Opinion ID: 1800667
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the State meets its burden of proof on Count III.

Text: ¶ 21. Kramm argues that the State failed to prove that he was the driver of the SUV at the time of the accident. The State asserts that there is no proof that Kramm was not the driver of the SUV at the time of the accident. In Holloway v. State, 860 So.2d 1244, 1246-47 (Miss.Ct. App.2003), the court held: A person may be arrested, tried, and convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor even if there is no eyewitness presented who viewed the defendant operating the vehicle, provided there is sufficient evidence. Horn v. State, 825 So.2d 725 (Miss.Ct.App.2002). Reasonable doubt need not be removed about whether the defendant had actually driven the vehicle prior to his discovery. Lewis [ v. State ], 831 So.2d [553, 558 (Miss.Ct.App.2002)]. In Lewis, 831 So.2d at 558, the court similarly stated the following: We hold that to be guilty of driving or operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or with an illegally high blood alcohol content, the person must be shown by direct proof or reasonable inferences to have driven the vehicle while in that condition, or as in Jones [ v. State, 461 So.2d 686 (Miss.1984)] to be operating the vehicle while sitting behind the wheel, in control with the motor running. Reasonable doubt need not be removed about whether the defendant had actually driven the vehicle prior to his discovery. Proof of the imminence of such driving by being the operator of a vehicle that has its motor running is itself an offense even if the offender has yet to move the vehicle. Driving under the influence is a serious crime with serious risks to the public. It may often be difficult to catch an offender in the act. He or she may be discovered only after causing a horrendous accident or perhaps, as alleged by the State here, only after the intoxication causes the driver to stop for awhile. In order to avoid the former harm we do not believe that we have the authority to relax the proof necessary to convict in the latter instance. Perhaps intoxicated individuals in vehicles for whom no proof exists of past act or future intent to move the vehicle should be guilty of some offense, such as public intoxication if the vehicle is in a public place. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-29-47 (Rev.2000). Being found alone in a vehicle alongside the road, even when an excuse is later offered, may be sufficient to infer past driving. If the motor is running, the separate element of operating the vehicle is proven. ¶ 22. Following the guidance provided in Holloway and Lewis, we conclude that the State is not required to provide eyewitness evidence that Kramm was the driver of the SUV at the time of the accident as long as it provides sufficient proof supporting a reasonable inference that the defendant was driving the vehicle. See also Turner v. State, 910 So.2d 598, 601 (Miss.Ct.App.2005). ¶ 23. Kramm raised the State's alleged failure to prove that he was the driver of the SUV at the time of the accident in his motion for new trial. This Court has repeatedly held that 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. In Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836, 844 (Miss. 2005), this Court set out the standard of review for 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. Herring v. State, 691 So.2d 948, 957 (Miss.1997). We have stated that on a motion for new trial, the court sits as a thirteenth juror. The motion, however, is addressed to the discretion of the court, which should be exercised with caution, and the power to grant a new trial should be invoked only in exceptional cases in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict. Amiker v. Drugs For Less, Inc., 796 So.2d 942, 947 (Miss.2000). However, the evidence should be weighed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Herring, 691 So.2d at 957. A reversal on the grounds that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, unlike a reversal based on insufficient evidence, does not mean that acquittal was the only proper verdict. McQueen v. State, 423 So.2d 800, 803 (Miss.1982). Rather, as the thirteenth juror, the court simply disagrees with the jury's resolution of the conflicting testimony. Id. This difference of opinion does not signify acquittal any more than a disagreement among the jurors themselves. Id. Instead, the proper remedy is to grant a new trial. ¶ 24. Here, no new trial is warranted, as the jury's verdict is consistent with the weight of the evidence allowing the State the benefit of all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. Sitting as the thirteenth juror, we find that the evidence and testimony, weighed in the light most favorable to the verdict, support the jury's conviction. ¶ 25. Yarbrough testified that she witnessed the accident, which occurred at approximately 1:20 a.m. She testified that the SUV did not slow down before the accident and the driver did not hit the brakes. The SUV left the scene of the accident. Yarbrough and Ladner followed the SUV to where it pulled in at the retirement home. Yarbrough wrote down the SUV's tag number and then went back to the scene of the accident and informed the police. She did not testify that she observed a change of drivers in the SUV. At the retirement home, Valencia testified that he observed the SUV pull into the parking lot with its lights turned off. He told Kramm that he could not park there. ¶ 26. When Kramm did not leave, Valencia called for assistance. When Connelly arrived, he spoke to Kramm and took his driver's license from him and took the keys out of the ignition. Kramm smelled of alcohol, could hardly stand up, and was bleeding. Connelly observed the damage to Kramm's SUV. Kramm apologized to Connelly for being so drunk, and he told Connelly that he had been involved in an accident about a mile east of our location. Connelly testified that no one else was in the vehicle with Kramm. ¶ 27. The security guards at the retirement contacted the police for assistance. Officer Sonnier arrived at the retirement home at approximately 1:40 a.m. Officer Sonnier detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from Kramm's breath as he spoke. Kramm's speech was slurred, and he also swayed back and forth as he spoke. Officer Sonnier testified that Kramm told him that he was sorry and his insurance would cover the damages involved in the accident. Kramm did not tell Officer Sonnier that someone else was driving the SUV at the time of the accident. ¶ 28. On the record, the weight of the evidence presented by the State supported the jury's verdict. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Kramm's motion for a new trial.