9 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fare v. Michael C.green2 sentences2024When the defendant is a minor, a trial court must also evaluate “the circumstances surrounding the interrogation,” including “the juvenile’s age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and into whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights.” Jennings v. State, 127 So. 3d 185, 191 (¶9) (Miss. 2013) (quoting Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725 (1979)); see also McGowan v. State, 706 So. 2d 231, 235 (Miss. 1997). 2013Evaluating the circumstances surrounding the interrogation “includes [an] evaluation of the juvenile’s age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and into whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights.” Fare, 442 U.S. at 725 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 ; McGowan, 706 So.2d at 235 . | 3 | 9 |
McGowan v. Stategreen2 sentences2024When the defendant is a minor, a trial court must also evaluate “the circumstances surrounding the interrogation,” including “the juvenile’s age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and into whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights.” Jennings v. State, 127 So. 3d 185, 191 (¶9) (Miss. 2013) (quoting Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725 (1979)); see also McGowan v. State, 706 So. 2d 231, 235 (Miss. 1997). 2013Evaluating the circumstances surrounding the interrogation “includes [an] evaluation of the juvenile’s age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and into whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights.” Fare, 442 U.S. at 725 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 ; McGowan, 706 So.2d at 235 . | 2 | 3 |
Ruffin v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Once the State has established a prima facie case that the confession was voluntary, “[t]he defendant must rebut the State’s prima facie case by offering testimony that violence, threats of violence, or offers of reward induced the confession.” Ruffin v. State, 992 So. 2d 1165, 1169 (¶9) (Miss. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶13. | 1 | 1 |
Jennings v. Stategreen1 sentence2024When the defendant is a minor, a trial court must also evaluate “the circumstances surrounding the interrogation,” including “the juvenile’s age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and into whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights.” Jennings v. State, 127 So. 3d 185, 191 (¶9) (Miss. 2013) (quoting Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725 (1979)); see also McGowan v. State, 706 So. 2d 231, 235 (Miss. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Porter v. Stategreen1 sentence1999The totality of the circumstances approach mandates that the trial judge perform an "evaluation of the juvenile's age, experience, education, background, and intelligence, and into whether he has the capacity to understand the warning given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those rights." Id. at (¶ 13) (quoting Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979)); see also Porter v. State, 616 So.2d 899, 907-08 (Miss.1993)("[T]he applicable standard for determining whether a confession is voluntary is whether, taking into c | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
North Carolina v. Butler
red
2 sentences2007Fare, 442 U.S. at 725 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 (citing North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 , 99 S.Ct. 1755 , 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979)(emphasis supplied)). 2007Fare, 442 U.S. at 725 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 (citing North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 , 99 S.Ct. 1755 , 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979)(emphasis supplied)). | 2 | 2004–2007 |
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.