last occasion challenge in Mississippi

2021“Since each requires consideration of the evidence before the court when made, this Court properly reviews the ruling on the last occasion the challenge was made in the trial court.” Id.

2020Because “each requires consideration of the evidence before the court when made, this Court properly reviews the ruling on the last occasion the challenge was made in the trial court.” Id.

2004"Since each requires consideration of the evidence before the court when made, this Court properly reviews the ruling on the last occasion that the challenge was made in the trial court." McClain v. State, 625 So.2d 774, 778 (Miss.1993) (citing Wetz v. State, 503 So.2d 803, 807-08 (Miss.1987)). ¶ 25.

2004"Since a motion for JNOV, motion for directed verdict, and a request for peremptory instruction all require consideration of the evidence before the court when made, [an appellate court] properly reviews the ruling on the last occasion the challenge was made in the trial court." Id. (citing McClain, 625 So.2d at 778 ). ¶ 8.

2013Townsend v. State, 939 So.2d 796, 801 (¶ 23) (Miss.2006) (quoting McClain v. State, 625 So.2d 774, 778 (Miss.1993)).

2008Townsend v. State, 939 So.2d 796, 801 (23) (Miss.2006) (quoting McClain v. State, 625 So.2d 774, 778 (Miss.1993)).

2007McFarland v. Entergy Miss., Inc., 919 So.2d 894, 904 (Miss.2005); McClain v. State, 625 So.2d 774, 778 (Miss.1993). "[T]his Court properly reviews the ruling on the last occasion the challenge was made in the trial court." McClain, 625 So.2d at 778 .

2005McFarland v. Entergy Miss., Inc., 919 So. 2d 894, 904 (Miss. 2005); McClain v. State, 625 So. 2d 774, 778 (Miss. 1993). "[T]his Court properly reviews the ruling on the last occasion the challenge was made in the trial court." McClain, 625 So. 2d at 778 .

2004We properly review the ruling “on the last occasion the challenge was made in the trial court, when the circuit court overruled the JNOV.” Id.

2004We properly review the ruling "on the last occasion the challenge was made in the trial court, when the circuit court overruled the JNOV." Id.

2017However, "[b]ecause motions for directed verdicts and JNOV motions require consideration of the evidence before the court when made, this Court properly reviews the ruling on the last occasion the challenge was made in the trial court." Shipp v. State , 847 So.2d 806 , 811 (¶ 20) (Miss. 2003) (quotation marks omitted).

2017“Because motions for directed verdicts and JNOV motions require consideration of the evidence before the court when made, this Court properly reviews the ruling on the last occasion the challenge was made in the trial court.” Shipp v. State, 847 So. 2d 806, 811 (¶20) (Miss. 2003) (citation and internal quotations omitted).

2016These motions challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, and this Court “reviews the ruling on-the last occasion the challenge was made in the trial court.” Id. “[T]he relevant question is 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.” Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836, 843 (Miss.2005) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)).

2016These motions challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, and this Court “reviews the ruling on the last occasion the challenge was made in the trial court.” Id. “[T]he relevant question is 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.” Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 843 (Miss. 2005) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315 , 99 S. Ct. 2781 , 61 L.

2015This Court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State “the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence.” Collier v. State, 711 So. 2d 458, 461 (Miss. 1998) (citation omitted).

2015This Court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State “the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence.” Collier v. State, 711 So.2d 458, 461 (Miss.1998) (citation omitted).

2014“Because each requires consideration of the evidence before the court when made, an appellate court properly reviews the ruling on the last occasion the challenge was made in the trial court.” Williams v. State, 122 So.3d 105, 108 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App.2013) (quotation and citation omitted).

2011“If there is sufficient evidence to support a verdict of guilty, this Court will not reverse.” Meshell v. State, 506 So.2d 989, 990 (Miss.1987).

2004This occurred when the Circuit Court overruled [the] motion for JNOV.” Stack v. State, 860 So.2d 687, 699 (¶ 27) (Miss.2003) (citing McClain v. State, 625 So.2d 774, 778 (Miss.1993)). ¶ 22.

1994"On appeal, this Court reviews the lower court’s ruling when the legal sufficiency of the evidence was last challenged." Tait v. State, 669 So. 2d 85, 88 (Miss. 1996) (citing Smith v. State, 646 So. 2d 538, 542 (Miss. 1994)); see also McClain v. State, 625 So. 2d 774, 778 (Miss. 1993) (a sufficiency challenge requires consideration of the evidence before the court when made, so that an appellate court must review ruling on the last occasion the challenge was made at the trial level).

1994"On appeal, this Court reviews the lower court’s ruling when the legal sufficiency of the evidence was last challenged." Tait v. State, 669 So. 2d 85, 88 (Miss. 1996) (citing Smith v. State, 646 So. 2d 538, 542 (Miss. 1994)); see also McClain v. State, 625 So. 2d 774, 778 (Miss. 1993) (a sufficiency challenge requires consideration of the evidence before the court when made, so that an appellate court must review ruling on the last occasion the challenge was made at the trial level).