9 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
MacK v. Stategreen2 sentences2003See Mack v. State, 481 So.2d 793, 795 (Miss.1985) . 2003See Mack v. State, 481 So.2d 793, 795 (Miss.1985). | 3 | 3 |
Mease v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Mease v. State, 539 So.2d 1324, 1329-30 (Miss. 1989). 1992Mease v. State, 539 So. 2d 1324, 1329-30 (Miss. 1989). | 3 | 3 |
Jenkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2017Jenkins, 757 So. 2d at 1009 (¶20); see also Givens v. State, 618 So. 2d 1313, 1319 (Miss. 1993) (finding that a defendant was not entitled to a circumstantial-evidence instruction in view of direct eyewitness testimony of a police officer who saw the defendant throw away a bag that contained contraband). ¶10. | 1 | 1 |
Givens v. Stategreen1 sentence2017Jenkins, 757 So. 2d at 1009 (¶20); see also Givens v. State, 618 So. 2d 1313, 1319 (Miss. 1993) (finding that a defendant was not entitled to a circumstantial-evidence instruction in view of direct eyewitness testimony of a police officer who saw the defendant throw away a bag that contained contraband). ¶10. | 1 | 1 |
Swanier v. Stategreen1 sentence1990Mease v. State, 539 So.2d 1324, 1329-30 (Miss. 1989); cf. Swanier v. State, 473 So.2d 180, 188 (Miss. 1985) ("where the evidence does not warrant a manslaughter instruction, one should not be given"). | 1 | 1 |
Leatherwood v. Stategreen1 sentence1990Defense counsel found ineffective because he failed to present any mitigation evidence, and there was a reasonable probability that the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors would have been different and a life sentence returned; Davis, 512 So.2d 1291 at 1293 (Miss. 1987) ("Mississippi allows `evidence of mitigating circumstance of an unlimited nature.'") quoting Leatherwood v. State, 435 So.2d 645, 650 (Miss. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Stategreen1 sentence1990Defense counsel found ineffective because he failed to present any mitigation evidence, and there was a reasonable probability that the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors would have been different and a life sentence returned; Davis, 512 So.2d 1291 at 1293 (Miss. 1987) ("Mississippi allows `evidence of mitigating circumstance of an unlimited nature.'") quoting Leatherwood v. State, 435 So.2d 645, 650 (Miss. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Manuel Ricardo Garcia and Niceforo Gutierrez-Saenzgreen1 sentence1980United States v. Garcia, 530 F.2d 650, 656 (5th Cir.1976), citing Upham v. United States, 328 F.2d 661 (5th Cir.1964). ( 586 F.2d at 1058 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Manuel v. State
green
1 sentence2000The one case that is directly on point is Manuel v. State, 667 So.2d 590 (Miss.1995). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Tokman
green
1 sentence1990Turner, supra, at 674 , Cf. Tokman, 564 So.2d 1339 (Miss. 1990) (characterizing as critical the need for defense counsel to present mitigation evidence at capital proceedings. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Turner v. State
green
1 sentence1990Turner, supra, at 674 , Cf. Tokman, 564 So.2d 1339 (Miss. 1990) (characterizing as critical the need for defense counsel to present mitigation evidence at capital proceedings. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Henry Herman Upham v. United States
neutral
1 sentence1980United States v. Garcia, 530 F.2d 650, 656 (5th Cir.1976), citing Upham v. United States, 328 F.2d 661 (5th Cir.1964). ( 586 F.2d at 1058 ). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
United States v. Robert Luther Barnes
green
2 sentences1980In United States v. Barnes, 586 F.2d 1052 (5th Cir.1978), the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that evidence of the defendant's prior drug transactions could be used only to show his state of mind rather *248 than to show that he was of bad character came under review, and the court held, in part: Plain error appears only when the impeaching testimony is extremely damaging, the need for the instruction is obvious, and the failure to give it is so prejudicial as to affect the substantial rights of the accused. 1980United States v. Garcia, 530 F.2d 650, 656 (5th Cir.1976), citing Upham v. United States, 328 F.2d 661 (5th Cir.1964). ( 586 F.2d at 1058 ). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.