10 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rubenstein v. Stategreen2 sentences2015The giving of a jury instruction is “within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Flowers v. State, 158 So.3d 1009, 1062 (¶ 128) (Miss.2014) (quoting Gillett v. State, 56 So.3d 469, 496 (¶ 67) (Miss.2010) (quoting Rubenstein, 941 So.2d at 787 (¶ 239))). 2015The giving of a jury instruction is “within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Flowers v. State, 158 So. 3d 1009, 1062 (¶ 128) (Miss. 2014) (quoting Gillett v. State, 56 So. 3d 469, 496 (¶ 67) (Miss. 2010) (quoting Rubenstein, 941 So. 2d at 787 (¶ 239))). | 3 | 3 |
Gillett v. Stategreen2 sentences2015The giving of a jury instruction is “within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Flowers v. State, 158 So.3d 1009, 1062 (¶ 128) (Miss.2014) (quoting Gillett v. State, 56 So.3d 469, 496 (¶ 67) (Miss.2010) (quoting Rubenstein, 941 So.2d at 787 (¶ 239))). 2015The giving of a jury instruction is “within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Flowers v. State, 158 So. 3d 1009, 1062 (¶ 128) (Miss. 2014) (quoting Gillett v. State, 56 So. 3d 469, 496 (¶ 67) (Miss. 2010) (quoting Rubenstein, 941 So. 2d at 787 (¶ 239))). | 3 | 3 |
Curtis Giovanni Flowers v. State of Mississippigreen2 sentences2015The giving of a jury instruction is “within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Flowers v. State, 158 So.3d 1009, 1062 (¶ 128) (Miss.2014) (quoting Gillett v. State, 56 So.3d 469, 496 (¶ 67) (Miss.2010) (quoting Rubenstein, 941 So.2d at 787 (¶ 239))). 2015The giving of a jury instruction is “within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Flowers v. State, 158 So. 3d 1009, 1062 (¶ 128) (Miss. 2014) (quoting Gillett v. State, 56 So. 3d 469, 496 (¶ 67) (Miss. 2010) (quoting Rubenstein, 941 So. 2d at 787 (¶ 239))). | 3 | 3 |
Bell v. Stategreen1 sentence2025But “[n]ot all variances between the indictment and instructions constitute a constructive amendment, nor do they rise to plain error.” Bell v. State, 725 So. 2d 836, 855 (¶61) (Miss. 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Eddie Dwayne Hollingsworth v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2024Therefore, because Arnold failed to make an objection at trial and agreed to the instructions given, he is procedurally barred from raising this issue on appeal, “and our review is restricted to the plain-error doctrine.” Hollingsworth v. State, 269 So. 3d 456, 458 (¶7) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Jones, 776 So. 2d at 653 ; see also Butler v. State, 544 So. 2d 816, 818 (Miss. 1989). ¶35. | 1 | 1 |
Butler v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Jones, 776 So. 2d at 653 ; see also Butler v. State, 544 So. 2d 816, 818 (Miss. 1989). ¶35. | 1 | 1 |
Banyard v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Banyard, 47 So.3d at 683 (“The jurors are the judges of the credibility of the witnesses, not the appellate courts. | 1 | 1 |
Crosby v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See also Crosby v. State, 175 So. 180, 181 , 179 Miss. 149, 162 (1937) (This Court reversed and remanded Crosby’s accessory-after-the-fact conviction where the lower court “refused to grant the appellant an instruction to the effect that the principal in the commission of a felony cannot thereafter become an accessory after the fact, and, if [the jury] believed from the evidence that the appellant himself murdered Lizzie Marsh, or assisted Williams so to do, he could not be convicted of being an accessory thereto after the fact.”) In its certiora-ri brief to this Court, the State argues that, 2015See also Crosby v. State, 175 So. 180, 181 , 179 Miss. 149, 162 (1937) (This Court reversed and remanded Crosby’s accessory-after-the-fact conviction where the lower court “refused to grant the appellant an instruction to the effect that the principal in the commission of a felony cannot thereafter become an accessory after the fact, and, if [the jury] believed from the evidence that the appellant himself murdered Lizzie Marsh, or assisted Williams so to do, he could not be convicted of being an accessory thereto after the fact.”) In its certiora-ri brief to this Court, the State argues that, | 1 | 1 |
Higgins v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Drummer v. State, 167 So.3d 1180, 1186 (¶ 19) (Miss.2015) (citing Higgins v. State, 725 So.2d 220, 223 (¶ 15) (Miss.1998)). | 1 | 1 |
Vance Drummer v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2015Drummer v. State, 167 So.3d 1180, 1186 (¶ 19) (Miss.2015) (citing Higgins v. State, 725 So.2d 220, 223 (¶ 15) (Miss.1998)). | 1 | 1 |
West v. Stategreen2 sentences2011West v. State, 725 So.2d 872, 888 (¶ 66) (Miss.1998) (overruled on other grounds). 2011West v. State, 725 So.2d 872, 888 (¶66) (Miss.1998) (overruled on other grounds). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Holifield v. State
green
1 sentence1983In Holifield v. State, 431 So.2d 929 (Miss. 1983), for example, we were hypertechnical in our enforcement of the rule that, before an assignment of error predicated upon the giving of a jury instruction could be considered on appeal, objection must have been made in the trial court "stating the particular ground or grounds for such objection". | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.