has articulated standard in Mississippi

2010Boyd v. State, 557 So.2d 1178, 1181 (Miss.1990) (citing Griffin v. State, 533 So.2d at 447 ).

2007Boyd v. State, 557 So. 2d 1178, 1181 (Miss. 1990) (citing Griffin v. State, 533 So. 2d at 447 ).

2010However, “[a] conclusory, self-serving affidavit, unsupported by material facts relevant to the proposition at issue, is insufficient as a basis to grant summary judgment.” Dalton v. Cellular S., Inc., 20 So.3d 1227, 1233-34 (Miss.2009).

2009However, “[a] conclusory, self-serving affidavit, unsupported by material facts relevant to the proposition at issue, is insufficient as a basis to grant summary judgment.” Dalton v. Cellular S., Inc., 20 So. 3d 1227, 1233-34 (Miss. 2009). ¶16.

2010This Court has articulated its standard for the admissibility of affidavits in accordance with Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e): “[supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affi-ant is competent to testify to the matter stated therein.” Stuckey v. The Provident Bank, 912 So.2d 859, 868 (¶ 20) (Miss.2005).

2009This Court has articulated its standard for the admissibility of affidavits in accordance with Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e): “[s]upporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matter stated therein.” Stuckey v. The Provident Bank, 912 So. 2d 859, 868 (¶20) (Miss. 2005).

2020This Court has articulated that standard as follows: “the unsupported word of the victim of a sex crime is sufficient to support a guilty verdict where that testimony is not discredited or contradicted by other 19 credible evidence.” Miley, 935 So. 2d at 1001 (emphasis added) (citing Collier, 711 So. 2d at 462 ).

2009When so read, if the instructions fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice, no reversible error will be found.” Johnson v. State, 823 So.2d 582, 584 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2002) (quoting Collins v. State, 691 So.2d 918, 922 (Miss.1997)). ¶ 11.

2009When so read, if the instructions fairly announce the law of the case and create no injustice, no reversible error will be found.” Johnson v. State, 823 So.2d 582, 584 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2002) (quoting Collins v. State, 691 So.2d 918, 922 (Miss.1997)). ¶ 11.

2008"We review the admission or exclusion of evidence under the abuse of discretion standard of review and will not reverse unless a substantial right of the defendant is adversely affected by the improperly admitted or excluded evidence." Young v. State, 981 So.2d 308, 313 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (citing Floyd v. City of Crystal Springs, 749 So.2d 110, 113 (¶ 12) (Miss.1999)). ¶ 12.

2008“We review the admission or exclusion of evidence under the abuse of discretion standard of review and will not reverse unless a substantial right of the defendant is adversely affected by the improperly admitted or excluded evidence.” Young v. State, 981 So.2d 308, 313 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (citing Floyd v. City of Crystal Springs, 749 So.2d 110, 113 (¶ 12) (Miss.1999)). ¶ 12.

2008"We review the admission or exclusion of evidence under the abuse of discretion standard of review and will not reverse unless a substantial right of the defendant is adversely affected by the improperly admitted or excluded evidence." Young v. State, 981 So.2d 308, 313 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (citing Floyd v. City of Crystal Springs, 749 So.2d 110, 113 (¶ 12) (Miss.1999)). ¶ 12.

2008“We review the admission or exclusion of evidence under the abuse of discretion standard of review and will not reverse unless a substantial right of the defendant is adversely affected by the improperly admitted or excluded evidence.” Young v. State, 981 So.2d 308, 313 (¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (citing Floyd v. City of Crystal Springs, 749 So.2d 110, 113 (¶ 12) (Miss.1999)). ¶ 12.