Holmes v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The failure of a court to give a requested instruction does not provide grounds for reversal if the jury was fairly, fully[,] and accurately instructed on the law governing the case. Smith v. State, 572 So.2d 847, 849 (Miss.1990). The standard requires reviewing jury instructions by reading all instructions together, rather than reading each instruction in isolation. Townsend v. State, 681 So.2d 497, 509 (Miss.1996). ... Where one jury instruction adequately covers the defendant’s theory of [the case], there is no error in [the] refusal-of a second or redundant instruction. Higgins v. State, 725 So.2d 220 [, 223] (¶ 19) (Miss.1998); Cook v. State, 467 So.2d 203, 210 (Miss.1985); Evans v. State, 457 So.2d 957, 959 (Miss.1984); see also Murphy v. State, 566 So.2d 1201, 1206 (Miss.1990) (holding that the trial court may refuse an instruction which is without foundation in the evidence, incorrectly states the law, or is provided in another instruction); Calhoun v. State, 526 So.2d 531, 533 (Miss. 1988) (holding that a trial court is not obligated to instruct a jury over and over on the same concept of law despite variations in different instructions).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. James v. State · 164 So. 3d 484 - Corey Lathan v. State of Mississippi

2. “Joint representation of co-defendants does not result in a per se violation of the right to counsel.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wimberly v. State · 5 So. 3d 1178 - Thames v. State