opportunity to present defense (Mississippi) · Go Syfert
← Mississippi issues

opportunity to present defense in Mississippi

9 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2020 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Aronson v. THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPIgreen
miss · 2002 · cited in 2 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006Aronson, 828 So.2d at 756 (¶ 14).

2006Aronson, 828 So.2d at 756 (¶ 14).

22
Adams v. Stategreen
miss · 2000 · cited in 1 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014In his brief, Cliff simply claims he “could not know if the State would be able to acquire the exemplification and certification of his out-of-state convictions necessary to sustain the motion.” In Lamb v. State, 124 So.8d 84, 86 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2013), this Court explained that “sentencing enhancements are determined by the court after the guilt phase of the trial.” The Lamb court determined that “[c]harging Lamb as a habitual offender did not affect the substance of the crime of which he was charged, but only the sentencing.” Id. (citing Adams v. State, 772 So.2d 1010, 1020 (¶ 49) (Miss.20

11
Maye v. Stategreen
miss · 2010 · cited in 1 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013Jury instruction issues “generally are within the discretion of the trial court.” Maye v. State, 49 So.3d 1124, 1129 (¶ 7) (Miss.2010).

11
Deere & Company v. Johnsongreen
ca5 · 2001 · cited in 1 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
1 sentence

2011See Deere & Co. v. Johnson, 271 F.3d 613, 621-23 (5th Cir.2001) (finding Rule 15(b) amendment after close of trial was abuse of discretion, which violated due process by denying the other side an opportunity to present a defense); see also Am.

11
Gingold v. Audi-Nsu-Auto Union, A.G.green
pa · 1989 · cited in 1 Mississippi opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
2 sentences

1997See Gingold v. Audi-NSU-Auto Union, 389 Pa.Super. 328 , 567 A.2d 312, 326 (1989)(jury is still permitted to reject the negligence and products liability claims associated with failure to install air bags). ¶ 61.

1997See Gingold v. Audi-NSU-Auto Union, 389 Pa.Super. 328 , 567 A.2d 312, 326 (1989)(jury is still permitted to reject the negligence and products liability claims associated with failure to install air bags). ¶ 61.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Giles v. State green
miss · 1995
2 sentences

1997Although Evans cites Giles v. State, 650 So.2d 846 (Miss.1995), in arguing that he was denied an opportunity to present his defense theory to the jury, Giles is distinguishable.

1993Although Evans cites Giles v. State, 650 So. 2d 846 (Miss.1995), in arguing that he was denied an opportunity to present his defense theory to the jury, Giles is distinguishable.

21993–1997
Alexander v. State green
miss · 1992
1 sentence

2020Id. at 1172 .

12020–2020
Williams v. State green
miss · 1988
1 sentence

2014In his brief, Cliff simply claims he “could not know if the State would be able to acquire the exemplification and certification of his out-of-state convictions necessary to sustain the motion.” In Lamb v. State, 124 So.8d 84, 86 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2013), this Court explained that “sentencing enhancements are determined by the court after the guilt phase of the trial.” The Lamb court determined that “[c]harging Lamb as a habitual offender did not affect the substance of the crime of which he was charged, but only the sentencing.” Id. (citing Adams v. State, 772 So.2d 1010, 1020 (¶ 49) (Miss.20

12014–2014

Where else courts name it

CA 89 (1914–2026) NY 44 (1903–2024) PA 34 (1929–2026) MI 31 (1896–2026) TX 27 (1979–2024) IL 21 (1886–2026) LA 18 (1979–2023) NC 12 (1971–2009) OH 12 (1999–2026) MO 11 (1960–2008) NM 11 (1981–2020) TN 11 (1929–2023) VA 10 (1992–2026) MS 9 (1993–2020) FL 8 (1964–2019) WI 8 (1975–2022) KS 7 (1934–2024) MN 7 (1966–2017) WA 7 (2017–2026) IN 7 (1990–2026) OK 6 (1928–2011) MT 6 (1921–2025) CT 5 (1988–2019) CO 5 (2001–2025) NJ 5 (1963–2011) AL 5 (1978–2017) AZ 4 (1978–1998) UT 4 (2009–2020) MD 4 (1959–1999) MA 4 (1982–2006) GA 4 (1991–2020) OR 3 (1928–1994) ID 3 (1997–2023) VI 2 (1981–2000) WV 2 (1981–2019) SD 2 (1996–2010) DC 2 (1972–1995) NH 2 (2008–2010) VT 2 (1969–2006) AR 2 (2010–2017) IA 2 (1984–2016) WY 2 (1934–2025)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check