Opinion ID: 1930879
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 33

Heading: whether the jury's verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, contrary to the law of this state, and the result of bias and prejudice.

Text: ś 103. The jury convicted King on all three charged counts. In this issue, King alleges that the jury's verdicts are against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and that they are the result of bias and passion.... Without providing any evidence to support this assertion, King submits that the verdicts are not credible and that the jury had its collective mind made up prior to entering deliberations. He argues that improper evidence was brought before the jury, which he claims was essentially uninstructed. ś 104. Our standard of review for claims that a conviction is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence or that the trial court erred in not granting a motion for a new trial has been stated as follows: [This Court] must accept as true the evidence which supports the verdict and will reverse only when convinced that the circuit court has abused its discretion in failing to grant a new trial. A new trial will not be ordered unless the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction unconscionable injustice. Todd v. State, 806 So.2d 1086, 1090 (ś 11) (Miss.2001). 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 at 958. 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 at 1325-26. King's failure to make any pertinent and meaningful argument constitutes a waiver of this issue. ś 105. Alternatively, this issue is without merit. As even a casual reading of the facts and the evidence presented against King will demonstrate, the jury's verdict of guilty on all counts finds more than sufficient support in the evidence. This evidence, taken together with other reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, establishes that the evidence against King was overwhelming. Accordingly, this issue is without merit.