Opinion ID: 1880980
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in denying Kelly's Motion for a New Trial.

Text: ¶ 12. Kelly argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial, specifically, that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. In those cases where there is sufficient credible evidence presented by the State to prove the essential elements of the crime, it remains within the power of the trial court to award the defendant a new trial when the court concludes, based on its evaluation of all of the evidence, that the jury's verdict was so against the weight of the evidence that to permit it to stand would work a substantial miscarriage of justice. Simmons v. State, 722 So.2d 666, 674 (Miss.1998); (cited by Windham v. State, 800 So.2d 1257, 1263 (Miss.Ct.App.2001)). In ruling on a new trial motion, the trial court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict. Austin v. State, 784 So.2d 186, 196 (Miss.2001). The trial court is vested with substantial discretion in ruling on such a motion and, if the motion is denied, an appellate court may disturb that ruling only if it is satisfied that the trial court was manifestly in error. Wetz v. State, 503 So.2d 803, 812 (Miss. 1987). ¶ 13. Kelly produces a number of challenges to the evidence received as he attempts to advance his argument for a new trial. Kelly argues that Powell, the confidential informant, was the only individual who could identify him at trial. Further, Kelly argues that this Court should discount the credibility of Powell's testimony due to potential bias. Kelly urges that Powell cooperated with law enforcement officials in exchange for reduced burglary charges Powell faced. Powell testified that he met Kelly on a previous occasion, while Kelly testified that the two had never met. Also, Kelly notes that the time between the initial viewing and the trial was long enough to challenge Powell's recollection of the events on the night in question. Lastly, Kelly contends that none of the law enforcement officials with the Pearl River Basin Narcotics Task Force were able to positively offer a physical or voice identification. ¶ 14. The State presented evidence that on January 29, 2002, Powell and Davis executed a drug buy. Powell testified that he made a buy from Kelly. Specifically, Powell testified: We pulled in on the edge of the road in the front yard and she handed me the money, $20. I got out and proceeded to the window where he was playing a Play Station and had the curtains half cracked and the window was busted with a piece of cardboard he would slide back. And I asked him did he have a $20 (slang for twenty dollars worth of cocaine), he reached behind the TV and got a cellophane bag out and he handed me the $20 worth of rock cocaine and I handed him the $20. In addition to Powell's testimony, the State called Bobby Patterson (hereinafter Patterson), the Commander of the Pearl River Basin Narcotics Task Force, who testified to the nature of the operation and the events of leading to and surrounding January 29, 2002. The State also called Davis, the undercover officer who accompanied Powell to the scene, and she testified that she prepared Powell and listened to the audiotapes of the transaction. Also, the State offered into evidence an audiotape of Kelly selling the cocaine to Powell. Prior to resting its case, the State called three other law enforcement officials who were all present the night of January 29, 2002. ¶ 15. We have routinely held that the jury is the judge of credibility. Schuck v. State, 865 So.2d 1111, 1124 (Miss.2003); Harris v. State, 527 So.2d 647, 649 (Miss.1988). This Court will not set aside a guilty verdict, absent other error, unless it is clearly a result of prejudice, bias or fraud, or is manifestly against the weight of credible evidence. Drake v. State, 800 So.2d 508, 517 (Miss.2001)(citing Maiben v. State, 405 So.2d 87, 88 (Miss. 1981)). Further, it is within the sound discretion of the jury to accept or reject the testimony of a witness, and the jury may give consideration to all inferences flowing from the testimony. Mangum v. State, 762 So.2d 337, 342 (Miss.2000) (quoting Grooms v. State, 357 So.2d 292, 295 (Miss.1978)). It is clear that after receiving the testimony from both Powell and Kelly, the jury found Powell's testimony to be more credible and reliable than Kelly's. Also, the testimony of Davis and Patterson buttress the notion that Kelly was present on the night in question and actually committed the charged offense. The instant action is on all fours with Mims v. State, 856 So.2d 518, 522-23 (Miss.Ct.App.2003). In Mims, the Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction for the sale of a controlled substance, specifically crack cocaine. Id. at 523. It found sufficient evidence in the audio tape of the defendant selling cocaine to the confidential informant and the testimony of the police office who prepared the informant, and listened to the transaction. It concluded that alleged inconsistencies in testimony of the confidential informant and defendant were properly resolved by the trier of fact. Id. From the evidence present in the case sub judice, we conclude that the jury resolved any discrepancies in favor of the State. Viewing this evidence favorably to the State, we find that the testimony of Powell, Patterson and Davis linking Kelly to the crime charged is more than sufficient evidence to sustain Kelly's conviction. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kelly's motion for a new trial.