Opinion ID: 1770220
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: the trial court's conviction of roberson was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and was unsupported by the evidence.

Text: In support of this argument Robertson asserts the indictment was defective, the instructions were inadequate, the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss, and that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient. Concerning challenges to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, this Court said in McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130 (Miss. 1987): When on appeal one convicted of a criminal offense challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence, our authority to interfere with the jury's verdict is quite limited. We proceed by considering all of the evidence  not just that supporting the case for the prosecution  in the light most consistent with the verdict. We give [the] prosecution the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. If the facts and inferences so considered point in favor of the accused with sufficient force that reasonable men could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, reversal and discharge is required. On the other hand, if there is in the record substantial evidence of such quality and weight that, having in mind the beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof standard, reasonable and fair minded jurors in the exercise of impartial judgment might have reached different conclusions, the verdict of guilty is thus placed beyond our authority to disturb. See, e.g., Gavin v. State, 473 So.2d 952, 956 (Miss. 1985); May v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 781 (Miss. 1984). McFee v. State, 511 So.2d at 133-34.