Legal Opinion · Concurrence

James v. State

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

Decided April 30, 2013No. 2012-KA-00157-COAPublished

1Concurrence

MAXWELL, J.,

specially concurring:

¶ 26. Justice Armis Hawkins, writing for the Mississippi Supreme Court in Wilkins, held that a party must still show surprise or unexpected hostility before impeaching its own witness, despite Mississippi’s then-recent adoption of Rule 607, which does not require either of these express showings. See Wilkins v. State, 603 So.2d 309, 322 (Miss.1992).. Because our supreme court continues to- adhere to these pre-Rule 607 requirements, I am compelled to agree with the majority that we are bound by Wilkins and must reverse James’s conviction.

¶ 27. But I write…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Chambers v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. United States v. Willie H. DennisCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980
  3. Moffett v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Rodriguez v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2000
  5. United States v. Theodore D. MorlangCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1975

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API