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.
26 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Jones v. State, 203 So. 3d 600, 606 (¶11) (Miss. 2016) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Williams v. State, 32 So. 3d 486, 491 (¶19) (Miss. 2010) (“In determining whether a cautionary jury instruction is required, the testimony that must be corroborated is the testimony tying the defendant on trial to the crime, and it is irrelevant whether other portions of the accomplice’s testimony are corroborated.”). 2026Moreover, our supreme court has 14 explained “that testifying accomplices cannot corroborate each other sufficiently to obviate the necessity of a cautionary jury instruction.” Williams, 32 So. 3d at 492 (¶21). | 13 | 13 |
Edwards v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Austin v. State, 784 So.2d 186, 193 (Miss.2001) (citing Edwards v. State, 630 So.2d 343, 344 (Miss.1994); Parker v. State, 378 So.2d 662, 663 (Miss.1980)). 2010Austin v. State, 784 So.2d 186, 193 (Miss.2001) (citing Edwards v. State, 630 So.2d 343, 344 (Miss.1994); Parker v. State, 378 So.2d 662, 663 (Miss.1980)). | 3 | 3 |
Holmes v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See Williams v. State, 32 So. 3d 486, 492 (Miss. 2010) (holding “the trial judge must accede to the accused’s request and grant a cautionary jury instruction” when accomplice testimony is “the only evidence against the defendant” (emphasis added) (quoting Holmes v. State, 481 So. 2d 319, 322 (Miss. 1985))). 2016See Williams v. State, 32 So.3d 486, 492 (Miss.2010) (holding “the trial judge must accede to the accused’s request and grant a cautionary jury instruction” when accomplice testimony is “the only evidence against the defendant” (emphasis added) (quoting Holmes v. State, 481 So.2d 319, 322 (Miss.1985))). | 2 | 4 |
Ballenger v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Here, Jones claims that Hubbard’s testimony was “‘unreasonable, self-contradictory or substantially impeached.’” Osborne, 54 So. 3d at 846 (quoting Ballenger, 667 So. 2d at 5 1253). 2016Here, Jones claims that Hubbard’s testimony was “ ‘unreasonable, self-contradictory or substantially impeached.’ ” Osborne, 54 So.3d at 846 (quoting Ballenger, 667 So.2d at 1253 ). | 2 | 3 |
Payton v. Stategreen2 sentences2010E.g., Payton v. State, 897 So.2d 921, 937 (Miss.2003); Brown v. State, 682 So.2d 340, 344 (Miss.1996); Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242, 1253 (Miss.1995); Mason v. State, 429 So.2d 569, 571 (Miss.1983); Moody v. State, 371 So.2d 408 (Miss.1979). 2010E.g., Payton v. State, 897 So.2d 921, 937 (Miss.2003); Brown v. State, 682 So.2d 340, 344 (Miss.1996); Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242, 1253 (Miss.1995); Mason v. State, 429 So.2d 569, 571 (Miss.1983); Moody v. State, 371 So.2d 408 (Miss.1979). | 2 | 2 |
Austin v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Austin v. State, 784 So.2d 186, 193 (Miss.2001) (citing Edwards v. State, 630 So.2d 343, 344 (Miss.1994); Parker v. State, 378 So.2d 662, 663 (Miss.1980)). 2010Austin v. State, 784 So.2d 186, 193 (Miss.2001) (citing Edwards v. State, 630 So.2d 343, 344 (Miss.1994); Parker v. State, 378 So.2d 662, 663 (Miss.1980)). | 2 | 2 |
Burns v. Stategreen2 sentences2010E.g., Burns v. State, 729 So.2d 203, 223 (Miss.1998); Derden, 522 So.2d at 754 . 2010E.g., Burns v. State, 729 So.2d 203, 223 (Miss.1998); Derden, 522 So.2d at 754 . | 2 | 2 |
Mason v. Stategreen2 sentences2010E.g., Payton v. State, 897 So.2d 921, 937 (Miss.2003); Brown v. State, 682 So.2d 340, 344 (Miss.1996); Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242, 1253 (Miss.1995); Mason v. State, 429 So.2d 569, 571 (Miss.1983); Moody v. State, 371 So.2d 408 (Miss.1979). 2010E.g., Payton v. State, 897 So.2d 921, 937 (Miss.2003); Brown v. State, 682 So.2d 340, 344 (Miss.1996); Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242, 1253 (Miss.1995); Mason v. State, 429 So.2d 569, 571 (Miss.1983); Moody v. State, 371 So.2d 408 (Miss.1979). | 2 | 2 |
Parker v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Austin v. State, 784 So.2d 186, 193 (Miss.2001) (citing Edwards v. State, 630 So.2d 343, 344 (Miss.1994); Parker v. State, 378 So.2d 662, 663 (Miss.1980)). 2010Austin v. State, 784 So.2d 186, 193 (Miss.2001) (citing Edwards v. State, 630 So.2d 343, 344 (Miss.1994); Parker v. State, 378 So.2d 662, 663 (Miss.1980)). | 2 | 2 |
Green v. Stategreen2 sentences2010When the only evidence against the defendant is the testimony of an accomplice, "the trial judge must accede to the accused's request and grant a cautionary jury instruction." Id. at 323 (citing Catchings, 394 So.2d at 870 ; Green v. State, 456 So.2d 757, 758 (Miss.1984)). ¶ 21. 2010When the only evidence against the defendant is the testimony of an accomplice, “the trial judge must accede to the accused’s request and grant a cautionary jury instruction.” Id. at 323 (citing Catchings, 394 So.2d at 870 ; Green v. State, 456 So.2d 757, 758 (Miss.1984)). ¶ 21. | 2 | 2 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2010E.g., Payton v. State, 897 So.2d 921, 937 (Miss.2003); Brown v. State, 682 So.2d 340, 344 (Miss.1996); Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242, 1253 (Miss.1995); Mason v. State, 429 So.2d 569, 571 (Miss.1983); Moody v. State, 371 So.2d 408 (Miss.1979). 2010Brown, 682 So.2d at 344 . ¶ 18. | 2 | 2 |
Derden v. Stategreen2 sentences2010E.g., Burns v. State, 729 So.2d 203, 223 (Miss.1998); Derden, 522 So.2d at 754 . 2010E.g., Burns v. State, 729 So.2d 203, 223 (Miss.1998); Derden, 522 So.2d at 754 . | 1 | 3 |
Goldsmith v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Jones v. State, 203 So. 3d 600, 606 (¶11) (Miss. 2016) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Williams v. State, 32 So. 3d 486, 491 (¶19) (Miss. 2010) (“In determining whether a cautionary jury instruction is required, the testimony that must be corroborated is the testimony tying the defendant on trial to the crime, and it is irrelevant whether other portions of the accomplice’s testimony are corroborated.”). 2026Jones v. State, 203 So. 3d 600, 606 (¶11) (Miss. 2016) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Williams v. State, 32 So. 3d 486, 491 (¶19) (Miss. 2010) (“In determining whether a cautionary jury instruction is required, the testimony that must be corroborated is the testimony tying the defendant on trial to the crime, and it is irrelevant whether other portions of the accomplice’s testimony are corroborated.”). | 1 | 1 |
Hughes v. Stategreen1 sentence2022Indeed, when the trial court has given a cautionary jury instruction that the jury is to disregard testimony that the defendant had previously been in jail and the defendant moved for a mistrial, this Court has held that the improper and inadmissible testimony “was cured the best way possible under the circumstances then existing with the judge’s instruction.” Hughes v. State, 735 So. 2d 238, 257 (Miss. 1999) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Webber v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Webber, 108 So. 3d at 931 (¶7). | 1 | 1 |
Conner v. Statered2 sentences2016This much is clear, since Mississippi law “does not impose upon a trial court a duty to instruct the jury sua sponte[.]” Conner v. State, 632 So. 2d 1239, 1254 (Miss. 1993). 2016This much is clear, since Mississippi law “does not impose upon a trial court a duty to instruct the jury sua sponte[.]” Conner v. State, 632 So.2d 1239, 1254 (Miss.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Davis v. State, 970 So.2d 164, 167 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (“To deny a defendant the right to fully cross-examine a witness on the issue of credibility is to deny the defendant his federal and state constitutional rights of confrontation.”). ¶ 34. | 1 | 1 |
White v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., White v. State, 722 So.2d 1242, 1247-48 (¶¶ 30-35) (Miss.1998) (Conviction of sale of cocaine was affirmed where defendant failed to request a cautionary jury instruction on a Cl’s testimony, but the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the Cl on favorable treatment from State, and other evidence corroborated the Cl’s testimony.) This Court has held previously that an improper limit on cross-examination, like the one imposed by the trial court here, is reversible error. | 1 | 1 |
Sherrell v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Franklin also cites Sherrell v. State, 622 So.2d 1233, 1236 (Miss.1993) to support his argument that the trial judge should have given a cautionary jury instruction, even though he did not request one. | 1 | 1 |
Hussey v. Stategreen1 sentence2006Hussey v. State, 473 So.2d 478, 480 (Miss.1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Osborne v. State
green
2 sentences2025“If the testimony is not corroborated, a cautionary jury instruction is required.” Osborne, 54 So. 3d at 847 (citing Williams v. State, 32 So. 3d 486, 491 (Miss. 2010)).[3] ¶18. 2017“If the testimony is not corroborated, a cautionary jury instruction is required.” Osborne, 54 So. 3d at 847 (citing Williams v. State, 32 So. 3d 486, 491 (Miss. 2010)). | 4 | 2016–2025 |
Moody v. State
green
2 sentences2010E.g., Payton v. State, 897 So.2d 921, 937 (Miss.2003); Brown v. State, 682 So.2d 340, 344 (Miss.1996); Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242, 1253 (Miss.1995); Mason v. State, 429 So.2d 569, 571 (Miss.1983); Moody v. State, 371 So.2d 408 (Miss.1979). 2010E.g., Payton v. State, 897 So.2d 921, 937 (Miss.2003); Brown v. State, 682 So.2d 340, 344 (Miss.1996); Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242, 1253 (Miss.1995); Mason v. State, 429 So.2d 569, 571 (Miss.1983); Moody v. State, 371 So.2d 408 (Miss.1979). | 2 | 2008–2010 |
Catchings v. State
green
2 sentences2010When the only evidence against the defendant is the testimony of an accomplice, "the trial judge must accede to the accused's request and grant a cautionary jury instruction." Id. at 323 (citing Catchings, 394 So.2d at 870 ; Green v. State, 456 So.2d 757, 758 (Miss.1984)). ¶ 21. 2010When the only evidence against the defendant is the testimony of an accomplice, “the trial judge must accede to the accused’s request and grant a cautionary jury instruction.” Id. at 323 (citing Catchings, 394 So.2d at 870 ; Green v. State, 456 So.2d 757, 758 (Miss.1984)). ¶ 21. | 2 | 2008–2010 |
Joshua Chance Warren v. State of Mississippi
green
1 sentence2026Id. at (¶¶9-10). ¶53. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Stout
green
2 sentences1980Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Stout, 242 Miss. 208 , 134 So.2d 467 (1961), is therefore overruled insofar as it permits evidence concerning sales occurring subsequent to the date of the taking in eminent domain cases. 1980Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Stout, 242 Miss. 208 , 134 So.2d 467 (1961), is therefore overruled insofar as it permits evidence concerning sales occurring subsequent to the date of the taking in eminent domain cases. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.