630 So. 2d 30 - Dedeaux v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently July 2016
23 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Lord Electric Co. v. United States · Lawrence v. United States · Heidel v. State · United States v. Stockton · United States v. Palacios
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . . where it appears from the record in its entirety that there has been a miscarriage of justice, this Court applies Mississippi Supreme Court Rule 28(a)(3) to prevent manifest injustice. Cummins v. State, 515 So.2d at 876, 877 also addressed whether the trial court was in error for refusing to instruct the jury: The State's instructions were offered without any objection . . . In the absence of an objection at trial, this Court will examine only to prevent manifest injustice. . . . Gates v. State, 484 So.2d 1002 (Miss. 1986); Shelton v. State, 445 So.2d 844 (Miss. 1984). In light of the evidence reflected in the record, the murder conviction in the case sub judice appears to rise to the level of manifest injustice. The jury heard all the testimony and obviously rejected Dedeaux's self-defense argument. Although strategically the manslaughter instruction was rejected by Dedeaux, this decision does not detract from the jury's finding and from the testimony at trial that Dedeaux unlawfully took the life of Luke. To discharge the defendant cannot be justified. In Wells v. State , 305 So.2d 333 , 339-340 (Miss. 1974), the Court held: In the case at bar, when the jury found the defendant guilty of murder, it necessarily found that defendant was guilty of homicide which was not justifiable or excusable, thus rejecting the defense of self defense and accident. If the case is remanded for a new trial on the indictment, the defendant would thereby be permitted to present to a secon”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The facts herein clearly support manslaughter. This Court will follow its holdings in Wells and Clemons , and reverse and remand for resentencing for the crime of manslaughter.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The case at bar is representative of the typical `juke joint' confrontation: a marriage gone sour, too much booze consumed, an angry husband and a wife's new found live-in boy friend.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.