Opinion ID: 3150731
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 12 ¶21. Graves argues that the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to support his fondling and sexual-battery convictions because G.W.’s testimony was inconsistent. When considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument, this Court must consider “whether the evidence shows ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] accused committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed; and where the evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to support a conviction.’” Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 843 (Miss. 2005) (quoting Carr v. State, 208 So. 2d 886, 889 (Miss. 1968)). This Court must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Kirk v. State, 160 So. 3d 685, 695-96 (Miss. 2015). Additionally, it is well-established that a person may be found guilty based on nothing more than the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness. See Ferguson v. State, 137 So. 3d 240, 244 (Miss. 2014); Brown v. State, 42 So. 3d 540, 543 (Miss. 2010); Doby v. State, 532 So. 2d 584, 591 (Miss. 1988). ¶22. G.W. testified in detail regarding the two times that Graves fondled and sexually assaulted her. Although Graves attempted to impeach G.W.’s testimony through her interview with Caldwell, G.W.’s testimony was not substantially contradicted. Additionally, the State offered the testimony of four other witnesses, G.W.’s mother, brother, friend, and friend’s mother, who all corroborated G.W.’s testimony. Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, we conclude that the evidence presented at trial sufficiently supported a finding that Graves sexually assaulted and fondled G.W., and this issue is without merit.