Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Bishop v. State

35 Citing cases

  1. Madden v. State

    97 So. 3d 1217 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 2 times
    Finding that the child's referral to the therapist by DHS was not to "look for evidence for future prosecution," but was for the primary purpose of addressing "the harmful behavior Jane reportedly had been exhibiting toward herself and to others," and that the therapist "thereafter contacted DHS and the district attorney's office and reported what she had observed," did not render the child's statements non-testimonial

    In order for Crawford to apply to Jane's statements as Madden contends in this appeal, we must necessarily find that Jane's statements were testimonial. Bishop v. State, 982 So.2d 371, 374 (¶ 10) (Miss.2008). “Only [testimonial] statements ... cause the declarant to be a witness within the meaning of the Confrontation Clause.”

  2. Madden v. State

    2010 KA 1148 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)

    ¶ In order for Crawford to apply to Jane's statements as Madden contends in this appeal, we must necessarily find that Jane's statements were testimonial. Bishop v. State, 982 So. 2d 371, 374 (¶ 10) (Miss. 2008). "Only [testimonial] statements . . . cause the declarant to be a witness within the meaning of the Confrontation Clause."

  3. Mason v. State

    203 So. 3d 732 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)

    (citation omitted)).See Bishop v. State , 982 So.2d 371, 375 (¶ 16) (Miss. 2008) (noting that the trial judge conducted the required Rule 803(25) hearing outside the presence of the jury).¶ 31. After considering the parties' arguments and applicable caselaw, the circuit court rendered on-the-record factual findings that reflected the court found the girls' testimony credible and reliable.

  4. Mason v. State

    203 So. 3d 732 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)

    (citation omitted)).See Bishop v. State , 982 So.2d 371, 375 (¶ 16) (Miss. 2008) (noting that the trial judge conducted the required Rule 803(25) hearing outside the presence of the jury).¶ 31. After considering the parties' arguments and applicable caselaw, the circuit court rendered on-the-record factual findings that reflected the court found the girls' testimony credible and reliable.

  5. Dukes v. State

    No. 2022-KA-00670-SCT (Miss. Aug. 31, 2023)   Cited 6 times

    Cook v. State, 161 So.3d 1057, 1065 (Miss. 2015) (citing Bishop v. State, 982 So.2d 371, 375 (Miss. 2008)). "[T]his Court will not reverse a trial judge's decision on the admissibility of testimony offered at trial unless prejudice amounting to reversible error resulted from such a decision." Bishop, 982 So.2d at 375 (citing Alexander v. State, 610 So.2d 320, 329 (Miss. 1992)).

  6. State v. Scott

    233 So. 3d 253 (Miss. 2017)   Cited 4 times
    Clarifying that the expert must be given the freedom to chose the method he or she deems appropriate, in his or her expert view, to make an Atkins assessment

    ¶ 35. Admission of expert testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Bishop v. State , 982 So.2d 371, 380 (Miss. 2008). And here, the trial court considered Dr. Macvaugh and Dr. Cunningham's article when ultimately ruling Dr. Zimmerman's opinion on malingering was reliable.

  7. Cook v. State

    161 So. 3d 1057 (Miss. 2015)   Cited 16 times
    Holding prior crimes as separate incidents at different times when the record showed prior indictments proved that a grand larceny charge, while committed on the same date, was at a different location and committed against a different victim

    We find Cook's brief to be unclear about precisely which statements Cook argues were inadmissible. He seems to identify the statements made by S.J. and H.L. to their great-grandmother and the statements made by S.J. to the interviewer at the CEC as the statements which he claims to have been inadmissible under Rule 803(25). He claims that the interviewer employed suggestive techniques to elicit statements from S.J. The standard of review for evidentiary rulings is abuse of discretion. Bishop v. State, 982 So.2d 371, 375 (Miss.2008) (citing Lynch v. State, 877 So.2d 1254, 1281 (Miss.2004) ). “[T]his Court will not reverse a trial judge's decision on the admissibility of testimony offered at trial unless prejudice amounting to reversible error resulted from such a decision.”

  8. Cook v. State

    NO. 2013-KA-01240-SCT (Miss. Apr. 11, 2015)

    We find Cook's brief to be unclear about precisely which statements Cook argues were inadmissible. He seems to identify the statements made by S.J. and H.L. to their great-grandmother and the statements made by S.J. to the interviewer at the CEC as the statements which he claims to have been inadmissible under Rule 803(25). He claims that the interviewer employed suggestive techniques to elicit statements from S.J. The standard of review for evidentiary rulings is abuse of discretion. Bishop v. State, 982 So. 2d 371, 375 (Miss. 2008) (citing Lynch v. State, 877 So. 2d 1254, 1281 (Miss. 2004)).

  9. Parvin v. State

    113 So. 3d 1243 (Miss. 2013)   Cited 23 times
    In Parvin, the defense moved before trial to exclude as speculative the state expert's opinions on gun distance and bullet trajectory.

    ¶ 12. On appeal, we review errors in the admission of evidence, including expert testimony and demonstrative evidence, for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Bishop v. State, 982 So.2d 371, 380 (Miss.2008) (standard of review for expert testimony); Lewis v. State, 725 So.2d 183, 189 (Miss.1998) (standard of review for demonstrativeevidence). Under this standard, we will reverse a trial court's ruling if we find it to be “arbitrary and clearly erroneous.”

  10. Parvin v. State

    NO. 2011-KA-01471-SCT (Miss. Apr. 11, 2013)

    Standard of Review and Pertinent Legal Standards ¶12. On appeal, we review errors in the admission of evidence, including expert testimony and demonstrative evidence, for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Bishop v. State, 982 So. 2d 371, 380 (Miss. 2008) (standard of review for expert testimony); Lewis v. State, 725 So. 2d 183, 189 (Miss. 1998) (standard of review for demonstrative evidence). Under this standard, we will reverse a trial court's ruling if we find it to be "arbitrary and clearly erroneous."