Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-23 (2026)
Homicide; death following duels fought out of state
✓ current as of July 2026
Every person who shall, by previous appointment, agreement, or understanding made in this state, fight a duel without the jurisdiction of this state, and, in so doing, shall inflict a wound upon his antagonist or any other person, whereof the person thus injured die within this state, and every second engaged in such duel, shall be guilty of murder in this state, and may be indicted, tried, and convicted in the county where such death shall happen.
Codes, Hutchinson's 1848, ch. 64, art. 12, Title 2 (5); 1857, ch. 64, art. 166; 1871, § 2629; 1880, § 2876; 1892, § 1150; 1906, § 1228; Hemingway's 1917, § 958; 1930, § 986; 1942, § 2216.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1997–2006 · leading case: Sneed v. Ford Motor Co., 735 So. 2d 306 (Miss. 1999).
Sneed v. Ford Motor Co., 735 So. 2d 306 (Miss. 1999). “The majority correctly *316 notes that Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-23 provides exceptions and limitations to § 97-9-11, but none of those exceptions may be considered applicable to the agreement in the present case.”
Jackson v. State, 743 So. 2d 1008 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). “" Then, more specifically, Jackson contends that because Section 97-3-23 of the Mississippi Code required that he be "above the age of eighteen years," the State failed to present evidence that any of the acts about which Jane Doe testified occurred after Jackson's eighteenth…”
Allen v. State, 960 So. 2d 489 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “The 2003 amendment deleted the second undesignated paragraph which provided "Any prosecutions for felonious abuse or battery of a child as described in Section 97-5-39, touching or handling a child for lustful purposes as described in Section 97-3-23, sexual battery of a child…”
United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., Inc. (Miss. 1997). “The majority correctly notes that Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-23 provides exceptions and limitations to § 97-9-11, but none of those exceptions may be considered applicable to the agreement in the present case.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.