Opinion ID: 1830839
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 33

Heading: Whether the verdict of the Jury on Counts One and Two of the Indictment is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Text: ¶ 193. In his 19th assignment of error, Hughes argues that the jury's verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Hughes refers the Court back to his argument under Issue XVII concerning the sufficiency of the evidence. As the State notes, these are two different standards. The sufficiency standard has been explained previously in Issue XVII. ¶ 194. This Court explained the appropriate test for the weight of the evidence in the recent case of Pleasant v. State, In determining whether a jury verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, this Court must accept as true the evidence which supports the verdict and will reverse only when convinced that the circuit court has abused its discretion in failing to grant a new trial. Only in those cases where the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice will this Court disturb it on appeal. Pleasant v. State, 701 So.2d 799, 802 (Miss.1997)( quoting Herring v. State, 691 So.2d 948, 957 (Miss.1997))( and citing Benson v. State, 551 So.2d 188, 193 (Miss. 1989) and May v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 780 (Miss.1985)). ¶ 195. The very nature of the two standards is different because a test of the sufficiency of the evidence is a legal question, while an inquiry after the weight of the evidence simply asks whether the jury verdict is so manifestly wrong that the trial judge abused her discretion in not granting a new trial, which is a factual and highly deferential review. This difference is real, for: The motion for judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict of guilty. It is in effect a renewal of the defendant's request for a peremptory instruction made at the close of all the evidence. It asks the court to hold, as a matter of law, that the verdict may not stand and that the defendant must be finally discharged. May v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 780-81 (Miss. 1984) ¶ 196. The May court went on to note the fundamental difference between this standard and that of a challenge to the weight of the evidence: The motion for a new trial is a different animal. While the motion for judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict presents to the trial court a pure question of law, the motion for a new trial is addressed to the trial court's sound discretion.... As distinguished from the j.n.o.v. motion, here the defendant is not seeking final discharge. He is asking that the jury's guilty verdict be vacated on grounds related to the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency, and may be retried consistent with the double jeopardy clause. May, 460 So.2d at 781 ( citing Neal v. State, 451 So.2d 743, 760 (Miss.1984) and Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 39, 102 S.Ct. 2211, 72 L.Ed.2d 652 (1982)). ¶ 197. Examining the record in the current case, it is apparent that the verdicts on Counts I and II were not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The facts, as recounted throughout this opinion, demonstrate that there was substantial evidence, albeit circumstantial in this case, to support the verdict of the jury. With the appropriate deference due the verdict of the jury, the verdict is not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.