15 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2015In Blanchard v. State, 55 So.3d 1074, 1077 (¶ 16) (Miss.2011), the Mississippi Supreme Court stated: When a defendant fails to make a proper objection at trial, and thus fails to preserve the issue for appellate review, we will reverse if the error involved a fundamental and/or substantive right and resulted in a “manifest miscarriage of justice” or “seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (Quoting Brown v. State, 995 So.2d 698, 703 (¶ 21) (Miss.2008)). ¶ 10. 2014“The plain error doctrine requires not only the existence of an error, but also that either the error resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice or ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Brown v. State, 995 So.2d 698, 703 (Miss.2008) (citation omitted). | 4 | 4 |
White v. Stategreen2 sentences2008White v. State, 702 So.2d 107, 109 (Miss.1997). 2007White v. State, 702 So. 2d 107, 109 (Miss. 1997). | 2 | 2 |
Berry v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Acknowledging this failure, Phillips, citing Berry v. State, 728 So.2d 568 (Miss.1999), asks this Court to “address the issue as plain error because [a] procedural bar does not apply where ... the trial court adopt[ed] an instruction that did not fully instruct the jury on-the elements of the crime [charged].” However, as discussed below, Berry is inapplicable to the facts of this case. ¶ 10. 2007Berry v. State, 728 So.2d 568, 571 (6) (Miss.1999) (quoting Sanders v. State, 678 So.2d 663, 670 (Miss.1996)). | 1 | 2 |
Lester v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Id. at 758. [3] I have no opposition to the suggestion by the majority that the instruction approved by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit be used. 1998Id. at 758 . 3. | 1 | 2 |
Marvin Kirk v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2016“Generally, preservation of an issue for appeal requires a contemporaneous objection at trial.” Kirk v. State, *871 160 So.3d 685, 692 (Miss.2015) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Blanchard v. Stategreen1 sentence2015In Blanchard v. State, 55 So.3d 1074, 1077 (¶ 16) (Miss.2011), the Mississippi Supreme Court stated: When a defendant fails to make a proper objection at trial, and thus fails to preserve the issue for appellate review, we will reverse if the error involved a fundamental and/or substantive right and resulted in a “manifest miscarriage of justice” or “seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” (Quoting Brown v. State, 995 So.2d 698, 703 (¶ 21) (Miss.2008)). ¶ 10. | 1 | 1 |
Baskin v. Stategreen1 sentence2011We disagree with both arguments. 1 Baskin v. State, No. 2011-KA-00834-COA, 2013 WL 500762,* *2, 3 (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. Stategreen1 sentence2007Berry v. State, 728 So.2d 568, 571 (6) (Miss.1999) (quoting Sanders v. State, 678 So.2d 663, 670 (Miss.1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Stategreen1 sentence2001Walker v. State, 671 So.2d 581, 606 (Miss.1995). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Starr v. State
green
2 sentences2016In Starr v. State, 997 So.2d 262 (Miss.Ct.App.2008), we explained the concept of plain error, stating: A party who fails to make a contemporaneous objection at trial must' rely on plain error to raise the- issue on appeal, because it is otherwise- procedurally barred. 2016In Starr v. State, 997 So. 2d 262 (Miss. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Taylor v. State
green
1 sentence2000Moore v. State, 755 So.2d 1276 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2000); Taylor v. State, 754 So.2d 598 (¶ 11) (Miss. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Moore v. State
green
1 sentence2000Moore v. State, 755 So.2d 1276 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.2000); Taylor v. State, 754 So.2d 598 (¶ 11) (Miss. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.