Opinion ID: 1723925
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Issue: Whether Verdict Was Against Overwhelming Weight of Evidence?

Text: Through this issue, Randy contends that the judge erroneously denied his motion for a new trial because the verdict of the jury was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and ... no rational juror could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant's Brief at 7.
The law relevant to review of an overwhelming-weight issue has been amply recited: The motion for new trial is addressed to the trial [judge's] sound discretion. ... . A greater quantum of evidence favoring the State is necessary for the State to withstand the motion for new trial as distinguished from a motion for j.n.o.v. Under our established case law, the trial judge should set aside the jury's verdict only when, in his sound discretion, he is convinced that the verdict is contrary to the substantial [or overwhelming] weight of the evidence. Pharr v. State, 465 So.2d 294, 301-02 (Miss. 1984); see also Williams v. State, 463 So.2d 1064, 1067-68 (Miss. 1985).
At trial, the State presented undisputed evidence of an argument which occurred between Randy and Neil  both of whom were intoxicated. Their argument, which was over gas money, ended up with Randy leaving Neil behind to walk home. Hours later, Neil is found dead. An investigation revealed that Neil had been purposefully run over by an automobile. Moreover, the killer also may have robbed Neil since the money which Neil had received when he cashed his paycheck was missing. The investigation revealed the possibility that Randy may have washed his car shortly after Neil's death. Finally, three witnesses stepped forward to relate what Randy had tearfully confessed to them. Randy's defense included denials by him of the allegation that he washed his car and that he confessed to anyone. Randy also presented the prior statement of a witness who had told investigators that Todd and Andy confessed to the murder. Finally, Randy presented his brother as an alibi witness. The jury weighed the evidence, judged the credibility of the witnesses, and resolved the conflict in their testimony. The jury believed the State's version and found Randy guilty. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, this Court concludes that the judge properly denied Randy's motion for a new trial. That is, the verdict is not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that, to allow it to stand, would be to sanction an unconscionable injustice. Groseclose v. State, 440 So.2d 297, 300 (Miss. 1983) (citing Pearson v. State, 428 So.2d 1361, 1364 (Miss. 1983)). In sum, this Court is unconvinced that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying Randy's motion for a new trial. The verdict shall therefore remain undisturbed.