Opinion ID: 2535625
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Gilbert's Motion for New Trial

Text: ¶ 16. Gilbert claims the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial because the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. When reviewing the denial of a motion for new trial, this Court 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. Bush, 895 So.2d at 844 (citing Herring v. State, 691 So.2d 948, 957 (Miss. 1997)). The Court should grant a new trial only in exceptional cases in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict. Id. (quoting Amiker v. Drugs for Less, Inc., 796 So.2d 942, 947 (Miss.2000)). ¶ 17. Both Stapleton and Jamie testified that Gilbert had assaulted Stapleton. Also, Stapleton's blood was found on Gilbert's clothing, and Stapleton had five wounds resulting from the attack. This is not an exceptional case in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict. Id. (quoting Amiker, 796 So.2d at 947). Accordingly, the trial judge did not err in denying Gilbert's motion for a new trial. ¶ 18. In sum, we find that the trial judge did not err when he dismissed Gilbert's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, a new trial. Thus, there is no merit to this issue.