IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2017-KA-00849-SCT DERRICK RAMONE HALL a/k/a DERRICK HALL a/k/a DERRICK R. HALL

v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/23/2017 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. M. JAMES CHANEY, JR. TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: RICHARD EARL SMITH, JR. MARCIE TANNER SOUTHERLAND STEPHEN LEE McMILLIN KIMBERLY W ALKER NAILOR MICHAEL ELIAS W INFIELD COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: W A RREN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: GEORGE T. HOLMES ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ALICIA MARIE AINSW ORTH DISTRICT ATTORNEY: RICHARD EARL SMITH, JR. NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 06/07/2018 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE RANDOLPH, P.J., KING AND ISHEE, JJ. ISHEE, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT: ¶1. In May 2 017, Derrick Hall w a s c o n v i c t e d b y a jury of f irst-degree m

urder in the
W a rren County C ircuit Court. Due to his status as a habitual of f ender, Hall was sentenced

to serve lif

e in prison. Having his posttrial m otion f o r a judgm ent n otwit h s t anding the verdict ( JNOV) denied by the circuit court, H all n ow seeks relief f rom this Court. Findingno error, we af f irm

. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2. O n t h e night of M ay 6, 2015, Kathry n P eacock was f

o und d ead in he r h o me , t h e apparent victim of a gruesom e m urder. Peacock was nude a nd h ad suf f ered m o re than thirty stab wounds to her neck and throat, as well as def ensive wounds to her arm s and hands. ¶3. Peacock’s body was discovered by h er boy f r i e n d a t t h e t im e, Devonzell Morgan. Morgan had last seen Peacock the night bef ore, May 5, 2015. He stated that he a nd Peacock had gone out f

o r dinner, then returned to her hom e af terward. And ar o u n d 5:30 p.m ., Morgan lef

t Peacock’s hom e f

or the evening. He texted h er “ good n ight” later that night, to which Peacock responded “ good n ight.” The f ollowing m orning, Morgan texted her “good

m orning,” to which she replied around 6:40 a.m

. ¶4. W h en Morgan l e f t w o r k a r o u n d 11:00 a.m ., he texted Peacock several tim es but received no reply

. Around 3:00 p.m ., he again tried texting Peacock, to no avail. Morgan then called Peacock, but she did not answer or return any of his texts. W orried, M organ and his brother, Matthew, drove to Peacock’s hom e to check on her. ¶5. W h en they arrived, Morgan knocked on Peacock’s door, but no o n e a n s w ered. He then knocked on h er w indow with a broom and eventually w ent t o check her door. Morgan claim ed that Peacock had three locks on her door, which she alway s used—but when Morgan checked, t he door was u nlocked. Concerned, he entered Peacock’s hom e and b egan looking f or her. Morgan then discovered Peacock’s n ude body on her bathroom f l oor, with her lower half covered by

bath drapes. Shocked, Morgan touched Peacock on the shoulder and said,

2“Kat.” He then closed her ey e s, a nd ran outside to alert Matthew. Once Morgan inf orm ed Matthew of his discovery , t he t w o r eentered Peacock’s hom e—Matthew saw Peacock’s body and im m e diately

ran back outside. Morgan then used Peacock’s phone to call 911. ¶6. Police arrived on scene and f ound a distraught Morgan sitting on the c urb. Noticing

no signs of f

orced entry , police then entered Peacock’s hom e and noted blood in a variety of locations, including blood-transf er patterns throughout the kitchen, on the f loor leading into Peacock’s bedroom , and in the bathroom where s he w as f o und. Investigators also identif ied a bloody shoe print on the kitchen f loor. Upon inspection, it was determ ined that the print

was m ade as s om eone lef t Peacoc k ’s hom e and d erived f rom a D a n skin brand shoe. The print did not m atch the shoes worn by Morgan. 1 ¶7. From i n side Peacock’s h o me , i n v e s t i gators collected t he f ollowing: (1) a bloody , white tank top, f

ound in a c lothes basket; (2) a long-handled steak k nif e w ith a bent tip and what appeared to be blood, which was f ound under clothes on the f l o o r ; and (3) a pair of bloody , wom e n’s underwear, located in the b athroo m’ s g a rbage can. I n addition, investigators observed cleaning supplies in the bathroom , surm ising that a clean-up attem pt had been m ade. ¶8. Mov i n g o u t s i d e P e a c o c k ’ s h om e, investigators searched her vehicle, which was parked in her driveway

. Found inside her car w as a pair of N ike A ir Jordans and a white tshirt, both of

which had blood on them . A spot of blood was n oted on the back seat, and a

1 P o lice u ltim ately

ru led o u t M o rg an a s a su s p ect, as h i s cell-p h o n e reco r d s an d h is em p lo y er b o th co r r o b o r a t e d h is w h ereab o u ts d u rin g th e d ay . P o lice lik e w ise ru led o u t P eaco ck ’s ex -h u sb an d , as reco rd s rev ealed th at h e w as in carcerated o n th e d ate o f P eaco ck ’s m u rd e r. 3Brillo pad with what appeared to be carpet-like f ibers within it was f

ound. ¶9. That sam e evening, investigators were approached by H all’s m other, Jovita Hall, who l i v e d n e arby

. Jovita told investigators that she had seen Hall w earing clothes in her h o me earlier t h a t d a y t h at she knew were not his because they were too sm all f or him

. This inf orm ation rendered Hall a possible suspect. A s a r e s u l t, investigators obtained a search

warrant f or J ovita’s hom e and seized t he f ollowing item s: (1) a p air of black Danskin shoes, with blood on them ; ( 2) a p air of black stretch pants, with blood on them ; and (3) a brown tank top. W hen inspected, t he soles of the Danski n s h o e s matched the bloody s hoe print ide n t i f i e d i n P eacock’s kitchen. W hile at J o vita’s, investigators also seized a p air of gold Levi jeans, which a lso had blood on them. The next d ay , Jovita contacted investigators again, stating that she had discovered a pair o f blue boxers with bloodstains—in response, investigators seized the boxers, as well as a red shirt. ¶10. Evidence subm i tted to the Mississippi Crim e L aboratory revealed the f ollowing DNA results:

• Blood f

ound o n the Nike shoes in P eacock’s car was Peacock’s blood, but n o conclusive DNA prof ile w as recovered f

r om inside the Nikes;

• Blood f

ound on the white t-shirt lef t in P eacock’s car w a s Hall’s blood;

• No conclusive DNA prof ile was obtained f

r om the steering wheel of Peacock’s car;

• The white tank top recovered f r om inside Peacock’s hom e bore Peacock’s DNA, as well as a Y -chrom osom e m i xture, f rom which H all and all his patrilineal m ale relatives could not be excluded—however, 99.9% of the world’s m ale population could be excluded;

• The knif

e f ound i n P e a c o c k ’s hom e tested n egative f or b lood a nd no

4conclusive DNA prof ile was obtained;

• Blood f

rom the bathroom

sink and wall was Peacock’s blood;

• The right Danskin s hoe recovered f rom Jovita’s possessed Peacock’s DNA on the interior, with Peacock’s blood on the exterior;

• The lef

t D anskin shoe also recovered f r o m Jovita’s c ontained Peacock’s blood o n the exterior, but the interior of the shoe revealed a m i xture of DNA prof

iles f rom which Hall was excluded;

• The black pants f

ound at Jovita’s had Peacock’s blood o n the f ront right leg; the interior waist band revealed a mi x ture of DNA p rof iles f rom which P eacock could not b e excluded; Y-chrom o so m e t e s ting of the interior revealed a m ixed DNA prof ile, of which Hall and all his patrilineal m ale relatives could not be excluded—however, 99.5% of the world’s m ale population could be excluded;

• The gold Levi jeans recovered f r om Jovita’s contained Hall’s blood; and lastly

• The blue b oxers f ound a t J o v i t a ’ s contained P eacock’s blood, with Y-chrom osom e testing revealing a m ixed D NA prof ile, of which H all and all his p a trilineal m ale relatives could not be excluded—however, 99.9% of the world’s m ale population could be excluded. ¶11. At trial, Cre’tarsha Tay lor, Hall’s cousin who r esides across the street f rom Peacock’s hom e, t estif

ied a s to her encounters with Hall on May 6, 2015—the day of the m urder. Tay lor testif

ied that she a nd Hall had sm oked a c igarette together at her h ouse around 6:00

a.m . She described H all as wearing a long-sleeved red shir t w i t h b l u e j eans and Nike Air Jordans. Tay lor stated that she next saw Hall shortly af ter 7:00 a.m . on t he side of Peacock’s h o me—but this tim e h e was in dif f erent clothes. At t his tim e , Tay lor s aid she saw H a l l wearing a brown t ank top with dark-colored sweat pants and s hoes that h e had j ust “stuck his [ f eet] in.” Tay l or then said that s he witnessed Hall g e t i n t o Peacock’s car and drive of f ,

5noticing a bag on the f ront passenger seat. ¶12. Tay lor testif

i ed that, a round noon that sam e day , she saw Hall f or a third t im e. This tim e, she described Hall a s sweating, and wearing blue jeans and a white ta n k t o p . She claim ed that H all asked her f or a bottle of water and a band-aid; though she did not have a band-aid, she noticed that H all had blood o n t he top of his right hand. W hen asked by Tay lor whether s he had seen h i m in Peacock’s car, Hall s tated, “No.” On cross-exam ination, Tay lor did s tate that she saw a m a n nam ed Calvin outside P eacock’s hom e ; Calvin i s known f or cutting grass in the neighborhood and walks with a cane. She a lso noted two other m en outside Peacock’s hom e without shirts. ¶13. It was af

ter the inf orm ation was provided by Jovita and Tay lor that investigators chose

t o a r r e s t Hall. W hile arresting Hall, investigators observed a f resh cut on his right pink y f inger, and a sm aller c ut on his palm

. Because H all was intoxicated, police waited until the f ollowing day to question h i m . So, on May 7, 2015, Hall was interviewed b y investigators but denied any involvem ent in Peacock’s m urder. Then, at his o wn r equest, Hall was interviewed again on May 18, 2015. Portions of the interviews were play ed f or the jury

. ¶14. Hall’s f

irst trial f or the m urder of P e acock ended in a m istrial. In his f irst trial, Hall testif i ed in his o wn def

ense. I n H a l l ’ s second trial, h owever, he declined to testif y —as a result, the State intro d u c e d Hall’s testim ony f rom his m istrial, which was read into the record. ¶15. In that, Hall sta t e d t h a t h e and Peacock had visited three d ay s bef ore her m urder, during which tim e the two had sm oked m arijuana f or around a n hour, and Hall had inf orm ed

6Peacock of his p lans t o barbecue on May 6, 2015 (Hall’s birthday ). On the day Peacock was

m urdered, Hall testif

ied that he was at or around Peacock’s hom e three separate tim es. Hall stated that the f

irst tim e was when he stopped at Tay lor’s house f or a cigarette. Needing a grill f o r his barbeque, Hall s aid he then retrieved a grill f rom his f riend’s house. Hall said that he a nd his f

riend brou g h t t h e g r i l l to another f riend’s house where he and his brother, Kenneth , cleaned the grill. W hile cleaning the grill, however, Hall claim ed that he cut his f inger using a wire hanger attem pting to prop up the grill. 2 Because he was bleeding, Hall claim ed that he used the w h i t e t -shirt he was wearing to wrap his hand and stop the bleeding—he also stated that he was wearing gold jeans. Once the grill was operational, Hall

went to Tay l or’s t o get a band-aid and water. Hall claim ed that he was not wearing a white

t a n k t o p a t that t im e , as described by Tay lor. A f ter leaving Tay lor’s, Hall said he went t o Jovita’s to get seasoning salts. ¶16. Hall then dropped of f the seasoning s a lts at the location where they were barbecuing,

a n d w h ile on his way back to Jovita’s, he stopped by Peacock’s. Hall testif ied t h a t i t w a s around 6:50 a.m . when he stopped at Peacock’s. He said t hat he f irst knocked on Peacock’s side window, as he norm ally does, but re c e i v e d no answer. He then went around to Peacock’s door, which h e claim ed w as partial l y a j a r, knocked again, a nd called out to Peacock. Hall t hen entered Peacock’s hom e and proceeded to f ind her on the f

loor, naked

2 V ick sb u rg P o lice In v e stig ato r B o b b y Jo n es testif ied th at H all h ad in f

o r m ed h im h e h ad cu t h is h an d o n a g rill, an d in sisted th at Jo n e s in sp ect t h e g rill to co n f irm H all’s sto ry . Jo n es claim ed to h a v e g o n e an d i n sp ected t h e g r ill, b u t f o u n d n o w ire h an g e r as d escrib ed b y H all. In J o n es’s rep o rt, h o w ev er, h e m ad e n o m en tio n o f in sp ectin g th e g rill an d d id n o t in clu d e an y p h o to g rap h s. 7and dead.

¶17. Citing panic and untied shoes, Hall s tated t hat he f ell as he retreated f

rom Peacock’s body

. H aving gotten Peacock’s blood on him w hen h e slipped, H all t ook of f his shoes and put on Peacock’s. He then placed Peacock’s black sweat pants over his gold L evi jeans, and also put on Peacock’s brown tank top. Hall then went outside and sat in Peac o c k ’ s c a r , at which tim e Tay l or saw Hall in Peacock’s clothes. He stated tha t h e l e f t his Nikes and his white t-shirt in her car. And because Hall recently had been r eleased f rom prison, h e did not call the police, lef

t Peacock’s, and went to Jovita’s wearing Peacock’s clothes. ¶18. A t Jovita’s, Hall took a bath and changed clothes. He s tated that he lef t P e a c o c k ’ s clothes at J ovita’s, and that, d ue to his involvem ent with the Vice Lords (a g ang whose colors

are r ed and gold), he would not own blue clothing—thus deny i ng t hat the blue boxers f ound

a t Jovita’s were his. W hen cross-exam i ned, however, Hall stated that he had n o t f o u n d Peacock’s body until around 9 :00 a.m . Instead, Hall claim ed that it was 6:50 a . m . when he f irst knocked and received no answer, and so he lef t—but it was not until 9:00 a.m . when he actually f ound Peacock’s body

. ¶19. Rejecting Hall’s theory of innocence, the jury f ound him guilty of f

irst-degree m

urder. As a habitual of

f ender, he was ordered to serve l if e i n prison. The circuit court denied Hall’s posttrial m otion, which prom pted this appeal. DISCUSSION ¶20. Hall argues that the State’s evidence was insuf f icient to s upport his conviction and,

as a result, the verdict w as against the overwhelm ing weight of the evidence. W e disagree;

8theref

ore, we af f irm

. I. Sufficiency of the Evidence ¶21. W h en the legal suf f i ciency of a c o n v i c t i o n i s challenged, this Court m ust discern whether the evidence shows “bey ond a reasonable doubt that the accused com m i tted the act cha r g e d , a nd t hat he did so under such circum stances that e very elem ent of the of f ense existed[ .]” Carr v

. State , 2 08 So. 2d 886, 889 (Miss. 1968). In doing so, we m ust view all evidence in the light m ost f avorable to the State. Bush v. State , 895 S o. 2d 836, 843 (Miss. 2005), abrogated on other grounds by Little v. S t a te , 233 So. 3 d 288, 2 91 (Miss. 2017). Should this Court determ ine that “reasonable f air-m inded me n i n the exercise of im partial judgm ent m ight reach dif f e rent conclusions o n every elem ent of the of f e nse,” the evidence will be deem ed l egally suf f icient. E dwards v. State , 469 S o. 2d 68, 70 ( Miss. 1985).
Because Hall did not conf ess, nor were there any e y e witnesses to th e c r i me , t h is is a case based on circum stantial evidence. Jones v. State , 918 So. 2d 1220, 1234 (Miss. 2005). As such, the State bore the burden of proving Hall’s guilt “not only bey ond a r easonable doubt, but to the exclusion of every reasonable hy pothesis consistent w ith innocence.” Beasley v. State , 136 S o . 3 d 3 9 3 , 4 02 (Miss. 2014) (citing Leflore v. State , 5 35 So. 2 d 68, 70 (Miss. 1988)). T hat said, this Court will n ot disturb a conviction base d upon circum stantial evidence unless it is opposed by a “decided preponderance of the evidence.” Leflore , 535 So. 2d at 70. ¶22. Hall w as convicted under Mississippi Code Sec t i o n 9 7

- 3

- 1 9 ( 1 ) ( a ) , w h i c h d e fines f i rstdegree m u rder as: “The killing of a hum an b eing without the a uthority of law by any m eans

9or i n any m anner . . . [ w ]hen d one with deliberate design to ef f ect t he death o f the person killed, o r o f any hum an being[ .]” Miss. Code A nn. § 97-3-19(1)(a) (Rev. 2014). Thus, the State was required t o p rove that Hall: (1) killed Peacock; (2) without authority of law; and (3) did so with deliberate design to ef f ect her d eath. Id .; see also Beasley , 136 So. 3d at 402. Though it is undisputed that Peacock was the victim of a hom icide, Hall c o ntends the State f ailed to prove with suf

f icient e vidence that h e was Peacock’s killer. Instead, Hall claim s the evidence proves only that he was in Peacock’s hom e, and that he lef t with her clothing. ¶23. Reviewing t he eviden c e i n t h i s c a s e , w e h o l d t h a t t h e State proved bey ond a reasonable doubt Hall m urdered Peacock. First, Hall adm itted that he was at or around Peacock’s hom e three separate t im es the day she was m urdered. Furtherm ore, Hall originally stated that it was around 6:50 a.m . when he f ound Peacock m

urdered i n her hom e . But Hall also stated t hat when he f o und Peacock, s h e w a s n o t actually dead—rather, Peacock was

m aking a g urgling sound, with blood pouring f rom h er m outh a nd n eck. And Tay lor testif ied that she saw Hall outside Peacock’s hom e i n P e a c ock’s clothes (which Hall adm itted to wearing) shortly af

ter 7:00 a.m . W e f

i nd this sequence of events inf orm ative, as the record ref lects t hat Peacock was alive until approxim ately 6:40 a.m ., which is when she replied to Morgan’s “good m orning” text. As such, this Court f inds the e vidence produces a r easonable inf erence that Peacock was m urdered a t som e tim e between approxim ately 6:40 a.m . and 7:00 a.m

. ¶24. But m ore inf

orm ative is the testim o ny of Dr. Lisa Funte—a f orensic pathologist and the deputy chief m edical exam i ner f or the Mississippi Medical Exam iner’s O f f ice. Funte

1 0testif

i ed that t he severity o f P e a c ock’s injuries would have k illed her w ithin a “m atter of

m inutes.” In addition, i nvestigators on scene surm ised that a c l e a n-up attem pt had been

m ade—which f

u rther undercuts Hall’s theory of innocence. Even m ore, Funte t estif ied that the blood patterns f

ound on Peacock’s person a nd in h er bathroom were consistent with a victim who originally was l y ing f a ce down and then w as t

urned over only af

ter the blood had dried. Nonetheless, Hall’s a ccount is that he f ound Peacock alive and on her b ack—the sam e position in which she was f ound dead by

Morgan and as evidenced in the record. ¶25. Under the tim e f

ram e established f

rom the r ecord, the n , t h e e v i d e n c e c r e ates a reasonable i nf

erence that Hall was in Peacock’s h om e between 6:40 a.m . a n d 7:00 a.m ., and that Hall m

urdered Peacock. And in reviewing the evidence in the light m ost f avorable to the State, we hold that the jury ’s verdict is not opposed by a “decided preponderance of the evidence,” nor is it “based on no evidence whatsoever,” thus r equiring reversal. Beasley , 136 So. 3d at 403 (quoting K

itchens v. State , 300 So. 2d 922, 927 (Miss. 1974)). ¶26. In f

act, the DNA evidence in this case points alm ost entirely t o H all. To that end, Hall could not e xplain why the bloody white tank top f ound in Peacock’s hom e contained a DNA

m ixture f rom which Hall could not be excluded, but that c ould exclude 99.9% of t he world’s

m ale population. As to t he b lue boxers f ound at Jovita’s, Hall vehem e ntly d enied that they were his—y et, the b oxers contained Peacock’s blood, as w ell as a Y-chrom osom e m ixture f rom which Hall could not be e xcluded, but that likewise exclud e d 9 9

. 9 % o f the world’s

m ale p opulation. But even without t he f orensic evidence deri v e d f r o m t h e b oxers, Hall adm itted to investigators that he was wearing t hose blue boxers when he allegedly slipped

1 1and f

ell in Peacock’s blood. ¶27. In a sim ilar v ein, Hall testif ied that he also was wearing h is g old Levi jeans when he slipped—and because he had Peacock’s blood on both his jeans and boxers, he chose to wear Peacock’s sweat pants

. B u t T ay lor testif i ed t hat Hall was w earing blue jeans that

m orning—not the gold Levi jeans recovered f rom Jovita’s. And whe n tested f orensically , Hall’s gold jeans contained only his blood, which f urther belies his claim that he was wearing those jeans when he allegedly f e ll in Peacock’s blood. ¶28. T h is Court also holds t hat the State provided suf f ici e n t e v i d e n c e p r o v i n g H a l l

mu r d ered Peacock with deliberate design. “Deliberate design m ay be proved or inf er r e d f rom the use of a deadly

weapon.” Beasley , 136 So. 3d at 402. To that end, a m ere glance

at the S tate’s crim e-scene photogra p h s i l l u strates the g ruesom e m anner in which Peacock

was m urdered. Testim ony revealed that Peacock had been stabbed m ore than t hirty tim es,

m ostly in her neck a nd throat. Moreover, Peacock’s body evidenced def ensiv e w o u n d s to her arm s and hands. ¶29. These i n

j u r i e s , w h e n c o upled with the blood-transf er patterns (f

ound in m

ultiple

room s of Peacock’s hom e) and t he f resh cuts o n H a l l’s hand, reasonably suggest that a struggle ensued. A nd because “[ t]he existence of a deadly weapon i s a question of f act f or the jury to decide,” we f ind t hat the State’s evidence c ould lead t h e j u r y t o only one conclusion—that Peacock was deliberately m urdered with a knif

e. Id . A s such, w e conclude that the jury reasonably could have rejected Hall’s t e s t i mony as a n unreasonable theory of innocence. Id. at 4 03. Theref ore, we hold that the Stat e p r e sented suf f icient evidence to

1 2prove Hall guilty of deliberate-design m

urder.
II. Weight of the Evidence ¶30. W h en the w eight of the evidence is challenged, t his Court w ill overturn a verdict only “when it is so contrary to the o verwhelm ing weight of the evidence t hat t o a llow it to stand would sanct i o n a n u nconscionable injustice.” Bush , 895 So. 2 d at 844. In addition, this Court views all e vidence in the l ight m ost f avorable to the verdict. Id

. “ Factual disputes are properly resolved by

a jury and do not m a n date a new trial.” Beasley , 136 So. 3d at 403. ¶31. Hall a rgues here that, because the State’s evidence was legally insuf f icient, t he verdict is co n t r ary t o the overwhelm ing weight of the evidence. I n its sim plest f orm , this case presented to the jury t wo versions of how Peacock c am e to be m urdered. The State, through its circum s tantial e vidence, labeled Hall as Peacock’s killer. Attem pting to c ast doubt on the State’s evidence, H all’s testim ony espoused m ultiple theories through m ultiple inconsistent versions. At f

irst, Hall d e nied any involvem ent in Peacock’s m urder. Hall then changed his story , outlining a version of events si mi l a r t o that ultim ately provided in his trial testim o ny —but inconsistencies were present. As is t heir province, the jury was f ree to accept or reject the witnesses’ testim o ny , and this Court will not second-guess t he j ury ’s witnesscredibility

determ inations. See id. at 404. ¶32. The jury h e re a ccepted the State’s evidence and its witnesses’ version of e vents. This being so, a llowing t

he jury ’ s v erdict to stand does not “sanction an unconscionable injustice,”

as the evidence does not “ preponderate heavily against the v erdict.” Bush , 895 So. 2d at 844. As s u ch, we c onclude t hat the trial court d id not err in deny i ng Hall’s m otion f or a new

1 3trial. CONCLUSION

¶33. In sum , our review of t he r ecord leads us t o conclude that the S tate presented evidence legally suf

f i cient to convict Hall o f f

irst-degree m

urder, and the j ury ’s verdict is not against the overwhelm ing weight of the evidence. Theref

ore, we af f irm

. ¶34. AFFIRMED. WALLER, C.J., RANDOLPH AND KITCHEN S , P.JJ., KING, COLEMAN, BEAM AND C H A M B E R LIN, JJ., CONCUR. MAX WELL, J., CONCURS IN P ART AND IN RESULT WITHOUT SEP ARATE OP INION.

1 4