Opinion ID: 2493418
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the verdicts are against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Text: ¶ 20. Taylor argues the conspiracy verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Mississippi Code Section 97-1-1(i) states, [i]f two (2) or more persons conspire either: (a) to commit a crime; or . . . (h) to accomplish any unlawful purpose, or a lawful purpose by any unlawful means; such persons, and each of them, shall be guilty of a felony. . . . Miss Code Ann. § 97-1-1(i) (Rev.2006). It has been established that Taylor and two others entered into a plan to commit a crime. The evidence clearly supports all elements of the conspiracy statute. ¶ 21. Taylor also asserts the robbery conviction is unsupported by the weight of the evidence. When reviewing a denial of a motion for a new trial based on an objection to the weight of the evidence, we will only disturb a verdict when it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice. Bush, 895 So.2d at 844 (citing Herring v. State, 691 So.2d 948, 957 (Miss. 1997)). The evidence should be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Dilworth v. State, 909 So.2d 731, 737 (Miss. 2005). The trial court will grant a new trial only in exceptional cases in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict. Id. (citing Amiker v. Drugs for Less, Inc., 796 So.2d 942, 947 (Miss.2000)). ¶ 22. Applying this standard, we find that the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Mississippi Code Section 97-3-73 states, Every person who shall feloniously take the personal property of another, in his presence or from his person and against his will, by violence to his person or by putting such person in fear of some immediate injury to his person, shall be guilty of robbery. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-73 (Rev.2006). ¶ 23. The sum of $1,200 was taken from the Handy Mart; this was personal property of Bonnie Holmes and her husband. Both store clerks testified that Taylor demanded they give him the money several times, and ultimately insisted the money be given to him or the clerks would not live to see another day. Both clerks were afraid for their lives due to Taylor's threats. The frightening experience caused both clerks to quit their jobs. ¶ 24. Taylor argues there was no showing of possible immediate injury to the clerks. He cites Clayton v. State, 759 So.2d 1169, 1172 (Miss.1999), arguing Clayton was not convicted of robbery because he did not take action intending to intimidate. In Clayton, Clayton walked behind a woman and snatched her purse. The victim was never put in fear, because she did not see Clayton coming and he did not speak to her. Id. But, in this case, Taylor walked behind the counter at the Handy Mart to where the clerks were standing, and he continually threatened their lives until they gave him money. ¶ 25. Taylor next asserts that, even if the clerks were in fear, there is no causal connection between being placed in fear and relinquishing the money. But Wells testified that fear was the only reason they gave money to Taylor.