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.
23 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1917–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alvin Brown v. State of Mississippigreen2 sentences2022This Court has said “Self-defense is codified at Mississippi Code Section 97-3-15(f), which provides that the killing of a human being is justified ‘[w]hen committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design[’s] being accomplished.’” Nelson v. State, 284 So. 3d 711 , 716 (Miss. 2019) (first alteration in original) (quoting Brown v. State, 222 So. 3d 302, 307 (Miss. 2017)). “[T]he actor’s apprehension mus 2022This Court has said “Self-defense is codified at Mississippi Code Section 97-3-15(f), which provides that the killing of a human being is justified ‘[w]hen committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design[’s] being accomplished.’” Nelson v. State, 284 So. 3d 711 , 716 (Miss. 2019) (first alteration in original) (quoting Brown v. State, 222 So. 3d 302, 307 (Miss. 2017)). “[T]he actor’s apprehension mus | 2 | 2 |
Lawrence Byrd v. State of Mississippigreen2 sentences2019“Self-defense is codified at Mississippi Code Section 97–3–15(f), which provides that the killing of a human being is justifiable ‘[w]hen committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished.’” Byrd v. State, 158 So. 3d 1146, 1151 (¶ 16) (Miss. 2015) (quoting Miss. 2017“Self-defense is codified at Mississippi Code Section 97-3-15(f), which provides that the killing of a human being is justifiable ‘[wjhen committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished.’ ” Byrd v. State, 158 So.3d 1146, 1151 (¶ 16) (Miss. 2015) (quoting Miss. | 2 | 2 |
Livingston v. Stategreen2 sentences2015“A successful self-defense argument requires that the jury believe that it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe he was in danger of imminent death or serious bodily harm.” Wilder v. State, 118 So.3d 628, 631 (¶9) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (quoting Livingston v. State, 943 So.2d 66, 71 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App.2006)). 2015“A successful self-defense argument requires that the jury believe that it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe he was in danger of imminent death or serious bodily harm.” Wilder, 118 So.3d at 631 (¶ 9) (quoting Livingston v. State, 943 So.2d 66, 71 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App.2006)). | 2 | 2 |
Wilder v. Stategreen2 sentences2015“A successful self-defense argument requires that the jury believe that it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe he was in danger of imminent death or serious bodily harm.” Wilder v. State, 118 So.3d 628, 631 (¶9) (Miss.Ct.App.2012) (quoting Livingston v. State, 943 So.2d 66, 71 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App.2006)). 2015“A successful self-defense argument requires that the jury believe that it was objectively reasonable for the defendant to believe he was in danger of imminent death or serious bodily harm.” Wilder, 118 So.3d at 631 (¶ 9) (quoting Livingston v. State, 943 So.2d 66, 71 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App.2006)). | 2 | 2 |
Harris v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-15(1)(e)-(f) (Rev. 2014) provides that the killing of a human being is justifiable: (e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling, in any occupied vehicle, in any place of business, in any place of employment or in the immediate premises thereof in which such person shall be; (f) When committed in the lawful defense of one's own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do som 2017Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-15(l)(f) (Rev. 2006) provides: The killing of a human being ... shall be justifiable ... [w]hen committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished!.] “When self-defense is raised, the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in necessary self-defense.” Harris v. State, 937 So.2d 474, 481 (¶ 23 | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Edward L. Flom, David L. Hoffman, Frank W. Hunsberger, and Richard E. Vollandgreen1 sentence2024As the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has written, “A defendant is always entitled to have his theory of the case, if it could amount to a lawful defense, fairly submitted to the consideration of the jury.” United States v. Flom, 558 F.2d 1179, 1185 (5th Cir. 1977) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Batiste v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Batiste v. State, 121 So. 3d 808, 845 (¶74) (Miss. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2022This Court has held that “[i]n homicide cases, the trial court should instruct the jury about a defendant’s theories of defense, justification, or excuse that are supported by the evidence, no matter how meager or unlikely.” Id. at 718 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. State, 39 So. 3d 890, 899 (Miss. 2010)). | 1 | 1 |
Ronk v. Stategreen1 sentence2021“Self defense or justifiable homicide is a defense to a criminal act.” Brown v. State, 222 So. 3d 302, 307 (¶20) (Miss. 2017) (quoting Ronk v. State, 172 So. 3d 1112, 1126 (¶22) (Miss. 2015)). | 1 | 1 |
L.M. Birge v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2017Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-15(1)(e)-(f) (Rev. 2014) provides that the killing of a human being is justifiable: (e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling, in any occupied vehicle, in any place of business, in any place of employment or in the immediate premises thereof in which such person shall be; (f) When committed in the lawful defense of one's own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do som | 1 | 1 |
Hart v. Stateyellow1 sentence2015“The apprehension or fear that will justify killing another in self-defense must appear objectively real to a reasonable person of average prudence.” Hart v. State, 637 So.2d 1329, 1339 (Miss.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Copple v. Stategreen1 sentence2015This Court has held: [T]he killing of a human being is justifiable “when committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished.” Copple v. State, 117 So.3d 651, 655 (¶8) (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (quoting Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-15(l)(f) (Rev. 2014)). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Furthermore, “any factual disputes are properly resolved by the jury and do not mandate a new trial.” Id. (citation omitted). ¶77. 2014Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-15(1)(e)-(f) (Rev. 2006) defines justifiable homicide as the killing of a human being in the following circumstances: When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or .... [w]hen committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person ..., where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished^] “[T]he issue of justifiable self-defense presents a question of | 1 | 1 |
Heidel v. Stategreen1 sentence2006Heidel v. State, 587 So.2d 835, 843 (Miss.1991). ¶ 24. | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Mississippi Code Annotated § 97-3-15 (Rev.2000) provides that the killing of a human being is justifiable "[w]hen committed in the lawful defense of one's person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished." When self-defense is raised, it is the jury's role to pass upon the reasonableness of the defendant's actions and, therefore, the jury is "entitled to be made fully aware of all relevant facts which reflect apprehension, fea | 1 | 1 |
Buchanan v. Stategreen1 sentence1993Buchanan v. State, 567 So.2d 194, 198 (Miss. 1990); Bright v. State, 349 So.2d 503 (Miss. 1977); Stennis v. State, 234 So.2d 611 (Miss. 1970); Shinall v. State . | 1 | 1 |
Cook v. Stategreen2 sentences1985As we recently stated in Cook v. State, 467 So.2d 203 (Miss. 1985), "[t]he actor's apprehension must be objectively reasonable before his homicide is justified." Cook , at 207 (emphasis in original). 1985As we recently stated in Cook v. State, 467 So.2d 203 (Miss. 1985), "[t]he actor's apprehension must be objectively reasonable before his homicide is justified." Cook , at 207 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Courtney Williams v. State of Mississippi
green
1 sentence2025Instead, the instructions simply instructed the jury that Courtney’s actions were justifiable if ‘committed by Courtney in the lawful defense of herself or of another person.” Id. (quotation marks and brackets omitted). ¶41. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Stennis v. State
green
1 sentence1993Buchanan v. State, 567 So.2d 194, 198 (Miss. 1990); Bright v. State, 349 So.2d 503 (Miss. 1977); Stennis v. State, 234 So.2d 611 (Miss. 1970); Shinall v. State . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Bright v. State
green
1 sentence1993Buchanan v. State, 567 So.2d 194, 198 (Miss. 1990); Bright v. State, 349 So.2d 503 (Miss. 1977); Stennis v. State, 234 So.2d 611 (Miss. 1970); Shinall v. State . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Smith v. Dorsey
green
1 sentence1992This time board member Waller and his school teacher wife argue that the eleemosynary language of Smith v. Dorsey, 530 So.2d 5 (Miss. 1988), excuses the lawful requirement of restitution or forfeiture of the wife's salary of $18,055.00. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Patrick v. State
green
1 sentence1981For example, in Patrick v. State, 285 So.2d 165 (Miss. 1973), this Court held that an instruction to the jury informing it, "... that you may find that the killing of Jerry Walley was not done in self defense" (emphasis added), was reversible error. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Wilson v. State
neutral
1 sentence1978In Wilson v. State, 199 So.2d 445 (Miss.1967), the Court reaffirmed the rule announced in Weathersby v. State, 165 Miss. 207 , 147 So. 481 (1933), wherein it was stated: Where the defendant or the defendant’s witnesses are the only eyewitnesses to the homicide, their version, if reasonable, must be accepted as true, unless substantially contradicted in material particulars by a credible witness or witnesses for the state, or by the physical facts or by the facts of common knowledge. 165 Miss. at 209 , 147 So. at 482 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Weathersby v. State
green
2 sentences1978In Wilson v. State, 199 So.2d 445 (Miss.1967), the Court reaffirmed the rule announced in Weathersby v. State, 165 Miss. 207 , 147 So. 481 (1933), wherein it was stated: Where the defendant or the defendant’s witnesses are the only eyewitnesses to the homicide, their version, if reasonable, must be accepted as true, unless substantially contradicted in material particulars by a credible witness or witnesses for the state, or by the physical facts or by the facts of common knowledge. 165 Miss. at 209 , 147 So. at 482 . 1978In Wilson v. State, 199 So.2d 445 (Miss.1967), the Court reaffirmed the rule announced in Weathersby v. State, 165 Miss. 207 , 147 So. 481 (1933), wherein it was stated: Where the defendant or the defendant’s witnesses are the only eyewitnesses to the homicide, their version, if reasonable, must be accepted as true, unless substantially contradicted in material particulars by a credible witness or witnesses for the state, or by the physical facts or by the facts of common knowledge. 165 Miss. at 209 , 147 So. at 482 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Little v. State
green
2 sentences1955Code 1942, provides that “The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another shall be justifiable * * * When committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished.” See Little v. State, 87 Miss. 512 , 40 So. 165 , where defendant acted in defense of his brother; and Blackledge v. State, 157 Miss. 33 , 127 So. 84 , where defendant killed in defense of his mother. 1955Code 1942, provides that “The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another shall be justifiable * * * When committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished.” See Little v. State, 87 Miss. 512 , 40 So. 165 , where defendant acted in defense of his brother; and Blackledge v. State, 157 Miss. 33 , 127 So. 84 , where defendant killed in defense of his mother. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Blackledge v. State
neutral
1 sentence1955Code 1942, provides that “The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another shall be justifiable * * * When committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished.” See Little v. State, 87 Miss. 512 , 40 So. 165 , where defendant acted in defense of his brother; and Blackledge v. State, 157 Miss. 33 , 127 So. 84 , where defendant killed in defense of his mother. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Dillon v. State
neutral
1 sentence1948Dillon v. State, 196 Miss. 625 , 18 So. (2d) 457 . | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Staten v. State
neutral
1 sentence1917Section 1230, Code of 1906, under subsection “f,” states that it is justifiable to kill a human being “when committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished.” Staten v. State, 30 Miss. 619 . | 1 | 1917–1917 |
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.