set out standard in Mississippi

2017Herring v. State, 691 So.2d 948, 957 (Miss. 1997).

2010Herring v. State, 691 So.2d 948, 957 (Miss.1997).

2017In Bush, 895 So.2d at 844 , this Court set out the standard of review for weight of the evidence, stating: *705 [w]hen reviewing a denial of a motion for a new trial based on an objection to the weight of the evidence, we will only disturb a verdict when it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.

2010In Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss.2005), this Court set out the standard of review for legal sufficiency, stating: whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction in the face of a motion for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the critical inquiry is whether the evidence shows “beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed; and where the evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to support a conviction.” [Carr v. State, 208 So.2d 886,

2010In Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss.2005), this Court set out the standard of review for legal sufficiency, stating: whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction in the face of a motion for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the critical inquiry is whether the evidence shows “beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed; and where the evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to support a conviction.” [Carr v. State, 208 So.2d 886,

2008In Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836 (Miss. 2005), this Court set out the standard of review for legal sufficiency, stating: whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction in the face of a motion for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the critical inquiry is whether the evidence shows “beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed; and where the evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to support a conviction.” [Carr v. State, 208 So. 2d 88

2007Edwards v. State, 469 So.2d 68, 70 (Miss.1985) (citing May v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 781 (Miss.1984)); see also Dycus v. State, 875 So.2d 140, 164 (Miss. 2004).

2006Edwards v. State, 469 So.2d 68, 70 (Miss.1985) (citing May v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 781 (Miss.1984)); see also Dycus v. State, 875 So.2d 140, 164 (Miss. *952 2004).

2007Edwards v. State, 469 So.2d 68, 70 (Miss.1985) (citing May v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 781 (Miss.1984)); see also Dycus v. State, 875 So.2d 140, 164 (Miss. 2004).

2006Edwards v. State, 469 So.2d 68, 70 (Miss.1985) (citing May v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 781 (Miss.1984)); see also Dycus v. State, 875 So.2d 140, 164 (Miss. *952 2004).

2007Edwards v. State, 469 So.2d 68, 70 (Miss.1985) (citing May v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 781 (Miss.1984)); see also Dycus v. State, 875 So.2d 140, 164 (Miss. 2004).

2006Edwards v. State, 469 So.2d 68, 70 (Miss.1985) (citing May v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 781 (Miss.1984)); see also Dycus v. State, 875 So.2d 140, 164 (Miss. *952 2004).

1999This Court set out the test and standards in Cabello v. State, 524 So.2d 313 (Miss.1988): In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 (1984), the United States Supreme Court established a two-prong test, required to prove the ineffective assistance of counsel: the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense....

1999This Court set out the test and standards in Cabello v. State, 524 So.2d 313 (Miss.1988): In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 (1984), the United States Supreme Court established a two-prong test, required to prove the ineffective assistance of counsel: the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense....

2004The standard of review for denial of a motion for mistrial is abuse of discretion." Pulphus v. State, 782 So.2d 1220 , 1222 (Miss. 2001) (citations omitted); Spann v. State, 771 So.2d 883 , 889 (Miss. 2000); Johnson v. State, 666 So.2d 784 , 794 (Miss. 1995); Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521 (Miss. 1996).

2003The standard of review for denial of a motion for mistrial is abuse of discretion." Pulphus v. State, 782 So.2d 1220, 1222 (Miss.2001) (citations omitted); Spann v. State, 771 So.2d 883, 889 (Miss.2000); Johnson v. State, 666 So.2d 784, 794 (Miss.1995); Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521 (Miss.1996).

2004The standard of review for denial of a motion for mistrial is abuse of discretion." Pulphus v. State, 782 So.2d 1220 , 1222 (Miss. 2001) (citations omitted); Spann v. State, 771 So.2d 883 , 889 (Miss. 2000); Johnson v. State, 666 So.2d 784 , 794 (Miss. 1995); Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521 (Miss. 1996).

2003The standard of review for denial of a motion for mistrial is abuse of discretion." Pulphus v. State, 782 So.2d 1220, 1222 (Miss.2001) (citations omitted); Spann v. State, 771 So.2d 883, 889 (Miss.2000); Johnson v. State, 666 So.2d 784, 794 (Miss.1995); Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521 (Miss.1996).

2004In Caston v. State, 823 So.2d 473 , 492 (Miss. 2002), this Court set out the standard of review for a motion for mistrial as follows: "Whether to grant a motion for mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court.

2003In Caston v. State, 823 So.2d 473, 492 (Miss.2002), this Court set out the standard of review for a motion for mistrial as follows: "Whether to grant a motion for mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court.

2004The standard of review for denial of a motion for mistrial is abuse of discretion." Pulphus v. State, 782 So.2d 1220 , 1222 (Miss. 2001) (citations omitted); Spann v. State, 771 So.2d 883 , 889 (Miss. 2000); Johnson v. State, 666 So.2d 784 , 794 (Miss. 1995); Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521 (Miss. 1996).

2003The standard of review for denial of a motion for mistrial is abuse of discretion." Pulphus v. State, 782 So.2d 1220, 1222 (Miss.2001) (citations omitted); Spann v. State, 771 So.2d 883, 889 (Miss.2000); Johnson v. State, 666 So.2d 784, 794 (Miss.1995); Hoops v. State, 681 So.2d 521 (Miss.1996).

2012In Alexander v. State, 610 So.2d 320 (Miss.1992) (internal citations omitted), this Court set out the standard of review on voluntariness of confessions, finding it is essentially a fact-finding function.

2003In Alexander v. State , 610 So.2d 320 (Miss. 1992) (internal citations omitted), this Court set out the standard of review on voluntariness of confessions, finding it is essentially a fact-finding function.

2010Dr. K.B., 9 So.3d at 1127 (citing Grafe v. Olds, 556 So.2d 690, 692 (Miss.1990)).

2010Dr. KB., 9 So.3d at 1127 (citing Grafe v. Olds, 556 So.2d 690, 692 (Miss.1990)).

2010In Dr. K.B. v. J.G., 9 So.3d 1124, 1127 (Miss.2009), this Court set out the standard of review for chancery matters, stating that a chancellor's finding of fact will not be overruled by the appellate court when it is supported by substantial evidence, unless the chancellor applied an erroneous legal standard or there was manifest error.

2010In Dr. KB. v. J.G., 9 So.3d 1124, 1127 (Miss.2009), this Court set out the standard of review for chancery matters, stating that a chancellor’s finding of fact will not be overruled by the appellate court when it is supported by substantial evidence, unless the chancellor applied an erroneous legal standard or there was manifest error.

2007This Court set out the standard of review in annexation matters in In re Extension of Boundaries of City of Hattiesburg, 840 So.2d 69, 81 (Miss.2003).

2006This Court set out the standard of review in annexation matters in In re Extension of Boundaries of City of Hattiesburg, 840 So. 2d 69, 81 (Miss. 2003).

2005This Court set out the standard for overwhelming weight of the evidence in Dunn v. State, 891 So.2d 822, 826 (Miss. 2005).

2003This Court set out the standard for overwhelming weight of the evidence in Dunn v. State, 891 So. 2d 822, 826 (Miss. 2005).

2005Chatman v. State, 761 So.2d 851, 854 (Miss.2000).

2003Chatman v. State, 761 So.2d 851, 854 (Miss.2000).

2005In Price v. State, 898 So.2d 641, 653 (Miss. 2005), this Court set out the standard of review for the admission of evidence: "Relevancy and admissibility of evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial court, and reversal may be had only where that discretion has been abused." White v. State, 742 So.2d 1126, 1134 (Miss.1999).

2004As far as the further statements as to what McIntosh had told her, what she believed might happen, the Court does not feel that it is proper to be put in, at least not at this point in the trial and past the point of what Creola stated that day that she that she [sic] intended to do, which the Court finds would fall under 803(3), the Court will not allow that further testimony as proffered by the State. 4 In Price v. State, 898 So.2d 641, 653 (Miss. 2005), this Court set out the standard of review for the admission of evidence: “Relevancy and admissibility of evidence are largely within the di

2005In Price v. State, 898 So.2d 641, 653 (Miss. 2005), this Court set out the standard of review for the admission of evidence: "Relevancy and admissibility of evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial court, and reversal may be had only where that discretion has been abused." White v. State, 742 So.2d 1126, 1134 (Miss.1999).

2004As far as the further statements as to what McIntosh had told her, what she believed might happen, the Court does not feel that it is proper to be put in, at least not at this point in the trial and past the point of what Creola stated that day that she that she [sic] intended to do, which the Court finds would fall under 803(3), the Court will not allow that further testimony as proffered by the State. 4 In Price v. State, 898 So.2d 641, 653 (Miss. 2005), this Court set out the standard of review for the admission of evidence: “Relevancy and admissibility of evidence are largely within the di

1998"That standard is whether the juror's views would `prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.'" Wainwright, 469 U.S. at 424 , 105 S.Ct. at 852 ( quoting Adams, 448 U.S. at 45 , 100 S.Ct. at 2526 ).

1998"That standard is whether the juror's views would `prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.'" Wainwright, 469 U.S. at 424 , 105 S.Ct. at 852 ( quoting Adams, 448 U.S. at 45 , 100 S.Ct. at 2526 ).

2014Cheatham v. Cheatham, 537 So.2d 435, 438 (Miss.1988).

2012This Court set out the standard for determining mootness in Fails v. Jefferson Davis County Public School Board, 95 So.3d 1223, 1225 (Miss.2012), stating that “[a] case is moot so long as a judgment on the merits, if rendered, would be of no practical benefit to the plaintiff or detriment to the defendant.” Id. (quoting Gartrell v. Gartrell, 936 So.2d 915, 916 (Miss.2006)).

2012We recognized that we lack authority to “entertain an appeal where there is no actual controversy.” Id.

2012This Court set out the standard for determining mootness in Fails v. Jefferson Davis County Public School Board, 95 So.3d 1223, 1225 (Miss.2012), stating that “[a] case is moot so long as a judgment on the merits, if rendered, would be of no practical benefit to the plaintiff or detriment to the defendant.” Id. (quoting Gartrell v. Gartrell, 936 So.2d 915, 916 (Miss.2006)).

2012This Court set out the standard for determining mootness in Fails v. Jefferson Davis County Public School Board, 95 So.3d 1223, 1225 (Miss.2012), stating that “[a] case is moot so long as a judgment on the merits, if rendered, would be of no practical benefit to the plaintiff or detriment to the defendant.” Id. (quoting Gartrell v. Gartrell, 936 So.2d 915, 916 (Miss.2006)).

2010This Court set out the analysis for determining the type of contempt in Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. McGill, 890 So.2d 859, 868-68 (Miss.2004).

2010“Criminal contempt penalties, on the other hand, are designed to punish the contemnor for disobedience of a court order; punishment is for past offenses and does not terminate upon compliance with the court order.” Id. at 868 (citing Common Cause of Miss. v. Smith, 548 So.2d 412, 415-16 (Miss.1989)).