Opinion ID: 864796
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: J.N.O.V./New Trial

Text: ¶13. Stewart moved for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s case-in-chief. The trial court denied Stewart’s motion. Stewart also made a post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or alternatively, motion for a new trial, and the trial court also denied said motion. ¶14. This Court has made a distinction between the review of the denial of a motion for J.N.O.V. based on the legal sufficiency of the evidence and review of a motion for new trial based on the weight of the evidence.
¶15. Stewart was convicted of burglary pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-23 which provides: 6 Every person who shall be convicted of breaking and entering the dwelling house or inner door of such dwelling house of another, whether armed with a deadly weapon or not, and whether there shall be at the time some human being in such dwelling house or not, with intent to commit some crime therein... ¶16. On the issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence, this Court held in Pinkney v. State, 538 So.2d 329, 353 (Miss. 1988), vacated on other grounds, 494 U.S. 1075, 110 S.Ct. 1800, 108 L.Ed.2d 931 (1990), that reversal can only occur when evidence of one or more of the elements of the charged offense is such that “reasonable and fair minded jurors could only find the accused not guilty.” (quoting Wetz v. State, 503 So.2d 803, 808 (Miss. 1987)). A motion for J.N.O.V. challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence. McClain v. State, 625 So.2d 774, 778 (Miss. 1993). “[T]his Court properly reviews the ruling on the last occasion the challenge was made in the trial court.” Id. at 778. Here, this occurred when the trial court denied Stewart’s motion for J.N.O.V. See id. ¶17. Stewart was outside on the corner when Robinson and Hines broke out a window to enter Gray’s house. Robinson testified that he whistled Stewart inside. Stewart waited inside while Robinson and Hines ransacked the house searching for valuables. Gray testified that five guns and jewelry were stolen. Robinson pawned the items, and Stewart shared in the proceeds. The evidence demonstrates that the elements of burglary under Miss. Code Ann. § 97-17-23 were met in this case.
¶18. A motion for new trial challenges the weight of the evidence. Sheffield v. State, 749 So.2d 123, 127 (Miss. 1999). A reversal is warranted only if the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for new trial. Id. 7 ¶19. This Court held in Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836, 844 (Miss. 2005) as follows: When reviewing a denial of a motion for a new trial based on an objection to the weight of the evidence, we will only disturb a verdict when it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice. Herring v. State, 691 So.2d 948, 957 (Miss.1997). We have stated that on a motion for new trial, the court sits as a thirteenth juror. The motion, however, is addressed to the discretion of the court, which should be exercised with caution, and the power to grant a new trial should be invoked only in exceptional cases in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict. Amiker v. Drugs For Less, Inc., 796 So.2d 942, 947 (Miss.2000). However, the evidence should be weighed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Herring, 691 So.2d at 957. A reversal on the grounds that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, “unlike a reversal based on insufficient evidence, does not mean that acquittal was the only proper verdict.” McQueen v. State, 423 So.2d 800, 803 (Miss.1982). Rather, as the “thirteenth juror,” the court simply disagrees with the jury's resolution of the conflicting testimony. Id. This difference of opinion does not signify acquittal any more than a disagreement among the jurors themselves. Id. Instead, the proper remedy is to grant a new trial. ¶20. In the case sub judice, the verdict is consistent with the weight of the evidence, and a new trial is not warranted. Without repeating the facts previously stated, the jury heard the testimony from all the witnesses called by the State. Stewart did not testify, and the defense did not call any witnesses to testify. The jury determined that Stewart was guilty on Count II for the burglary of Gray’s house. When polled as to Count II, all jurors stated that was their verdict. The jury had the opportunity to weigh the evidence presented and the credibility of the State’s witnesses. This assignment of error is without merit.