Jones claim in Mississippi

2005"That as a matter of law the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict must be overruled and denied in no way affects and little informs the trial judge regarding his disposition of the motion for a new trial." Jesco, 451 So.2d at 714 (Robertson, J., specially concurring).

2004“That as a matter of law the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict must be overruled and denied in no way affects and little informs the trial judge regarding his disposition of the motion for a new trial.” Jesco, 451 So.2d at 714 (Robertson, J., specially concurring).

2003Bridges v. Pearl River Valley Water Supply Dist., 793 So.2d 584, 588 (Miss.2001). ¶ 31.

2003Bridges v. Pearl River Valley Water Supply Dist., 793 So.2d 584, 588 (Miss.2001). ¶ 31.

2026The presumption of legitimacy was discussed in Smith v. Bell, 876 So. 2d 1087, 1091 (¶13) (Miss.

2021See Wilcher, 243 So. 3d at 188-89 (¶36).

2021See Wilcher, 243 So. 3d at 188-89 (¶36).

2021“A motion for JNOV challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the jury.” Sacus v. State, 956 So. 2d 329, 334 (¶12) (Miss.

2019Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985). 7 offer made by the State.” The trial judge’s statement that he would have rejected the plea bargain offered by the State is fatal to Jones’s claim that she was prejudiced by any deficiency in her attorneys’ representation regarding the plea offer.

2019When determining whether double-jeopardy protections apply, we look to the “same elements” test prescribed by the United States Supreme Court in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932).

2019Newell v. State, 175 So. 3d 1260, 1267-68 (¶5) (Miss. 2015).

2019See Harveson v. State, 493 So. 2d 365, 375 (Miss. 1986) (holding that a lesser-included-offense instruction that is “warranted by the evidence” should be given at the request of either the State or the defense). 4 We must address Jones’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence even though we reverse and remand the case for a new trial on other grounds.

2018See Brewer , 732 So.2d at 936-37 (¶¶ 6-7). (11) The circuit court erred by dismissing Jones's tortious interference claim against Hamilton in Hamilton's individual capacity.

2018See Smith v. Univ. of Miss. , 797 So.2d 956 , 962 (¶ 22) (Miss. 2001).

2017See Jones v. Virginia, 136 S. Ct. 1358 (2016). 16 Following Montgomery, we agree that there is more to Miller.

2017See Jones v, Virginia, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1358 , 194 L.Ed.2d 340 (2016). .

2016In Jones v. State, 738 So.2d 271, 274 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.1999), we affirmed the trial court’s decision. ¶ 2.

2016Accordingly, this Court declines to address Jones’s sufficiency argument. “‘The [appellant’s f]ailure to cite relevant authority obviates the appellate court’s obligation to review such issues.’” Batiste v. State, 121 So. 3d 808, 861 (Miss. 2013) (quoting Simmons v. State, 805 So. 2d 452, 487 (Miss. 2001)). 4 We will only disturb a jury verdict when “it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 844 [(Miss. 2005)] (citing Herring v. State, 691 So. 2d 948, 957 (Miss. 1997)).

2016Accordingly, this Court declines to address Jones’s sufficiency argument. " ‘The [appellant's flailure to cite relevant authority obviates the appellate court’s obligation to review such issues.’ ” Batiste v. State, 121 So.3d 808, 861 (Miss.2013) (quoting Simmons v. State, 805 So.2d 452, 487 (Miss.2001)). .

2016Accordingly, this Court declines to address Jones’s sufficiency argument. “‘The [appellant’s f]ailure to cite relevant authority obviates the appellate court’s obligation to review such issues.’” Batiste v. State, 121 So. 3d 808, 861 (Miss. 2013) (quoting Simmons v. State, 805 So. 2d 452, 487 (Miss. 2001)). 4 We will only disturb a jury verdict when “it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 844 [(Miss. 2005)] (citing Herring v. State, 691 So. 2d 948, 957 (Miss. 1997)).

2016Accordingly, this Court declines to address Jones’s sufficiency argument. “‘The [appellant’s f]ailure to cite relevant authority obviates the appellate court’s obligation to review such issues.’” Batiste v. State, 121 So. 3d 808, 861 (Miss. 2013) (quoting Simmons v. State, 805 So. 2d 452, 487 (Miss. 2001)). 4 We will only disturb a jury verdict when “it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 844 [(Miss. 2005)] (citing Herring v. State, 691 So. 2d 948, 957 (Miss. 1997)).

2016Accordingly, this Court declines to address Jones’s sufficiency argument. “‘The [appellant’s f]ailure to cite relevant authority obviates the appellate court’s obligation to review such issues.’” Batiste v. State, 121 So. 3d 808, 861 (Miss. 2013) (quoting Simmons v. State, 805 So. 2d 452, 487 (Miss. 2001)). 4 We will only disturb a jury verdict when “it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 844 [(Miss. 2005)] (citing Herring v. State, 691 So. 2d 948, 957 (Miss. 1997)).

2016Accordingly, this Court declines to address Jones’s sufficiency argument. " ‘The [appellant's flailure to cite relevant authority obviates the appellate court’s obligation to review such issues.’ ” Batiste v. State, 121 So.3d 808, 861 (Miss.2013) (quoting Simmons v. State, 805 So.2d 452, 487 (Miss.2001)). .

2015See Nelson v. State, 10 So.3d 898, 905 (¶ 29) (Miss.2009) (holding that a jury determines the weight and credibility of witness testimony).

2015We further found that “Jones’s plea[s were] voluntary and that he received effective assistance of counsel.” Id. at 573 (¶ 6).

2013It is well settled that in order “[t]o preserve a jury instruction issue on appeal, the defendant must make a specific objection to the proposed instruction to allow the [circuit] court to consider the issue.” Boyd v. State, 47 So.3d 121, 124 (¶ 10) (Miss.2010) (quoting Harris v. State, 861 So.2d 1003, 1013 (¶18) (Miss.2003)).

2013It is well settled that in order “[t]o preserve a jury instruction issue on appeal, the defendant must make a specific objection to the proposed instruction to allow the [circuit] court to consider the issue.” Boyd v. State, 47 So.3d 121, 124 (¶ 10) (Miss.2010) (quoting Harris v. State, 861 So.2d 1003, 1013 (¶18) (Miss.2003)).