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.
ยง
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Crum v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. McNeal v. State

    617 So. 2d 999 (Miss. 1993)   Cited 116 times
    Withholding or misrepresenting information when a "clearly worded" question was posed during voir dire clearly violates Miss. Code Ann. ยง 13-5-67

    1986); Lee v. State, 435 So.2d 674, 676 (Miss. 1983); Crum v. State, 349 So.2d 1059, 1062 (Miss. 1977). The "duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that . . . a `substantial basis for concluding' that probable cause existed" was evidenced.

  2. Woodward v. State

    533 So. 2d 418 (Miss. 1988)   Cited 155 times
    Recognizing Thomas was superseded by statute and rejecting the argument that the pyramiding of multiple punishments growing out of same set of operative facts was impermissible in light of the then recently enacted multicount-indictment statute

    In Mississippi, where the police officer determines that it is necessary to leave the scene of the search in order to examine the body at the hospital, a 25 to 30 minute delay is not unreasonable. In Crum v. State, 349 So.2d 1059 (Miss. 1977), this Court held: The opinion of the Supreme Court of Tennessee quoted from United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 434, 94 L.Ed. 653 (1950), where it was said:

  3. State v. Sugar

    100 N.J. 214 (N.J. 1985)   Cited 164 times
    Recognizing the inevitable discovery doctrine and setting forth its application in New Jersey

    We recognize that continuing warrantless searches pursuant to an original express consent to search can raise serious constitutional questions concerning the reasonableness of such a subsequent search and seizure. Compare, e.g. State v. Brochu, 237 A.2d 418 (Me. 1967); People v. Chism, 32 Mich. App. 610, 189 N.W.2d 435 (1971), aff'd, 390 Mich. 104, 211 N.W.2d 193 (1973) with, e.g., Gray v. State, 441 A.2d 209, 221-22 (Del. 1981); Ferguson v. Caldwell, 233 Ga. 887, 213 S.E.2d 855, 867 (1975); State v. Fredette, 411 A.2d 65 (Me. 1979); Crum v. State, 349 So.2d 1059 (Miss. 1977); Thompson v.McManus, 512 F.2d 769 (8th Cir. 1975). We also acknowledge that the constitutional standard that we apply in sustaining a search based upon a waiver of the warrant requirement by consent is exacting.

  4. Smith v. State

    419 So. 2d 563 (Miss. 1982)   Cited 178 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Smith v. State, 419 So.2d 563 (Miss. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1047, 103 S.Ct. 1449, 75 L.Ed.2d 803 (1983), we ruled that the use of a slide projector was a matter within the discretion of the trial judge.

    Finally, when search was resumed it was merely a continuation of the original search and hence could not be held to be unreasonable. See Crum v. State, 349 So.2d 1059 (Miss. 1977). See also, Voss v. State, 198 Tenn. 135, 278 S.W.2d 667 (1955), cert. den. 348 U.S. 965, 75 S.Ct. 526, 99 L.Ed. 752 (1955); State v. Downey, 104 Ariz. 375, 453 P.2d 521 (1969).