Opinion ID: 1792208
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Issue: Whether Johnny's Request for a Directed Verdict Should Have Been Granted?

Text: Johnny twice moved for a directed verdict and, each time, Judge Carlson denied the motions. Johnny now asks this Court to review all the evidence  pursuant to the familiar standard  and determine whether it sufficiently supports the convictions of conspiracy and bribery. See Stubblefield v. Jesco, Inc., 464 So.2d 47, 54 (Miss. 1984); Paymaster Oil Mill Co. v. Mitchell, 319 So.2d 652, 656-57 (Miss. 1975). With relevant law in mind, the following evidence and favorable inferences are considered in a light most favorable to the State in order to determine if the conspiracy and bribery convictions are sufficiently supported. Donna Moore, secretary for one of Johnny's attorneys, testified that Johnny did some of the talking when he and his father dropped by the office to ask her to type up a list containing the names of the twelve selected jurors and two alternates. Moore also testified that Johnny took the list from her and made photocopies of it on the office copier machine. L.B. Govan, a witness for the State, testified that Johnny drove his father, James, to his (Govan's) home where James approached him (Govan) about the scheme to bribe Irene Edwards, a juror in Johnny's first drug trial. More specifically, James provided Govan with a copy of the jury list and asked him to inform Edwards that he (James) would make it worthwhile if she would hang the jury in Johnny's trial. During the entire conversation, Johnny listened as his father schemed. Thus, Johnny knew what was going on; he fully comprehended the scheme being executed by his father. Govan added that Johnny returned with his father to check on his success with Edwards ( i.e., to find out whether Edwards would agree to hang the jury). Again, Johnny listened as James questioned Govan about Edwards' response. Minnie Smith testified that, during Johnny's drug trial, he (Johnny) and his father entered the Mr. Jiffy Convenience Food Store where she worked  albeit they left the store without speaking to her. Smith noted that her manager and another employee were present when James and Johnny entered the store and that she had never seen them in the store prior to that time (she had worked at the Mr. Jiffy for ten years). Finally, Investigator Jimmy Dees, who conducted the search of the King's residence, testified that he discovered the photocopies of the jury list under the seat of Johnny's truck. With relevant law in mind, the State's case against Johnny is, admittedly, not ironclad. This notwithstanding, this Court would be hardpressed to hold that the evidence and inferences point so overwhelmingly in favor of [Johnny] that reasonable men [and women] could not have arrived at a ... verdict like the one arrived at by the jury in the case sub judice. Stubblefield, 464 So.2d at 54. Restated, the evidence and inferences should be deemed of sufficient quality and weight that reasonable and fairmindedmen [and women] in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions. Id. at 54. This being said, the verdict shall remain undisturbed. Compare with Davis, 485 So.2d at 1058 (analogous conspiracy case in which the issue concerned sufficiency of the evidence). In sum, the evidence is deemed legally sufficient. This Court therefore affirms Judge Carlson's denial of the directed-verdict motion.