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.
13 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kettle v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Despite the majority’s protests to the contrary, Justice Kennedy was correct in suggesting that McGowen was not entirely consistent with this Court’s holding in Barnette v. State, 481 So.2d 788, 791 (Miss.1985), “that it was reversible error to admit, over the objection of [the defendant], the certificate of analysis into evidence without the testimony of the analyst who prepared such.” (Emphasis added.) See also Kettle v. State, 641 So.2d 746, 750 (Miss.1994) (“We hold that ... when someone other than the person who conducted the laboratory test attempts to testify in a cocaine possession or 2012Despite the majority’s protests to the contrary, Justice Kennedy was correct in suggesting that McGowen was not entirely consistent with this Court’s holding in Barnette v. State, 481 So.2d 788, 791 (Miss.1985), “that it was reversible error to admit, over the objection of [the defendant], the certificate of analysis into evidence without the testimony of the analyst who prepared such.” (Emphasis added.) See also Kettle v. State, 641 So.2d 746, 750 (Miss.1994) (“We hold that ... when someone other than the person who conducted the laboratory test attempts to testify in a cocaine possession or | 4 | 7 |
Barnette v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Despite the majority’s protests to the contrary, Justice Kennedy was correct in suggesting that McGowen was not entirely consistent with this Court’s holding in Barnette v. State, 481 So.2d 788, 791 (Miss.1985), “that it was reversible error to admit, over the objection of [the defendant], the certificate of analysis into evidence without the testimony of the analyst who prepared such.” (Emphasis added.) See also Kettle v. State, 641 So.2d 746, 750 (Miss.1994) (“We hold that ... when someone other than the person who conducted the laboratory test attempts to testify in a cocaine possession or 2012Despite the majority’s protests to the contrary, Justice Kennedy was correct in suggesting that McGowen was not entirely consistent with this Court’s holding in Barnette v. State, 481 So.2d 788, 791 (Miss.1985), “that it was reversible error to admit, over the objection of [the defendant], the certificate of analysis into evidence without the testimony of the analyst who prepared such.” (Emphasis added.) See also Kettle v. State, 641 So.2d 746, 750 (Miss.1994) (“We hold that ... when someone other than the person who conducted the laboratory test attempts to testify in a cocaine possession or | 2 | 2 |
Adams v. Stategreen2 sentences2012In distinguishing Barnette and Kettle, McGowen relied on Adams v. State, 794 So.2d 1049, 1057-58 (Miss.Ct.App.2001); but, even in Adams, 794 So.2d at 1057 , the testifying witness was a laboratory supervisor who had “supervised, witnessed, and checked the tests performed by his technician.” ¶ 31. 2012In distinguishing Barnette and Kettle, McGowen relied on Adams v. State, 794 So.2d 1049, 1057-58 (Miss.Ct.App.2001); but, even in Adams, 794 So.2d at 1057 , the testifying witness was a laboratory supervisor who had “supervised, witnessed, and checked the tests performed by his technician.” ¶ 31. | 2 | 2 |
Wells v. Stategreen1 sentence1995Mississippi Rule of Evidence 901(a) states: "The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that the test for chain of custody is "whether there is any indication of tampering or substitution of evidence." Wells v. State, 604 So. 2d 271, 277 (Miss. 1992). | 1 | 1 |
Ohio v. Robertsred2 sentences1994In Estelle and King no Sixth Amendment question was raised, but in Ormond we recognized that the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation could arise in such a case, Id. at 959 , but nevertheless held that there was no error in admitting the doctor's testimony. [1] When the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation arises, the ultimate question is whether hearsay evidence offered qualifies under a "firmly rooted hearsay exception." Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 608 (1980). 1994In Estelle and King no Sixth Amendment question was raised, but in Ormond we recognized that the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation could arise in such a case, Id. at 959 , but nevertheless held that there was no error in admitting the doctor's testimony. [1] When the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation arises, the ultimate question is whether hearsay evidence offered qualifies under a "firmly rooted hearsay exception." Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 608 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
Ormond v. Stategreen2 sentences1994And, in Ormond v. State, 599 So.2d 951, 958-59 (Miss. 1992), we approved a doctor testifying that the accused had gonorrhea based upon a laboratory test made by a nurse. 1994In Estelle and King no Sixth Amendment question was raised, but in Ormond we recognized that the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation could arise in such a case, Id. at 959 , but nevertheless held that there was no error in admitting the doctor's testimony. [1] When the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation arises, the ultimate question is whether hearsay evidence offered qualifies under a "firmly rooted hearsay exception." Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 608 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bellardgreen1 sentence1988See also State v. Bellard, 533 So.2d 961 (La. 1988) (Same); State v. Walker, 489 So.2d 353 (La. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Deloach v. State
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 876 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
California v. Trombetta
green
2 sentences2000Id. at 490 , 104 S.Ct. 2528 . ¶ 9. 2000Id. at 490 , 104 S.Ct. 2528 . ¶ 9. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Walker
neutral
1 sentence1988See also State v. Bellard, 533 So.2d 961 (La. 1988) (Same); State v. Walker, 489 So.2d 353 (La. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Lee v. State
green
1 sentence1974In rejecting defendant's argument, the Court said: In those cases where expert analysis exhausts the substance there is clearly no error in the admission of evidence regarding the analysis in the absence of allegations and proof of deliberate destruction, or deliberate attempts to avoid discovery of evidence beneficial to the defense. 511 P.2d at 1077 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Spears v. State
green
1 sentence1971In the recent case of Spears v. State, 241 So.2d 148 (Miss. 1970), we held that to allow a doctor to express an opinion as to pregnancy based upon a laboratory test not performed by the doctor was denial of the basic and fundamental right to be confronted by the witness as well as the right of cross examination. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.