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.
17 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Manning v. Stategreen2 sentences2013This Court has approved of the use of catchall mitigation instructions. “[T]he use of the catch-all instruction eliminates the possibility ‘that the jury was unconstitutionally foreclosed from considering all mitigating circumstances.’ ” Gillett, 56 So.3d at 512 (quoting Manning v. State, 735 So.2d 323, 352 (Miss.1999)). 2010In addition, this Court has stated that “the use of the catch-all instruction eliminates the possibility ‘that the jury was unconstitutionally foreclosed from considering all mitigating circumstances.’ ” Manning v. State, 735 So.2d 323, 352 (Miss.1999) (quoting Berry v. State, 703 So.2d 269, 287 (Miss.1997)). | 4 | 4 |
Berry v. Stategreen2 sentences2010In addition, this Court has stated that “the use of the catch-all instruction eliminates the possibility ‘that the jury was unconstitutionally foreclosed from considering all mitigating circumstances.’ ” Manning v. State, 735 So.2d 323, 352 (Miss.1999) (quoting Berry v. State, 703 So.2d 269, 287 (Miss.1997)). 2007In addition, this Court has stated that “the use of the catch-all instruction eliminates the possibility ‘that the jury was unconstitutionally foreclosed from considering all mitigating circumstances.’” Manning v. State, 735 So. 2d 323, 352 (Miss. 1999) (quoting Berry v. State, 703 So. 2d 269, 287 (Miss. 1997)). | 2 | 4 |
Mitchell v. Statered2 sentences2006Our supreme court has also stated that the catch-all exception should be rarely used "so as not to devour the hearsay rule." In Interest of C.B., 574 So.2d 1369, 1373 (Miss.1990) (citing Mitchell v. State, 539 So.2d at 1370 (Miss.1989)). 1990Mitchell v. State, 539 So.2d 1366, 1370 (Miss. 1989), discusses the application of the catch-all exception to out-of-court statements made by the child victims of sexual abuse. | 2 | 3 |
Scott v. Statered2 sentences2013Jordan v. State, 912 So.2d 800, 820 (Miss.2005) (quoting Scott v. State, 878 So.2d 933, 983 (Miss.2004)). 1997We considered a similar argument in Jordan v. State and recognized that this Court has approved the following catch-all instruction dealing with the consideration of mitigating evidence: Consider the following elements of mitigation in determining whether the death penalty should not be imposed: Any matter – any other aspect of the defendant's character or record, any other circumstances of the offense brought to you during the trial of this cause which you, the jury, deem to be mitigating on behalf of the defendant. 18 Jordan, 912 So. 2d 800, 820 (Miss. 2005) (quoting Scott v. State, 878 So. | 2 | 2 |
Jordan v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Jordan v. State, 912 So.2d 800, 820 (Miss.2005) (quoting Scott v. State, 878 So.2d 933, 983 (Miss.2004)). 1997We considered a similar argument in Jordan v. State and recognized that this Court has approved the following catch-all instruction dealing with the consideration of mitigating evidence: Consider the following elements of mitigation in determining whether the death penalty should not be imposed: Any matter – any other aspect of the defendant's character or record, any other circumstances of the offense brought to you during the trial of this cause which you, the jury, deem to be mitigating on behalf of the defendant. 18 Jordan, 912 So. 2d 800, 820 (Miss. 2005) (quoting Scott v. State, 878 So. | 2 | 2 |
Wiley v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Wiley v. State, 750 So.2d 1193, 1204 (Miss.1999) (quoting Jackson v. State, 684 So.2d at 1213, 1238 (Miss.1996)). 1998Wiley v. State, 750 So.2d 1193, 1204 (Miss. 1999) (quoting Jackson v. State, 684 So.2d at 1213, 1238 (Miss. 1996)). | 2 | 2 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Wiley v. State, 750 So.2d 1193, 1204 (Miss.1999) (quoting Jackson v. State, 684 So.2d at 1213, 1238 (Miss.1996)). 1998Wiley v. State, 750 So.2d 1193, 1204 (Miss. 1999) (quoting Jackson v. State, 684 So.2d at 1213, 1238 (Miss. 1996)). | 2 | 2 |
Lester v. Statered2 sentences2010“A catchall instruction is sufficient to encompass non-statutory mitigating factors.” Id. (quoting Lester v. State, 692 So.2d 755, 799 (Miss.1997)). ¶ 125. 1999"A catchall instruction is sufficient to encompass non-statutory mitigating factors." Lester, 692 So.2d at 799 . ¶ 73. | 1 | 3 |
In Interest of CBgreen2 sentences2016In re C.B., 574 So.2d at 1373 . 2006Our supreme court has also stated that the catch-all exception should be rarely used "so as not to devour the hearsay rule." In Interest of C.B., 574 So.2d 1369, 1373 (Miss.1990) (citing Mitchell v. State, 539 So.2d at 1370 (Miss.1989)). | 1 | 2 |
Pratt v. Prattgreen1 sentence2010In her motion to set aside, Charlotte also contended that the summary judgment should be set aside pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) in order “to prevent manifest injustice.” “Rule 60(b)(6) states that relief may be granted from a final judgment for ‘any other reason justifying relief from judgment,’ which serves as a catch-all exception for relief when equity demands.” Pratt v. Pratt, 977 So.2d 386, 392 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (quoting M.R.C.P. 60(b)(6)). | 1 | 1 |
Townsend v. Townsendgreen1 sentence2007M.R.C.P. 60(b)(6); Townsend, 859 So.2d at 375 (¶ 16). | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Stategreen1 sentence1997Blystone v. Pennsylvania, 494 U.S. 299, 308 , 110 S.Ct. 1078, 1084 , 108 L.Ed.2d 255 (1990); Jackson v. State, 672 So.2d 468, 493 (Miss. 1996); Taylor v. State, 672 So.2d 1246, 1276-77 (Miss. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Stategreen1 sentence1997Blystone v. Pennsylvania, 494 U.S. 299, 308 , 110 S.Ct. 1078, 1084 , 108 L.Ed.2d 255 (1990); Jackson v. State, 672 So.2d 468, 493 (Miss. 1996); Taylor v. State, 672 So.2d 1246, 1276-77 (Miss. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gillett v. State
green
1 sentence2013This Court has approved of the use of catchall mitigation instructions. “[T]he use of the catch-all instruction eliminates the possibility ‘that the jury was unconstitutionally foreclosed from considering all mitigating circumstances.’ ” Gillett, 56 So.3d at 512 (quoting Manning v. State, 735 So.2d 323, 352 (Miss.1999)). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Blystone v. Pennsylvania
green
2 sentences1997Blystone v. Pennsylvania, 494 U.S. 299, 308 , 110 S.Ct. 1078, 1084 , 108 L.Ed.2d 255 (1990); Jackson v. State, 672 So.2d 468, 493 (Miss. 1996); Taylor v. State, 672 So.2d 1246, 1276-77 (Miss. 1996). 1997Blystone v. Pennsylvania, 494 U.S. 299, 308 , 110 S.Ct. 1078, 1084 , 108 L.Ed.2d 255 (1990); Jackson v. State, 672 So.2d 468, 493 (Miss. 1996); Taylor v. State, 672 So.2d 1246, 1276-77 (Miss. 1996). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.