Opinion ID: 1325306
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence of Capital Murder.

Text: Gray claims the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of capital murder because the testimony of Melvin Tucker, the co-defendant, and the three other prison inmates who testified that Gray admitted killing McClelland is incredible. We do not agree. It is a jury's function to judge the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of their evidence. The jury has the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor while testifying, to consider their interest in the outcome of the case, and to determine from all the circumstances of the case which witnesses are more believable. See Johnson v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. 525, 528, 298 S.E.2d 99, 101 (1982); Coppola, 220 Va. at 252, 257 S.E.2d at 803. The trial judge, who also observed the witnesses and considered the evidence, has approved the jury's verdict. A trial court's judgment approving a jury's verdict is entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed unless it is contrary to law or plainly wrong. Code § 8.01-680; Stockton, 227 Va. at 145-46, 314 S.E.2d at 385. The Commonwealth relied in large measure upon the testimony of Tucker and the other three prison inmates to establish that Gray actually perpetrated McClelland's murder. Although Gray has attacked their veracity, the jury was in the best position to assess their credibility. Moreover, from other circumstances proved, the jury reasonably could infer that Gray was the trigger man. The murder weapon had been stolen by Gray. Gray, not Tucker, was acquainted with McClelland. Because McClelland had fired Gray's wife from her job at Murphy's Mart, Gray had a motive to kill McClelland. Indeed, he told a friend that he was going to get McClelland. The jury and the trial court were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Gray was the perpetrator of the murder. We cannot say that the judgment is plainly wrong or that the evidence that Gray was the trigger man is incredible as a matter of law. Accordingly, we conclude that the Commonwealth successfully proved beyond a reasonable doubt that motive, time, place, means and conduct concur in pointing out the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. Quintana, 224 Va. at 143, 295 S.E.2d at 651 (citation omitted).