Opinion ID: 864794
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: ¶8. The standard of review for a post-trial motion is abuse of discretion. Howell v. State, 860 So. 2d 704, 764 (Miss. 2003). In the recent case of Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 843 (Miss. 2005), we discussed the standard which applies in a challenge to a verdict based on the sufficiency of the evidence: In Carr v. State, 208 So. 2d 886, 889 (Miss. 1968), we stated that in considering whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction in the face of a motion for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the critical inquiry is whether the evidence shows “beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] accused committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed; and where the evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to support a conviction.” However, this inquiry does not require a court to 4 'ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.' Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Should the facts and inferences considered in a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence “point in favor of the defendant on any element of the offense with sufficient force that reasonable men could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty,” the proper remedy is for the appellate court to reverse and render[, i.e. reverse and discharge]. Edwards v. State, 469 So. 2d 68, 70 (Miss. 1985) (citing May v. State, 460 So. 2d 778, 781 (Miss. 1984)); see also Dycus v. State, 875 So. 2d 140, 164 (Miss. 2004). However, if a review of the evidence reveals that it is of such quality and weight that, “having in mind the beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof standard, reasonable fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions on every element of the offense,” the evidence will be deemed to have been sufficient. Edwards, 469 So.2d at 70; see also Gibby v. State, 744 So.2d 244, 245 (Miss. 1999). ¶9. In order to convict Tony Ray Brown of possession of cocaine in an amount of more than 0.1 gram but less than 2 grams, the State was required to prove, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-139 (Rev. 2001), Brown (1) knowingly or intentionally; (2) possessed; (3) cocaine in an amount of more than 0.1 gram but less than 2 grams. ¶10. Tony Ray Brown testified that he had cocaine in his possession on the morning of September 13, 2001.1 McGehee also testified that upon arriving at the scene, Brown handed 1 Invoking our familiar Weathersby Rule applicable to homicide cases, Brown argues that we must accept as true his uncontradicted testimony concerning the fight with his crack dealer and his wife and that they must have placed the cocaine in Brown’s hands. See Weathersby v. State, 165 Miss. 207, 209, 147 So. 481, 482 (1933). In Weathersby, this Court stated “that where the defendant or the defendant’s witnesses are the only eyewitnesses to the homicide, their version, if reasonable, must be accepted as true, unless substantially 5 him what was later determined to be cocaine. Brown was able to present his version of the facts that Taylor and his wife must have placed the cocaine in his hand after rendering him unconscious. He further testified that this cocaine remained in his hand during the scuffle until he was able to run home and call the police, whereupon he handed over the cocaine upon the arrival of the police. Contrary to the testimony of Investigator McGehee that Brown reached into his pocket and pulled out the cocaine, Brown unequivocally denied that he reached into his pocket to retrieve the cocaine. Instead, Brown testified that the cocaine was in his hand when McGehee arrived and that the cocaine “come out of my hand and I put it in his [McGehee’s] hand. I didn’t go in my pocket.” When we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, there was sufficient evidence upon which a rational person could have found that the State proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Brown committed all of the elements of possession of cocaine amount of more than 0.1 gram but less than 2 grams. Therefore, this argument is without merit.