Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Conner v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 2014No. 2011-CT-00941-SCTPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKitchens, Justice

¶ 39. There can be no doubt that prosecutions under Mississippi’s habitual-offender statutes must occur in bifurcated trials. Seely v. State, 451 So.2d 213, 214 (Miss.1984). At the sentencing trial, “the circuit judge is to serve as the finder of fact in determining whether the habitual offender part of the indictment is established by the requisite degree of prooff,]” that is, beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 215. After reviewing the transcript of the pretrial hearing on the motion to amend the indictment as well as the sentencing hearing, I am convinced that the State failed to prove the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Smith v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Hobgood v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Seely v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Corbin v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 2011

1 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