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.
12 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Peterson v. Stategreen2 sentences2019“Rule 609(a)(1) requires that before admitting evidence of a witness’s felony conviction, the [circuit court] must determine ‘that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.’” Peterson, 518 So. 2d at 636 (reversing Peterson’s conviction and remanding the case for a new trial due to the circuit court’s failure to conduct an on-the-record balancing test pursuant to Rule 609(a)(1)). ¶25. 1998Moore contends that the trial court erred in failing to conduct an on-the-record balancing test as set forth in Peterson v. State, 518 So. 2d 632, 636 (Miss. 1987), before allowing in evidence of defense witness Fredrick Pediway's prior convictions. | 2 | 4 |
McGee v. Stategreen2 sentences2004The purpose of this on-the-record balancing requirement is so that on appeal "[an appellate court] can more easily ascertain whether or not the trial judge has abused his discretion in granting or denying admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment purposes." Jones v. State, 702 So.2d 419, 421 (¶ 14) (Miss.1997) (citing McGee v. State, 569 So.2d 1191, 1195 (Miss.1990)). ¶ 13. 1997The purpose of this on-the-record balancing requirement is so that on appeal "this Court can more easily ascertain whether or not the trial judge has abused his discretion in granting or denying admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment purposes." McGee, 569 So.2d at 1195 ( quoting Johnson, 525 So.2d at 812 ). ¶ 15. | 2 | 3 |
Smith v. Statered2 sentences2015Smith v. State, 656 So. 2d 95 (Miss. 1995), overruled in part by Brown v. State, 890 So. 2d 901 (Miss. 2004) (abandoning Smith’s requirement that a trial judge sua sponte give a limiting instruction). 2015Smith v. State, 656 So.2d 95 (Miss.1995), overruled in part by Brown v. State, 890 So.2d 901 (Miss.2004) (abandoning - Smith’s requirement that a trial judge sua sponte give a limiting instruction). | 1 | 2 |
Malcolm Horton v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2019We acknowledged that the trial court did not conduct an on-the- record balancing test but “a circuit court’s failure to state Rule 403’s ‘magic words’ does not mean that the court did not consider 403’s requirement or that the court erred in its decision on admissibility.” Id. at 341 (¶22). ¶23. | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Jones v. State, 920 So. 2d 465, 475 (¶32) (Miss. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence2004The purpose of this on-the-record balancing requirement is so that on appeal "[an appellate court] can more easily ascertain whether or not the trial judge has abused his discretion in granting or denying admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment purposes." Jones v. State, 702 So.2d 419, 421 (¶ 14) (Miss.1997) (citing McGee v. State, 569 So.2d 1191, 1195 (Miss.1990)). ¶ 13. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. State
green
2 sentences1997The purpose of this on-the-record balancing requirement is so that on appeal "this Court can more easily ascertain whether or not the trial judge has abused his discretion in granting or denying admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment purposes." McGee, 569 So.2d at 1195 ( quoting Johnson, 525 So.2d at 812 ). ¶ 15. 1989The purpose of this on-the-record balancing requirement is so that on appeal "this Court can more easily ascertain whether or not the trial judge has abused his discretion in granting or denying admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment purposes." McGee, 569 So. 2d at 1195 (quoting Johnson, 525 So. 2d at 812 ). ¶15. | 2 | 1989–1997 |
Corser v. State
neutral
1 sentence2018However, "a circuit court's failure to state Rule 403's 'magic words' does not mean that the court did not consider Rule 403's requirements or that the court erred in its decision on admissibility." Corser v. State , 147 So.3d 357 , 360 (¶ 14) (Miss. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Brown v. State
green
2 sentences2015Smith v. State, 656 So. 2d 95 (Miss. 1995), overruled in part by Brown v. State, 890 So. 2d 901 (Miss. 2004) (abandoning Smith’s requirement that a trial judge sua sponte give a limiting instruction). 2015Smith v. State, 656 So.2d 95 (Miss.1995), overruled in part by Brown v. State, 890 So.2d 901 (Miss.2004) (abandoning - Smith’s requirement that a trial judge sua sponte give a limiting instruction). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.