16 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Grubb v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Grubb v. State, 584 So. 2d 786, 789 (Miss.1991) (explaining plain error review allows an appellate court to address an issue not raised at trial if the record shows that error did occur and that substantive rights were violated). 2021See Byrom v. State, 863 So. 2d 836, 872 (Miss. 2003) (“However, plain error will allow an appellate court to address an issue not raised at 19 trial if the record shows that error did occur and the substantive rights of the accused were violated.” (citing Grubb v. State, 584 So. 2d 786, 789 (Miss. 1991))). | 5 | 6 |
Finley v. Stategreen2 sentences2004In Finley v. State, 725 So.2d 226, 240 (Miss.1998), the defendant met the burden imposed under the first prong of Batson , showing that State used three of four peremptory challenges against black jurors. 2004In Finley v. State, 725 So.2d 226, 240 (Miss.1998), the defendant met the burden imposed under the first prong of Batson , showing that State used three of four peremptory challenges against black jurors. | 3 | 3 |
Byrom v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Byrom v. State, 863 So. 2d 836, 872 (Miss. 2003) (“However, plain error will allow an appellate court to address an issue not raised at 19 trial if the record shows that error did occur and the substantive rights of the accused were violated.” (citing Grubb v. State, 584 So. 2d 786, 789 (Miss. 1991))). 2013The plain-error doctrine allows this Court “to address an issue not raise at trial if the record shows that error did occur and the substantive rights of the accused were violated.” Byrom v. State, 863 So.2d 836, 872 (¶ 121) (Miss.2003). | 2 | 2 |
Faraga v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Although Walker concedes that no contemporaneous objection was made during the sentencing phase, he relies on Faraga v. State, 514 So.2d 295, 303 (Miss. 1987), for the proposition that, "Although no objection was raised during the argument, under this Court's heightened level of scrutiny for death penalty cases, they will be reviewed." See also Hansen, 592 So.2d at 142 (relaxing the contemporaneous objection rule and applying the "plain error" rule); Grubb, 584 So.2d at 789 (plain error will allow an appellate court to address an issue not raised at trial if the record shows that error did occ 2003Although Walker concedes that no contemporaneous objection was made during the sentencing phase, he relies on Faraga v. State, 514 So. 2d 295, 303 (Miss. 1987), for the proposition that, “Although no objection was raised during the argument, under this Court's heightened level of scrutiny for death penalty cases, they will be reviewed.” See also Hansen, 592 So. 2d at 142 (relaxing the contemporaneous objection rule and applying the “plain error” rule); Grubb, 584 So. 2d at 789 (plain error will allow an appellate court to address an issue not raised at trial if the record shows that error did | 2 | 2 |
Hansen v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Although Walker concedes that no contemporaneous objection was made during the sentencing phase, he relies on Faraga v. State, 514 So.2d 295, 303 (Miss. 1987), for the proposition that, "Although no objection was raised during the argument, under this Court's heightened level of scrutiny for death penalty cases, they will be reviewed." See also Hansen, 592 So.2d at 142 (relaxing the contemporaneous objection rule and applying the "plain error" rule); Grubb, 584 So.2d at 789 (plain error will allow an appellate court to address an issue not raised at trial if the record shows that error did occ 2003Although Walker concedes that no contemporaneous objection was made during the sentencing phase, he relies on Faraga v. State, 514 So. 2d 295, 303 (Miss. 1987), for the proposition that, “Although no objection was raised during the argument, under this Court's heightened level of scrutiny for death penalty cases, they will be reviewed.” See also Hansen, 592 So. 2d at 142 (relaxing the contemporaneous objection rule and applying the “plain error” rule); Grubb, 584 So. 2d at 789 (plain error will allow an appellate court to address an issue not raised at trial if the record shows that error did | 2 | 2 |
Thibodeaux v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Moore presents no legal argument and has cited no authority in support of his claims. “[Ijssues unsupported and not argued are abandoned and need not be considered.” Thibodeaux v. State, 652 So.2d 153, 155 (Miss.1995). ¶ 8. 2000Moore presents no legal argument and has cited no authority in support of his claims. "[I]ssues unsupported and not argued are abandoned and need not be considered." Thibodeaux v. State, 652 So. 2d 153, 155 (Miss. 1995). ¶8. | 2 | 2 |
Walker v. Stategreen2 sentences2018In Walker v. State , 913 So.2d 198 (Miss. 2005), the capital murder defendant argued that "[a]lthough no objection was raised during the argument, under th[e] Court's heightened level of scrutiny of death penalty cases, they will be reviewed." Id. at 238 (¶ 147) (noting that we have relaxed the contemporaneous objection rule and applied the plain error rule, which allows an appellate court to address an issue not raised at trial if the record shows that error did occur and the substantive rights of the accused were violated). 2018In Walker v. State , 913 So.2d 198 (Miss. 2005), the capital murder defendant argued that "[a]lthough no objection was raised during the argument, under th[e] Court's heightened level of scrutiny of death penalty cases, they will be reviewed." Id. at 238 (¶ 147) (noting that we have relaxed the contemporaneous objection rule and applied the plain error rule, which allows an appellate court to address an issue not raised at trial if the record shows that error did occur and the substantive rights of the accused were violated). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2013As noted by the Mississippi Supreme Court numerous times, “any claim is waived for failure to raise a contemporaneous objection.” Williams v. State, 98 So.3d 468, 474 (¶25) (Miss.Ct.App.2012). ¶ 17. | 1 | 1 |
Porter v. Stategreen1 sentence2003According to Walker, the denial of the continuance/recess prevented Walker from conducting voir dire adequately enough to secure a fair and impartial jury. 11 The plain error doctrine arises from Mississippi Rule of Evidence 103(2)(d), which states: “Nothing in this rule precludes taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the court.” See also Porter v. State, 732 So. 2d 899, 902-05 (Miss. 1999) (violations of fundamental rights are also subject to plain error review); Grubb v. State, 584 So. 2d 786, 789 (Miss. 1991) (plain err | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Grubb v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Grubb v. State, 584 So. 2d 786, 789 (Miss.1991) (explaining plain error review allows an appellate court to address an issue not raised at trial if the record shows that error did occur and that substantive rights were violated). 2021See Byrom v. State, 863 So. 2d 836, 872 (Miss. 2003) (“However, plain error will allow an appellate court to address an issue not raised at 19 trial if the record shows that error did occur and the substantive rights of the accused were violated.” (citing Grubb v. State, 584 So. 2d 786, 789 (Miss. 1991))). | 1 | 6 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. State
green
2 sentences2005In Williams v. State, 512 So.2d 666 (Miss.1987), defense counsel did not object to prosecutor's closing argument, and this Court held that "[t]he failure of an objection is fatal." Id. at 672 (citing Johnson v. State, 477 So.2d 196 (Miss.1985)). 2003In Williams v. State, 512 So. 2d 666 (Miss. 1987), defense counsel did not object to prosecutor's closing argument, and this Court held that “[t]he failure of an objection is fatal.” Id. at 672 (citing Johnson v. State, 477 So. 2d 196 (Miss. 1985)). | 2 | 2003–2005 |
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences2005In Williams v. State, 512 So.2d 666 (Miss.1987), defense counsel did not object to prosecutor's closing argument, and this Court held that "[t]he failure of an objection is fatal." Id. at 672 (citing Johnson v. State, 477 So.2d 196 (Miss.1985)). 2005In Williams v. State, 512 So.2d 666 (Miss.1987), defense counsel did not object to prosecutor's closing argument, and this Court held that "[t]he failure of an objection is fatal." Id. at 672 (citing Johnson v. State, 477 So.2d 196 (Miss.1985)). | 2 | 2003–2005 |
King v. State
green
1 sentence2012The King court explained that “ ‘undeveloped assertions of helpfulness to the defense are insufficient to show that need.’ ” Id. (quotation-omitted). ; ¶ 19.' In applying precedent to the present case, the record shows that the defense was provided access to interview and question the State’s computer expert. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.