"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).
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.
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)).
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)).
¶ 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.
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.
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.
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.
¶ 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. 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 .