witness defense in Mississippi

2013Stewart v. State, 355 So.2d 94 (Miss.1978).

1980When this case was tried, this Court had previously considered the right of a defendant to call a witness when it was known that the witness would claim the Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions. *159 Stewart v. State, 355 So.2d 94 (Miss. 1978).

1998Co., 568 So.2d 687 (Miss.1990), wherein this Court held that the admission of hearsay testimony to impeach a witness was in error.

1995Co., 568 So. 2d 687 (Miss. 1990), wherein this Court held that the admission of hearsay testimony to impeach a witness was in error.

1984Lipson, su pra; 81 Am.Jur.2d Witnesses § 407 (1976); citing Fant v. Fant, 173 Miss. 472 , 162 So. 159 (1935).

1984Lipson, su pra; 81 Am.Jur.2d Witnesses § 407 (1976); citing Fant v. Fant, 173 Miss. 472 , 162 So. 159 (1935).

1984See Warren v. State, 407 So.2d 100 (Miss. 1981); and Henderson v. State, 403 So.2d 139 (Miss. 1981).

1984See Warren v. State, 407 So.2d 100 (Miss. 1981); and Henderson v. State, 403 So.2d 139 (Miss. 1981).

2017Id. at (¶ 15).

2006Id. (emphasis added).

2002When reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we cite to the familiar standard described in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984): Manuel must show that his counsel's conduct was so deficient that he was not functioning as counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, and if his counsel is shown to be ineffective, such deficient performance prejudiced his defense.

2002When reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we cite to the familiar standard described in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984): Manuel must show that his counsel's conduct was so deficient that he was not functioning as counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, and if his counsel is shown to be ineffective, such deficient performance prejudiced his defense.

1997While a criminal defendant in Mississippi is allowed to call a witness to testify even knowing that the witness will claim the privilege, Balfour, 598 So.2d at 751 , that does not lead to the conclusion that the witness' claim of the privilege is relevant evidence upon which the defendant may argue inferences and conclusions to the jury.

1988In Moffett v. State, 456 So.2d 714 (Miss. 1984), we held that if the State had notice that a witness had changed his story, the prosecution could not call the witness and then claim surprise in order to impeach the witness with his prior inconsistent statements.

1981Lipson, supra; 81 Am.Jur.2d Witnesses § 407 (1976); citing Fant v. Fant, 173 Miss. 472 , 162 So. 159 (1935).

1978The trial judge sustained plaintiff's objection and instructed defense counsel to refrain from calling the physician and stated: "To rule otherwise would seem to make a farce out of the privileged communication statute." On appeal the Ohio Appellate Court reversed and stated: The question with which we are confronted in this case is whether the privileges afforded by Section 2317.02, Revised Code, are so broad as to preclude the calling of an attending physician as a witness where the privilege has not been waived by the patient. ( 7 Ohio App.2d at 99 , 219 N.E.2d at 214 ). .....

1978The trial judge sustained plaintiff's objection and instructed defense counsel to refrain from calling the physician and stated: "To rule otherwise would seem to make a farce out of the privileged communication statute." On appeal the Ohio Appellate Court reversed and stated: The question with which we are confronted in this case is whether the privileges afforded by Section 2317.02, Revised Code, are so broad as to preclude the calling of an attending physician as a witness where the privilege has not been waived by the patient. ( 7 Ohio App.2d at 99 , 219 N.E.2d at 214 ). .....

1973Beale for further examination as a witness for the defense. *662 In Chatman v. State, 244 Miss. 659 , 145 So.2d 707 (1962), a rape conviction was reversed when the defense was not allowed to recall the prosecutrix as an adverse witness in order to ask her if she stated she thought the rape was a joke.

1973Beale for further examination as a witness for the defense. *662 In Chatman v. State, 244 Miss. 659 , 145 So.2d 707 (1962), a rape conviction was reversed when the defense was not allowed to recall the prosecutrix as an adverse witness in order to ask her if she stated she thought the rape was a joke.

1958Neither the damages to the decedent, nor to the widow and children in this case `go to' the personal representative of the estate in any event, and he is clearly not the person under the facts in this case `entitled under the law to recover.'" The interpretation placed upon said Section 1453 by this Court in the case of Mississippi Power Co. v. Archibald, supra, makes it entirely clear that the estate of the deceased, Roger Twain Hawkins, could not be affected beneficially or adversely or otherwise by the suit here involved, and, therefore, under the case of Fennell, Administratrix *145 v. McG

1958Neither the damages to the decedent, nor to the widow and children in this case ‘go to’ the personal representative of the estate in any event, and he is clearly not the person under the facts in this case ‘entitled under the law to recover.’ ” The interpretation placed upon said Section 1453 by this Court in the case of Mississippi Power Co. v. Archibald, supra, makes it entirely clear that the estate of the deceased, Roger Twain Hawkins, could not be affected beneficially or adversely or otherwise by the suit here involved, and, therefore, under the case of Fennell, Ad ministratrix v. McGowa

1951In the early South Carolina case of State v. Edwards, 2 Nott & McC. 13 , 10 Am.

1888In French v. Sale, 63 Miss. 386 , after the plaintiff had closed, the defendant, who was also a witness in his own behalf, was required by an order of court, to testify before his brother, who was-a witness for the defense, with whom he was charged to be in conspiracy for the purpose of cheating and defrauding his creditors,, was examined, or to retire from the court-room while his brother was testifying, and this was sanctioned on appeal.