Boles v. State

8 Citing cases

  1. Ray v. Miss. Dep't of Emp't Sec.

    114 So. 3d 735 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013)

    ” However, in Tucker, this Court ruled that the argument was without merit, and stated that “[o]nly if a witness is impeached to the extent that his or her testimony is rendered highly improbable or incredible is that witness's testimony deprived of any probative value.” Id. (quoting Boles v. State, 744 So.2d 349, 351 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.1999)). Thus not only is this case not relevant to the current issue, but it is actually in opposition to any argument Ray might make that the witnesses' testimony should not be considered in lieu of the videotape and witness statements.

  2. Ray v. Miss. Dep't of Emp't Sec.

    NO. 2011-CC-00685-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2012)

    " However, in Tucker, this Court ruled that the argument was without merit, and stated that "[o]nly if a witness is impeached to the extent that his or her testimony is rendered highly improbable or incredible is that witness's testimony deprived of any probative value." Id. (quoting Boles v. State, 744 So. 2d 349, 351 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999)). Thus not only is this case not relevant to the current issue, but it is actually in opposition to any argument Ray might make that the witnesses' testimony should not be considered in lieu of the videotape and witness statements. ¶24.

  3. Anthony v. State

    108 So. 3d 419 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 2 times

    Anthony's argument that the testimony of a paid confidential informant cannot sustain a conviction is not supported by Mississippi law. In Boles v. State, 744 So.2d 349 (Miss.Ct.App.1999), this Court affirmed the defendant's conviction, which was obtained in large part due to the testimony of a paid confidential informant. We stated:

  4. Stribling v. State

    81 So. 3d 1155 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 13 times

    Stribling's argument that the testimony of a paid confidential informant cannot sustain a conviction is not supported by Mississippi law. In Boles v. State, 744 So.2d 349 (Miss.Ct.App.1999), this Court affirmed the defendant's conviction, which was obtained in large part due to the testimony of a paid confidential informant. We stated:

  5. Anthony v. State

    NO. 2010-KA-01004-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2012)

    Anthony's argument that the testimony of a paid confidential informant cannot sustain a conviction is not supported by Mississippi law. In Boles v. State, 744 So. 2d 349 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999), this Court affirmed the defendant's conviction, which was obtained in large part due to the testimony of a paid confidential informant. We stated:

  6. Stribling v. State

    2009 KA 1420 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)

    ¶ 40. Stribling's argument that the testimony of a paid confidential informant cannot sustain a conviction is not supported by Mississippi law. In Boles v. State, 744 So. 2d 349 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999), this Court affirmed the defendant's conviction, which was obtained in large part due to the testimony of a paid confidential informant. We stated:

  7. Tucker v. Dept. of Employment

    10 So. 3d 924 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 2 times
    In Tucker, we addressed whether the appellant's right to a fair and impartial hearing was violated when the MDES considered one witness's testimony after it was discovered that a portion of her testimony was false.

    "Only if a witness is impeached to the extent that his [or her] testimony is rendered highly improbable or incredible is that witness's testimony deprived of any probative value." Boles v. State, 744 So.2d 349, 351 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999). ¶ 10. Betty's testimony was corroborated by three other witnesses. Thomas testified that he heard Richard give two weeks' notice, and Stapleton and Jones both testified that Richard told them he had resigned.

  8. Brown v. State

    98 KA 646 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 26 times

    Unless testimony necessary to support the jury's verdict is so implausible or so substantially impeached as to be unworthy of belief, the jury's decisions in such matters is beyond the authority of a reviewing court to disturb. Boles v. State, 744 So.2d 349 (¶ 8) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). ¶ 10. It is evident in this case that the jurors found Teri Casnel's testimony to be persuasive even in the face of information tending to impeach her veracity.