Opinion ID: 1846588
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the circuit court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict as to robbery.

Text: ¶ 47. Swinney argues that the only proof of robbery is that she had a motive because she needed money. All of the other evidence, she contends, relates to the crime of murder. ¶ 48. In judging the sufficiency of the evidence on motion for a directed verdict, the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the State and all credible evidence supporting the conviction is to be taken as true, such that the State receives the benefit of all favorable inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence. Birkley v. State, 750 So.2d 1245, 1255 (Miss.1999) (collecting authorities). Issues regarding weight and credibility of evidence are for the finder of fact to resolve. Id. ¶ 49. Swinney had a motive to commit robbery. She told her friend that she was unhappy because she needed money, and her friend was afraid that she was going to get into trouble. She and her brother went to Don's Pawn Shop and waited approximately twenty minutes until the store was empty. When Harville turned around to weigh her rings, she shot him in the back by her own admission. Immediately afterward, William Morrison entered the store. He was shot, and immediately thereafter Swinney and Nicholas fled the store. ¶ 50. When they were apprehended, the siblings did not have any stolen property from Don's Pawn Shop in their possession. From this it may be reasonably inferred that the robbery was interrupted by Morrison, and that had he not entered the store when he did, Swinney and Nicholas would have left with Harville's property. ¶ 51. The jury's verdict was based on evidence sufficient to support a finding of robbery. Therefore, the circuit court did not err in refusing to grant a directed verdict as to robbery.