Opinion ID: 1111546
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the lower court erred in denying appellant's motion for a directed verdict.

Text: Appellant contends that the court should have sustained his motion for a directed verdict because the State failed to establish that he committed the crime with malice or with deliberate mind, and that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, evincing bias and prejudice against the appellant. We will not repeat the facts which have been set forth hereinabove in discussing this assigned error. The cases upholding the principle raised by this question are legion. It was stated again recently in Stever v. State, 503 So.2d 227 (Miss. 1987): The standard of review in judging the sufficiency of the evidence on motion for directed verdict requires that we accept as true all evidence favorable to the State, together with reasonable inferences arising therefrom, to disregard the evidence favorable to the defendant, and if such evidence would support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the trial court's denial of the motion must be affirmed. 503 So.2d at 230, quoting Haymond v. State, 478 So.2d 297, 299 (Miss. 1985). In addition to the stated facts, the exhibits (photographs), without question, showed malice and that the homicide was inflicted with a deliberate mind, i.e., pure butchery. We are of the opinion that there was a guilt issue presented to the jury. The issue was resolved against the appellant, and that the verdict was supported by the evidence. The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and ROBERTSON, PRATHER, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON, GRIFFIN and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur.