Opinion ID: 1660788
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: was the verdict against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and was the trial court in error in overruling turner's motion for a directed verdict?

Text: ¶ 10. This Court reviews challenges to the legal sufficiency of the evidence used to support a conviction as follows: When on appeal one convicted of a criminal offense challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence, our authority to interfere with the jury's verdict is quite limited. We proceed by considering all of the evidencenot just that supporting the case for the prosecutionin the light most consistent with the verdict. We give the prosecution the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. If the facts and inferences so considered point in favor of the accused with sufficient force that reasonable men could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, reversal and discharge are required. On the other hand, if there is in the record substantial evidence of such quality and weight that, having in mind the beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof standard, reasonable and fairminded jurors in the exercise of impartial judgment might have reached different conclusions, the verdict of guilty is thus placed beyond our authority to disturb. Mangum v. State, 762 So.2d 337, 341 (Miss.2000) (citations omitted). ¶ 11. As to the weight of the evidence this Court will order a new trial, [o]nly where the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of evidence that to allow it to stand would be to sanction an unconscionable injustice.... Id. at 342, (citing Herring v. State, 691 So.2d 948, 957 (Miss.1997)). ¶ 12. Turner bases his claim that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence on the fact that he was the only witness to the shooting, and he asserts that there was not sufficient evidence presented to convict him of murder. Turner also contends that Dr. Hayne's expert testimony did not materially contradict the evidence and testimony which Turner provided. ¶ 13. Turner relies on the Weathersby Rule, found in Weathersby v. State, 165 Miss. 207, 209, 147 So. 481, 482 (1933), where this Court determined that where the defendant or the defendant's witnesses are the only eyewitnesses to the homicide, their version, if reasonable, must be accepted as true, unless substantially contradicted in material particulars by a credible witness or witnesses for the state, or by the physical facts or by the facts of common knowledge. Turner asserts that the Weathersby Rule entitled him to a directed verdict, which was denied by the trial court. ¶ 14. The Weathersby Rule is only applicable where the defendant's version is reasonable, unopposed by other testimony, and is uncontradicted by the physical evidence. In the present case, Dr. Hayne presented substantial expert testimony regarding the lack of gunpowder residue on the deceased and the trajectory of the shotgun blast that materially contradicted Turner's version of the shooting. This material contradiction made the matter of Turner's guilt an issue that was proper for the jury to consider. This Court has stated, [t]he Weathersby Rule ... is not a jury instruction but a guide for the circuit judge in determining whether a defendant is entitled to a directed verdict. Mallett v. State, 606 So.2d 1092, 1094 (Miss.1992) (citing Blanks v. State, 547 So.2d 29, 34 (Miss.1989); Griffin v. State, 495 So.2d 1352, 1355 (Miss.1986); Harveston v. State, 493 So.2d 365 (Miss.1986)). ¶ 15. The trial court did not err when it denied Turner's motion for a directed verdict and a JNOV. Likewise, viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the jury's determination that Turner was guilty of depraved-heart murder was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. This issue is without merit.