Opinion ID: 1907550
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the verdict of the trial court was contrary to the weight of the evidence.

Text: ¶ 13. When reviewing a denial of a motion for a new trial based on an objection to the weight of the evidence, we will only disturb a verdict when it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice. Stewart v. State, 909 So.2d 52, 2005 WL 1981769,  (Miss.2005). ¶ 14. The record shows that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction of Willis as the second gunman in the robbery. The trial court's decision to find Willis guilty on both counts does not result in an unconscionable injustice. Officer Matney of the Southaven Police Department testified that he positively identified Willis as the man who was driving the get-away car. Secondly, Jonathan Williams (a key witness for the State) identified Willis as his partner in the robbery at the time of his arrest. Williams admitted that he had been with Willis the entire day of the robbery. When Williams took the stand at Willis's trial, he refused to testify about the person being with him during the robbery because he feared for his family's life. Finally, Willis claimed that he was in traffic court the morning of the robbery, but he failed to produce any witnesses or paperwork to corroborate his alibi. ¶ 15. Considering all of the relevant and admissible evidence, the verdict of guilty was not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Therefore, we will not disturb the verdict of the trial court.