145 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1924–2026 20 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 |
|---|---|---|
Edwards v. Stategreen2 sentences2011The evidence will be deemed sufficient if, bearing in mind the reasonable-doubt standard, “reasonable fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions on every element of the offense.... ” Bush, 895 So.2d at 843 (citing Edwards v. State, 469 So.2d 68, 70 (Miss.1985)). ¶ 25. 2010However, mindful of the reasonable doubt standard, if “ ‘reasonable fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions on every element of the offense,’ the evidence will be deemed to have been sufficient.” Bush, 895 So.2d at 843 (¶ 16) (quoting Edwards v. State, 469 So.2d 68, 70 (Miss.1985)). ¶ 34. | 18 | 18 |
Thomas v. Stategreen2 sentences2017"The basic test for harmless error in the federal constitutional realm is ... whether it appears 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.' " Id. (quoting Thomas v. State , 711 So.2d 867 , 872 (¶ 25) (Miss. 1998) (citing Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) )). 2012In this case, we cannot say “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Brown, 995 So.2d at 704 (quoting Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d at 872 ). | 16 | 17 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2022The standard for harmless error is “whether it appears ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’” Moffett v. State, 49 So. 3d 1073, 1099 (Miss. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. State, 995 So. 2d 698, 704 (Miss. 2008)). 2022An error may be deemed harmless if the Court can say “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Moffett v. State, 49 So. 3d 1073, 1099 (Miss. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. State, 995 So. 2d 698, 704 (Miss. 2008)). | 11 | 15 |
Yates v. Evattgreen2 sentences2010The Chapman test is whether it appears “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” ([quoting] Yates v. Evatt, 500 U.S. 391, 392 , 111 S.Ct. 1884, 1886 , 114 L.Ed.2d 432, 448 (1991)[)]. 2010The Chapman test is whether it appears “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” ([quoting] Yates v. Evatt, 500 U.S. 391, 392 , 111 S.Ct. 1884, 1886 , 114 L.Ed.2d 432, 448 (1991)[)]. | 7 | 15 |
Moffett v. Stategreen2 sentences2022The standard for harmless error is “whether it appears ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’” Moffett v. State, 49 So. 3d 1073, 1099 (Miss. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. State, 995 So. 2d 698, 704 (Miss. 2008)). 2022An error may be deemed harmless if the Court can say “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Moffett v. State, 49 So. 3d 1073, 1099 (Miss. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. State, 995 So. 2d 698, 704 (Miss. 2008)). | 6 | 7 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2023“Thus, where it is ‘clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict,’ we need not reverse the conviction.’” Smith v. State, 136 So. 3d 424 (¶27) (Miss. 2014). ¶29. 2019Thus, where it is “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict,” we need not reverse the conviction. 16 Collier v. State, 183 So. 3d 885, 892 (Miss. 2016) (quoting Smith v. State, 136 So. 3d 424, 435 (Miss. 2014)). ¶35. | 4 | 7 |
Conley v. Stategreen2 sentences2020As our Supreme Court has said, an error is harmless when it is “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Conley v. State, 790 So. 2d 773, 789 (¶55) (Miss. 2001). 2017See Conley v. State , 790 So.2d 773 , 789 (¶ 55) (Miss. 2001) (defining harmless error as "clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained"). | 4 | 4 |
Stokes v. Stategreen2 sentences2013For an error to be harmless, it must be “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Conley v. State, 790 So.2d 773, 789 (Miss.2001) (citing Stokes v. State, 548 So.2d 118, 124 (Miss.1989)). 2010For an error to be harmless, it must be “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Conley v. State, 790 So. 2d 773, 789 (Miss. 2001) (citing Stokes v. State, 548 So. 2d 118, 124 (Miss. 1989)). | 4 | 4 |
Bush v. Statered2 sentences2014“The evidence will be deemed sufficient if, bearing in mind the reasonable-doubt standard, ‘reasonable fair-minded [jurors] in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions on every element of the offense.’ ” Id. 2013“The evidence will be deemed sufficient if, bearing in mind the reasonable-doubt standard, ‘reasonable fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions on every element of the offense.’ ” Id. | 3 | 11 |
Gillett v. Stategreen2 sentences2025“The well-settled standard for determining whether a constitutional error is harmless is whether it appears ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’” Ambrose [v. State], 254 So. 3d 15 [77,] 105 [(¶70) (Miss. 2018)] (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Gillett v. State, 148 So. 3d 260, 266 [(¶17)] (Miss. 2014)). 2022“The well-settled standard for determining whether a constitutional error is harmless is whether it appears ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’” Ambrose, 254 So. 3d at 105 (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Gillett v. State, 148 So. 3d 260, 266 (Miss. 2014)). | 3 | 4 |
In the Interest of S.M.K.S. v. Youth Court of Union Countygreen2 sentences2026However, if the evidence in the record supports the youth court’s adjudication, considering the reasonable-doubt standard, then we must affirm.’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting In re Int. of S.M.K.S. v. Youth Ct. of Union Cnty., 155 So. 3d 747, 749 (Miss. 2015)). ¶12. 2026However, if the evidence in the record supports the youth court’s adjudication, considering the reasonable-doubt standard, then we must affirm.” In re Int. of S.M.K.S. v. Youth Ct. of Union Cnty., 155 So. 3d 747, 749 (Miss. 2015) (alteration in original) (quoting In re Int. of S.M.K.S. v. Youth Ct. of Union Cnty., 155 So. 2 This amount is one-third of the total damages claimed by Dollar General because the youth court assessed the damages equally among the three minors involved. 3 3d 876, 878-89 (Miss. | 3 | 3 |
In the Interest of S.M.K.S. v. Youth Court of Union Countygreen2 sentences2024However, if the evidence in the record supports the youth court’s adjudication, considering the reasonable-doubt standard, then we must affirm.” In re Int. of S.M.K.S. v. Youth Ct. of Union Cnty., 155 So. 3d 747, 749 (Miss. 2015) (second alteration in original) (quoting In re Int. of S.M.K.S. v. Youth Ct. of Union Cnty., 155 So. 3d 876, 878-89 (Miss. 2022However, if the evidence in the record supports the youth court’s adjudication, considering the reasonable-doubt standard, then we must affirm.” S.M.K.S. v. Youth Ct. of Union Cnty., 155 So. 3d 876, 878-89 (¶8) (Miss. | 3 | 3 |
Neder v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2014The test for harmless error is whether “it appears ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” Neder, 527 U.S. at 15 , 119 S.Ct. at 1837 (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). 2014The test for harmless error is whether “it appears ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’ ” Neder, 527 U.S. at 15 , 119 S.Ct. at 1837 (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). | 2 | 7 |
Delaware v. Van Arsdallgreen2 sentences2002That test, we said, is whether it appears "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained." Id., at 24 , 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ; see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) ("[A]n otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"). 527 U.S. at 15-16 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 . ¶ 40. 2002That test, we said, is whether it appears "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained." Id., at 24 , 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ; see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) ("[A]n otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"). 527 U.S. at 15-16 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 . ¶ 40. | 2 | 3 |
Goforth v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Even so, “it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Goforth v. State, 70 So. 3d 174, 187 (¶57) (Miss. 2011). 2016“The basic, harmless-error test in .such instances is ‘whether it appears, beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’” Goforth v, State, 70 So.3d 174, 187 (¶ 57) (Miss.2011) (quoting Brown v. State, 995 So.2d 698, 704 (¶ 25) (Miss.2008)) (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 36. | 2 | 2 |
Jordan v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Jordan v. State, 995 So.2d 94, 106 (Miss.2008). ¶ 19. 2010Jordan v. State, 995 So. 2d 94, 106 (Miss. 2008). ¶19. | 2 | 2 |
Delashmit v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Phrased another way, in order to identify harmless error, an appellate court must determine “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Delashmit v. State, 991 So.2d 1215, 1223 (Miss.2008). 2007Phrased another way, in order to identify harmless error, an appellate court must determine “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Delashmit v. State, 991 So. 2d 1215, 1223 (Miss. 2008). | 2 | 2 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Boone v. State, 973 So.2d 237, 242 (¶ 18) (Miss.2008) (quoting Brown v. State, 970 So.2d 710, 712-13 (¶ 7) (Miss.2007)) (internal citations omitted). ¶ 9. 2008Boone v. State, 973 So.2d 237, 242 (¶ 18) (Miss.2008) (internal citations and quotations omitted) (quoting Brown, v. State, 970 So.2d 710, 712-13 (¶ 7) (Miss.2007)). ¶ 23. | 2 | 2 |
Boone v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Boone v. State, 973 So.2d 237, 242 (¶ 18) (Miss.2008) (quoting Brown v. State, 970 So.2d 710, 712-13 (¶ 7) (Miss.2007)) (internal citations omitted). ¶ 9. 2008Boone v. State, 973 So.2d 237, 242 (¶ 18) (Miss.2008) (internal citations and quotations omitted) (quoting Brown, v. State, 970 So.2d 710, 712-13 (¶ 7) (Miss.2007)). ¶ 23. | 2 | 2 |
| Ballenger v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Green v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Kolberg v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| In Interest of IGgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Melton v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Manning v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Smith v. Statered | 2 | 2 |
| Haymer v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| Stever v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
In Re WINSHIPgreen2 sentences2011See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 362 , 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1071 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970) (declaring beyond a reasonable doubt as the standard of proof in criminal cases) (citations omitted). ¶ 15. 2011See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 362 , 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1071 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970) (declaring beyond a reasonable doubt as the standard of proof in criminal cases) (citations omitted). ¶ 15. | 1 | 6 |
Young v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Id. (internal quotations and alterations omitted). 2024Id. (internal quotations and alterations omitted). | 1 | 4 |
Barnes v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Id. 2021E.g., Barnes v. State, 532 So. 2d 1231, 1235 (Miss. 1988); Gray v. State, 351 So. 2d 1342, 1348 (Miss. 1977); Pittman v. State, 350 So. 2d 67 (Miss. 1977); Boutwell v. State, 165 Miss. 16 , 143 So. 479 , 483 (1932). | 1 | 2 |
Abdur Rahim Ambrose v. State of Mississippigreen2 sentences2023“The well-settled standard for determining whether a constitutional error is harmless is whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 2022“The well-settled standard for determining whether a constitutional error is harmless is whether it appears ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’” Ambrose, 254 So. 3d at 105 (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Gillett v. State, 148 So. 3d 260, 266 (Miss. 2014)). | 1 | 2 |
| Conner v. Statered | 1 | 2 |
| Chim v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Clark v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tate v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re LCAgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Burnside v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Conners v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| McGowan v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences2022To determine if a constitutional error is harmless, we decide “whether it appears ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’” Gillett v. State, 148 So. 3d 260, 266 (Miss. 2014) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 , 87 S. Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L. 2022To determine if a constitutional error is harmless, we decide “whether it appears ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’” Gillett v. State, 148 So. 3d 260, 266 (Miss. 2014) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 , 87 S. Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L. | 18 | 1991–2022 |
Carr v. State
green
2 sentences2010Id. (quoting Edwards v. State, 469 So.2d 68, 70 (Miss.1985)). 1991For support, Willie simply explains that this Court has held that “a proper reasonable doubt instruction in a rape case where the evidence is close should be given.” Appellant’s Brief at 9-10 (citing Carr v. State, 208 So.2d 886 (Miss.1968)). | 9 | 1991–2010 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2004In relying on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Branch asserts that the reasonable doubt rule applies to facts increasing the range of punishment at sentencing, effectively requiring the State to prove that it is entitled to the penalty it seeks. 2004In relying on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Branch asserts that the reasonable doubt rule applies to facts increasing the range of punishment at sentencing, effectively requiring the State to prove that it is entitled to the penalty it seeks. | 3 | 2002–2004 |
Ring v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2004By applying Apprendi , the United States Supreme Court held in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) that the aggravating circumstances are elements of the offense giving rise to the possibility of greater punishment, which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 2004By applying Apprendi , the United States Supreme Court held in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) that the aggravating circumstances are elements of the offense giving rise to the possibility of greater punishment, which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. | 3 | 2002–2004 |
Washington v. Recuenco
green
2 sentences2017"The basic test for harmless error in the federal constitutional realm is ... whether it appears 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.' " Id. (quoting Thomas v. State , 711 So.2d 867 , 872 (¶ 25) (Miss. 1998) (citing Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) )). 2010Instead, ‘most constitutional errors can be harmless.’ ” The Brown court stated that the test to be applied is “whether it appears ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.’” Id. at (¶25) (quoting Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 867, 872 (¶ 25) (Miss.1998)). | 2 | 2010–2017 |
Victor v. Nebraska
green
2 sentences2015“The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is a requirement of due process, but the Constitution neither prohibits trial courts from defining reasonable doubt nor requires them to do so as a matter of course.” Victor, 511 U.S. at 5 . 2015Victor, 511 U.S. at 5 . | 2 | 2005–2015 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences2011Smith, 986 So.2d at 300 . 2011Smith, 986 So.2d at 300 . | 2 | 2010–2011 |
| Coleman v. State green | 2 | 2006–2008 |
| Tharp v. Edmiston neutral | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| In Interest of CR green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Boutwell v. State green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Pittman v. State green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Nolan v. State green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. McMurry green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Collins v. Lowndes County Public Welfare green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Connecticut v. Johnson green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| DeLoach v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Simpson v. State green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Wilcher v. State green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Cage v. Louisiana green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Jackson v. Virginia red | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Barnes v. United States green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Addington v. Texas green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Stokes v. Terrell neutral | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.