Opinion ID: 1759877
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Victim Impact Evidence Sentencing Phase

Text: ¶ 114. Scott contends that the trial court permitted improper use of victim impact evidence. However, as the State correctly points out, Scott never identifies what evidence he considered improper. Also, nothing in Scott's brief makes any reference to alleged improper testimony. [6] Without specific evidence or objection to consider, this Court finds that this issue is not properly before this Court. M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) provides that: The argument shall contain the contentions of appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons for those contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on. ¶ 115. In Conley v. State, 790 So.2d 773, 784 (Miss.2001), Conley was convicted of capital murder in the Circuit Court of Pike County. On appeal, Conley alleged that the trial court erred in not allowing a full cross-examination of the State's witness. Id. The Court did not find any basis for the issue, stating: Pursuant to M.R.A.P 28(a)(6), this issue is not properly before the Court. Conley has failed to cite any specific instance in the record where the trial court limited his cross-examination.... Id. ¶ 116. We find that this issue is procedurally barred for failure to allege any specific error for this Court to consider.