defendant requested instruction in Mississippi

2006Id. at 782 .

2004Id. at 782 .

2005Therefore, the law that required the trial court to sua sponte give a limiting instruction, regardless of whether the Defendant requested such an instruction, mandated by Smith v. State, 656 So.2d 95 (Miss.1995), was still the law applicable to the trial court.

2003Therefore, the law that required the trial court to sua sponte give a limiting instruction, regardless of whether the Defendant requested such an instruction, mandated by Smith v. State, 656 So.2d 95 (Miss. 1995), was still the law applicable to the trial court.

1998Recently, in U.S. v. Chandler, 950 F.Supp. 1545 (N.D.Ala.1996), the district court had the opportunity to consider the application of Simmons in a federal setting.

1993Recently, in U. S. v. Chandler, 950 F. Supp. 1545 (N.D.

1985There the rule announced in McDaniel and Harris, supra, received favorable comment through amplification by Justice Hawkins who stated for the court, The McDaniel rule prevents "submission to a jury the question of voluntary intoxication as a defense in specific intent offenses." 356 So.2d at 1161 .

1985Again in Lee v. State, 403 So.2d 132 (Miss. 1981), the defendant requested an instruction very similar to those presently complained of.

1985There the rule announced in McDaniel and Harris, supra, received favorable comment through amplification by Justice Hawkins who stated for the court, The McDaniel rule prevents "submission to a jury the question of voluntary intoxication as a defense in specific intent offenses." 356 So.2d at 1161 .

1970The rule in the Henry case requires that an objection to illegally obtained evidence must be made in the trial court "before the defendant has offered his evidence or defense." We said, however, in that case: "* * * Nevertheless if it appears to the trial judge that the foregoing rule of procedure would defeat justice and bring about results not justified or intended by substantive law, the rule may be relaxed and subordinated to the primary purpose of the law to enforce constitutional rights in the interest of justice. * * *" ( 253 Miss. at 287 , 174 So.2d at 351) The record in the case at ba

1970In the case of Jenkins v. State, 207 Miss. 281 , 42 So.2d 198 (1949), this Court held that, where the appellant requested a peremptory instruction after having failed to object to the introduction of an "insufficient search warrant," this Court would treat the question as if the appellant had made timely objection.

1970In the case of Jenkins v. State, 207 Miss. 281 , 42 So.2d 198 (1949), this Court held that, where the appellant requested a peremptory instruction after having failed to object to the introduction of an "insufficient search warrant," this Court would treat the question as if the appellant had made timely objection.

1956I didn’t mean to shoot anybody in all of my life and I never have been in trouble before.” In the case of Denham v. State, 218 Miss. 423 , 67 So. 2d 445 , the defendant requested an instruction on the theory of self-defense which was refused by the court, and in upholding such refusal we said: ‘ ‘ Since the evidence and the logical inferences therefrom afford no basis on which to predicate self-defense instructions so far as the killing of Mrs. Denham was concerned, the refusal of those instructions did not constitute error.” We conclude that there was no error in the refusal of the above inst

1956I didn’t mean to shoot anybody in all of my life and I never have been in trouble before.” In the case of Denham v. State, 218 Miss. 423 , 67 So. 2d 445 , the defendant requested an instruction on the theory of self-defense which was refused by the court, and in upholding such refusal we said: ‘ ‘ Since the evidence and the logical inferences therefrom afford no basis on which to predicate self-defense instructions so far as the killing of Mrs. Denham was concerned, the refusal of those instructions did not constitute error.” We conclude that there was no error in the refusal of the above inst

1938In the case of Sea Food Co. v. Alves, 117 Miss. 1 , 77 So. 857, 858 , it was said: “ ‘ The duty of the master extends to preventing the premises upon which he requires the servant to work from containing dangerous pitfalls, holes, obstructions, or other mantraps, in which his servant is liable, unguardedly, to fall, while his mind is absorbed in the duties of his employment’ or during momentary forgetfulness of the presence of danger.” In Finkbine Lumber Co. v. Cunningham, 101 Miss. 292 , 57 So. 916, 919 , the defendant requested an instruction to the effect that if the jury “believe from the

1938In the case of Sea Food Co. v. Alves, 117 Miss. 1 , 77 So. 857, 858 , it was said: “ ‘ The duty of the master extends to preventing the premises upon which he requires the servant to work from containing dangerous pitfalls, holes, obstructions, or other mantraps, in which his servant is liable, unguardedly, to fall, while his mind is absorbed in the duties of his employment’ or during momentary forgetfulness of the presence of danger.” In Finkbine Lumber Co. v. Cunningham, 101 Miss. 292 , 57 So. 916, 919 , the defendant requested an instruction to the effect that if the jury “believe from the

1938In the case of Sea Food Co. v. Alves, 117 Miss. 1 , 77 So. 857, 858 , it was said: “ ‘ The duty of the master extends to preventing the premises upon which he requires the servant to work from containing dangerous pitfalls, holes, obstructions, or other mantraps, in which his servant is liable, unguardedly, to fall, while his mind is absorbed in the duties of his employment’ or during momentary forgetfulness of the presence of danger.” In Finkbine Lumber Co. v. Cunningham, 101 Miss. 292 , 57 So. 916, 919 , the defendant requested an instruction to the effect that if the jury “believe from the

1938In the case of Sea Food Co. v. Alves, 117 Miss. 1 , 77 So. 857, 858 , it was said: “ ‘ The duty of the master extends to preventing the premises upon which he requires the servant to work from containing dangerous pitfalls, holes, obstructions, or other mantraps, in which his servant is liable, unguardedly, to fall, while his mind is absorbed in the duties of his employment’ or during momentary forgetfulness of the presence of danger.” In Finkbine Lumber Co. v. Cunningham, 101 Miss. 292 , 57 So. 916, 919 , the defendant requested an instruction to the effect that if the jury “believe from the

1913At the request of the state, the court instructed the jury as follows: “The court charges the jury, for the state, that ownership of a United States internal revenue license for the sale of intoxicating liquors constitutes, presumptive evidence that the owner of said license is engaged in keeping intoxicating liquors for sale. ’ ’ The defendant requested this instruction, which was refused, viz.: “The court instructs the jury, for the defendant, that while the possession of an internal revenue license raises a presumption of the guilt of defendant, that this presumption ceases to exist where a