Porter v. State

12 Citing cases

  1. Gunn v. State

    174 So. 3d 848 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015)

    ¶ 27. “The admissibility of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court[.]” Porter v. State, 869 So.2d 414, 417 (¶ 18) (Miss.Ct.App.2004). Absent an abuse of discretion, the trial court's decision on whether to admit evidence or exclude it will not be disturbed on appeal.

  2. Gunn v. State

    174 So. 3d 848 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 11 times
    Finding the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel not "appropriate for resolution on direct appeal" because defense counsel's decisions appear to be trial strategy and counsel "has not been afforded an opportunity to explain his actions"

    ¶ 27. “The admissibility of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court[.]” Porter v. State, 869 So.2d 414, 417 (¶ 18) (Miss.Ct.App.2004). Absent an abuse of discretion, the trial court's decision on whether to admit evidence or exclude it will not be disturbed on appeal.

  3. Gunn v. State

    NO. 2013-KA-00344-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2012)

    ¶27. "The admissibility of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court[.]" Porter v. State, 869 So. 2d 414, 417 (¶18) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). Absent an abuse of discretion, the trial court's decision on whether to admit evidence or exclude it will not be disturbed on appeal.

  4. Lindsey v. State

    965 So. 2d 712 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 5 times

    ¶ 19. The standard of review for discovery violations is abuse of discretion. Porter v. State, 869 So.2d 414, 419(¶ 18) (Miss.Ct.App. 2004). We will affirm unless "there is a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon weighing of relevant factors."

  5. Porter v. State

    963 So. 2d 1225 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 12 times
    In Porter v. State, 963 So.2d 1225, 1228-29 (¶ 10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007), the circuit court summarily denied Porter's PCR motion under section 99-39-11.

    On August 21, 2002, Lajuane Porter was convicted of aggravated assault by a jury in Marshall County, Mississippi. He was sentenced to twenty years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Porter filed a direct appeal and on January 6, 2004, this Court affirmed his conviction. See Porter v. State, 869 So.2d 414 (Miss.Ct.App. 2004). Porter sought relief through the supreme court by submitting an Application for Leave to File Motion for Post Conviction Collateral Relief. The court granted Porter leave to file his post-conviction relief motion on the sole issue of ineffective assistance of counsel but denied his claim of an excessive sentence, finding this issue to be without merit.

  6. Edmond v. State

    2008 KA 1027 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 3 times

    Id. If the defendant does not request a continuance, he waives the issue. Id.; see also Porter v. State, 869 So.2d 414, 420 (¶ 21) (Miss.Ct.App. 2004) (finding an alleged discovery violation was waived on appeal for failure to request a continuance). In Barnes v. State, 854 So.2d 1, 5 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App. 2003) (citing Kelly v. State, 778 So.2d 149, 152 (¶¶ 12-13) (Miss.

  7. Goldman v. State

    9 So. 3d 394 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 1 times

    Wade v. State, 583 So.2d 965, 967 (Miss. 1991). Absent an abuse of discretion, the circuit court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal. Porter v. State, 869 So.2d 414, 417 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App. 2004) (citing McCoy v. State, 820 So.2d 25, 31 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App. 2002)). ¶ 17.

  8. Marshall v. Burger King

    2007 CA 148 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 6 times
    In King, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that "[a]fter a consideration of the purpose and policies underlying Rule 41, we adopt the view that even though the filing of a suit ordinarily tolls the applicable limitations period, when an action is dismissed without prejudice because of a failure to prosecute, the interruption is considered as never having occurred."

    "The standard of review for discovery violations is abuse of discretion." Porter v. State, 869 So.2d 414, 419 (¶ 18) (Miss.Ct.App. 2004). DISCUSSION

  9. King v. State

    2005 KA 916 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 6 times
    Allowing the State to introduce "unpurified" prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence is improper

    ¶ 48. "The admissibility of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and absent abuse of that discretion, the trial court's decision on the admissibility of evidence will not be disturbed on appeal." Porter v. State, 869 So.2d 414, 417 (¶ 8) (Miss.Ct.App. 2004) (citing McCoy v. State, 820 So.2d 25, 30 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App. 2002)). "When the trial court stays within the parameters of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, the decision to exclude or admit evidence will be afforded a high degree of deference."

  10. McGregory v. State

    2006 KA 1698 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 11 times
    Citing Giles v. State, 650 So.2d 846, 854 (Miss. 1995)

    Upon weighing all relevant factors in the case, unless there is clear error in judgment as to the sanctions imposed for violation of the discovery rule, this Court will affirm the imposed sanction. Id. (quoting Porter v. State, 869 So.2d 414, 419 (¶ 18) (Miss.Ct.App. 2004)). ¶ 8.