Opinion ID: 1736888
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict in favor of smith at the close of the state's case.

Text: ¶ 10. This Court's standard of review for a JNOV, which challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence used to support a conviction, is: When on appeal one convicted of a criminal offense challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence, our authority to interfere with the jury's verdict is quite limited. We proceed by considering all of the evidencenot just that supporting the case for the prosecutionin the light most consistent with the verdict. We give the prosecution the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. If the facts and inferences so considered point in favor of the accused with sufficient force that reasonable men could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, reversal and discharge are required. On the other hand, if there is in the record substantial evidence of such quality and weight that, having in mind the beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof standard, reasonable and fairminded jurors in the exercise of impartial judgment might have reached different conclusions, the verdict of guilty is thus placed beyond our authority to disturb. Mangum v. State, 762 So.2d 337, 341 (Miss.2000) (citations omitted). ¶ 11. As distinguished from a JNOV, a motion for a new trial asks to vacate the judgment on grounds related to the weight, not sufficiency, of the evidence. Our standard of review for claims that a conviction is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence is as follows: [This Court] must accept as true the evidence which supports the verdict and will reverse only when convinced that the circuit court has abused its discretion in failing to grant a new trial. A new trial will not be ordered unless the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction unconscionable injustice. Crawford v. State, 754 So.2d 1211, 1222 (Miss.2000)(internal citations omitted). ¶ 12. While Smith suggests that the trial court's denial of his motion for a directed verdict constitutes a separate motion, our case law reflects, and Smith's brief concedes, that a motion for a directed verdict, like a JNOV, is actually an attack on the sufficiency of the evidence. Jackson v. State, 784 So.2d 180, 183 (Miss. 2001). ¶ 13. In the case sub judice, Smith offered no evidence of his own at all to rebut the State's evidence, and he offers no such evidence now. Instead, he merely attempts to highlight what he considers to be inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. Giving the State the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, however, these inconsistencies do not constitute overwhelming evidence which contradicts the jury's verdict. All three of these issues are without merit.