Opinion ID: 1776416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: is the verdict contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence and should the trial court have granted a new trial?

Text: In determining whether a jury verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, this Court must accept as true the evidence which supports the verdict and will reverse only when convinced that the circuit court has abused its discretion in failing to grant a new trial. Thornhill v. State, 561 So.2d 1025, 1030 (Miss. 1989), rehearing denied 563 So.2d 609 (Miss. 1990). Only when the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice will this Court disturb it on appeal. Benson v. State, 551 So.2d 188, 193 (Miss. 1989), citing McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130, 133-34 (Miss. 1987). Flowers was charged with committing sexual battery in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-95 (1972), as amended. The applicable portion of this section provides that a person is guilty of sexual battery if he engages in sexual penetration with a child under fourteen years of age. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-95(c) (Supp. 1991). Sexual penetration is defined as any penetration of the genital or anal openings of another person's body by any part of a person's body... . Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-97(a) (Supp. 1991). The State presented evidence that C.L. was under fourteen years of age at the time of the battery as well as evidence that Flowers sexually penetrated her, as defined by § 97-3-97, by inserting his finger into her vagina. C.L. testified as to both her age and the sexual penetration; Flowers' statement, testified to by Smith and Walker, offered corroborating evidence of sexual penetration. Accepting all of this as true, there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of guilty. No unconscionable injustice will result if the verdict remains undisturbed. The standard of review of a post-trial motion is abuse of discretion. Robinson v. State, 566 So.2d 1240, 1242 (Miss. 1990). A motion for a new trial is discretionary with the trial judge and this Court will not order a new trial unless it is convinced that the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice. Gibson v. State, 580 So.2d 739, 741 (Miss. 1991); Lane v. State, 562 So.2d 1235, 1236-37 (Miss. 1990), citing May v. State, 460 So.2d 778 (Miss. 1985). It is within the trial court's discretion to grant a new trial if it is required in the interest of justice where the jury's verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence. Veal v. State, 585 So.2d 693, 695 (Miss. 1991); Crenshaw v. State, 520 So.2d 131, 135 (Miss. 1988). The jury's verdict is not so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand will sanction an unconscionable injustice. No new trial is required in the interest of justice nor is the jury's verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence. There being no abuse of discretion, we affirm on this issue. CONVICTION OF SEXUAL BATTERY AND SENTENCE OF TWENTY (20) YEARS, WITH THE LAST TEN (10) YEARS SUSPENDED, IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AFFIRMED. ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, PITTMAN, BANKS and McRAE, JJ., concur.