722 So. 2d 1242 - White v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 2014
17 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 Foster v. California · 440 So. 2d 297 - Groseclose v. State · 460 So. 2d 778 - May v. State · 381 So. 2d 983 - Jones v. State · 391 So. 2d 601 - Bullock v. State
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The jury are the judges of the credibility of witnesses, and they must determine from the facts and circumstances in evidence what estimate they will place on the testimony of witnesses. . . . "). ¶ 15. In front of the jury, defense counsel elicited testimony from the CI that he was a former drug user with a number of prior arrests and at least one probation violation. Review of the entire colloquy revealed that the CI may have been forgetful, less than forthright, or even dishonest in some of his responses to questions posed regarding his past. Nevertheless, as this Court often has said before, this was presented to the jury for its assessment in deciding how much, if any, weight and credibility it was willing to place with this particular witness for the state. [4] ¶ 16. After viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we find that the evidence in this case was consistent with the verdict. Miller's assignment of error is without merit. CONCLUSION ¶ 17. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Winston County is affirmed. ¶ 18. CONVICTION OF SALE OF COCAINE AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY (20) YEARS, WITH CONDITIONS, IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PAYMENT OF ALL COSTS AND A FINE OF $5,000.00, AFFIRMED. SENTENCE IN THIS CAUSE SHALL RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO ANY SENTENCE PREVIOUSLY IMPOSED. SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND DIAZ, P.JJ., CARLSON, DICKINSON, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ., CONCUR. GRAVES, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY. NOTES [1] "Agent 1”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[m]atters regarding the chain of custody of evidence are largely left to the discretion of the trial judge, and `unless this judicial discretion has been so abused as to be prejudicial to the defendant, this Court will not reverse the ruling of the trial court.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jones v. State
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.