Opinion ID: 865700
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether there is insufficient evidence to

Text: SUPPORT THE VERDICT AND WHETHER THE VERDICT IS AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. ¶27. Irby contends that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. Irby filed his motion for a new trial and/or judgment notwithstanding the verdict on May 14, 2009. It was denied by order of the trial court entered May 19, 2009. On review of a challenge to the weight of the evidence, this Court will reverse for a new trial only if the trial court's ruling was an abuse of discretion. Miller v. State, 980 So. 2d 927, 929 (Miss. 2008). We will not disturb the verdict unless it “is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 844 (Miss. 2005) (citing Herring v. State, 691 So. 2d 948, 957 (Miss. 1997)). Neal v. State, 15 So. 3d 388, 410 (Miss. 2009). The “evidence should be weighed in the light most favorable to the verdict.” Id. ¶28. When there is a question whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, the State is given “the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from objective facts established by the evidence.” Edwards v. State, 469 So. 2d 68, 70 (Miss. 1985) (citing Glass v. State, 278 So. 2d 384, 386 (Miss. 1973)). “If the facts and inferences so considered point in favor of the defendant on any element of the offense with sufficient force that reasonable [jurors] could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the 14 defendant was guilty, granting the motion [for judgment notwithstanding the verdict] is required.” Id. (citing May v. State, 460 So. 2d 778, 781 (Miss. 1984)). ¶29. In today’s case, the State was required to prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that defendant negligently caused the death, disfigurement, or permanent disability or destruction of “the tongue, eye, lip, nose or any other limb, organ or member of another” (2) while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance which has impaired such person’s ability to operate a motor vehicle. Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-30(1)(b), (5) (Rev. 2004). ¶30. Irby argues that Ivey’s testimony that there were two sets of skid marks leading to the accident was contradicted by another officer at the scene. Contrary to Irby’s contention, the testimony by the other officer, Roger Robinson, does not favor the defendant. Robinson testified that he had observed skid marks at the scene trailing from the trajectory of Olivia Miller’s vehicle. This is consistent with Olivia Miller’s testimony that Irby never appeared to brake prior to impact. Such evidence that Irby failed to brake supports the jury’s finding that Irby was operating a motor vehicle negligently and while impaired. ¶31. Although conceding that he was observed to be in the wrong lane of traffic, Irby argues that it was Olivia Miller’s negligence, namely swerving into the wrong lane just as Irby swerved into the correct lane, that caused the accident. Irby further maintains that Olivia Miller was speeding in that she was traveling at 35-45 miles per hour in a 25-miles-per-hour zone. Moreover, Irby avers that he had no alcohol in his system and that the toxicologist’s analysis regarding other substances was speculative. More specifically, Irby highlights 15 testimony from Dr. Labay regarding her “impairment statement” in the toxicology report. Dr. Labay testified as follows: Based on the concentration of Alprazolam and Hydrocodone found in this case, it can be stated with reasonable scientific certainty that if the individual showed signs of impairment–and examples of that we listed here include evidence of erratic driving, unusual demeanor–that these substances can be responsible for the production of that impairment, especially in the absence of a more competent cause. Presumably, Irby takes issue with the words “substances can be responsible for the production of that impairment.” ¶32. This lack of evidence, according to Irby, means that the State failed to prove its requisite element of negligence for a conviction of DUI maiming; thus, the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted. Lastly, Irby contends that the verdict “is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow [it] to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Taggart v. State, 957 So. 2d 981, 987 (Miss. 2007). ¶33. When viewing the evidence “in the light most favorable to the verdict,” Neal, 15 So. 3d at 410, it is clear that the overwhelming weight of the evidence supports a guilty verdict. Olivia Miller testified that, as she drove over a hill, she saw Irby’s truck in her lane driving toward her at an alarming speed. Afraid of veering into the ditch on her right, Miller swerved left just as Irby overcorrected to his right. This resulted in an impact that was not quite headon, but at an angle. Both Miller and Ivey testified that Irby had smelled of alcohol that day, and although Irby’s blood sample was not positive for the presence of alcohol, it did test 16 positive for other substances. The forensic toxicologist, Dr. Labay, testified to significant levels of alprazolam and hydrocodone in Irby’s blood analysis, both of which, according to Dr. Labay, affect one’s ability to operate a motor vehicle. Finally, Olivia Miller testified at length regarding her husband’s permanent disability that was a direct result of the crash. ¶34. Finally, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” it is clear that “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Neal, 15 So. 3d at 409 (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979)). Accordingly, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Irby’s motion for a new trial and/or judgment notwithstanding the verdict.