12 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences2007This Court has held "that a finding of plain error is necessary when a party's fundamental rights are affected." Williams v. State, 794 So.2d 181, 188 (Miss.2001) (citing Grubb v. State, 584 So.2d 786, 789 (Miss.1991)). 2006In Mississippi, a finding of plain error is necessary where a party's substantive/fundamental rights are affected and the error results in a "manifest miscarriage of justice." Williams v. State, 794 So.2d 181, 187 (¶ 23) (Miss.2001). | 4 | 4 |
McGee v. Stategreen2 sentences2021“If there is a finding of plain error, a reviewing court may consider the issue regardless of the procedural bar.” Fulks v. State, 110 So. 3d 764, 772 (¶30) (Miss. 2013) (quoting McGee v. State, 953 So. 2d 211, 215 (¶8) (Miss. 2007)). 2021“A review under the plain error doctrine is necessary when a party’s fundamental rights are affected, and the error results in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Johnson v. State, 235 So. 3d 1404, 1414 (¶31) (Miss. 2017) (quoting McGee, 953 So. 2d at 215 (¶8)). | 3 | 3 |
Grubb v. Stategreen2 sentences2007This Court has held "that a finding of plain error is necessary when a party's fundamental rights are affected." Williams v. State, 794 So.2d 181, 188 (Miss.2001) (citing Grubb v. State, 584 So.2d 786, 789 (Miss.1991)). 2001This Court has held “that a finding of plain error is necessary when a party’s fundamental rights are affected.” Williams v. State, 794 So. 2d 181, 188 (Miss. 2001) (citing Grubb v. State, 584 So. 2d 786, 789 (Miss. 1991)). | 2 | 4 |
Ronald Shinstock v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2023In Manuel v. State, 357 So. 3d 633 (Miss. 2023), the supreme court stated, “Under the plain error doctrine, this Court can recognize obvious error which was not properly raised by the defendant and which affects a defendant’s fundamental, substantive right.” Id. at 637 (¶12) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Shinstock v. State, 220 So. 3d 967, 970 (Miss. 2017)). | 1 | 1 |
Xavier Collins Johnson v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2021“A review under the plain error doctrine is necessary when a party’s fundamental rights are affected, and the error results in a manifest miscarriage of justice.” Johnson v. State, 235 So. 3d 1404, 1414 (¶31) (Miss. 2017) (quoting McGee, 953 So. 2d at 215 (¶8)). | 1 | 1 |
Fulks v. Stategreen1 sentence2021“If there is a finding of plain error, a reviewing court may consider the issue regardless of the procedural bar.” Fulks v. State, 110 So. 3d 764, 772 (¶30) (Miss. 2013) (quoting McGee v. State, 953 So. 2d 211, 215 (¶8) (Miss. 2007)). | 1 | 1 |
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Baymongreen1 sentence2016Whatever the prosecutor’s reason, the statement was inappropriate and should not have been made.7 But because Johnson did not object to the statement in the trial court, we will not reverse absent a finding of plain error,8 which requires that we conclude the error resulted in “a manifest miscarriage of justice or seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, 7 See, e.g., GMAC v. Baymon, 732 So. 2d 262, 272 (Miss. 1999) (trial court erred in allowing counsel to use “irrelevant, prejudicial and inflammatory statements” before the jury); see also Reed v. State, 232 Miss. 432 , 99 So. 2d 455 (195 | 1 | 1 |
Shunbrica Andrea Roby v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2016Whatever the prosecutor’s reason, the statement was inappropriate and should not have been made.7 But because Johnson did not object to the statement in the trial court, we will not reverse absent a finding of plain error,8 which requires that we conclude the error resulted in “a manifest miscarriage of justice or seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, 7 See, e.g., GMAC v. Baymon, 732 So. 2d 262, 272 (Miss. 1999) (trial court erred in allowing counsel to use “irrelevant, prejudicial and inflammatory statements” before the jury); see also Reed v. State, 232 Miss. 432 , 99 So. 2d 455 (195 | 1 | 1 |
Reed v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Whatever the prosecutor’s reason, the statement was inappropriate and should not have been made.7 But because Johnson did not object to the statement in the trial court, we will not reverse absent a finding of plain error,8 which requires that we conclude the error resulted in “a manifest miscarriage of justice or seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, 7 See, e.g., GMAC v. Baymon, 732 So. 2d 262, 272 (Miss. 1999) (trial court erred in allowing counsel to use “irrelevant, prejudicial and inflammatory statements” before the jury); see also Reed v. State, 232 Miss. 432 , 99 So. 2d 455 (195 2016Whatever the prosecutor’s reason, the statement was inappropriate and should not have been made.7 But because Johnson did not object to the statement in the trial court, we will not reverse absent a finding of plain error,8 which requires that we conclude the error resulted in “a manifest miscarriage of justice or seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, 7 See, e.g., GMAC v. Baymon, 732 So. 2d 262, 272 (Miss. 1999) (trial court erred in allowing counsel to use “irrelevant, prejudicial and inflammatory statements” before the jury); see also Reed v. State, 232 Miss. 432 , 99 So. 2d 455 (195 | 1 | 1 |
Cox v. Stategreen1 sentence2006To determine whether plain error has occurred, the appellate court "must determine if the trial court has deviated from a legal rule, whether that error is plain, clear or obvious, and whether the error has prejudiced the outcome of the trial." Cox v. State, 793 So.2d 591, 597 (¶ 22) (Miss.2001). ¶ 15. | 1 | 1 |
Hubbard v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Hubbard v. State, 886 So.2d 12, 21 (¶28) (Miss.Ct.App.2004). ¶ 15. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Young
green
2 sentences2007The United States Supreme Court has also categorized as plain error "those errors that `seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'" United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 , 56 S.Ct. 391 , 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936)). 2007The United States Supreme Court has also categorized as plain error "those errors that `seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'" United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 , 56 S.Ct. 391 , 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936)). | 2 | 2001–2007 |
Harris v. State
green
2 sentences2016Whatever the prosecutor’s reason, the statement was inappropriate and should not have been made.7 But because Johnson did not object to the statement in the trial court, we will not reverse absent a finding of plain error,8 which requires that we conclude the error resulted in “a manifest miscarriage of justice or seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, 7 See, e.g., GMAC v. Baymon, 732 So. 2d 262, 272 (Miss. 1999) (trial court erred in allowing counsel to use “irrelevant, prejudicial and inflammatory statements” before the jury); see also Reed v. State, 232 Miss. 432 , 99 So. 2d 455 (195 2016Whatever the prosecutor’s reason, the statement was inappropriate and should not have been made.7 But because Johnson did not object to the statement in the trial court, we will not reverse absent a finding of plain error,8 which requires that we conclude the error resulted in “a manifest miscarriage of justice or seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, 7 See, e.g., GMAC v. Baymon, 732 So. 2d 262, 272 (Miss. 1999) (trial court erred in allowing counsel to use “irrelevant, prejudicial and inflammatory statements” before the jury); see also Reed v. State, 232 Miss. 432 , 99 So. 2d 455 (195 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Marvin Kirk v. State of Mississippi
green
1 sentence2016Whatever the prosecutor’s reason, the statement was inappropriate and should not have been made.7 But because Johnson did not object to the statement in the trial court, we will not reverse absent a finding of plain error,8 which requires that we conclude the error resulted in “a manifest miscarriage of justice or seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, 7 See, e.g., GMAC v. Baymon, 732 So. 2d 262, 272 (Miss. 1999) (trial court erred in allowing counsel to use “irrelevant, prejudicial and inflammatory statements” before the jury); see also Reed v. State, 232 Miss. 432 , 99 So. 2d 455 (195 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. Atkinson
green
2 sentences2007The United States Supreme Court has also categorized as plain error "those errors that `seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'" United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 , 56 S.Ct. 391 , 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936)). 2007The United States Supreme Court has also categorized as plain error "those errors that `seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'" United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 , 56 S.Ct. 391 , 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936)). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.