Opinion ID: 1739626
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: was the verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence necessitating a new trial?

Text: Under this assignment of error, Van Buren cites inconsistencies between Octavia McMorris' testimony at the first trial and her testimony at the second trial. In addition, Van Buren notes that during the first trial Ms. McMorris testified she had a bad memory and complained about her forgetfulness. Van Buren argues [O]bviously, the lady has no clear recollection of how the application was prepared. In the interest of justice a new trial is warranted, Ms. Van Buren argues. The question of whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence is one that is often posed. Recently in Gray v. State, 487 So.2d 1304, 1311 (Miss. 1986), this Court stated: This is, in essence, an allegation that the trial judge was in error in overruling the motion of Nations for a new trial. The standard for determining this issue is as follows: While the request for a peremptory instruction or the subsequent motion for judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict presents to the trial court a pure question of law, the motion for a new trial is addressed to the trial judge's sound discretion... . The motion invokes Rule 5.16 of the Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice which authorizes the trial judge to grant a new trial if required in the interest of justice or if the verdict is contrary to law or the weight of the evidence. Under our established case law, however, the trial judge should set aside a jury's verdict only when, in the exercise of his sound discretion, he is convinced that the verdict is contrary to the substantial weight of the evidence... . (Citing Gavin v. State, 473 So.2d 952, 956 (Miss. 1985)). In reviewing this claim we must accept as true the evidence favorable to the state. Malone v. State, 486 So.2d 360, 366 (Miss. 1986). In this light, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion. There is ample evidence to support the verdict. Octavia McMorris' testimony concerning the preparation of the ballot application was certainly not a model of clarity or consistency, but we do not think it is inherently unreliable. The jury had an opportunity to see and hear the difficulty Ms. McMorris had in providing testimony. The jury was the judge of her credibility. McCullum v. State, 487 So.2d 1335, 1339 (Miss. 1986); Williams v. State, 463 So.2d 1064, 1069 (Miss. 1985); Groseclose v. State, 440 So.2d 297, 300 (Miss. 1983).