Abernathy v. State
Mississippi Supreme Court
1DissentGraves, Presiding Justice
¶ 25. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Abernathy failed to make a sufficient proffer concerning Dr. Katz’s testimony. Abernathy complied with the rule of evidence and the caselaw relevant to proffering evidence by adequately explaining to the trial court and into the record why Dr. Katz’s testimony was relevant. Therefore, I must dissent.
I. Abernathy complied with the rule of evidence and the caselaw relevant to proffering evidence by adequately explaining why he was offering Dr. Katz’s testimony.
¶ 26. Rule 103 of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence explains that a trial court’s…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Mississippi Transp. Comm'n v. McLemoreMississippi Supreme Court · 2003
- Heidel v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1991
- Chinn v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 2007
- Phillipson v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 2006
- Investor Resource Services, Inc. v. CatoMississippi Supreme Court · 2009
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.