Wright factors in Mississippi

2015These factors, often referred to as the Wright factors, e.g,, Hennington v. State, 702 So.2d 403, 415-17 (¶¶ 54, 62) (Miss.1997) (citing Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821-22 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990)), include: (1) whether there is an apparent motive on declarant's part to lie; (2) the general character of the declarant; (3) whether more than one person heard the statements; (4) whether the statements were made spontaneously; (5) the timing of the declarations; (6) the relationship between the declarant and the witness; (7) the possibility of the declarant’s faulty * . recolle

2015These factors, often referred to as the Wright factors, e.g,, Hennington v. State, 702 So.2d 403, 415-17 (¶¶ 54, 62) (Miss.1997) (citing Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821-22 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990)), include: (1) whether there is an apparent motive on declarant's part to lie; (2) the general character of the declarant; (3) whether more than one person heard the statements; (4) whether the statements were made spontaneously; (5) the timing of the declarations; (6) the relationship between the declarant and the witness; (7) the possibility of the declarant’s faulty * . recolle

2015These factors, often referred to as the Wright factors, e.g,, Hennington v. State, 702 So.2d 403, 415-17 (¶¶ 54, 62) (Miss.1997) (citing Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821-22 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990)), include: (1) whether there is an apparent motive on declarant's part to lie; (2) the general character of the declarant; (3) whether more than one person heard the statements; (4) whether the statements were made spontaneously; (5) the timing of the declarations; (6) the relationship between the declarant and the witness; (7) the possibility of the declarant’s faulty * . recolle

2015These factors, often referred to as the Wright factors, e.g,, Hennington v. State, 702 So.2d 403, 415-17 (¶¶ 54, 62) (Miss.1997) (citing Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821-22 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990)), include: (1) whether there is an apparent motive on declarant's part to lie; (2) the general character of the declarant; (3) whether more than one person heard the statements; (4) whether the statements were made spontaneously; (5) the timing of the declarations; (6) the relationship between the declarant and the witness; (7) the possibility of the declarant’s faulty * . recolle

2010However, the Wright factors are not an exhaustive list, and “no mechanical test is available.” Withers v. State, 907 So.2d 342, 350 (¶ 23) (Miss.2005) (quoting Eakes v. State, 665 So.2d 852, 865 (Miss.1995)).

2010However, the Wright factors are not an exhaustive list, and “no mechanical test is available.” Withers v. State, 907 So.2d 342, 350 (¶ 23) (Miss.2005) (quoting Eakes v. State, 665 So.2d 852, 865 (Miss.1995)).

2010However, the Wright factors are not an exhaustive list, and “no mechanical test is available.” Withers v. State, 907 So.2d 342, 350 (¶ 23) (Miss.2005) (quoting Eakes v. State, 665 So.2d 852, 865 (Miss.1995)).

2010However, the Wright factors are not an exhaustive list, and “no mechanical test is available.” Withers v. State, 907 So.2d 342, 350 (¶ 23) (Miss.2005) (quoting Eakes v. State, 665 So.2d 852, 865 (Miss.1995)).

2010Instead, “the unifying principle is that these factors relate to whether the child declarant was particularly likely to be telling the truth when the statement was made.” Bell v. State, 797 So.2d 945, 948 (¶ 13) (Miss.2001) (quoting Wright, 497 U.S. at 822 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 ). ¶ 30.

2010Instead, “the unifying principle is that these factors relate to whether the child declarant was particularly likely to be telling the truth when the statement was made.” Bell v. State, 797 So.2d 945, 948 (¶ 13) (Miss.2001) (quoting Wright, 497 U.S. at 822 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 ). ¶ 30.

2018The partial dissent argues that Dr. Vohra should have filed a motion to terminate or limit the deposition pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d) 6 See, e.g., Primm v. Isaac, 127 S.W.3d 630, 635-37 (Ky. 2004); Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517, 520-22 (Fla. 1996); see also Fed.

2018The partial dissent argues that Dr. Vohra should have filed a motion to terminate or limit the deposition pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d) 6 See, e.g., Primm v. Isaac, 127 S.W.3d 630, 635-37 (Ky. 2004); Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517, 520-22 (Fla. 1996); see also Fed.

2014In Harvey v. Stone County School District, 862 So.2d 545, 549 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2003), this Court ruled: The [Mississippi] [S]upreme [C]ourt has held that pro se parties should be held to the same rules of procedure and sub *1178 stantive law as represented parties.

2010When faced with a motion in limine, a trial court must find the following two factors present in order to grant the motion: “(1) the material or evidence in question will be inadmissible at a trial under the rules of evidence; and (2) the mere offer, reference, or statements made during trial concerning the material will tend to prejudice the jury.” Whittley v. City of Meridian, 530 So.2d 1341, 1344 (Miss.1988) (citation omitted). ‘We will reverse a court’s denial [or grant] of a motion in limine only if the court abused its discretion in denying [or granting] the motion.” Cridiso v. State, 95

2010When faced with a motion in limine, a trial court must find the following two factors present in order to grant the motion: “(1) the material or evidence in question will be inadmissible at a trial under the rules of evidence; and (2) the mere offer, reference, or statements made during trial concerning the material will tend to prejudice the jury.” Whittley v. City of Meridian, 530 So.2d 1341, 1344 (Miss.1988) (citation omitted). ‘We will reverse a court’s denial [or grant] of a motion in limine only if the court abused its discretion in denying [or granting] the motion.” Cridiso v. State, 95

2010When faced with a motion in limine, a trial court must find the following two factors present in order to grant the motion: “(1) the material or evidence in question will be inadmissible at a trial under the rules of evidence; and (2) the mere offer, reference, or statements made during trial concerning the material will tend to prejudice the jury.” Whittley v. City of Meridian, 530 So.2d 1341, 1344 (Miss.1988) (citation omitted). ‘We will reverse a court’s denial [or grant] of a motion in limine only if the court abused its discretion in denying [or granting] the motion.” Cridiso v. State, 95

2010When faced with a motion in limine, a trial court must find the following two factors present in order to grant the motion: "(1) the material or evidence in question will be inadmissible at a trial under the rules of evidence; and (2) the mere offer, reference, or statements made during trial concerning the material will tend to prejudice the jury." Whittley v. City of Meridian, 530 So.2d 1341, 1344 (Miss.1988) (citation omitted).

2007To support the trial court's analysis, Wright's brief cites three legal authorities: Lyle, Balard and Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital, 38 Cal.3d 112 , 211 Cal.Rptr. 356 , 695 P.2d 653, 664 (1985).

2007To support the trial court's analysis, Wright's brief cites three legal authorities: Lyle, Balard and Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital, 38 Cal.3d 112 , 211 Cal.Rptr. 356 , 695 P.2d 653, 664 (1985).

2005See id.

1995See Vittitoe v. State, 556 So. 2d 1062, 1065 (Miss. 1990); Reynolds v. State, 521 So. 2d 914, 961-917 (Miss. 1988); Gilliard v. State, 462 So. 2d 710, 713 (Miss. 1985).

1995See Vittitoe v. State, 556 So. 2d 1062, 1065 (Miss. 1990); Reynolds v. State, 521 So. 2d 914, 961-917 (Miss. 1988); Gilliard v. State, 462 So. 2d 710, 713 (Miss. 1985).

1995See Vittitoe v. State, 556 So. 2d 1062, 1065 (Miss. 1990); Reynolds v. State, 521 So. 2d 914, 961-917 (Miss. 1988); Gilliard v. State, 462 So. 2d 710, 713 (Miss. 1985).

1991Brown v. Credit Center, Inc., 444 So.2d 358, 362 (Miss. 1983); and Donald v. Reeves Transport Co., 538 So.2d 1191 (Miss. 1989) (Summary judgment is "no substitute for trial.") Here the petitioner met the pleading requirements of the UPCRA and, in the end, the court was faced with contradictory affidavits disputing the essential facts of Wright's claim, that he was denied his right to an appeal through no fault of his own.

1987See, e.g., Isom v. State, 481 So.2d 820 (Miss. 1985); Haynes v. State, 451 So.2d 227 (Miss. 1984); Girton v. State, 446 So.2d 570 (Miss. 1984); Newell v. State, 308 So.2d 71, 77-78 (Miss. 1975).

1987If they get hung up later into the night, I will reconsider." We find that the instruction has been approved not only in Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591, 596 (Miss. 1976) — indeed, it is colloquially known as the Sharplin instruction — but also in Murphy v. State, 426 So.2d 786, 791 (Miss. 1983); Blanks v. State, 451 So.2d 775, 778 (Miss. 1984); Isom v. State, 481 So.2d 820, 822 (Miss. 1985); and Gearlson v. State, 482 So.2d 1141, 1143 (Miss. 1986).

1987If they get hung up later into the night, I will reconsider." We find that the instruction has been approved not only in Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591, 596 (Miss. 1976) — indeed, it is colloquially known as the Sharplin instruction — but also in Murphy v. State, 426 So.2d 786, 791 (Miss. 1983); Blanks v. State, 451 So.2d 775, 778 (Miss. 1984); Isom v. State, 481 So.2d 820, 822 (Miss. 1985); and Gearlson v. State, 482 So.2d 1141, 1143 (Miss. 1986).

1987See, e.g., Isom v. State, 481 So.2d 820 (Miss. 1985); Haynes v. State, 451 So.2d 227 (Miss. 1984); Girton v. State, 446 So.2d 570 (Miss. 1984); Newell v. State, 308 So.2d 71, 77-78 (Miss. 1975).

1987If they get hung up later into the night, I will reconsider." We find that the instruction has been approved not only in Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591, 596 (Miss. 1976) — indeed, it is colloquially known as the Sharplin instruction — but also in Murphy v. State, 426 So.2d 786, 791 (Miss. 1983); Blanks v. State, 451 So.2d 775, 778 (Miss. 1984); Isom v. State, 481 So.2d 820, 822 (Miss. 1985); and Gearlson v. State, 482 So.2d 1141, 1143 (Miss. 1986).

1987If they get hung up later into the night, I will reconsider." We find that the instruction has been approved not only in Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591, 596 (Miss. 1976) — indeed, it is colloquially known as the Sharplin instruction — but also in Murphy v. State, 426 So.2d 786, 791 (Miss. 1983); Blanks v. State, 451 So.2d 775, 778 (Miss. 1984); Isom v. State, 481 So.2d 820, 822 (Miss. 1985); and Gearlson v. State, 482 So.2d 1141, 1143 (Miss. 1986).

1987If they get hung up later into the night, I will reconsider." We find that the instruction has been approved not only in Sharplin v. State, 330 So.2d 591, 596 (Miss. 1976) — indeed, it is colloquially known as the Sharplin instruction — but also in Murphy v. State, 426 So.2d 786, 791 (Miss. 1983); Blanks v. State, 451 So.2d 775, 778 (Miss. 1984); Isom v. State, 481 So.2d 820, 822 (Miss. 1985); and Gearlson v. State, 482 So.2d 1141, 1143 (Miss. 1986).