Hubbard v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Chambers v. State

    973 So. 2d 266 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 9 times

    The critical inquiry is whether the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] accused committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed; and where the evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to support a conviction.Hubbard v. State, 938 So.2d 287, 289 (¶ 8) (Miss. 2006) (quoting Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836, 843 (¶ 16) (Miss. 2005)).

  2. Chambers v. State

    2005 KM 1101 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007)

    The critical inquiry is whether the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] accused committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed; and where the evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to support a conviction.Hubbard v. State, 938 So. 2d 287, 289 (¶ 8) (Miss. 2006) (quoting Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 843 (¶ 16) (Miss.

  3. Harvey v. State

    195 So. 3d 231 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 3 times

    Thus, Harvey did, in fact, resist a lawful arrest. The fact that the public-drunkenness and public-profanity charges were later dismissed is of no matter. Chambers v. State, 973 So.2d 266, 270 (¶ 11) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (citing Hubbard v. State, 938 So.2d 287, 289 (¶ 16) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) ) (holding that an inconsistent verdict between charges, in and of itself, is insufficient to reverse a criminal conviction). Therefore, we find that Harvey's claim is without merit.