Lloyd v. State

18 Citing cases

  1. Garcia v. State

    828 So. 2d 1279 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 3 times

    It is a well established rule that redirect examination of a witness is generally limited to matters which were brought out on cross-examination of that witness. Lloyd v. State, 755 So.2d 12,14(¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999); West v. State, 463 So.2d 1048, 1055 (Miss. 1985).

  2. Edwards v. Booker

    2000 CA 283 (Miss. 2001)   Cited 48 times
    In Edwards, Edwards was removed from house arrest and placed in general population after he was found guilty of a rule violation at a disciplinary hearing.

    1983), we held that "[t]he trial judge should always permit attorneys to make a record of objectionable testimony or proffer of same in order that this Court may know whether it is relevant or material." See alsoLloyd v.State, 755 So.2d 12, 14 (Miss.Ct.App. 1999) ("When a trial court prevents the introduction of certain evidence, it is incumbent that a proffer be made of the potential testimony of the witness or the point is waived for appellate review."). ¶ 27.

  3. Ellzey v. State

    No. 2022-KA-00797-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2024)

    This issue is also waived because Ellzey failed to make a proffer of Henry's prior testimony. Lloyd v. State, 755 So.2d 12, 14 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) ("When a trial court prevents the introduction of certain evidence, it is incumbent that a proffer be made of the potential testimony of the witness or the point is waived for appellate review.").

  4. Hornsby v. Hornsby

    353 So. 3d 507 (Miss. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    "When a trial court prevents the introduction of certain evidence, it is incumbent on the offering party to make a proffer of the [evidence,] or the point is waived for appellate review." Redhead v. Entergy Miss. Inc., 828 So.2d 801, 808 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (quoting Lloyd v. State, 755 So.2d 12, 14 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999)). Here, Fred not only failed to make a proffer at trial but also fails to specify on appeal what relevant evidence was excluded.

  5. 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

    "The scope of redirect examination, while largely within the discretion of the trial court, is limited to matters brought out during cross-examination." Lloyd v. State , 755 So.2d 12, 14 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.1999) (citing Blue v. State , 674 So.2d 1184, 1212 (Miss.1996) ).

  6. Bell v. Stevenson

    158 So. 3d 1229 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 7 times

    ¶ 25. “The scope of redirect examination, while largely within the discretion of the trial court, is limited to matters brought out during cross-examination. Also we will not disturb a trial court's ruling on matters pertaining to re- direct examination unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.” Lloyd v. State, 755 So.2d 12, 14 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.1999). The trial court did not err in excluding the photographs; therefore, this issue is without merit.

  7. Thompson v. State

    157 So. 3d 844 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 8 times

    ¶ 33. “The scope of redirect examination, while largely within the discretion of the trial court, is limited to matters brought out during cross-examination.” Lloyd v. State, 755 So.2d 12, 14 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App.1999). However, “we will not disturb a trial court's ruling on matters pertaining to redirect examination unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.”

  8. Thompson v. State

    NO. 2013-KA-00944-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2013)

    ¶33. "The scope of redirect examination, while largely within the discretion of the trial court, is limited to matters brought out during cross-examination." Lloyd v. State, 755 So. 2d 12, 14 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). However, "we will not disturb a trial court's ruling on matters pertaining to redirect examination unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion."

  9. Bell v. Stevenson

    NO. 2013-CP-00655-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2013)

    ¶25. "The scope of redirect examination, while largely within the discretion of the trial court, is limited to matters brought out during cross-examination. Also we will not disturb a trial court's ruling on matters pertaining to re-direct examination unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion." Lloyd v. State, 755 So. 2d 12, 14 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). The trial court did not err in excluding the photographs; therefore, this issue is without merit.

  10. Brown v. State

    2006 KA 2058 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 8 times
    Holding “that ‘diminished capacity’ is not a recognized defense to a criminal charge in Mississippi”

    Manning v. State, 835 So.2d 94, 99-100 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App. 2002) (citing Greer v. State, 755 So.2d 511, 516 (¶ 14) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999)). Consequently, we will not disturb a trial court's ruling on matters pertaining to redirect examination unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion. Farris, 906 So.2d at 119-20 (¶ 20) (citing Lloyd v. State, 755 So.2d 12, 14 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999)). ¶ 32.