Opinion ID: 1845235
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: did the trial court err in overruling larry clark's motion for a new trial?

Text: In his brief and in his rebuttal brief Clark renews the first two contentions as reasons to grant the new trial. He sets out three other grounds in support of his motion. However, no argument or authority is offered in support of these grounds. The third assignment of error is not even remotely addressed. It profits no one that we repeat what is written above concerning assignments I and II, and we will not do so. As to the remainder of the assignment and contentions in the motion not supported by argument or authority, we are not required to consider them. We have held, 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 957, 958 (Miss. 1977). It is the duty of counsel to make more than an assertion, they should state reasons for their propositions, and cite authorities in their support... . Johnson v. State, 154 Miss. 512, 122 So. 529 (1929). Numerous cases support the position that an unsupported assignment of error will not be considered. Hunter v. State, 489 So.2d 1086, 1090 (Miss. 1986); Kelly v. State, 463 So.2d 1070, 1072 (Miss. 1985); Redmond v. State, 457 So.2d 1344, 1346 (Miss. 1984); and many others. On numerous occasions we have set forth the standard to be applied in ruling on denial of a motion for a new trial. Recently, in Burt v. State, 493 So.2d 1325 (Miss. 1986), citing Pharr v. State, 465 So.2d 294, 302 (Miss. 1984), this Court held: Under our established caselaw, the trial judge should set aside a jury's verdict only when, in the exercise of his sound discretion, he is convinced that the verdict is contrary to the substantial weight of the evidence. May v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 781 (Miss. 1984); Pearson v. State, 428 So.2d 1361, 1364 (Miss. 1983). Burt at 1328. In Pharr, supra, citing Groseclose v. State, 440 So.2d 297, 300 (Miss. 1983), this Court held: We will not order a new trial unless convinced that the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would be to sanction an unconscionable injustice. (Citation omitted). Any less stringent rule would denigrate the constitutional power and responsibility of the jury and our criminal justice system. Pharr at 302. There is no merit to this assignment of error. The conviction of murder and sentence of life imprisonment are affirmed. CONVICTION OF MURDER AND SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT AFFIRMED. WALKER, C.J., ROY NOBLE LEE and HAWKINS, P.JJ., and DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, ANDERSON, and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.