Opinion ID: 1694843
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and was supported by sufficient evidence.

Text: ¶ 33. Drake attacks the verdict by questioning both the sufficiency and weight of the evidence which resulted in his convictions of capital murder and conspiracy. He complains that there were no eyewitnesses to the crime and that the statements relied upon by the State were taken under suspicious circumstances. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motions for a directed verdict, peremptory instructions, JNOV or, in the alternative, a new trial. ¶ 34. This Court has stated the standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence as follows: Our concern here is whether the evidence in the record is sufficient to sustain a finding adverse to [the defendant] on each element of the offense of murder. In the present context we must, with respect to each element of the offense, consider all of the evidencenot just the evidence which supports the case for the prosecutionin the light most favorable to the verdict. The credible evidence which is consistent with the guilt must be accepted as true. The prosecution must be given the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Matters regarding the weight and credibility to be accorded the evidence are to be resolved by the jury. We may reverse only where, with respect to one or more of the elements of the offense charged, the evidence so considered is such that reasonable and fair-minded jurors could only find the accused not guilty. Collier v. State, 711 So.2d 458, 461 (Miss. 1998) (quoting Wetz v. State, 503 So.2d 803, 808 (Miss.1987)) (citations omitted). If the evidence is found to be legally insufficient, then the defendant must be discharged. May v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 781 (Miss.1985). ¶ 35. The standard of review for determining whether a jury verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence is as follows: 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. Only in those cases where 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. Collier, 711 So.2d at 461 (quoting Pleasant v. State, 701 So.2d 799, 802 (Miss.1997)) (citations omitted). If the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, then a new trial is proper. Collier, 711 So.2d at 461. ¶ 36. Throughout the course of the investigation, Drake offered a number of different versions of his story. He initially denied any knowledge of Harwell. Then he admitted being at the scene of the crime, but only as a victim, not as a perpetrator. Drake subsequently admitted to Officers Thompson and Doss that he knew where Harwell's car was located. After directing the officers to the car and after being advised of his Miranda rights, Drake confessed that he, Long, and Harrington had conspired to lure Harwell to the lake and rob him. He admitted that he shot Harwell and, at this time, did not claim that the shooting was an accident. Drake again confessed in the presence of his mother that he shot Harwell. During later custodial interrogation, Drake changed his story and again characterized himself as a victim of the robbery. He stated that the pistol discharged when he grabbed it in an effort to prevent the murder. At trial Drake continued to characterize himself as a victim of the robbery. He testified that Harrington pointed the pistol at Harwell's head. Drake reached for the gun and when [he] made contact with [Harrington's] hand, it went off. He then noticed that he had gotten control of the gun and that Harwell was lying on the ground. Drake testified that he accepted a portion of Harwell's money from Harrington because he was afraid of Harrington. ¶ 37. Despite the changing nature of Drake's story, the fact remains that Drake confessed to Officers Thompson and Doss that he conspired with Harrington and Long and that he shot Harwell. The jury was left to examine the changing stories and to weigh the evidence and the credibility of all the witnesses, including the officers and Drake. It goes without saying that the jury is the final arbiter of a witness's credibility. Morgan v. State, 681 So.2d 82, 93 (Miss.1996). It was the jury's function to determine whether Drake told the truth at trial or in his inculpatory statements made to Officers Thompson and Doss. Drake's confessions and the corroborative evidence are sufficient to support Drake's convictions of capital murder and conspiracy. It is not for this Court to pass upon the credibility of witnesses, and where the evidence justifies the verdict it must be accepted as having been found worthy of belief. Grooms v. State, 357 So.2d 292, 295 (Miss.1978) (quoting Murphree v. State, 228 So.2d 599 (Miss. 1969)). This Court will not set aside a guilty verdict, absent other error, unless it is clearly a result of prejudice, bias or fraud, or is manifestly against the weight of credible evidence. Maiben v. State, 405 So.2d 87, 88 (Miss.1981). The verdict in the case sub judice cannot be characterized as such. We find no merit to this assignment of error.