Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1924–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Flowers v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Consistent with the exceptions to the general rule against admitting testimony about crimes for which the defendant is not indicted, proffered in Tucker , this Court has held that "even though it may reveal other crimes, evidence or testimony may be given in order to tell a rational and coherent story of what happened and where it is substantially necessary to present a complete story." Flowers v. State , 773 So.2d 309 , 319 (¶ 28) (Miss. 2000) (citing Miss. 2002Consistent with the exceptions to the general rule against admitting testimony about crimes for which the defendant is not indicted, proffered in Tucker, this Court has held that "even though it may reveal other crimes, evidence or testimony may be given in order to tell a rational and coherent story of what happened and where it is substantially necessary to present a complete story." Flowers v. State, 773 So.2d 309, 319 (¶ 28) (Miss. 2000) (citing Miss. | 1 | 2 |
Flowers v. Stategreen1 sentence2021But “before testimony of bad character of a deceased is admissible under one of the exceptions to the general rule, the evidence must show that the issue of self-defense must at least be in doubt.” Shinall v. State, 199 So. 2d 251, 257 (Miss. 1967), overruled on other grounds by Flowers v. State, 473 So. 2d 164, 165-66 (Miss. 1985). | 1 | 1 |
Shinall v. Stategreen1 sentence2021But “before testimony of bad character of a deceased is admissible under one of the exceptions to the general rule, the evidence must show that the issue of self-defense must at least be in doubt.” Shinall v. State, 199 So. 2d 251, 257 (Miss. 1967), overruled on other grounds by Flowers v. State, 473 So. 2d 164, 165-66 (Miss. 1985). | 1 | 1 |
Gates v. Stategreen1 sentence2021For example, in Gates v. State, 936 So. 2d 335, 339 (¶15) (Miss. 2006), the evidence failed to demonstrate that the victim was the initial aggressor, making testimony concerning an altercation between the victim and the defendant several months earlier irrelevant and inadmissible. | 1 | 1 |
Moriarty v. Stategreen1 sentence1967Spivey v. State, supra; Moriarty v. State, 62 Miss. 654, 661 (1885); Smith v. State, 75 Miss. 542 , 23 So. 260 (1898); Anderson v. State, 181 Miss. 300 , 179 So. 560 (1938); Wesley v. State, supra. It is said in Wigmore on Evidence *258 Volume 2 (3d Ed.) section 246, pages 44, 49-52 (1940) that: "Another and more specific form of limitation is the doctrine of `overt act', peculiarly developed in Louisiana and Florida. | 1 | 1 |
Wesley v. Stategreen1 sentence1967Wesley v. State, 37 Miss. 327, 346 (1859); Chase v. State, supra. Before testimony of bad character of a deceased is admissible under one of the exceptions to the general rule, the evidence must show that the issue of self-defense must at least be in doubt. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barnette v. State
green
1 sentence1986Griffin v. *380 State, 482 So.2d 233 (Miss. 1986); Barnette v. State, 481 So.2d 788 (Miss. 1985); Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743 (Miss. 1984). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Neal v. State
green
1 sentence1986Griffin v. *380 State, 482 So.2d 233 (Miss. 1986); Barnette v. State, 481 So.2d 788 (Miss. 1985); Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743 (Miss. 1984). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Griffin v. State
green
1 sentence1986Griffin v. *380 State, 482 So.2d 233 (Miss. 1986); Barnette v. State, 481 So.2d 788 (Miss. 1985); Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743 (Miss. 1984). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Russell v. Russell
green
1 sentence1980In Russell, supra this Court, after reviewing the authorities, found that Mrs. Russell's situation did not fall within any of the exceptions to the general rule. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Smith v. State
neutral
1 sentence1967Spivey v. State, supra; Moriarty v. State, 62 Miss. 654, 661 (1885); Smith v. State, 75 Miss. 542 , 23 So. 260 (1898); Anderson v. State, 181 Miss. 300 , 179 So. 560 (1938); Wesley v. State, supra. It is said in Wigmore on Evidence *258 Volume 2 (3d Ed.) section 246, pages 44, 49-52 (1940) that: "Another and more specific form of limitation is the doctrine of `overt act', peculiarly developed in Louisiana and Florida. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Anderson v. State
neutral
2 sentences1967Spivey v. State, supra; Moriarty v. State, 62 Miss. 654, 661 (1885); Smith v. State, 75 Miss. 542 , 23 So. 260 (1898); Anderson v. State, 181 Miss. 300 , 179 So. 560 (1938); Wesley v. State, supra. It is said in Wigmore on Evidence *258 Volume 2 (3d Ed.) section 246, pages 44, 49-52 (1940) that: "Another and more specific form of limitation is the doctrine of `overt act', peculiarly developed in Louisiana and Florida. 1967Spivey v. State, supra; Moriarty v. State, 62 Miss. 654, 661 (1885); Smith v. State, 75 Miss. 542 , 23 So. 260 (1898); Anderson v. State, 181 Miss. 300 , 179 So. 560 (1938); Wesley v. State, supra. It is said in Wigmore on Evidence *258 Volume 2 (3d Ed.) section 246, pages 44, 49-52 (1940) that: "Another and more specific form of limitation is the doctrine of `overt act', peculiarly developed in Louisiana and Florida. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
People v. . Molineux
green
2 sentences1924The exceptions to the general rule are also applicable, and evidence is not to be excluded because it shows, or tends to show, the commission of other offenses where it is otherwise admissible, as where it tends to show that the deceased was actually slain by violence, or where it points to, or tends to identify, accused as the slayer of deceased, or where it shows or tends to show malice, motive, or a particular intent. ’ ’ For a full discussion of these exceptions to the general rule see, also, the cases of People v. Pool, 27 Cal. 572 ; State v. Morgan, 22 Utah, 162 , 61 P. 527 , and People 1924The exceptions to the general rule are also applicable, and evidence is not to be excluded because it shows, or tends to show, the commission of other offenses where it is otherwise admissible, as where it tends to show that the deceased was actually slain by violence, or where it points to, or tends to identify, accused as the slayer of deceased, or where it shows or tends to show malice, motive, or a particular intent. ’ ’ For a full discussion of these exceptions to the general rule see, also, the cases of People v. Pool, 27 Cal. 572 ; State v. Morgan, 22 Utah, 162 , 61 P. 527 , and People | 1 | 1924–1924 |
State v. Morgan
neutral
2 sentences1924The exceptions to the general rule are also applicable, and evidence is not to be excluded because it shows, or tends to show, the commission of other offenses where it is otherwise admissible, as where it tends to show that the deceased was actually slain by violence, or where it points to, or tends to identify, accused as the slayer of deceased, or where it shows or tends to show malice, motive, or a particular intent. ’ ’ For a full discussion of these exceptions to the general rule see, also, the cases of People v. Pool, 27 Cal. 572 ; State v. Morgan, 22 Utah, 162 , 61 P. 527 , and People 1924The exceptions to the general rule are also applicable, and evidence is not to be excluded because it shows, or tends to show, the commission of other offenses where it is otherwise admissible, as where it tends to show that the deceased was actually slain by violence, or where it points to, or tends to identify, accused as the slayer of deceased, or where it shows or tends to show malice, motive, or a particular intent. ’ ’ For a full discussion of these exceptions to the general rule see, also, the cases of People v. Pool, 27 Cal. 572 ; State v. Morgan, 22 Utah, 162 , 61 P. 527 , and People | 1 | 1924–1924 |
People v. Pool
green
1 sentence1924The exceptions to the general rule are also applicable, and evidence is not to be excluded because it shows, or tends to show, the commission of other offenses where it is otherwise admissible, as where it tends to show that the deceased was actually slain by violence, or where it points to, or tends to identify, accused as the slayer of deceased, or where it shows or tends to show malice, motive, or a particular intent. ’ ’ For a full discussion of these exceptions to the general rule see, also, the cases of People v. Pool, 27 Cal. 572 ; State v. Morgan, 22 Utah, 162 , 61 P. 527 , and People | 1 | 1924–1924 |
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.