Edwards v. State

26 Citing cases

  1. Lewis v. State

    270 So. 3d 169 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 2 times
    Rejecting claim that court violated appellant’s constitutional rights "in failing to ask … why … restitution payments had not been made," as the appellant "did not allege an inability to pay the fine and supervision fees at the revocation hearing," and there were other reasons why probation was revoked

    "It is the appellant's duty to provide authority and support for the issues he presents." Edwards v. State , 856 So.2d 587, 599 (¶ 45) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Rigby v. State , 826 So.2d 694, 707 (¶ 44) (Miss. 2002) ); accordHoops v. State , 681 So.2d 521, 526 (Miss. 1996).

  2. Clincy v. Atwood

    65 So. 3d 327 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 8 times
    Finding that the refusal by correctional-facility personnel to allow an inmate to keep his arthritis medication followed standard policies applicable to the medical care of inmates and the possession of medication by inmates

    Clincy, however, cites no relevant authority supporting this proposition; therefore, this argument is barred from our review. See Edwards v. State, 856 So.2d 587, 599 (¶ 45) (Miss.Ct. App. 2003) ("Failure to cite relevant authority obviates the appellate court's obligation to review such issues"); see also Tanner v. State, 20 So.3d 764, 768 (¶ 19) (Miss.Ct.App. 2009) (finding Tanner's constitutional claim barred from this Court's review due to his failure to cite relevant authority to support his argument). ¶ 10.

  3. Booker v. State

    2004 KA 2143 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that unavailability of the court weighed slightly against the State

    Confessions are admissible only if they are voluntarily given and are not the result of promises, threats, or inducements. Edwards v. State, 856 So.2d 587, 594 (¶ 24) (Miss.Ct.App. 2003) (citing Horne v. State, 825 So.2d 627, 639 (¶ 43) (Miss. 2002)).

  4. Booker v. State

    2004 KA 2143 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006)

    Confessions are admissible only if they are voluntarily given and are not the result of promises, threats, or inducements. Edwards v. State, 856 So.2d 587, 594 (¶ 24) (Miss.Ct.App. 2003) (citing Horne v. State, 825 So.2d 627, 639 (¶ 43) (Miss. 2002)).

  5. McIntosh v. State

    2004 KA 2204 (Miss. 2005)   Cited 22 times

    ¶ 9. The Court of Appeals addressed this same hearsay issue in Edwards v. State, 856 So.2d 587 (Miss.Ct.App. 2003). The facts in Edwards are very similar to the case sub judice.

  6. Davis v. State

    347 So. 3d 1205 (Miss. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 6 times
    In Davis v. State, 347 So. 3d 1205, 1214-15 (¶21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2022), this Court held that the trial court did not err by failing to sua sponte "correct" a defendant’s proposed jury instruction when the defendant did not advance such argument on appeal.

    The duty to cite relevant authority is imposed on the appellant; issues not supported by relevant authority are barred from our review. Anderson v. State , 89 So. 3d 645, 654 (¶29) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (citing Edwards v. State , 856 So. 2d 587, 599 (¶45) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) ); see alsoSimmons v. State , 805 So. 2d 452, 487 (¶90) (Miss. 2001) ; M.R.A.P. 28(a)(7). Davis never raised this issue on appeal or cited any authority such as Mease in his brief on this issue.

  7. Magee v. State

    300 So. 3d 1088 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    Peterson v. State , 37 So. 3d 669, 673 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Edwards v. State , 856 So. 2d 587, 592 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) ). "As long as the trial court remains within the confines of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, its decision to admit or exclude evidence will be accorded a high degree of deference." Id . (quoting Ellis v. State , 856 So. 2d 561, 565 (¶9) (Miss.

  8. Edwards v. State

    305 So. 3d 1186 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 6 times

    Where serious and irreparable damage has not resulted, the judge should admonish the jury then and there to disregard the impropriety.Id . at 1205-6 (¶20) (quoting Edwards v. State , 856 So. 2d 587, 593 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) ). ¶11.

  9. Russell v. State

    203 So. 3d 750 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)

    ¶ 10. It is well settled that this Court reviews a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence using an abuse-of-discretion standard of review. Peterson v. State , 37 So.3d 669, 673 (¶ 15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Edwards v. State , 856 So.2d 587, 592 (¶ 12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) ). "As long as the trial court remains within the confines of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, its decision to admit or exclude evidence will be accorded a high degree of deference." Id .

  10. Russell v. State

    203 So. 3d 750 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)

    ¶ 10. It is well settled that this Court reviews a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence using an abuse-of-discretion standard of review. Peterson v. State , 37 So.3d 669, 673 (¶ 15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Edwards v. State , 856 So.2d 587, 592 (¶ 12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) ). "As long as the trial court remains within the confines of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, its decision to admit or exclude evidence will be accorded a high degree of deference." Id .