Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. Stategreen1 sentence2024But here, instruction S-4 did not even explain that a person “becomes the aggressor” if he “provokes a difficulty, arming himself in advance, and intending, if necessary, to use his weapon and overcome his adversary . . . .” Anderson v. State, 571 So. 2d 961, 963 (Miss. 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Keys v. Stategreen1 sentence2012“A criminal defendant is entitled to present his defense to the finder of fact.” Keys v. State, 635 So.2d 845, 848 (Miss.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Cook v. Stategreen2 sentences1995Id. at 209, n. 4 (emphasis added). 1995Id. at 209, n. 4 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pulpus v. State
green
2 sentences1982In Pulpus v. State, 82 Miss. 548 , 34 So. 2 (1903), the Court stated the rule with reference to an aggressor who withdrew from the fray as follows: "One may provide himself with a deadly weapon and hunt another, with design to kill him with it, and provoke and be the aggressor in the encounter in which he kills the other, and still, in the progress of the difficulty should not be denied the right of self-defense, if the killing be not pursuant to the original purpose to kill. 1981In Pulpus v. State, 82 Miss. 548 , 34 So. 2 (1903), the Court stated the rule with reference to an aggressor who withdrew from the fray as follows: "One may provide himself with a deadly weapon and hunt another, with design to kill him with it, and provoke and be the aggressor in the encounter in which he kills the other, and still, in the progress of the difficulty should not be denied the right of self-defense, if the killing be not pursuant to the original purpose to kill. | 2 | 1981–1982 |
Coleman v. State
green
2 sentences1982If the purpose to overcome opposition arose after the arming, the right of self defense is not cut off. [Citations omitted]. 179 Miss. at 664-655 , 176 So. at 714 . 1982If the purpose to overcome opposition arose after the arming, the right of self defense is not cut off. [Citations omitted]. 179 Miss. at 664-655 , 176 So. at 714 . | 2 | 1981–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.