Mixon v. State

14 Citing cases

  1. Lee v. State

    2004 CT 542 (Miss. 2006)   Cited 22 times
    Addressing what is “surplusage” and when it does not become a substantive element of the offense, distinguishing Richmond v. State, 751 So.2d 1038, 1046 (Miss.1999)

    Our precedent establishes that "surplusage" in an indictment may be removed without prejudice to the defendant. See, e.g., Mixon v. State, 921 So.2d 275, 279-80 (Miss. 2005); Schloder v. State, 310 So.2d 721, 723-24 (Miss. 1975); Sullivan v. Cook, 218 So.2d 879, 880-31 (Miss.

  2. Nations v. State

    199 So. 3d 1265 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 4 times
    In Nations v. State, 199 So.3d 1265, 1271 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016), the Court of Appeals recently applied the general rule announced in Grimsley, stating that "rather than moving to amend the indictment, the State could have simply proceeded to trial on the original indictment."

    The indictment must provide the accused with a “concise and clear statement of the elements of the crime charged.” Mixon v. State , 921 So.2d 275, 280 (¶ 13) (Miss.2005) (quoting King v. State , 580 So.2d 1182, 1185 (Miss.1991) ); accord URCCC 7.06. The trial court may permit the indictment to be amended, but “[s]uch amendments ... may pertain to matters of form only, not matters of substance.”

  3. Graves v. State

    216 So. 3d 1152 (Miss. 2016)   Cited 17 times
    Affirming Graves's convictions and sentences

    ¶ 11. An indictment is required to contain a "concise and clear statement of the elements of the crime charged." Mixon v. State, 921 So.2d 275, 280 (Miss.2005) (quoting King v. State, 580 So.2d 1182, 1185 (Miss.1991) ; Williams v. State, 445 So.2d 798, 804 (Miss.

  4. Graves v. State

    NO. 2014-KA-00464-SCT (Miss. Oct. 29, 2015)

    Graves was indicted for two counts of fondling pursuant to Section 97-5-23(1) of the Mississippi Code and two counts of sexual battery, one of which was later nolle prossed, pursuant to Section 97-3-95(1)(d). ¶11. An indictment is required to contain a "concise and clear statement of the elements of the crime charged." Mixon v. State, 921 So. 2d 275, 280 (Miss. 2005) (quoting King v. State, 580 So. 2d 1182, 1185 (Miss. 1991); Williams v. State, 445 So. 2d 798, 804 (Miss.

  5. Veazy v. State

    113 So. 3d 1226 (Miss. 2013)   Cited 7 times

    Even assuming that the State was improperly permitted to introduce hearsay testimony, a party cannot “open the door” to hearsay. Mixon v. State, 921 So.2d 275, 278 (Miss.2005) (citing Murphy v. State, 453 So.2d 1290, 1294 (Miss.1984)). ¶ 25.

  6. Veazy v. State

    NO. 2011-KA-00077-SCT (Miss. Mar. 14, 2013)

    Even assuming that the State was improperly permitted to introduce hearsay testimony, a party cannot "open the door" to hearsay. Mixon v. State, 921 So. 2d 275, 278 (Miss. 2005) (citing Murphy v. State,453 So. 2d 1290, 1294 (Miss. 1984)).

  7. Outerbridge v. State

    2005 KA 1809 (Miss. 2007)   Cited 23 times

    This Court recently dealt with a bolstering argument based on our holding in Ratcliff which said that statements of an informant to investigators were inadmissible hearsay. See Mixon v. State, 921 So.2d 275, 278-79 (Miss. 2005). The Court distinguished these two cases, however, stating the linchpin of the Ratcliff decision was that "an accused person is entitled to be confronted with and have opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against him" and Ratcliff was not given that opportunity.

  8. Forrest v. State

    376 So. 3d 404 (Miss. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    However, because both Ellington and Fisher testified at trial that Forrest made substantially similar statements, any error by the admission of the same statements through Chambers was harmless. See also Mixon v. State, 921 So. 2d 275, 278-79 (¶¶9-11) (Miss. 2005) (finding a defendant’s right to a fair trial was not prejudiced where declarant in a double hearsay scenario testified and was available for cross-examination).B. Relevance

  9. Brannan v. State

    319 So. 3d 1119 (Miss. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    "Essentially, nothing more than a concise and clear statement of the elements of the crime charged is required." Mixon v. State , 921 So. 2d 275, 280 (¶13) (Miss. 2005) (quotation marks omitted); accord MRCrP 14.1(a)(1) ("The indictment upon which the defendant is to be tried shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts and elements constituting the offense charged and shall fully notify the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation."). ¶72.

  10. Hoskins v. State

    186 So. 3d 898 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    ¶ 8. We have previously stated that “[a]mendments to indictments should only be granted by a court during trial if the amendment pertains to a matter of form and not substance.” Graham v. State, 935 So.2d 1119, 1121 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App.2006) (citing Mixon v. State, 921 So.2d 275, 280 (¶ 15) (Miss.2005)). “[A] change in the indictment is permissible if it does not materially alter facts which are the essence of the offense on the face of the indictment as it originally stood or materially alter a defense to the indictment as it originally stood so as to prejudice the defendant's case.”