Hathorne v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. Jordan v. Mississippi

    CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:12CV105-GHD-JMV (N.D. Miss. Oct. 26, 2016)

    The supreme court has held that an accomplice's testimony that he or she had previously entered a guilty plea to the same charge that the defendant is being tried for is evidence of a prior consistent statement. Hathorne v. State, 759 So.2d 1127, 1132 (& 26) (Miss. 1999). In addition, it is at times appropriate for a third person to testify to rebut a charge of improper influence or recent fabrication.

  2. Grose v. Streeter

    No. 3:12CV46-MPM-DAS (N.D. Miss. Sep. 19, 2016)

    The supreme court has held that an accomplice's testimony that he or she had previously entered a guilty plea to the same charge that the defendant is being tried for is evidence of a prior consistent statement. Hathorne v. State, 759 So.2d 1127, 1132 (¶ 26) (Miss.1999). In addition, it is at times appropriate for a third person to testify to rebut a charge of improper influence or recent fabrication.

  3. Sharkey v. State

    265 So. 3d 151 (Miss. 2019)   Cited 17 times
    Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for mistrial where the allegedly prejudicial statement "was made during voir dire, and the only juror who told the court that he could not be impartial [based on this information] was excused for cause," and the defendant presented no evidence that he suffered "substantial and irreparable prejudice"

    And in recent years, this Court has continued to recognize as much, consistently refusing to reverse cases just because a testifying accomplice has been questioned about or mentioned his or her earlier guilty plea. SeeHathorne v. State , 759 So.2d 1127, 1132 (Miss. 1999) (finding no reversible error where testifying accomplice mentioned earlier guilty plea, because such was evidence of a prior consistent statement, admissible under Miss. R. Evid. 801(d)(1) ); Clemons v. State , 733 So.2d 266, 271 (Miss. 1999) ; Henderson v. State , 732 So.2d 211, 215 (Miss.

  4. Jordan v. State

    80 So. 3d 817 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 10 times
    Finding that statements made during therapy were not testimonial, and statements made during a DHS forensic interview—and not based on a police investigation—were not testimonial

    The supreme court has held that an accomplice's testimony that he or she had previously entered a guilty plea to the same charge that the defendant is being tried for is evidence of a prior consistent statement. Hathorne v. State, 759 So.2d 1127, 1132 (¶ 26) (Miss.1999). In addition, it is at times appropriate for a third person to testify to rebut a charge of improper influence or recent fabrication.

  5. Jordan v. State

    2008 KA 1761 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010)

    The supreme court has held that an accomplice's testimony that he or she had previously entered a guilty plea to the same charge that the defendant is being tried for is evidence of a prior consistent statement. Hathorne v. State, 759 So. 2d 1127, 1132 (¶ 26) (Miss. 1999). In addition, it is at times appropriate for a third person to testify to rebut a charge of improper influence or recent fabrication.

  6. Price v. State

    2008 KA 624 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 6 times

    Price also correctly notes that only slight corroboration of an accomplice's testimony is required to sustain a conviction. Hathorne v. State, 759 So.2d 1127, 1133(31) (Miss. 1999). Price interprets Hathorne to mean that where there is no corroboration, accomplice testimony is insufficient to sustain a conviction.