James v. State
Court of Appeals of Mississippi
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
- Chambers v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- United States v. Willie H. DennisCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980
- Moffett v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1984
- Rodriguez v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2000
- United States v. Theodore D. MorlangCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1975
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.