Opinion ID: 1608240
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was the verdict against the weight of the evidence?

Text: ¶ 7. We have stated: In reviewing the question of whether a verdict is sufficiently supported by the evidence, the Supreme Court is required to look at the totality of the circumstances, and [o]ur concern here is whether the evidence in the record is sufficient to sustain a finding adverse to [the defendant] on each element of the offense ... [W]ith respect to each element, of the offense, [we must] consider all of the evidencenot just the evidence which supports the case for the prosecutionin light most favorable to the verdict. Yates v. State, 685 So.2d 715, 718 (Miss. 1996) (citing Wetz v. State, 503 So.2d 803, 808 (Miss.1987)). ¶ 8. Every person who shall feloniously take the personal property of another, in his presence or from his person and against his will, by violence to his person or by putting such person in fear of some immediate injury to his person, shall be guilty of robbery. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-73 (2000). Every person convicted of robbery shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term not more than fifteen years. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-75 (2000). ¶ 9. Through her testimony, the Victim stated that her purse was taken against her will. She also stated that she saw the thief approach her prior to the theft and that as he walked toward her, she became uncomfortable, frightened and afraid. Through this testimony, the State established the elements of robbery (i.e. the taking of one's personal property from her person and against her will, by putting such person in fear of some immediate injury to her person). McKee, however, argues that the State failed to prove the thief in this case gained possession of the Victim's purse by placing her in fear of immediate injury, and in doing so, failed to prove that element of robbery. He does not contest that the State proved the other elements of the offense. Notwithstanding his contention, McKee offered no evidence to prove that the Victim was not fearful when her purse was taken (i.e. evidence that the Victim never saw the thief, that her demeanor was relaxed and casual even after she saw the thief, etc.). ¶ 10. In support of his argument, McKee cites Clayton v. State, 759 So.2d 1169 (Miss.1999), wherein this Court overturned a defendant's conviction for robbery on the grounds that the State failed to prove that the defendant obtained the victim's property by placing her in immediate fear of personal injury. Clayton is factually distinguishable, and therefore inapplicable, to the case sub judice, because in Clayton, the thief approached the victim from behind, and the victim never saw the thief until after the theft had occurred. Consequently, the theft in Clayton was not effectuated through fear of immediate injury to the victim. Id. at 1170-71. ¶ 11. McKee argues the verdict cannot stand because the Victim never saw the thief's face, and, therefore, could not positively say that he was indeed the thief. However, three detectives all testified that McKee admitted that he was the one who took the Victim's purse. In Young v. State, 352 So.2d 815 (Miss.1977), this Court affirmed an armed robbery conviction under similar circumstances. Defendant correctly asserts that [the victim] did not positively identify the defendant and that her testimony, standing alone, would not be sufficient to convict; however, her testimony and defendant's confession is sufficient to support the verdict of the jury. Id. at 819. ¶ 12. McKee also asserts that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence because, notwithstanding the testimony of the three detectives to the contrary, McKee testified that he neither confessed to the crime, nor told the detectives that he had thrown the purse and its contents out on the side of the road. He points out that there is no written or taped proof of the alleged confession. This Court has in numerous cases, too many to mention, said that when the evidence is conflicting, the jury will be the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight and worth of their testimony ... in a criminal prosecution the jury may accept the testimony of some witnesses and reject that of others, and that they may accept in part and reject in part the evidence on behalf of the state or on behalf of the accused. In other words, the credibility of witnesses is not for the reviewing court. Gathright v. State, 380 So.2d 1276, 1278 (Miss.1980). In finding McKee guilty, the jury obviously rejected his testimony regarding the confession and accepted that of the detectives, a decision which was well within its discretion. ¶ 13. We hold that considering all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, the State proved each element of the offense of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt, and further proved that McKee was the person who committed the offense. Therefore, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence.