Opinion ID: 1660644
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: was the rendered verdict against the overwhelming weight of the evidence?

Text: ¶ 27. Scott claims that the jury's verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The standard of review is outlined in Esparaza v. State, 595 So.2d 418 (Miss.1992), where it was demonstrated that in a motion for j.n.o.v. testing the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law, the evidence must be viewed in the light favorable to the verdict. Id. at 426 (citing May v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 780-81 (Miss.1984)). This Court also stated in Groseclose v. State, 440 So.2d 297, 300 (Miss.1983): We will not order a new trial unless convinced that the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that, to allow it to stand would be to sanction an unconscionable injustice. [citation omitted] Any less stringent rule would denigrate the constitutional power and responsibility of the jury in our criminal system. Accord, May, 460 So.2d at 781-82. ¶ 28. Scott refers to the following said-to-be deficiencies in the evidence to support her belief that the jury's verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence: (1) Jenny Burrow was the only witness that claimed Sarah Scott sold cocaine; (2) Burrow's testimony was disputed by other witnesses; was contrary to her prior written statement; and contradictory of Scott's testimony; and (3) there were errors in Burrow's statement on cross-examination regarding the date of the alleged sale, which side of the road Scott's house was located, Scott's weight and height, and the presence of a gold tooth in Scott's mouth the night of the alleged sale. ¶ 29. It is not necessary for each of these proposed deficiencies to be individually analyzed as most of them fall under the area of witness credibility. It is sufficient to consider a few of the areas the jury had to reconcile, such as Burrow's testimony regarding whether Scott owned a removable gold tooth and Burrow's slightly incorrect physical description of Scott (whose actual height and weight is 4'11 and 190 pounds, instead of the 5 feet and 150 pounds as described by Burrow in her written report). Viewing these in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine if the jury's verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, it is clear that any discrepancies present were minor at most and do not provide the legal basis necessary to establish that the jury's verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. ¶ 30. Scott also asserts that the conviction should not stand because Burrow's testimony was the only evidence presented that would support a conviction. This Court has previously upheld testimony of a single uncorroborated witness as sufficient to sustain conviction despite the fact that more than one person testified to the contrary. Williams v. State, 512 So.2d 666, 670 (Miss.1987). Williams, in detailing the function of the jury, referred to Groseclose, where this Court stated, It is enough that the conflicting evidence presented a factual dispute for jury resolution. Groseclose, 440 So.2d at 300. The strength or weakness of testimony is not measured by the number of witnesses. Id. (citing Spiers v. State, 231 Miss. 307, 94 So.2d 803 (1957)). ¶ 31. In Watson v. State, 465 So.2d 1025, 1030 (Miss.1985), this Court found that a jury could weigh the credibility of the testimony of just two witnesses, one for the State and one for the defense. We refer to this Court's statements in Gathright v. State, 380 So.2d 1276, 1278 (Miss. 1980): 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. This wise rule applies with equal force to the state's witnesses and the appellant's witnesses, including the appellant himself. We have repeatedly held that 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. (citing Davis v. State, 320 So.2d 789 (Miss. 1975)); Wilson v. State, 264 So.2d 828 (Miss.1972); McLelland v. State, 204 So.2d 158 (Miss.1967). There is no evidence present to support an assertion that the jury in Scott's case did not correctly perform its duty of resolving the conflicting testimony made by any of the witnesses. ¶ 32. Scott has not shown that the jury's verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and that she should receive a new trial. This proposition is without merit and is denied.