Opinion ID: 1680416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: ¶ 11. Chambliss also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for aggravated assault against Miller and that he is entitled, as a matter of law, to reversal and discharge. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court looks at the lower court's ruling `on the last occasion when the sufficiency of the evidence was challenged.' Id. (quoting Ballenger v. State, 667 So.2d 1242, 1252 (Miss.1995) (citations omitted)). The last occasion upon which Chambliss challenged the sufficiency of the evidence was in his motion for a new trial. Therefore, we will consider all of the evidence presented throughout the course of the trial. ¶ 12. The relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Bush, 895 So.2d at 843, (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (citations omitted)). Should the facts and inferences considered in a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence 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. Id. (citing Edwards v. State, 469 So.2d 68, 70 (Miss.1985)). However, if a review of the evidence reveals that it is of such quality and weight that, having in mind the beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof standard, reasonable fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions on every element of the offense, the evidence will be deemed to have been sufficient. Id.