totality of the circumstances test in Mississippi

2006In Lee v. State, 435 So.2d 674, 676 (Miss.1983), the Mississippi Supreme Court, without explicitly adopting the totality of the circumstances test promulgated in Gates , applied it and found that probable cause existed for the issuance of a search warrant.

2005Illinois sets out a totality of the circumstances test for probable cause, which was endorsed by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Lee v. State, 435 So.2d 674, 676 (Miss.1983).

1997Doss maintains that, based upon the totality of the circumstances test from Miller v. State, 243 So.2d 558, 559 (Miss. 1971) [23] , his statement was involuntary and thus inadmissible.

1993Doss maintains that, based upon the totality of the circumstances test from Miller v. State, 243 So. 2d 558, 559 (Miss. 1971)(23), his statement was involuntary and thus inadmissible.

2022Id. at 1237-38 (¶13); Richardson, 913 So. 2d at 978-79 . 41 ¶82.

2011See Richardson, 913 So.2d at 978 .

2008See Woodham v. State, 779 So.2d 158, 161-62 (¶¶ 13, 17) (Miss.2001) (sixteen-year-old’s confession considered voluntary); Moody v. State, 838 So.2d 324, 333 (¶ 32) (Miss.Ct.App.2002) (court deemed confession by fourteen-year-old voluntary).

2007In Woodham v. State, 800 So.2d 1148, 1154 (¶ 17) (Miss.2001), the Mississippi Supreme Court noted that the totality of the circumstances test must be used when examining a juvenile's confession because "[t]he age of the minor is seldom per se conclusive in deciding whether a confession was freely and voluntarily given." (quoting Woodham v. State, 779 So.2d 158, 161 (¶ 14) (Miss.2001)).

2007Edmonds , at ¶ 18, 955 So.2d at 875 (citing Dancer v. State, 721 So.2d 583, 587 (Miss. 1998), and Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 , 99 S.Ct. 2560 , 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979)).

2004Edmonds, at ¶ 18 (citing Dancer v. State, 721 So. 2d 583, 587 (Miss. 1998), and Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 , 99 S. Ct. 2560 , 61 L.

2007Epps v. State, 926 So.2d 242, 244 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2005). ¶ 11.

2007Epps v. State, 926 So.2d 242, 244 (¶ 7) (Miss.Ct.App.2005). a.

2006Sys., 839 *911 So.2d 530, 534 (Miss.2003); Collins v. Joshi, 611 So.2d 898, 903 (Miss.1992) (Banks, J. concurring)) (emphasis in original). ¶ 14.

2005Sys., 839 So. 2d 530, 534 (Miss. 2003); Collins v. Joshi, 611 So.2d 898, 903 (Miss. 1992) (Banks, J. concurring)) (emphasis in original). ¶14.

2005Le is correct in asserting that, "[w]hen determining voluntariness, the court must look at the `totality of the circumstances' surrounding the statement." Jones v. State, 841 So.2d 115, 130 (Miss.2003).

2002Le is correct in asserting that, “[w]hen determining voluntariness, the court must look at the ‘totality of the circumstances’ surrounding the statement.” Jones v. State, 841 So. 2d 115, 130 (Miss. 2003).

2004In agreement with the State, this Court finds that the evidence presented to the magistrate in the affidavit along with proof of the drug dog’s “alerting” to the package was sufficient probable cause to meet the totality of the circumstances test given in Jones v. State, 724 So.2d 427, 429 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.1998).

2003In agreement with the State's brief, this Court finds that the evidence presented to the magistrate in the affidavit along with proof of the drug dog's "alerting" to the package was sufficient probable cause to meet the totality of the circumstances test given in Jones v. State, 724 So.2d 427, 429 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.1998).

2009In Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), the United States Supreme Court established a totality-of-the-circumstances test for determining whether probable cause exists for the issuance of a search warrant.

2009In Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), the United States Supreme Court established a totality-of-the-circumstances test for determining whether probable cause exists for the issuance of a search warrant.

2018"Under the totality-of-the-circumstances test, the task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision based on all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the veracity and the basis of the knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information." Thompson , 92 So.3d at 696 (¶ 10) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Woods , 866 So.2d 422 , 425 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2003) ).

2007State v. Woods, 866 So.2d 422, 425 (¶ 10) (Miss.2003) (citations omitted). ¶ 22.

2026In making this determination, “[o]ur review is guided by the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis established by the United States Supreme Court.” Sutton, 238 So. 3d at 1155 (¶13).

2022Gray, 72 So. 3d at 500 (¶32).

2022E.g., City of Jackson v. Gardner, 108 So. 3d 927, 929 (¶7) (Miss. 2013).

2022Id. at (¶¶22-23); accord Carothers v. City of Water Valley, 242 So. 3d 138 (Miss.

2018"Under the totality-of-the-circumstances test, the task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision based on all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the veracity and the basis of the knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information." Thompson , 92 So.3d at 696 (¶ 10) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Woods , 866 So.2d 422 , 425 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2003) ).

2017"Based on our standard of review, the circuit judge's findings are safe on appeal if they are supported by substantial, credible, and reasonable evidence." City of Jackson v. Brister , 838 So.2d 274 , 278-79 (¶ 19) (Miss. 2003).

2017“Based on our standard of review, the circuit judge’s findings are safe on appeal if they are supported by substantial, credible, and reasonable evidence.” City of Jackson v. Brister, 838 So. 2d 274, 278-79 (¶19) (Miss. 2003).

2016Pennsylvania has a separate statute defining attempt. 2 Under Pennsylvania law, the requisite intent of a person charged under the attempt provision of the aggravated-assault statute is determined under a totality-of-the-circumstances test with a list of nonexhaustive factors given, to be considered on a case-by-case basis. 3 Com. v. Jackson, 955 A.2d 441, 446 (¶ 15) (Pa.Super.Ct.2008) (citing Com. v. Alexander, 477 Pa. 190 , 383 A.2d 887 (1978)).

2014See Knight, 72 So.3d at 1063 (¶ 26).

2008When determining whether or not a Miranda waiver is proper, the trial court must conduct a totality of the circumstances analysis and look at such factors as the “defendant’s ‘experience with the police and familiarity with warnings; intelligence, including I.Q.; age; education; vocabulary and ability to read and write in the language in which the warnings were given; intoxication; emotional state; mental disease, disorder or retardation.’ ” Id. (citing State v. Whitaker, 215 Conn. 739 , 578 A.2d 1031, 1039 (1990)). ¶ 31.

2008When determining whether or not a Miranda waiver is proper, the trial court must conduct a totality of the circumstances analysis and look at such factors as the “defendant’s ‘experience with the police and familiarity with warnings; intelligence, including I.Q.; age; education; vocabulary and ability to read and write in the language in which the warnings were given; intoxication; emotional state; mental disease, disorder or retardation.’ ” Id. (citing State v. Whitaker, 215 Conn. 739 , 578 A.2d 1031, 1039 (1990)). ¶ 31.