29 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bush v. Statered2 sentences2014Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836, 843 (¶ 17) (Miss.2005). 2013Bush, 895 So.2d at 843 (¶ 16) (quoting Edwards v. State, 469 So.2d 68, 70 (Miss.1985)). ¶ 9. | 19 | 20 |
Walter Dewayne Sanford v. State of Mississippigreen2 sentences2024When evaluating a sufficiency- of-the-evidence claim, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and ask if “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Sanford v. State, 247 So. 3d 1242, 1244 (Miss. 2018) (quoting Hearn v. State, 3 So. 3d 722, 740 (Miss. 2008)). 2022When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, “[t]he relevant question is whether ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. (quoting Hearn v. State, 3 So. 3d 722, 740 (¶54) (Miss. 2008)). | 2 | 3 |
Hearn v. Stategreen2 sentences2024When evaluating a sufficiency- of-the-evidence claim, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and ask if “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Sanford v. State, 247 So. 3d 1242, 1244 (Miss. 2018) (quoting Hearn v. State, 3 So. 3d 722, 740 (Miss. 2008)). 2022When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, “[t]he relevant question is whether ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. (quoting Hearn v. State, 3 So. 3d 722, 740 (¶54) (Miss. 2008)). | 2 | 2 |
Ronk v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Ronk v. State, 172 So. 3d 1112, 1129 (¶33) (Miss. 2015) (recognizing that in reviewing a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, “[i]f any reasonable trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, this Court will not disturb the jury’s verdict”). ¶61. | 1 | 1 |
Archer v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(6) states: “The argument shall contain the contentions of appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons for those contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on.” The rule “does not simply require a party to mention authority; the authority must be used to develop the argument in a meaningful way.” Archer v. State, 118 So.3d 612, 621 (¶ 29) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Edwards v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Bush, 895 So.2d at 843 (¶ 16) (quoting Edwards v. State, 469 So.2d 68, 70 (Miss.1985)). ¶ 9. | 1 | 1 |
Higgins v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Higgins v. State, 725 So.2d 220, 224 (¶ 22) (Miss.1998). | 1 | 1 |
Weatherspoon v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Ct. App. 2008) (seven-year-old victim’s testimony that defendant licked her vagina three or four times was sufficient to support fondling conviction under Mississippi Code Section 97-5-23). 31 Weatherspoon v. State, 56 So. 3d 559, 564 (Miss. 2011). 32 Id. at 564 (citations omitted). 12 “will disturb the verdict only ‘when it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.’” 33 For the reasons expressed in the sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis, this Court will not sanction an unconscionable injustice to allow Mal 2012Ct. App. 2008) (seven-year-old victim’s testimony that defendant licked her vagina three or four times was sufficient to support fondling conviction under Mississippi Code Section 97-5-23). 31 Weatherspoon v. State, 56 So. 3d 559, 564 (Miss. 2011). 32 Id. at 564 (citations omitted). 12 “will disturb the verdict only ‘when it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.’” 33 For the reasons expressed in the sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis, this Court will not sanction an unconscionable injustice to allow Mal | 1 | 1 |
McClain v. Stategreen1 sentence1995In McClain v. State, 625 So. 2d 774, 778 (Miss. 1993), the court held that the evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the State: In appeals from an overruled motion for JNOV the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law is viewed and tested in a light most favorable to the State. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Holland v. State
green
1 sentence2019The Holland Court prefaced the opinion by affirming that the defendant was barred from raising a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim on appeal because trial counsel had "failed to renew his motion for a directed verdict, request a peremptory instruction, or file any post-trial motions concerning the sufficiency of the evidence." Id. at 1198 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Jeremy Edwards v. State of Mississippi
green
1 sentence2018The standard of review on a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge is as follows: "When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must ask whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Edwards v. State , 167 So.3d 1286 , 1288 (¶ 9) (Miss. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.