Opinion ID: 1598918
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the evidence presented proved to be insufficient where great reliance was placed on uncorroborated, incredible testimony.

Text: ¶ 87. Burns' tenth assignment of error once again challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Burns argues that the State relied on unbelievable and often inconsistent testimony from Phillip Hale, Jeff Hale and Janie Taylor. Burns further claims that these witnesses were inherently incredible. ¶ 88. Citing Noe v. State to support its proposition, the State argues that the court properly instructed the jury to weigh the evidence of alleged accomplices with great caution. `The jury has the duty to determine the impeachment value of inconsistencies or contradictions as well as testimonial defects of perception, memory and sincerity.' Noe v. State, 616 So.2d 298, 303 (Miss. 1993) ( quoting Jones v. State, 381 So.2d 983, 989 (Miss.1980)). The jury who is the sole judge of the weight and worth of the testimony as its proper function, had before it the duty to determine the evidence it would accept as true and that which it would reject as untrue. Wilson v. State, 234 So.2d 303, 311-12 (Miss.1970) ( citing Alexander v. State, 251 Miss. 847, 171 So.2d 517 (1965); Bond v. State, 249 Miss. 352, 162 So.2d 510 (1964)). ¶ 89. As a general rule a trial judge should not hesitate to grant a cautionary instruction when the State is relying upon the testimony of co-conspirators. Wheeler v. State, 560 So.2d 171, 173 (Miss. 1990) ( quoting Derden v. State, 522 So.2d 752, 754 (Miss.1988)). Such was not the case here. The judge in the case sub judice instructed the jury that the testimony of alleged accomplices should be weighed with great caution and the Jury may disbelieve their testimony all together, if they believe it untrue, the jury being the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses. The judge properly issued the instruction. Therefore, this issue is without merit. ¶ 90. Reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, there was sufficient evidence to convict Burns of capital murder. For these reasons, this issue is without merit.