Opinion ID: 1709596
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The jury's verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence.

Text: ¶ 20. The standard of review for a post-trial motion is abuse of discretion. The inquiry is whether the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that accused committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed; and where the evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to support a conviction. Dilworth v. State, 909 So.2d 731, 736 (Miss.2005) (citing Carr v. State, 208 So.2d 886, 889 (Miss.1968)). In other words, the question to be answered, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, is whether `any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' Smith v. State, 925 So.2d 825, 830 (Miss.2006) (citations omitted). Assuming arguendo that this Court may believe the evidence at trial failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that is, nevertheless an insufficient basis for reversal. Id. ¶ 21. Hodgin merely asserts: There is no way reasonable minded jurors could find the Appellant guilty of the indicted charge if the inadmissible evidence had not been admitted. As such, the convictions against the Appellant should be dismissed. The evidence was admissible, as discussed herein. Further, the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction. Therefore, this argument is without merit. ¶ 22. A motion for a new trial challenges the weight of the evidence, and a reversal is warranted only if the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. Dilworth, 909 So.2d at 737. A greater quantum of evidence favoring the State is necessary for the State to withstand a motion for a new trial, as distinguished from a motion for J.N.O.V. Id. (quoting Pharr v. State, 465 So.2d 294, 302 (Miss.1984)). Only in `exceptional cases in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict' should the trial court invade the province of the jury and grant a new trial. . . . The verdict must be `so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.' Dilworth, 909 So.2d at 737 (citations omitted). ¶ 23. In addition to the aforementioned evidence, witnesses also testified at trial regarding Hodgin's access to M.C. and other visitors and the bathroom then used by both visitors and inmates, Hodgin's attempts to place M.C. on his list of approved visitors, Hodgin's unauthorized possession of photographs of M.C. stolen from M.C.'s grandfather and the letters written by Hodgin to M.C. and his family. ¶ 24. In this case, the jury's verdict was not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. As such, this argument is without merit.