occurrence error in Mississippi

2011The appellant is responsible for providing a “record sufficient to show the occurrence of the error he asserts.” Acker v. State, 797 So.2d 966, 971 (¶ 18) (Miss.2001) (quoting Lambert v. State, 574 So.2d 573, 577 (Miss.1990)).

2006“Our law is clear that an appellant must present to us a record sufficient to show the occurrence of the error he asserts and also that the matter was properly presented to the trial court and timely preserved.” Young v. State, 891 So.2d 813, 819 (¶ 14) (Miss.2005) (citing Lambert v. State, 574 So.2d 573, 577 (Miss.1990)); see also Williams v. State, 522 So.2d 201, 209 (Miss.1988) (citations omitted).

2017Our supreme court has repeatedly held that "an appellant must present to us a record sufficient to show the occurrence of the error he asserts and also that the matter was properly presented to the trial court and timely preserved." Byrom v. State , 863 So.2d 836 , 853 (¶ 35) (Miss. 2003) (quoting Acker v. State , 797 So.2d 966 , 967 (¶ 18) (Miss. 2001) ).

2017But these claims are unsupported by either record evidence or authority. 9 This Court has been clear: “an appellant must present to us a record sufficient to show the occurrence of the error he asserts and also that *223 the matter was properly presented to the trial court and timely preserved.” Byrom v. State, 863 So.2d 836, 853 (¶ 35) (Miss. 2003) (citing Acker v. State, 797 So.2d 966, 967 (Miss. 2001) (quotations omitted)).

2006King v. State, 857 So.2d 702, 714 (Miss.2003) (quoting Acker v. State, 797 So.2d 966, 972 (Miss.2001)); See also Pulphus v. State, 782 So.2d 1220, 1224 (Miss. 2001) ("Issues cannot be decided based on assertions from the briefs alone.

2004King v. State, 857 So. 2d 702, 714 (Miss. 2003) (quoting Acker v. State, 797 So. 2d 966, 972 (Miss. 2001)); See also Pulphus v. State, 782 So. 2d 1220, 1224 (Miss. 2001) ("Issues cannot be decided based on assertions from the briefs alone.

2017“Our law is clear that an appellant must present to us a record sufficient to show the occurrence of the error he asserts and also that the matter was properly presented to the trial court and timely preserved.” Young v. State, 891 So. 2d 813, 819 (¶14) (Miss. 2005).

2017“Our law is clear that an appellant must present to us a record sufficient to show the occurrence of the error he asserts and also that the matter was properly presented to the trial court and timely preserved.” Young v. State, 891 So.2d 813, 819 (¶ 14) (Miss. 2005).

2005Lambert v. State, 574 So.2d 573, 577 (Miss.1990) (citing Moawad v. State, 531 So.2d 632, 635 (Miss.1988) and Williams v. State, 522 So.2d 201, 209 (Miss.1988)).

2000In addition, Blanch has failed to argue or show how his defense, had he gone to trial, would have been inconsistent or incompatible with the defenses claimed by his co-defendants. "[An] Appellant must present to us a record sufficient to show the occurrence of the error he asserts and also that the matter was properly presented to the trial court and timely preserved." Lambert v. State, 574 So.2d 573, 577 (Miss.1990) (citing Moawad v. State, 531 So.2d 632, 635 (Miss.1988)). *825 ¶ 10.

2006“Our law is clear that an appellant must present to us a record sufficient to show the occurrence of the error he asserts and also that the matter was properly presented to the trial court and timely preserved.” Young v. State, 891 So.2d 813, 819 (¶ 14) (Miss.2005) (citing Lambert v. State, 574 So.2d 573, 577 (Miss.1990)); see also Williams v. State, 522 So.2d 201, 209 (Miss.1988) (citations omitted).

2005Lambert v. State, 574 So.2d 573, 577 (Miss.1990) (citing Moawad v. State, 531 So.2d 632, 635 (Miss.1988) and Williams v. State, 522 So.2d 201, 209 (Miss.1988)).

2018Assuming Clayton intended to argue that the circuit court erroneously excluded the social-media post on other grounds, he fails to state those grounds or cite any case law in support thereof. "[A]n appellant must present to us a record sufficient to show the occurrence of the error he asserts and also that the matter was properly presented to the [circuit] court and timely preserved." Byrom v. State , 863 So.2d 836 , 853 (¶ 35) (Miss. 2003).

2017But these claims are unsupported by either record evidence or authority. 9 This Court has been clear: “an appellant must present to us a record sufficient to show the occurrence of the error he asserts and also that *223 the matter was properly presented to the trial court and timely preserved.” Byrom v. State, 863 So.2d 836, 853 (¶ 35) (Miss. 2003) (citing Acker v. State, 797 So.2d 966, 967 (Miss. 2001) (quotations omitted)).

2010It is Roberson’s responsibility, as the appellant, to provide this Court with a record sufficient “to show the occurrence of the error.” Younger v. State, 931 So.2d 1289, 1291 (¶ 5) (Miss.2006) (quoting King v. State, 857 So.2d 702, 714 (¶ 12) (Miss.2003)). ¶ 38.

2006King v. State, 857 So.2d 702, 714 (Miss.2003) (quoting Acker v. State, 797 So.2d 966, 972 (Miss.2001)); See also Pulphus v. State, 782 So.2d 1220, 1224 (Miss. 2001) ("Issues cannot be decided based on assertions from the briefs alone.

2001In Branch v. State, 347 So.2d 957, 958 (Miss. 1977) this Court stated that "[t]here is a presumption that the judgment of the trial court is correct and the burden is on the Appellant to demonstrate some reversible error to this Court." This Court has stated: Our law is clear that an appellant must present to us a record sufficient to show the occurrence of the error he asserts and also that the matter was properly presented to the trial court and timely preserved.

1999In Branch v. State, 347 So.2d 957, 958 (Miss. 1977) this Court stated that "[t]here is a presumption that the judgment of the trial court is correct and the burden is on the Appellant to demonstrate some reversible error to this Court." This Court has stated: Our law is clear that an appellant must present to us a record sufficient to show the occurrence of the error he asserts and also that the matter was properly presented to the trial court and timely preserved.

2023However, White made no contemporaneous objection to any specific portion of the tape as it was being played, and he made no record of what was said in the portions shown that establishes his claims of prejudice or irrelevance. “[A]n appellant must present to us a record sufficient to show the occurrence of the error he asserts and also that the matter was properly presented to the [circuit] court and timely preserved.” Clayton v. State, 271 So. 3d 672, 678 (¶25) (Miss.

2019“Our law is clear that an appellant must present to us a record sufficient to show the occurrence of the error he asserts and also that the matter was properly presented to the trial court and timely preserved.” In re Estate of Wylie, 226 So. 3d 114, 120 (¶17) (Miss.

2017And “[fjailure to cite relevant authority obviates the appellate court’s obligation to review such issues.” Id. (citing Simmons v. State, 805 So.2d 452, 487 (Miss. 2001) (citations omitted)).

2010As our supreme court has noted, “[t]he jury is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.” Lima v. State, 7 So.3d 903, 910 (¶ 35) (Miss.2009) (quoting Mohr v. State, 584 So.2d 426, 431 (Miss.1991)).

2010It is Roberson’s responsibility, as the appellant, to provide this Court with a record sufficient “to show the occurrence of the error.” Younger v. State, 931 So.2d 1289, 1291 (¶ 5) (Miss.2006) (quoting King v. State, 857 So.2d 702, 714 (¶ 12) (Miss.2003)). ¶ 38.

2010As our supreme court has noted, “[t]he jury is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.” Lima v. State, 7 So.3d 903, 910 (¶ 35) (Miss.2009) (quoting Mohr v. State, 584 So.2d 426, 431 (Miss.1991)).

2004"The appellant has the duty of insuring that the record contains sufficient evidence to support his assignments of error on appeal." Oakwood Homes Corp. v. Randall, 824 So.2d 1292, 1293 (¶ 4) (Miss.2002).

1974See First Nat'l Bank of Commerce v. Eaves, 282 So.2d 741 (La.