Boggs v. State

25 Citing cases

  1. Arnold v. State

    No. 2023-KA-00519-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2024)

    ¶23. We review a trial court's admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Boggs v. State, 188 So.3d 515, 519 (¶9) (Miss. 2016). We will affirm a trial court's evidentiary rulings "unless they affect a substantial right of the complaining party." Id.

  2. Culberson v. State

    No. 2023-KA-00588-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2025)

    ¶58. This Court's standard of review for the admission of evidence is abuse of discretion. Smith v. State, 326 So.3d 510, 517 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (citing Boggs v. State, 188 So.3d 515, 519 (¶9) (Miss. 2016)). "We will not reverse unless an abuse of this discretion results in prejudice to a defendant."

  3. Johnson v. State

    204 So. 3d 763 (Miss. 2016)   Cited 18 times
    In Johnson, the supreme court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting offense reports detailing the defendant's prior acts of domestic violence.

    In another case involving the admissibility of prior bad acts, the State sought to introduce evidence of prior sexual misconduct and argued that "the [evidence of prior bad acts] ... was admissible to show a common plan or scheme by [the defendant]." Boggs v. State , 188 So.3d 515, 521 (Miss. 2016). Boggs was charged with gratification of lust with a minor, the facts of which were significantly similar to the evidence of the previous incidents of abuse the State sought to enter.

  4. Jordan v. State

    No. 2021-KA-01421-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2023)

    ¶11. Jordan seemingly claims that the circuit court erred by allowing Harrell (the SANE nurse) to offer expert opinion testimony regarding her physical examination of Jane. "The admission of evidence is reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard." Smith v. State, 326 So.3d 510, 517 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (citing Boggs v. State, 188 So.3d 515, 519 (¶9) (Miss. 2016)). ¶12. At trial, Harrell indicated that she did not find anything of evidentiary note while examining Jane.

  5. Williams v. State

    308 So. 3d 892 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 4 times

    M.R.E. 403. "Even when the [circuit] court determines under Rule 403 that prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value of particular evidence, it remains within the [circuit] court's discretion to determine whether to exclude the evidence, since Rule 403 does not mandate such an exclusion." Boggs v. State , 188 So. 3d 515, 522 (¶19) (Miss. 2016) (quoting Baldwin v. State , 784 So. 2d 148, 156 (¶27) (Miss. 2001) ).

  6. Butler v. State

    300 So. 3d 550 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 6 times

    ¶24. More recently, our Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in Boggs v. State , 188 So. 3d 515, 521 (¶17) (Miss. 2016). The Boggs Court noted a "striking resemblance" between the victim's allegations and testimonies from other witnesses.

  7. Sullivan v. State

    281 So. 3d 1146 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 8 times

    The appellate court reviews the admission of evidence under the abuse-of-discretion standard and evidentiary rulings are affirmed unless they affect a substantial right of the complaining party. Boggs v. State , 188 So. 3d 515, 519 (¶9) (Miss. 2016). ¶17.

  8. Godbolt v. State

    No. 2020-DP-00440-SCT (Miss. Mar. 7, 2024)

    ¶106. This court reviews the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion. Boggs v. State, 188 So.3d 515, 519 (Miss. 2016) (citing Smith v. State, 136 So.3d 424, 431 (Miss. 2014)). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting any of this evidence at trial, and this issue lacks merit.

  9. Anderson v. State

    359 So. 3d 637 (Miss. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Under Rule 403, even relevant evidence may be excluded "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, [or] confusing of the issues...." Johnson v. State, 204 So.3d 763, 769 (Miss. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Boggs v. State, 188 So.3d 515, 521 (Miss. 2016)). The trial court overruled Anderson's objection, finding that the evidence of his methamphetamine use was more probative than prejudicial.

  10. Terrell v. State

    237 So. 3d 717 (Miss. 2018)   Cited 13 times

    The State did not show that the facts behind the two judgments were similar to the facts of the case at hand. See, e.g. , Boggs v. State , 188 So.3d 515 (Miss. 2016) (examining whether the other acts bore "a substantial resemblance to the offense charged as to be admissible under Rule 404(b)"). To show intent, motive, or plan to commit timber theft, the State ostensibly introduced the default judgment for wrongful timber removal.