Opinion ID: 1567844
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the court of appeals decision conflicted with prior precedent governing due process in public school student disciplinary matters.

Text: ¶ 27. At issue here is the due process that should be afforded to public school students involved in disciplinary matters. The School Board contends that R.B. received all process due under the law; and, alternatively, even if he were deprived of due process, R.B. suffered no substantial prejudice as a result. The School Board further contends in its petition for writ of certiorari that the Court of Appeals' affirmation of the chancery court's ruling creates a heightened standard for due process that is not required under either the United States Constitution or the Mississippi Constitution, and does not conform with prior precedent regarding student disciplinary matters. R.B. argues that the lack of notice and opportunity to participate in the June 10, 2004, School Board hearing, as well as his not being provided with a list of witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination, deprived him of due process and resulted in substantial prejudice to his defense. ¶ 28. The United States Supreme Court, in Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 581, 95 S.Ct. 729, 740, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975), set forth the minimum due process requirement for students facing a short-term suspension as follows: Students facing temporary suspension have interests qualifying for protection of the Due Process Clause, and due process requires, in connection with a suspension of 10 days or less, that the student be given oral or written notice of the charges against him and, if he denies them, an explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the story. The Court further noted that longer suspensions or expulsions may require more formal procedures. Id. at 584, 95 S.Ct. 729. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case involving the long-term suspension of a student, acknowledged that: The standards of procedural due process are not wooden absolutes. The sufficiency of procedures employed in any particular situation must be judged in the light of the parties, the subject matter and the circumstances involved. Keough v. Tate County Bd. of Educ., 748 F.2d 1077, 1081 (5th Cir.1984) (quoting Ferguson v. Thomas, 430 F.2d 852, 856 (5th Cir.1970)). This Court, in Jones v. Board of Trustees, 524 So.2d 968, 972 (Miss.1988), required a showing of substantial prejudice in order to prove a denial of due process. ¶ 29. Consistent with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Goss, this Court, in Jones, 524 So.2d at 972, stated that notice and opportunity to be heard are minimal requirements of the Due Process Clause. In Jones, a student was accused of drug distribution on campus. Id. at 969. The accused student, having cross-examined two student witnesses, argued that her due process rights were violated by the school board because she was not provided a list of her other accusers or the right to cross-examine those accusers. Id. at 973. This Court found that no deprivation of procedural due process occurred. Id. As to providing an accused with a witness list, this Court explicitly stated, Since how much process is due depends on the particular circumstances, a denial of a list of witnesses will not always amount to a prejudicial denial of due process. Particularly, this must be so with student witnesses, since a school board has not been given the power of subpoena. Id. The Court found that there was no deprivation of Jones's confrontation rights when testimony by school administrators alluded to other students who had made incriminating statements against Jones. Id. at 972-973. Furthermore, the Court noted that precedent has revealed that hearsay testimony by school employees is treated differently from that of students, and that admitting hearsay testimony by school employees does not violate a student's right to due process. Id. at 973. ¶ 30. First, R.B. contends that his due process rights were violated because he lacked notice of the June 10, 2004, School Board meeting and was not given an opportunity to speak on his own behalf at this meeting. However, R.B. was given an opportunity to speak on his own behalf to the Appeals Committee. We agree with the School Board that R.B. was afforded the requisite notice and opportunity to speak on his own behalf at the Appeals Committee level of review. Although we acknowledge that Jones, in keeping with United States Supreme Court's holding in Goss, requires both notice and the opportunity to be heard, we find no precedent indicating that R.B. was entitled to two full evidentiary hearings. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the School Board's policies and procedures allowed students more than one hearing. Therefore, R.B. is unable to meet the requisite showing of substantial prejudice where he was granted notice and an opportunity to speak on his own behalf at the Appeals Committee level. This Court, in turn, finds this argument to be without merit. ¶ 31. Secondly, R.B. contends Jones held that due process routinely warrants cross-examination of witnesses, and, at a minimum, receipt of a witness list. In support of this argument, the ACLU in its amicus brief contends that an opportunity for cross-examination should be afforded after weighing all the factors for determining the specific dictates of due process as promulgated by the United States Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge : First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). The ACLU maintains that the private interest affected, the right to a public education, is a fundamental right under the Mississippi Constitution, [9] and as such, weighs heavily in favor of R.B. not being excluded from the educational system without heightened due process. ¶ 32. The School Board, as well as the Court of Appeals dissent, argue that Jones does not require school boards to produce student witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination, given the fact that school boards do not have subpoena power. The plurality of the Court of Appeals opined that the School Board's notice-of-hearing letter by which R.B. was told that he would have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at the Appeals Committee hearing entitled him to cross-examine all witnesses; as such, the School Board's failure to produce these witnesses constituted a violation of R.B.'s right to procedural due process. The plurality relied on Warren County Board of Education v. Wilkinson, 500 So.2d 455 (Miss.1986), in reaching the conclusion that where a school district's own policy has created a right to more than a minimal amount of process, failure by the school district to provide such additional procedures results in a due process violation. We do not disagree with this premise, but it is inapplicable to today's case. ¶ 33. Wilkinson involved a student who was allotted the maximum punishment loss of credit for the entire semesterfor consuming alcohol in her own home prior to attending school. Wilkinson, 500 So.2d at 456. In Wilkinson, the Warren County School District previously had adopted procedures for disciplinary matters that included a de novo hearing before the school board, to which an accused student was entitled to notice, as well as an explanation of charges and penalties, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, the right to call witnesses, the right to counsel, and the right to request in writing the names of any witnesses testifying against the student. Id. at 460-61. This Court upheld the chancery court's reversal of the expulsion on the basis that the school district did not follow its own procedures, and the de novo hearing conducted by the school board became no more than an inquiry and discussion. Id. at 461. This Court distinguished Wilkinson in Jones. In Wilkinson this Court intimated that a list of witnesses was necessary; however, there the school board's own rules required that a witness list be given. Jones, 524 So.2d at 973. ¶ 34. Concerning the marijuana allegation, R.B. did receive a list of potential witnesses in his notice of the Appeals Committee hearing. The letter reads as follows: The names of all persons who are expected to offer statements against the student: Mr. Sheridan Stewart, Mr. Bob Mohr, Mr. Kelvin Mixon. As noted in Jones, hearsay testimony by school administrators does not violate due process. The Appeals Committee's review of hearsay statements given by Stewart, Mohr, or Mixon was not improper. Furthermore, we do not interpret the holding of Jones as requiring school boards in every case to compel attendance of student witnesses at disciplinary hearings for cross-examination, or even requiring full disclosure of those students providing school officials with information. ¶ 35. This Court acknowledged in Jones that the requisite amount of due process requires a case-by-case inquiry. A list of student witnesses and opportunity for cross-examination may be appropriate in some circumstances, such as in cases where school districts have explicitly provided for this right in their policies and handbooks. Unlike the plurality for the Court of Appeals, we do not equate the wording of the notice letter with pre-established school district policy as was the case in Wilkinson. To be precise, in Wilkinson, the school board adopted a procedure for a de novo hearing before the school board, and further provided that a student would be informed in writing of the charges against him, the possible penalties therefor, that he will have the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him, his right to call witnesses in his own behalf, his right to be represented by counsel, and advise him that he may request in writing the names of the witnesses that may testify against him. Wilkinson, 500 So.2d at 460-61. On the other hand, the wording of the notice in today's case is considerably different from the wording of the notice in Wilkinson that was based on the school board's adopted policy. Id. In fact, R.B. and D.L.B. were informed by Principal Mohr that school policy prevented the district from disclosing the students' identities to protect against retaliation. Nothing in the record in today's case indicates that the School Board had a policy providing for the right of cross-examination of all witnesses or disclosure of the students who provided statements to school officials. The dissent cites the current Hinds County School District Handbook as evidence that cross examination of witnesses in disciplinary procedures is School Board policy. Dissent at ¶ 57. The handbook cited by the dissent is that of the current school year, not the handbook from 2004 when this incident occurred. Moreover, this Court is limited to the briefs that were before the Court of Appeals and the record, and any portion of the Hinds County School District Handbook not previously cited therein cannot be reviewed by this Court. See Miss. R.App. P. 17(h). The dissent cites policy that falls outside the record; therefore, this Court will not consider the current Hinds County Handbook. ¶ 36. Furthermore, in the case of a drug offense, all school districts have a substantial interest in maintaining a safe, drug-free environment for their students. To do so, it is important for schools to have the discretion to protect the identity of students who report drug crimes occurring on their campuses. We agree with the School Board that to hold otherwise would potentially endanger students by subjecting them to possible retaliation. Additionally, requiring school districts to identify students who report drug crimes on school campuses has the potential to create a chilling effect on how forthcoming students are with administrators for fear of being identified by those students possessing and distributing drugs at school. In its amicus brief, the ACLU argues that the third Mathews element, the School Board's interest in protecting R.B.'s classmates from being identified or retaliated against, did not outweigh R.B.'s interest given that the record did not show R.B. to be a threat. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335, 96 S.Ct. 893. However, a drug crime on campus is an egregious offense and is, in and of itself, a threat to the other students. Moreover, based on R.B.'s extensive discipline record and the previous charge of possession of a weapon, we do not find this argument persuasive. ¶ 37. Citing inconsistencies in the statements of R.B.'s classmates, the ACLU argues that the second Mathews factor, the risk of making an erroneous disciplinary decision, is significant enough to compel cross-examination in this case. Id. We do not find this argument persuasive given that the Appeals Committee had access to these statements, to R.B.'s statements made on his own behalf, and to the statements of the school administrators. Thus, as fact-finders, the Appeals Committee had ample opportunity to examine any inconsistencies and to assign the appropriate weight and credibility to those statements. We also agree with the Court of Appeals dissent that school boards do not have the statutory authority to compel students to testify against fellow students at evidentiary hearings. In addition, this is not a case in which the school district denied R.B. the right to call his own witnesses to speak in his defense. As stated in the Appeals Committee notice letter, if R.B. had at any time deemed there were students with information relevant to his defense, he could have produced those students for the purpose of giving a statement to the Appeals Committee. ¶ 38. As to the drug-possession charge, we find the procedures implemented by the School Board to be sufficient where R.B. (1) was apprised of the nature of the charges; (2) was given a list of potential witnesses; (3) was informed of his right to counsel; and (4) was given notice and opportunity to speak on his own behalf and to call any others with relevant information. In fact, as noted by Judge Roberts in his dissent, Neither R.B. nor anyone on his behalf ever attempted to cross-examine any school employee witness who was present. Moreover, when asked, R.B. stated that he had no additional evidence or witnesses to present to the Appeals Committee. The Appeals Committee and the School Board considered a written report of the confiscation by two school employees, statements from students, and R.B.'s quasi confession. The marijuana was found right where R.B. said he laid it. Even if we assume that R.B. only hid the marijuana for another student, there was a significant amount of evidence that R.B. had dominion and control over marijuana in his possession. Finally, a chemical test revealed that it was, in fact, marijuana that was found. Hinds Co. Sch. Dist. v. R.B., 10 So.3d 495, 513, ¶ 79, 2007 WL 2702819 (Miss.Ct.App. 2007) (emphasis in original). From the record, R.B. unquestionably was afforded due process. However, even assuming arguendo that R.B. was denied due process, he has failed to make a showing of substantial prejudice. R.B. gave a signed, written statement to Principal Mohr that, upon being alerted to the presence of police on campus, another student, J.D., threw him the bag of marijuana and asked him to hide it. In this statement, R.B. admitted to complying with this request when he tossed the bag onto a nearby bookshelf. R.B. did not refuse the marijuana, nor did he alert his teacher or the police to the presence of the marijuana. It is only when R.B. was questioned as a suspect in connection with the marijuana that R.B. implicated J.D. As noted by Judge Roberts in his dissent, even if the facts as stated by R.B. are accepted at face value, R.B. admitted to a brief possession and subsequent concealment of the bag of marijuana. Id. at 513, ¶ 79. This admission weighs heavily in favor of guilt and against the likelihood that R.B. could have suffered substantial prejudice as a result of the School Board's disciplinary procedures. ¶ 39. In light of all the surrounding circumstances-the nature and severity of drug possession on campus, the number of students who implicated R.B., and R.B.'s own incriminating, signed statement  any school administrator sitting as a fact-finder could reasonably conclude that R.B. was guilty of the drug-possession offense. Although we recognize that this case involves a fundamental right to public education, after applying the Mathews factors, we cannot find any efficacy in added procedures, especially considering the sufficiency of the evidence and the School Board's overwhelming interest in ensuring the safety of its students. Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335, 96 S.Ct. 893. Therefore, even though we have found that R.B. was not denied due process, in addressing the alternative argument that, assuming arguendo that R.B. was denied due process, R.B. has failed to make a requisite showing that he was substantially prejudiced by not being given a second evidentiary hearing at the June 10, 2004, School Board meeting, or by not being provided a list of student witnesses or the opportunity to cross-examine his fellow students at the Appeals Committee or School Board meetings. Therefore, the decision of the School Board to expel R.B. for possession of marijuana was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious. Thus, we likewise find that as to this issue, the School Board's decision is beyond an appellate court's authority to disturb on appeal.