Opinion ID: 865951
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: ¶6. A motion for JNOV challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 843 (Miss. 2005). When examining the sufficiency of evidence in the grant or denial of a motion for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, it is necessary to determine whether the evidence shows “beyond a reasonable doubt that accused committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed; and where the evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to support a conviction.” Id. (quoting Carr v. State, 208 So. 2d 886, 889 (Miss. 1968)). If any facts or inferences “point in favor of the defendant on any element of the offense with sufficient force that reasonable men could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty, the proper remedy is for the appellate court to reverse and render.” Bush, 895 So. 2d. at 843 (quoting Edwards v. State, 469 So. 2d 68, 70 (Miss. 1985)). Corrections. 4