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.
§

Kelly v. State

735 So. 2d 1071 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Kelly v. State

11 Citing cases

  1. Cork v. State

    851 So. 2d 430 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 1 times
    In Cork v. State, 851 So.2d 430, 436 (Miss.Ct.App. 2003), this Court stated that it was not error to refuse an instruction on the use of a confession when the same charge was given in other instructions. That same principle applies here, and we find no error in refusing the instruction.

    ¶ 6. The case of Agee v. State prescribes the procedure the trial court must follow to determine whether a confession was coerced and involuntary. Kelly v. State, 735 So.2d 1071, 1077 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999) (citing Agee v. State, 185 So.2d 671, 673 (Miss. 1966)).

  2. Brink v. State

    2002 KA 583 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 17 times

    When a defendant objects to the admission of a confession, the court must hold a hearing outside of the presence of the jury to determine its admissibility. Kelly v. State, 735 So.2d 1071, 1077 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999) (quoting Agee v.State, 185 So.2d 671, 673 (Miss. 1966)).

  3. Malone v. State

    2001 KA 270 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 19 times
    Acknowledging Ohler but holding that it could not circumvent Mississippi Supreme Court’s preOhler decision in McGee, supra

    Specifically, Malone refers to events surrounding his giving his statement of confession. "We review the admissibility of a confession by the trial court under our well established abuse of discretion standard." Kelly v. State, 735 So.2d 1071 (¶ 20) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999). ¶ 13. Malone recalls that as he walked to the interrogation room along with Detective Tommy Nelson and Detective Ronald Youngblood, Detective Youngblood told Malone that as long as he told the truth, "they would be lenient on him," referring to the district attorneys. Malone claims this was the sole reason he made his statement.

  4. McGowen v. State

    2002 KA 676 (Miss. 2005)   Cited 81 times
    In McGowen, a capital-murder case, the prosecution admitted various forensic reports into evidence through the testimony of a forensic biologist who had reviewed the procedures of the analyst who had actually tested the evidence.

    1990); Goodson v. State, 566 So.2d 1142, 1147-48 (Miss. 1990); and Kelly v. State, 735 So.2d 1071 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999). ¶ 50.

  5. Jones v. State

    2000 KA 777 (Miss. 2001)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that a defendant's profane remarks to a police officer could not have given the officer reason to believe that a breach of the peace had occurred

    ¶ 32. Finally, Jones accuses the prosecution of improperly discussing the fact that Jones was held without bail prior to the trial, a reversible breach. Kelly v. State, 735 So.2d 1071 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999). ¶ 33. Trial judges are given wide latitude in determining whether a remark is prejudicial to the defense and whether a remark may be so prejudicial as to warrant a mistrial.

  6. Conley v. State

    1999 KA 521 (Miss. 2001)   Cited 130 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Interpreting the elements of kidnaping for a kidnaping conviction

    See Walker v. State, 740 So.2d 873 (Miss. 1999); Kelly v. State, 735 So.2d 1071 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). We, therefore, find this assignment of error to be without merit.

  7. Miller v. State

    748 So. 2d 100 (Miss. 2000)   Cited 3 times

    ¶ 8. Miller cites Edwards v. State, No. 97-KA-00434-COA, 1999 WL 55990 (Miss.Ct.App. February 9, 1999), and Kelly v. State, 735 So.2d 1071 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999). A review of these cases show that neither is applicable. Edwards involved reversal and dismissal of criminal charges due to improper jury instructions and insufficient evidence.

  8. Gilmore v. State

    872 So. 2d 744 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    Gilmore claims that the testimony given by the one officer on cross-examination was sufficient to be rebuttal as required by Malone v. State, 829 So.2d 1253, 1257-58 (Miss. 2002); see also Kelly v. State, 735 So.2d 1071, 1077 (Miss. 1999); Mettetal v. State, 602 So.2d 864, 867-68 (Miss. 1992); Lesley v. State, 606 So.2d 1084, 1091 (Miss.

  9. McGee v. State

    2001 KA 1686 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that there is no hearsay issue regarding testimony about what the defendant told the witness

    When one party invites himself, that the other party then opens the door is a natural response and not a relinquishment of rights. Kelly v. State, 735 So.2d 1071, 1086 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999). This was not even an invitation to where the State quickly went.

  10. Hester v. State

    2001 KA 513 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that proof of actual violent acts is admissible but that "idle threats" of actual violence are not"

    That approach was followed by this Court when in a later case, the State had added language about the homicide not being in necessary self-defense to the manslaughter instructions requested by the defendant. Kelly v. State, 735 So.2d 1071, 1088 (¶ 49) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999). Kelly's defense was alibi.