Opinion ID: 2649588
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Beasley is entitled to a new trial.

Text: ¶35. A motion for new trial challenges the weight of the evidence. Sheffield v. State, 749 So. 2d 123, 127 (Miss. 1999). In reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, this Court will overturn a verdict only “when it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Bush, 895 So. 2d at 844. See also Amiker v. Drugs for Less, Inc., 796 So. 2d 942, 947 (Miss. 2000) (holding that a motion for a new trial is addressed to the discretion of the court and should be granted only “in exceptional cases in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict.”). As with challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court views all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Id. Factual disputes are properly resolved by a jury and do not mandate a new trial. Temple v. State, 498 So. 2d 379, 382 (Miss. 1986). ¶36. While Beasley claims that the evidence presented by the State is “unsubstantiated” or “unconvincing,” his specific arguments merely challenge the credibility of the State’s witnesses. It is not for this Court to pass on the credibility of witnesses, for that is a jury function. Bond v. State, 162 So. 2d 510, 512 (Miss. 1964) (citation omitted). The jury in this case was presented with two opposing versions of the circumstances surrounding Wilkinson’s death. The State presented significant circumstantial evidence portraying Beasley as Wilkinson’s murderer. In response, Beasley took the stand in an attempt to rationalize the State’s damning evidence, and his testimony is the only evidence inconsistent 17 with the jury’s verdict. The jury was free to accept the testimony of some witnesses and reject that of others, and this Court “need not determine with exactitude which witness or what testimony the jury believed or disbelieved in arriving at its verdict.” Brown v. State, 796 So. 2d 223, 227 (Miss. 2001) (citations omitted). In this case, it is clear that the jury accepted the State’s witnesses and evidence and rejected Beasley’s testimony. Allowing the jury’s verdict to stand in this case would not “sanction an unconscionable injustice,” as the evidence does not “preponderate heavily against the verdict.” Bush, 895 So. 2d at 844. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not err in denying Beasley’s motion for a new trial.