Opinion ID: 1096587
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the trial court erred by denying the motion for a directed verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial.

Text: ¶ 27. Stack argues that the trial court should have granted his motion for a directed verdict or, alternatively, a new trial. As the basis for this motion, Stacks contends that no reasonable jury possibly could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Stack committed the murders. The standard for this Court's review is well-settled: In appeals from an overruled motion for JNOV[,] the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law is viewed and tested in a light most favorable to the State. Esparaza v. State, 595 So.2d 418, 426 (Miss.1992); Wetz [v. State], [503 So.2d 803] at 808; Harveston v. State, 493 So.2d 365, 370 (Miss.1986); May v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 780-81 (Miss.1984); Callahan v. State, 419 So.2d 165, 174 (Miss.1982). The credible evidence consistent with [the defendant's] guilt must be accepted as true. Spikes v. State, 302 So.2d 250, 251 (Miss.1974). The prosecution must be given the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. Wetz, at 808; Hammond v. State, 465 So.2d 1031, 1035 (Miss.1985); May, at 781. Matters regarding the weight and credibility of the evidence are to be resolved by the jury. Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743, 758 (Miss.1984); Gathright v. State, 380 So.2d 1276, 1278 (Miss.1980). We are authorized to reverse only where, with respect to one or more of the elements of the offense charged, the evidence so considered is such that reasonable and fair-minded jurors could only find the accused not guilty. Wetz, at 808; Harveston, at 370; Fisher v. State, 481 So.2d 203, 212 (Miss.1985). McClain, 625 So.2d at 778. Shipp v. State, 847 So.2d 806, 811-12 (¶ 20) (Miss.2003). The State counters Stack's contention by noting that Stack's entire argument under this issue contains only thirteen lines of text and fails to point out any particular deficiency in the proof, or to assert how the verdict is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The State also correctly points out that we have affirmed the proposition that there exists a presumption that the judgment of the trial court is correct and that the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate some reversible error to this Court. Alexander v. State, 759 So.2d 411, 418 (Miss. 2000). Thus, this issue is procedurally barred. ¶ 28. Procedural bar notwithstanding, the State's evidence in this case was sufficient to support a finding of guilt as to both counts. The State presented evidence that Stack was apprehended immediately after the killings, covered in blood, and in possession of the murder weapon. Thereafter, Stack gave a statement confessing to the killings of both victims. Although the only other eyewitness to Stack's initial actions did not testify, the State produced eyewitnesses who testified that Stack was on top of Chopones stabbing him and then turned his attack to Thomas when Thomas attempted to stop Stack. Therefore, we find this issue to be without merit.