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.
§

Graham v. State

967 So. 2d 670 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Graham v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Pustay v. State

    221 So. 3d 320 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 20 times
    Rejecting defendant's assertion that the indictment, which contained multiple sexual abuse offenses and alleged nine-month time frames with respect to each offense, hampered defendant's ability to prepare a defense where the child victim testified that she could not remember dates well and the record reflected that the State had no other information to further narrow down the time period in each count

    We recognize that "[e]rrors that do not require reversal themselves may require reversal if, when taken cumulatively, they deny the defendant the right to a fundamentally fair and impartial trial." Graham v. State , 967 So.2d 670, 677–78 (¶ 34) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (citing Byrom v. State , 863 So.2d 836, 847 (¶ 12) (Miss. 2003) ); see alsoGalloway , 122 So.3d at 682 (¶ 247). "In any case in which a court finds harmless error or an error not sufficient in itself to warrant dismissal, the court may, on a case-by-case basis, determine whether the errors taken cumulatively warrant dismissal based on their cumulative prejudicial effect."

  2. State v. Schenk

    2018 Vt. 45 (Vt. 2018)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Schenk, we referred to Sanville—a case interpreting the meaning of threatening behavior in the probation context—as a "controlling precedent."

    On the other hand, in prohibiting attempts "by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury" the Legislature has expressly identified a "physical action" requirement when it has sought to address threats conveyed through physical actions. Id. § 1023(a)(3); see also Graham v. State, (¶ 16), 967 So.2d 670, 675 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (" ‘Physical’ menace demands something more than words.") (quotation omitted); Ickes v. Ickes, No. 89-S-520, 1989 WL 223538, at *2 (Pa. Com. Pl.) ("A ‘menace’ is a threat. A physical menace therefore would be a physical threat as opposed to a verbal threat directed toward a victim.

  3. Spears v. State

    294 So. 3d 637 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 4 times

    Payton v. State , 41 So. 3d 713, 717 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (citing Graham v. State , 967 So. 2d 670, 673 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) ). An indictment is valid if it contains "the essential elements of the crime with which the accused is charged."

  4. Carter v. State

    227 So. 3d 416 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 3 times

    ¶ 10. "A defendant is entitled to have the trial court give jury instructions that present his theory of the case; however, the court may deny an instruction that misstates the law, is covered elsewhere in the instructions, or is not supported by the evidence." Graham v. State , 967 So.2d 670, 674 (¶ 15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Ladnier v. State, 878 So.2d 926, 931 (¶ 20) (Miss. 2004) ).

  5. Payton v. State

    2009 KA 332 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 14 times

    "Whether an indictment is defective is a question of law, and we review such questions of law under a de novo standard." Graham v. State, 967 So.2d 670, 673 (¶ 8) (Miss.CtApp. 2007). Most importantly, the indictment must contain the essential elements of the crime with which the accused is charged.