944 So. 2d 18 - Mingo v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The standard of review regarding admission or exclusion of evidence is abuse of discretion. We will not reverse the trial court's evidentiary ruling unless the error adversely affects a substantial right of a party.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sandefer v. State · Tawana Terrell Johnson v. State of Mississippi

2. “[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sandefer v. State · 950 So. 2d 178 - Johnson v. State

3. “As a general rule, when sentences are within the limits of the statute, the imposition of such sentences is within the sound discretion of the trial court and this Court will not reverse them. . . . Likewise, we have held that providing punishment for crime is a function of the legislature, and, unless the punishment specified by statute constitutes cruel and unusual treatment, it will not be disturbed by the judiciary. Presley v. State, 474 So.2d 612, 620 (Miss.1985). We review sentences in light of the factors articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), only when a threshold comparison of the crime committed to the sentence imposed leads to an inference of "gross disproportionality." Nichols v. State, 826 So.2d 1288, 1290 (Miss.2002). Generally, sentences that do not exceed the maximum term allowed by statute will not be considered grossly disproportionate and will not be disturbed on appeal. Fleming v. State, 604 So.2d 280, 302-03 (Miss.1992).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 950 So. 2d 178 - Johnson v. State · 983 So. 2d 270 - Hughes v. State