8 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Read v. Stategreen2 sentences2010In Read v. State, 430 So.2d 832, 841 (Miss.1983), the Mississippi Supreme Court set forth procedural rules that must be followed when a defendant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal: If ... [after] a review of the record, ... [an appellate court] can say that the defendant has been denied the effective assistance of counsel, the [c]ourt should also adjudge and reverse and remand for a new trial.... 2009In Read v. State, 430 So.2d 832, 841 (Miss.1983), our supreme court set forth procedural rules that must be followed when a defendant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal: If ... [after] a review of the record, ... [an appellate court] can say that the defendant has been denied the effective assistance of counsel, the [c]ourt should also adjudge and reverse and remand for a new trial.... | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Statered2 sentences1996This Court has held that "[i]t is not the ultimate outcome of whether or not a defendant is able to successfully establish a prima facie case of entrapment, but rather the raising of such a defense that opens the door for the prosecution to introduce evidence of predisposition." Hopson, 625 So.2d at 402 (citing Sayre v. State, 533 So.2d 464 , *1232 466-67 (Miss. 1988); see also Smith v. State, 656 So.2d 95, 99 (Miss. 1995) ("We have previously held that evidence of prior drug transactions is admissible to show predisposition when a defendant raises the defense of entrapment."). 1992This Court has held that "[i]t is not the ultimate outcome of whether or not a defendant is able to successfully establish a prima facie case of entrapment, but rather the raising of such a defense that opens the door for the prosecution to introduce evidence of predisposition." Hopson, 625 So. 2d at 402 (citing Sayre v. State, 533 So. 2d 464, 466-67 (Miss. 1988); see also Smith v. State, 656 So. 2d 95, 99 (Miss. 1995) ("We have previously held that evidence of prior drug transactions is admissible to show predisposition when a defendant raises the defense of entrapment."). ¶13. | 2 | 2 |
Sayre v. Stategreen2 sentences1996This Court has held that "[i]t is not the ultimate outcome of whether or not a defendant is able to successfully establish a prima facie case of entrapment, but rather the raising of such a defense that opens the door for the prosecution to introduce evidence of predisposition." Hopson, 625 So.2d at 402 (citing Sayre v. State, 533 So.2d 464 , *1232 466-67 (Miss. 1988); see also Smith v. State, 656 So.2d 95, 99 (Miss. 1995) ("We have previously held that evidence of prior drug transactions is admissible to show predisposition when a defendant raises the defense of entrapment."). 1992This Court has held that "[i]t is not the ultimate outcome of whether or not a defendant is able to successfully establish a prima facie case of entrapment, but rather the raising of such a defense that opens the door for the prosecution to introduce evidence of predisposition." Hopson, 625 So. 2d at 402 (citing Sayre v. State, 533 So. 2d 464, 466-67 (Miss. 1988); see also Smith v. State, 656 So. 2d 95, 99 (Miss. 1995) ("We have previously held that evidence of prior drug transactions is admissible to show predisposition when a defendant raises the defense of entrapment."). ¶13. | 1 | 3 |
Hopson v. Stategreen2 sentences1996This Court has held that "[i]t is not the ultimate outcome of whether or not a defendant is able to successfully establish a prima facie case of entrapment, but rather the raising of such a defense that opens the door for the prosecution to introduce evidence of predisposition." Hopson, 625 So.2d at 402 (citing Sayre v. State, 533 So.2d 464 , *1232 466-67 (Miss. 1988); see also Smith v. State, 656 So.2d 95, 99 (Miss. 1995) ("We have previously held that evidence of prior drug transactions is admissible to show predisposition when a defendant raises the defense of entrapment."). 1992This Court has held that "[i]t is not the ultimate outcome of whether or not a defendant is able to successfully establish a prima facie case of entrapment, but rather the raising of such a defense that opens the door for the prosecution to introduce evidence of predisposition." Hopson, 625 So. 2d at 402 (citing Sayre v. State, 533 So. 2d 464, 466-67 (Miss. 1988); see also Smith v. State, 656 So. 2d 95, 99 (Miss. 1995) ("We have previously held that evidence of prior drug transactions is admissible to show predisposition when a defendant raises the defense of entrapment."). ¶13. | 1 | 3 |
Stephen Nolan v. State of Mississippigreen1 sentence2026Ct. App. 2021) (citing Nolan v. State, 182 So. 3d 484, 492 (¶28) (Miss. | 1 | 1 |
Colenburg v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Colenburg v. State, 735 So.2d 1099, 1102 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.1999). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Billy G. Byers
green
2 sentences1986They have uniformly held that where the defendant has interposed the defense of insanity, the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination is not violated by a court-ordered psychiatric examination... ." [1] 740 F.2d at 1111 . *973 Accordingly, the court rejected the appellant's claim, holding that when a defendant raises the defense of insanity, he may constitutionally be subjected to compulsory examination by a court-appointed psychiatrist. 740 F.2d at 1115 . 1986They have uniformly held that where the defendant has interposed the defense of insanity, the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination is not violated by a court-ordered psychiatric examination... ." [1] 740 F.2d at 1111 . *973 Accordingly, the court rejected the appellant's claim, holding that when a defendant raises the defense of insanity, he may constitutionally be subjected to compulsory examination by a court-appointed psychiatrist. 740 F.2d at 1115 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
United States v. Kenneth Cohen
green
1 sentence1986The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reached a similar conclusion in United States v. Cohen, 530 F.2d 43 (5th.Cir.1976). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.