comm ence d i n t he county w her e t he def endantre s i des , or, i f

a corpor at i on, i n the county of

i t s pr i nci pal pl ace of

bus i nes s , ori n the coun t y w her e a

### 7

s ubs t ant i al al l eged actoromi s s i on oc curr ed orw her e a s ubs t ant i al eventthat c a u s e d th e in

ju ry o c c u rr e d . . . . (3 ) N o tw ith sta n d in g su b se c tio n (1 ) o f th is s e c tio n , a n y a c tio n a g a in st a l i cens ed phys i ci an, os t eopath, dent i s t , nur s e, nur s e- pr act i t i oner , phys i ci an assistan t, p sy ch o log ist , p h arm ac ist, p o d iatri st, o p tom etri st, ch ir o p rac tor, i ns t i tut i on f

orthe aged ori nf

i r m , hos pi t al orl i cens ed pharm acy, i ncl udi ng any l egal ent i ty w hi ch may be l i abl e f orthei ract s or om i s s i ons , f orm al pr act i ce, negl i gence , err or , om i s s i on, m i st ake, br eac h of s t andar d of

car e orthe unauthor i zed r ender i ng of pr of es s i onal s ervi ces s hal l be br oughton l y i n the c o u n ty in w h ic h th e a lle g e d a c t o r o m is s io n o c c u rr e d . . . . ¶ 1 7 . T h e m e d ica l d e fe n d a n ts su g g e st th a t th e m e a n in g o f th e w o rd “ n o tw ith sta n d in g ” is clea r an d there fore , su b sec ti o n (3) is t o co n tr o l r eg ard less o f the lan g u ag e o f sub sec ti o n (1). T he medi cal de f

endant s f ur thera r gue thats i nce A dams c oncede s the al l eged act s of m edi cal negl i gence t ook pl ace w hol l y i n D eSot o Count y, ut i l i zi ng “ a s tr ai ght f orw ar d appl i cat i on of M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect . 11-11- 3( 3) , the onl y appr opr i at e venue f orcl ai m s agai ns tthe medi cal d e fe n d a n ts is D e S o to C o u n ty .” ¶1 8. I ni t i a l l y, A da ms a r gu e d v e nu e w a s pr op e ri n Tuni ca C ount y pur s ua ntt o M . R. C. P. 82( c ) a nd M i s s . Code A nn . Se c t . 11 - 11 - 3( 1) ( a ) ( i ) , a s a n a c t i on s ha l l be c omm e nc e d w here
a s ubs tant i aleve ntthatcaus ed the i nj ur y occ ur r ed. See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -11 -3(1 )(a)(I ) ( R ev. 200 4)( emphasi s added) . A dams as s ert s the i nj ury w oul d nothave oc curr ed and nece s s i t at ed medi cal car e butf orthe f al l atthe ca s i no i n T uni ca Count y. ¶19. A dams and the medi cal def endant s ar gue ther e i s a conf l i ctbetw een M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect . 11- 11- 3( 1) ( a) ( i ) and 11-11-3( 3) . H ow ever , the Legi s l atur e has f urni s hed gui dance th ro u g h its “ n o tw ith s ta n d in g ” la n g u a g e c o n ta in e d in M is s . C o d e A n n . S e c t. 1 1 -1 1 -3 (3 ). ¶2 0 . M is s . C o d e A n n . S e c t. 1 1 -1 1 -3 (3 ) s ta te s , “N otw i ths tandi ng su b se c tio n (1 ),” a n d th is “no tw i th stan d ing” langu age is qu i t e t el l i ng i n d et erm i ning ven ue for m edical providers .

### 8

“N otw i thst and i ng ” i s defi ned by W ebst er’ s D i ct i on ary as “( 1) I n spit e of; (2) N evertheles s; ( 3) I n s pi t e of

the f actthat . ” See W

ebs t er ’s I I N ew C ol l ege D i ct i onar

y 7 4 9 (3 d 2 0 0 1 ). ¶ 2 1 . “ W h e n c o n s tru in g th e m e a n in g o f a s ta tu te , w e m u s t lo o k a t th e w o rd s o f t h e s ta tu te .” P in k to n v. S ta te, 4 8 1 S o . 2 d 3 0 6 , 3 0 9 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 ). F u rth e r, “[ o ]u r d u ty is to c a re fu lly
r evi ew s t atut ory l anguage and appl y i t s m os tr eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i on and m eani ng t o t he f act s of a part i cul arcas e. ” P o

p e v. B r o c k, 9 1 2 S o . 2 d 9 3 5 , 9 3 7 (M is s . 2 0 0 5 ). ¶22 . T he “n otw i thst and i ng ” lan g u ag e is clear. R eg ard less o f G oldstri ke’s j oinder as a def endant , the onl y pr opervenue f ora s ui tagai ns tm edi cal pr ovi der s i s the county i n w hi ch the al l eged actoromi s s i on oc curr ed. Thi s Courta ddr es s ed the i s s ue of w hen m edic al pr ovi der s ar e notf

ound i n the s ame county i n i t s r ece ntde ci s i on i n R o s e v. B o log n a , 942 So. 2 d 1 2 8 7 (M is s . 2 0 0 6 ). ¶23 . T he dis sent i nco rr ect l y con cl ud es that this C ou rt , by fol l ow i ng the m and at e of M i ss. C ode A nn. S ect . 11-11- 3, i s “cr eat i ng a spe ci al cl as s of m edi cal def

endant s . ” The cont ent i ons advanc ed by the di s s entr evea l an ave r s i on to t he l egi s l at i ve ac tand ar e bett ers ui t ed f or d e b a te b e fo re th e L e g is la tu re . ¶ 2 4 . E n a c tin g v e n u e sta tu tes re fe re n c in g o n ly c e rta in g ro u p s o f d e fe n d a n ts is n o t n o v e l to thi s St at e. W e have not ed: T he f i r s ts t atut e dea l i ng w i th venue w as cont ai ned i n the 1807 St atut es of the M i s s i s s i ppi T err i t ory. T hi s s t atut e pr ovi ded thatal l ci vi l cas es s hal l be comm ence d i n the ci r cui tc our tof the county i n w hi ch the def endantm ay be fo u n d o r if a re a l ac tio n , ac tio n o f e jec tm e n t, or tre sp a ss q u a re c lau su m fre g it, then i n the county w her e the ca us e of act i on ar os e. I n addi t i on, no fr ee- hol der of the t err i t ory coul d be s ued ou tof the county of

hi s perm anentr es i dence u n le s s it b e o n e o

f th e a c tio n s f

o rw h ic h th e s ta tu te m a d e a n ex c e p tio n . T he venue s t atut e f

ound i n H ut chi ns on' s C ode of 1848, one of the f i r s tcodes

### See Randolph, J ., spe ci al ly c oncur ring in C a ld well v. N orth Miss. M

ed. C tr., Inc., 3 

### 95 6 S o. 2 d 8 88 , *2 1(M iss. 20 07 ). Inc luding thepre se nt c as e and Ca ldw ell, 95 6 S o. 2 d at * 25 (Ran do lph , J., specially 4 

### co n curr in g ); se e al

so Co lema n v. A -BexCo rp., 94 3 S o. 2d 69 7, 70 2 ( Mi s s . 20 06) (Ran do lph , J., no t particip ating ); Clevela nd v. Ma nn , 942 So. 2d 108, 121 ( Mis s. 2006) (Ran do lph , J., join ing the d issent inpart). 9 f ol l ow i ng s t at ehood, c ont ai ns a l m os tthe i dent i cal l anguage as thatof the 1807 s t atut e. Clark v. Luve l

D air y Pr od s . , I nc . , 7 3 1 S o . 2 d 1 0 9 8 , 1 1 0 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). V enue r egar di ng s peci f i c cl as s es of

def endant s w as l ong r ecogni zed by ourpr evi ous venue statu tes. S ep a ra te v e n u e statutes w ere en ac ted fo r rail roa d , ex p ress, st ea m b o at, p o w er, su p e rp o w e r, tele p h o n e a n d in su ra n c e c o m p a n ies , e x e c u to rs, n o n re sid e n t m o to rists a n d sta te b o a rd s . See H emi ngw ay’ s 1917, § 487 ( 1930) ; M i s s . Code A nn. §§ 11- 11- 5, - 7, - 13 ( r epea l ed 2 0 0 2 ); s ee al

s o M is s . C o d e A n n . § § 1 1 -1 1 -9 , -1 5 (R e v . 2 0 0 4 ). ¶2 5. T he di s s ent i ng opi ni on i s s t ructur e d l oo s e l y a r ou nd a per cei ved cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on w hi ch has no appl i cat i on t o t he cas e sub j udi ce a nd w as notr ai s ed by ei therparty. 3 “Thi s C our t‘ m ay notactupon orcons i derm att er s w hi ch do notappearin t he rec or d and
m us tconf

i ne i t s el f t o w hatactual l y does appea ri n the r ecor d. ’ ” S h e lto n v. K in dr e d , 279 So. 2 d 6 4 2 , 6 4 4 (M is s . 1 9 7 3 ). ¶26. C ontr ary t o the l anguage of the di s s ent , thi s C our t f i r m l y r ecogni zes and acc ept s t he
r espon si bil i ty o f ensur i ng the p res ervat i on of every ci t i zen’s const i tuti on al r i ght s . T he author of the di s s enthas a penc hantf orthe repet i t i ous ci t at i on of the s ame pr ovi s i ons of t he C ons t i tut i on , a s e vi de nc e d by r e c e ntd i s s e nt s i n c i vi l matt e r s , wher e i n M i s s . Cons t . Ar t . 3, S ec ti o n s 2 4 an d 2 5 ha v e b ee n cit ed . T h e d issen t fail s to d em o n str ate injury to the p lai n ti ff’ s 4

### 10

case, as i ti s st i l l pend i ng i n a courtof com petentj uri sdi ct i on . T he plai nti ff s t i l l “has a re m e d y b y d u e c o u rse o f th e law ” a n d h a s n o t b e e n “ d e b a rre d fro m p ro se c u tin g a n y c iv il caus e f orhi m [ s el f

] . . . . ” See M iss . C o n st. a rt. 3 , § 2 4 ; s ee al s o M is s . C o n s t. a rt . 3 , § 2 5 . ¶27. A dams addi t i onal l y ar gues ther e i s a conf l i ct betw een M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect . 11- 11- 3 (3) a n d M issi ssipp i R u le o f C ivil P roc ed u re 8 2 (c), w h ich s tat es in p erti n en t part, “W h ere se v e ra l cla im s o r p a rties h a v e b e e n p ro p e rly join e d , th e su it m a y b e b ro u g h t in a n y c o u n ty in w h ic h a n y o n e o f t h e c la im s c o u ld p ro p e rl y h a v e b e e n b ro u g h t. . . .” M .R .C .P . 8 2 (c ). ¶28. H ow ever , bef

or e appl yi ng M . R . C . P. 82(c ) , one m us texami ne M . R . C . P. 82( b) , w hi ch s ta te s , “ E x c e p t a s p ro v id e d b y th is ru le , v e n u e o f a ll a c tio n s s h a ll b e a s p ro v id e d b y s ta tu te .” T her ef or e, a de t erm i nat i on a s t o w her e the act i on c oul d pr oper l y ha ve been brought ci r cui t ous l y l eads us t o the venue s t atut e, M i s s . Code A nn. Sect . 11- 11- 3 ( R ev. 2004) . T he pr es ence of

m edi cal pr ovi der s i n t his act i on r ender s s ubs ect i on ( 1) i nappl i cabl e, as t he “n o tw ith stan d ing ” lan g u ag e o f sub sec ti o n (3) n eg ates the lan g u ag e o f sub sec ti o n (1). T her ef or e, as s ubs ect i on ( 3) is appl i cabl e, the onl y pr operv e n u e fo r th is a c tio n is D e S o to C o u n ty . A d a m s’s c laim th a t M .R .C .P . 8 2 (c ) is in c o n flict w ith th e v e n u e sta tu te is
u n fo u n d e d . CO NC L US I ON ¶29. A ccor di ng t o M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect . 11- 7- 13, and cons i s t entw i th thi s C our t ’ s hol di ng i n L o n g , the tr i al j udge err ed i n s ever i ng thi s w r ongf ul death act i on. ¶30. T he tr i al j udge di d noterri n tr ans f err i ng the m edi cal de f

endant s t o D eSot o C ount y. H ow ever , i tw as e r r ornott o or derG ol ds tr i ke t o D eSot o Count y a l ong w i t h the m edi cal def endant s . T her ef

or e, w e r ever s e the tr i al court ’ s s ever ance or derand i t s deni al of

### 11

r econs i der at i on, and w e r emand t hi s cas e t o the tr i al courtw i th di r ect i ons t o tr ans f ert he e n tire c a se to th e C irc u it C o u rt o f D e S o to C o u n ty fo r fu rth e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is o p in io n . ¶31. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P . J . , EA S LE Y, CARL S ON, DI CKI NS ON AND LA M AR, J J . , CONCUR. DI CKI NS ON , J . , CO NCU RS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OP I NI ON J OI NE D B Y S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P . J . , EA S LE Y, CARL S ON, R A N D O L P H A N D L A M A R , JJ. DI AZ , P . J . , CONC URS I N PART AND DI S S ENTS I N PA R T W I TH SEP A R A TE W R I TT EN O PI N I O N JO I N ED I N PA R T B Y G R A V ES, J . DI CK I NS ON , J US T I CE , CO NC UR RI NG : ¶ 3 2 . A lth o u g h I f

u lly c o n c u r w ith J u stic e R a n d o lp h ’s m a jo rity o p in io n , I w rite s e p a ra tely t o addr es s tw o i s s ues r ai s ed by Pr es i di ng J us t i ce D i az i n hi s di s s ent i ng opi ni on. ¶3 3 . F ir st, the d issen t i n co rrectl y find s tha t “the m ajority tod ay en forc es th e c rea ti o n o f a s peci al cl as s of

def endant s . . . . ” I ti s the Legi s l atur e, notthi s C our t , w ho enac t ed Sect i on 11- 7- 13, w hi ch p rovi des tha tther e s hal l be butone w r ongf ul death s ui t . A nd i tw as t he L egi s l atur e – notthi s C our t– w ho d eci ded tha ta s ui tagai ns ta medi cal pr ovi der“s hal l be br oughtonl y i n the county i n w hi ch the al l eged a ctorom i s s i on occurr ed. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 1 1 -11 -3(3 )(R ev . 2 0 0 4 ) ¶34. A s m ember s of

the j udi ci ary, w e ar e r equi r ed t o fol l ow t he l aw as i ti s w r i t t en – eve n w hen the w r i t t en l aw conf l i ct s w i th ourper s onal vi ew . I am pl eas ed thata m aj or i ty of t he curr entC our tl eave s l egi s l at i ng t o t he Legi s l atur e. ¶35. Second, the di s s entcom plet el y m i s s t at es the l aw r egar di ng thi s C our t ’ s r evi ew of c o n stitu tio n a l issu e s. M iss iss ip p i R u le o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re 4 4 , w h ich a p p lies to a p p e a ls

### Th e dissent’s reliance o n th e excep tionto th e rule fo r “urg ent action ” on “p atently 5 

### inva li d” s tatut es is it se lf

so pate ntly inva li d, that

it jus ti fi es li ttlem orethan a pare nthe ti ca l footnote re spons e. If

thes e st at

utor y provis ions – born am ong the re ce nt “tort reform” st at ute s – a reinde ed pate ntly inva li d and unc onstit uti onal , one wo nd ers how and why the lawy ers in th is case (an de v eryo th ercase to co me befo re this C ourt in th e past fewyears) missed th e issue and failed to brief it, relying instead onone of this Co urt’s Ju stices to raise theis suesua

spont e – wi thout

bene fi t of prope r bri ef

ing by the parti es or

noti fi cati on to t

he Atto rneyGen eral. No Jus ti ceon this Court, to my knowle dge, ques ti ons the va li dit y of the 6 

### con stitutio nal p rov ision s cited b y th e dissent. Ho wev er, theysimplyh ave no thin g to do with venue . 12 bef or e thi s C our t , cl ear l y r equi r es not i ce t o the A t t orney G ener al as a pr er equi s i t e t o any chal l enge of

a s t atut e on cons t i tut i on al g rounds . I ti s i nconce i vabl e thatan att ack on the 5
c o n stitu tio n a lity o f a sta tu te e n a c ted b y o u r L e g isla tu re sh o u ld b e d e fe n d e d b y a p riv a te l aw yerr epr es ent i ng t he part i s an i nt er es t s of a party i n l i t i gat i on, r atherthan the A t t or ney G e n e ra l o f t h e S ta te , w h o s e d u ty it is to re p re s e n t th e S ta te a n d d e fe n d its s ta tu te s . See Ca p ito l S tag e s, In c . v. S ta te , 1 5 7 M iss. 5 7 6 , 1 2 8 S o . 7 5 9 (19 3 0 ). ¶36. T he di s s ent ci t es seve r al cas es f orthe pr opos i t i on thatthi s C our thas , on occa s i on, f ound pl ai n c ons t i tut i onal e r r orw hi ch w as notr ai s ed i n the tr i al court . W hi l e thi s as s ert i on i s t rue, i ti s i r r el evant . T he cas es i n w hi ch t hi s C our tf ound pl ai n err ordi d notr el at e t o any s t atut e cha l l enged on c ons t i tut i onal gr ounds and, ther ef or e, t her e w as no r equi r ementof ( or n e e d fo r) n o tifica tio n to th e A tto rn e y G e n e ra l. ¶37. Fi nal l y, I f

i nd i tbot h i nt er es t i ng and i ns truct i ve t hatt he di s s ent – af t erhavi ng m uch t o s ay aboutthe cons t i tut i onal ri ghtof c i t i zens t o br i ng l aw s ui t s – pr ovi des no cons t i tut i onal 6
an alys is w h atso ev er w h ich s u p p o rt s the u n tena b le th eo ry th at th e statutes in q u esti o n are uncons t i tut i onal as w r i t t en oras appl i ed. A f t erpoi nt i ng us t o aut hor i ty w hi ch i ndeed

### 13

es t abl i s hes the pr eemi nence of cons t i tut i onal provi s i ons overst atut es , t he di s s entfa i l s t o t ake the n e xtc ruc i a l s t e p of i nf ormi ng u s h ow t he p a r t i c ul a rs t a tut e s i n qu e s t i on vi ol at e t he c o n stitu tio n , an d w h y th e y sh o u ld b e d e c lar e d u n c o n stitu tio n a l. ¶ 3 8 . S tate d a n o th e r w a y , th e d iss e n t b o ld ly sta tes th a t th e se sta tu tes a re u n c o n stitu tio n a l, and w e have the pow ert o decl ar e st atut es unconst i tut i onal , even w her e a c ons t i tut i onal i s s ue i s notr ai s ed by the part i es . T he di s s entf ai l s , how ever , t o pr ovi de any a nal ys i s w hi ch dem on strat es w hy th e se p a rticu lar sta tu tes a re u n c o n stitu tio n a l. ¶39. I n concl us i on, w e ar e l ef tw i th the r eal i ty thatthe part i es nei therr ai s ed norbr i ef ed the cons t i tut i onal i s s ue; the A t t orney G ener al w as notnot i f i ed and ha s t aken no pos i t i on on the is s u e ; a n d th e d is s e n t p r o v id e s u s n o c o n s titu tio n a l a n a ly s is . U n d e r s u c h c ir c u m s ta n c e s , I f ol l ow the l aw w hi ch, i n m y vi ew , has been pr oper l y s etf or th by the maj or i ty. S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P . J . , EA S LE Y, CARL S ON, RANDOL P H AND LA M AR, J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON. DI AZ , P RE S I DI NG J US TI CE , CONCURR I NG I N PA RT AND DI S S EN TI NG I N PART: ¶4 0 . I ag ree w ith the m ajority th a t th is c a se s h o u ld n o t h av e b ee n sev ere d . H o w ev er, beca us e the maj or i ty t oday enf or ces the cr eat i on of

a s peci al cl as s of

def endant s i n vi ol at i on o f p re c e d e n t a n d d u e p ro c e ss , I m u st re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. In a d d iti o n , I b e liev e th a t fe a lty t o the C ons t i tut i on compel s us t o addr es s the cons t i tut i onal i s s ues i nher enti n thi s cas e. I. T h e S p eci al C l ass of D efend an ts . ¶4 1 . W e h av e p rev iou sly h e ld that “v en u e is a v alua b le ri g h t p o sses sed b y b o th p lai n ti ff and def endant . ” For r es t

Count y G en. Hos

p. v. Conw ay , 700 So. 2d 324, 326 ( M i s s . 1997) (em ph asi s added ). In the case athand , the i njury fi rs toccurr ed an d the cause of act i on fi rs t

### 14

acc rued i n Tuni ca C ount y. B utf orthe i nj ury w hi ch w as the ca us e of death, ther e w oul d be no w r ongf

ul death act i on, norw oul d ther e have been a ny nece s s i ty f orm edi cal car e. ¶42. Y etthe maj or i ty, bas ed upon a di ct i onary e ntry, creat es a spec i al cl as s of m edi cal d e fe n d a n ts. T h is s p e c ial c las s is ju d icia lly e n d o w e d w ith g re a ter rig h ts c re a ted so lely b y th is C our t , gr eat err i ght s w hich a r e nei theravai l abl e t o otherper s ons orpr of es s i ons nor a u th o riz e d b y o u r sta te c o n stitu tio n . T h e sp e c ial c las s o f d e fe n d a n ts h a s a “ v e n u e v e to pow er ” r egar dl es s of

the natur e of

the act i on, the s urr oundi ng f act s a nd ci r cumst ance s , t he ext entt o w hi ch t he event s i n quest i on actual l y occurr ed w i thi n a cer t ai n venue, orthe degr ee o f a lleg e d cu lp a b ili ty o f th e sp e c ial c las s d e fe n d a n ts v e rsu s o th e r d e fe n d a n ts. T h e m a jo rity
r eac hes thi s concl us i on r egar dl es s thatthe B i l l of R i ght s of

ourC onst i tut i on of

1890 g u a ra n tee s th a t “[a ]l l co u rts s h a ll b e o p e n ; an d e v e ry p e rso n fo r a n in ju ry d o n e h im in h is l ands , goods , per s on, orreputat i on, s hal l have r emedy by due cour s e of l aw , and r i ghtand j us t i ce s hal l be admi ni s t er ed w i thouts al e, deni al , ordel ay. ” M i s s . C onst . , art . 3, § 24. Fur ther , “ [ n] o pe r s on s hal l be de barr ed f r om pr os ecut i ng orde f

endi ng any ci vi l caus e f oror a g a in s t h im o r h e rs e lf

, b e fo re a ny trib u n a l in th e sta te , by hi m orher s el f , o r coun sel , or b o th .” M is s . C o n s t. o f 1 8 9 0 , a rt . II I, § 2 5 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶43. T he argu m ents propo sed i n the m aj ori t y o pi ni on r evea l an av ers i on t o t hese C ons t i tut i onal r i ght s and bedr ock pr ot ect i ons guar ant eed t o the ci t i zens of the St at e of M i ssi ssi pp i , and are bett er sui t ed fora po l i t i cal s tum p speech atthe N eshob a C ou n ty F air. D es pi t e r epea t ed ci t at i ons t o the s ame pr ovi s i ons of the C ons t i tut i on by the autho r of t he di s s ent , the authorof

the maj or i ty opi ni on c ont i nues t o i gnor e the C ons t i tut i onal ques t i ons thatar e i m pl i cat ed by thi s c as e, w hi ch m us tbe r es ol ved. “W hi l e the l egi s l atur e gene r al l y has

### 15

the pow ert o enactany l aw i tsee s fi t , never thel es s , i ti s r es tr i ct ed i n i t s enac t m entof l aw s by the pr ovi s i ons of

ourSt at e C ons t i tut i on and cannot by stat ut or

y enactm ent

al t erornul l i

f y a cl ear, unam biguous m andat e of the C ons t i t ut i on , ” bec aus e “[ s ] uch a s t atut e w oul d be uncons t i tut i onal . ” Saxon v. H ar vey , 223 So. 2d 620, 624 ( M i s s . 1969) . U l t i m at el y, no m att erthe rhet or i c of

the maj or i ty, “[ t ] he w i s dom of the draf t er s of ourC ons t i tut i on i s not s ubj ectt o que s t i on by thi s Court , a nd i s t o be modi f i ed oral t er ed by amendm entonl y. ” I d. at6 24 . “If

ther e ex i st s an irreconcil able confl i ct. . . then the co nst i tuti on al provis i on s m ust pr evai l . ” I

d. ; see al so B oar d of Trustees of State I nstituti ons of

H i gherL earning v. R ay , 80 9 So. 2d 627, 636 ( M i s s . 2002) ( “The gene r al pr i nci pl e f ol l ow ed w hen cons i der i ng a pos s i bl e conf

l i ctbetw een the cons t i tut i on and a s t atut e i s thatthe cons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i on pr evai l s ”) . T he appr oach s houl d be no di f f er enti n t oday’ s cas e. ¶44. W hi l e i n thi s cas e the “pri m ary” defendant , G ol ds tr i ke C as i no, l at er s uppor t ed the tr an sfer o f ve n u e to D eS o to C o u n ty, on e m ay ea sil y im ag ine a s c e n a rio w h ere a p ri m ary d e fe n d a n t w ish e s to ta k e a d v a n tag e o f th e v e n u e s tatu tes th a t p ro v id e su it m u st b e filed in its county of

r es i dence . L etus i m agi ne a per s on i s i nj ur ed i n R anki n C ounty w hi l e hunt i ng on p riv a te p ro p e rty , an d th a t th e y a re a irlifted to H in d s C o u n ty fo r tre a tm e n t o f in ju rie s. W h ile undertr eatm ent , the per s on r ece i ves a mi nut e butcom pens abl e i nj ury as a r es ul tof m edi cal tr ea tm en t. If th is hy p o thetical p lai n ti ff fi les su ita g ains t th e R an k in C o u n ty p rop erty o w n er, underthe maj or i ty’ s rul e, the s ui tm us tbe t ra ns f err ed t o H i nds C ounty, r egar dl es s of t he R an k in C o u n ty p ro p e rty o w n er’s w ishe s, an d reg ard less o f th e fa ct th at 95 % o f th e inju ry o c c u rre d a n d a c c ru e d in R a n k in C o u n ty . T h is is a p e rv e rse re su lt.

### 16

¶ 4 5 . I c e r t a i n l y a c k n o wl e d g e th a tb e c a u s e o f th e a mb i g u i ty c r e a t e d b y th e s e s t a tu t e s we m us tpr ocee d t o “ t o di s cern a nd gi ve ef f ectt o the l egi s l at i ve i nt ent . ” Cit y of N atchez, Miss. v. Sulli van , 6 12 So. 2d 1087, 1089 ( M i s s . 1992) . I f ur theragr ee w i th the maj or i ty t hat l aw m aker s i nt ended t o ens ur e thatcas es thatpr i m ar i l y cent erupon m edi cal m al pr act i ce cl ai m s w oul d onl y be br oughti n the county i n w hi ch the al l eged actorom i s s i on occurr ed. Y etI r emai n f

arf r om c onvi nced thati n a c as e thatdoe s notpr i m ar i l y c ent eron a m edi cal
m al pr act i ce c l ai m the Legi s l atur e i nt ended t o achi eve s o har s h a re s ul tas the deni al of venue ri g h ts to o n e g ro u p o f d e fe n d a n ts in fa v o r o f a n o th e r. ¶46. N otw i ths t andi ng t he maj or i ty’ s anal ys i s , and i n l ack of a cl earguidance fr om t he L egi s l atur e, I w oul d advanc e a t es tthatw oul d a s cert ai n w her e the bul k of the ac t i on acc rued o r o c c u rre d . T h is a p p ro a c h to v e n u e w o u ld b a lan c e th e c o m p e tin g in te re sts o f v e n u e w ith th e in te n tio n o f t h e L e g is la tu re . I I . The C ons t i t ut i on M us t Be O be ye d. ¶ 4 7 . T h e m a

jo rity w in c e s a t an y m e n tio n o f th e C o n stitu tio n in th is c a se . H o w e v e r, it pr ovi des no ci t at i on beyond She lton f ori t s bl anketasser t i on thatw e ca nnotaddr es s the c o n s titu tio n a lity o f th e sta tu te o f o u r o w n a c c o rd . She lton i t s el f pr ovi des no ci t at i on f

ort hat asse rt ion , eith er, b ec au se th at ca se in v o lved a jud g m en t f o r a c red it o r; o n ap p ea l, the re co rd
w as m i s s i ng “a s w orn i t emi zed s t at ementof appel l ant ’ s acc ount . ” Shelton v. K indre d , 279 S o . 2 d 6 4 2 , 6 4 4 (M is s . 1 9 7 3 ). She lton has no thing t o d o w i th w hetherthis C ou rtcan ad dress con st i tuti on al i ssues su a sp o n te , b u t ra th e r d e a ls w ith th e in sta n c e s w h e n a re c o rd is c o m p le te . I

d . A d d iti o n a lly , w e h a v e n o te d th a t She lton i s no l ongergood l aw f orthe pr opos i t i on i t s s t ands f

or , as i tw as “dec i ded pr i ort o the adopt i on o f the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es

### 17

of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e i n 1995 . . . . ” N o rw o o d v. E x ten sio n o

f B o u n da rie s o

f City o f Itta Bena , 7 8 8 S o . 2 d 7 4 7 , 7 5 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). ¶48. M or eover , w hen ci r cumst ance s w arr ant , thi s C our thas know i ngly go ne out s i de the re c o rd . See Sam uel

s v. Mladineo , 608 So. 2d 1170, 1182 ( M i s s . 1992) . O n m ot i on f or r ehea r i ng i n S a m u e ls , w e ac know l edged thatw e had gone out s i de the r ecor d and dec l ar ed thatw e w oul d do s o agai n s houl d c i r cumst ance s w arr ant ; i ndeed, w e not ed that“[ a] ddi t i onal author i t i es s uppor tourconcl us i on thatw hatw as done w as nei thernovel norbeyond the s cope of j udi ci al f

unct i on. ” I

d . a t 1 1 8 6 . ¶4 9. B eyond t he mer e bl a c k a nd w hi t e pa ge s of the r e c or d, ou rown rul e s a l l ow f ort he c o n tem p latio n o f o th e r iss u e s. D e sp ite th e m a jo ri ty ’s p ro tes ts to th e c o n tra ry , itis w e ll es t abl i s hed thatthi s C our tm ay re vi ew i s s ues on i t s ow n m ot i on w hen “pl ai n err or ” i s not ed, s in c e “ th e c o u rt m a y , a t its o p tio n , n o tic e a p la in e rr o r n o t i d e n tif ie d o r d is tin c tly s e p a ra te .” M .R .A .P . 2 8 (a )(3 ); s ee G ra y v. S ta te , 5 4 9 S o . 2 d 1 3 1 6 , 1 3 2 1 (M iss. 1 9 8 9 ) ( ci t i ng Johnson v. S ta te , 4 5 2 S o . 2 d 8 5 0 , 8 5 3 (M iss . 1 9 8 4 ); Ho u se v. S ta te , 44 5 S o. 2d 81 5, 82 0 (M i ss. 1 9 8 4 ); Ho o ten v. S ta te , 4 2 7 S o . 2 d 1 3 8 8 (M iss . 1 9 8 3 ); Fo n dre n v. S ta te , 253 M i s s . 241, 175 So. 2 d 62 8 ( 19 65 ) ) . “ Pl a i n e r r or ” i s a n e rr orwhi c h a f f e c t s the s ub s t a nt i ve r i gh t s of t he part i es, i n this case the co nst i tuti on al ri gh tof access t o co urtand equ al i ty b et w een all part i es. See B ry a n t v. S ta te , 8 4 4 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 3 , 1 1 5 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 3 ) ( ci t i ng G ru b b v. S ta te , 584 So. 2d 786, 789 ( M i s s . 1991) ) . T hi s rul e i s us ed “t o pr eventthe mani f estm i s carr i age of

j us t i ce, des pi t e f ai l ur e t o pr es erve t he err or. ” I d. ( ci t i ng Johnson v. Far go , 604 So. 2d 306, 311 (M is s . 1 9 9 2 )) .

### 18

¶50. T he conc urr ence di s cus s es M . R . A . P. 44( c) , a r gui ng thatnot i f i cat i on t o the A t t or ney G e n e ra l is re q u ire d o r a c o n stitu tio n a l ch a llen g e m u st fa il. H o w e v e r, th e lan g u a g e o f th e ru le itse lf a n d th e C o m m e n t to th a t ru le m a k e it cle a r th a t th is C o u rt h a s th e in h e re n t p o w e r to addr es s s uch a c as e, s i nce “ Subse ct i on ( c) perm i t s act i on t o p roceed i n the ca s e w i thout
n o ti ce b y sp ec ial o rde r i f the cour tdet er m i nes thatur gent acti on is nece s s ar

y orthatthe chal l enged s tat ut e, or der, ordi r ect i ve is s o pat ent l y i nval i d thatn o res

pons e nee d be
r equi r ed f

r om the af

f ected body. ” C om m ent , M .R .A .P . 4 4 (italic s a d d e d ). In m y v iew , this i s a a rr ow i n the qui verof the C our tw hi ch has been w hol l y abandone d, r es ul t i ng i n i nj us t i ce to th e p a rties an d the citize n ry o f th e S tate . In d e e d , th e issu e o f co n stitu tio n a lity o f a sta tu te is e x a c tly th e so rt o f “

ju risd ictio n a s p ro p e rly b e lo n g s to a c o u rt o f a p p e a ls.” M iss . C o n st. of 1890, art . 6, § 146. ¶51. I ti s i m per at i ve t hatw e r emai n com m i t t ed t o t he i deal that“C ons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i ons ar e ge ne r a l l y c on s true d t o b e mand a t ory o rc ompul s ory, ” a nd “ w i l l no tbe cons i der ed adv i sory or di rect ory m erel y u nles s itis pl ai nly appa rentthat the ad op t ers or f ram ers so in te n d e d it.” G e o rg e H . E th ri d g e , Mis s is s i ppiC ons t i t ut i ons , at48 ( 1928) . T he i ncl us i on of the r i ght s of

acc es s t o courti n ourB i l l of R i ght s si gni f i es t hatt he f

r amer s of

the C ons t i tut i on of 1890 di d notm ean f

orthos e s af

eguar d s t o be t r eat ed as cal l ous l y as the maj or i ty does t oday. T he B i l l of

Ri ght s i n ourC ons t i tut i on pr ece des the s ect i ons cr eat i ng the author i ty of the Legi s l atur e; the body o f t he execu t i ve; orthe pow er s of the j udi ci ary, and as w e have lo n g h e ld , th e s e ri g h ts a re m o re im p o rt a n t th a n a n y s ta tu te . See Saxon , supra .

### 19

¶ 5 2 . T h e C o n stitu tio n is a lw a y s in f o rc e a n d a lw a y s a p p lica b le in th e law . If a sta tu te pl ai nl y cl as hes w i th a cons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i on, w e shoul d nothesi t at e t o i nval i dat e i ti n or der to s a fe g u a rd th e C o n s titu tio n a n d th e ri g h ts it v e s ts in o u r c itiz e n ry . ¶ 5 3 . B e c a u se I c a n n o t jo in th e m a jo rity ’s c re a tio n o f a sp e c ial c las s o f d e fe n d a n ts w ith s peci al r i ght s s uper i ort o thos e of otherM i s s i s s i ppi ans , a n a ctw hi ch i s i n di r ectcontr adi ct i on w ith o u r s ta te c o n s titu tio n , I m u s t r e s p e c tf u lly d is s e n t. GR AVES, J . , J OI NS T HI S OPI NI ON I N PART.