Opinion ID: 1776668
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in sustaining each and every objection of the State and in overruling each and every objection by the defendant.

Text: ¶ 28. Randolph asserts that the trial court abused its discretion and was outside the boundaries of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence in sustaining every objection by the State and overruling every objection by the defendant. However, Randolph fails to cite any specific instance from the record which demonstrates that the trial court abused its discretion or exceeded the M.R.E. in ruling on objections. Instead, Randolph broadly refers to each and every objection in the record. ¶ 29. This Court in Alexander v. State, 759 So.2d 411, 418 (Miss.2000), held the following: There is a presumption that the judgment of the trial court is correct, and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate some reversible error to this Court. Branch v. State, 347 So.2d 957, 958 (Miss.1977). Supporting the argument of his issues with reasons and authorities is part of an appellant's burden on appeal. Pate v. State, 419 So.2d 1324, 1325-26 (Miss.1982). In Govan v. State, 591 So.2d 428, 431 (Miss.1991), this Court did not review a weight of the evidence argument in which defendant stated that the defense's witness disputed the proof provided by the State and only ten lines was given by the defendant in his argument. In the absence of meaningful argument and citation of authority, this Court generally will not consider the assignment of error. Id. at 430. See also Stidham v. State, 750 So.2d 1238 (Miss.1999) (the appellant has a duty to show by plausible argument with supporting authorities how the lower court erred); Rush v. State, 749 So.2d 1024, 1026 (Miss.1999)(appellate court did not address six issues raised on appeal where appellant did not discuss or cite authority); Sumrall v. State, 758 So.2d 1091, 1094 (Miss.Ct. App.2000)(an issue not argued in brief is considered abandoned and waived). ¶ 30. In the case sub judice, Randolph only makes the above cursory argument without either citing to specific instances in the record of an abuse of discretion by the trial court or without further reason or explanation. Therefore, this Court finds that because there is no meaningful argument on this issue for appellate review, the issue is considered waived.