Opinion ID: 1631779
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: ¶ 14. Netherland was convicted of aggravated assault under Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-7(2) which sets forth the elements of aggravated assault: A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he (a) attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury purposely, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. . . ¶ 15. On the issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence, this Court held in Pinkney v. State, 538 So.2d 329, 353 (Miss. 1988), vacated on other grounds, 494 U.S. 1075, 110 S.Ct. 1800, 108 L.Ed.2d 931 (1990), that reversal can only occur when evidence of one or more of the elements of the charged offense is such that reasonable and fair minded jurors could only find the accused not guilty. (quoting Wetz v. State, 503 So.2d 803, 808 (Miss.1987)). ¶ 16. Denials of peremptory instructions, motions for directed verdict and motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict each challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial and each are reviewed under the same standard. Community Bank v. Courtney, 884 So.2d 767, 772 (Miss.2004). This Court has held that under its standard of review, denial must be reviewed as follows: This Court will consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee, giving that party the benefit of all favorable inference that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. If the facts so considered points so overwhelmingly in favor of the appellant that reasonable men could not have arrived at a contrary verdict, we are required to reverse and render. On the other hand if there is substantial evidence in support of the verdict, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair minded jurors in the exercise of impartial judgment might have reached different conclusions, affirmance is required. Id. ¶ 17. [T]his Court properly reviews the ruling on the last occasion the challenge was made in the trial court. McClain v. State, 625 So.2d 774, 778 (Miss. 1993). Here, Netherland filed a motion for new trial which the trial court denied. However, a motion for new trial challenges the weight of the evidence. Sheffield v. State, 749 So.2d 123, 127 (Miss.1999). A reversal is warranted only if the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for new trial. Id. However, on appeal, Netherland's argument challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, not the weight of the evidence. ¶ 18. Netherland did move for a directed verdict at the close of the State's case-in-chief. The trial court denied that motion. ¶ 19. Netherland contends that he filed peremptory jury instruction, D-1, which was refused by the trial court. The refused jury instruction, D-1, stated: The Court instructs the Jury to return a verdict of not guilty. ¶ 20. Stevens received serious injuries as a result of the attack. He testified that he suffered two broken ribs, a broken shoulder, a broken hip and internal bleeding. As a result of the broken hip, he had to use a wheelchair. The hip and the shoulder required surgery. Chamblee and King testified that Netherland was involved in the attack on Stevens. Chamblee, King and the victim, Stevens, all testified that Netherland took an active part in the attack. The attack resulted from Stevens informing the guards that Chamblee, King and Netherland were using drugs in the detention center. Stevens positively identified Netherland and stated that Netherland had subsequently apologized for the attack. The State's witnesses could not positively say Netherland kicked Stevens rather than just hit him. Netherland did not testify, and the defense did not call any witnesses. However, Officer Wilcher testified that in the statement taken from Netherland on March 24, 2004, Netherland added the following language to the written statement: [a]ll three of us were kicking and hitting William then. The written statement was admitted into evidence. ¶ 21. Given this proof, we reject Netherland's claim that the State failed to prove the elements of the crime charged.