Opinion ID: 2533163
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in denying Thomas's motion for a directed verdict on the murder charge.

Text: ¶ 31. A motion for directed verdict challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, and the critical inquiry is 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[.]' [31] In judging the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial judge is required to accept as true all evidence that is favorable to the State, including reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, and to disregard evidence favorable to the defendant. [32] ¶ 32. Thomas argues that the trial court should have granted his motion for directed verdict under Weathersby v. State . [33] In support of his argument, Thomas asserts that he was the only witness to the crime, and that he consistently had stated that he killed Harris in self-defense. The State, however, argues that the Weathersby Rule does not apply and points to Thomas's conflicting statements. ¶ 33. In Weathersby v. State , this Court ruled that: [W]here the defendant or the defendant's witnesses are the only eyewitnesses to the homicide, their version, if reasonable, must be accepted as true, unless substantially contradicted in material particulars by a credible witness or witnesses for the state, or by the physical facts or by the facts of common knowledge. [34] A defendant who [meets] the Weathersby Rule [is] entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal. [35] However, the Weathersby Rule is inapplicable where the defendant provides conflicting versions of how the killing took place, or initially denies the act. [36] ¶ 34. In this case, Thomas provided conflicting statements of how the killing took place. Thomas initially confessed that he had stabbed Harris during a fight. Thomas later provided a statement in which he denied killing Harris but stated that he had witnessed another person murder Harris. Therefore, the Weathersby Rule is inapplicable to this case. ¶ 35. Additionally, the State presented evidence of each element of the murder [37] charge. The jury had before it two confessions in which Thomas admitted that he had confronted Harris about a $65 debt and then had killed Harris by stabbing him in the head. Dr. Hayne testified that Harris had multiple puncture wounds in the head and neck and had died from massive blood loss. Jones testified that both Thomas's and the decedent's blood were on parts of the house and clothing located at the scene. Harris's neighbor testified that she had heard fighting coming from the home, which explained the home's disarray. We find the trial court did not err in denying the directed verdict, as the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas murdered Harris.