Opinion ID: 1133633
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the judgment in this case is contrary to the weight of credible evidence adduced at trial, contrary to the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and contrary to the law of this state.

Text: ¶ 24. We will not reverse and grant a new trial unless convinced that the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice. ( Gossett v. State, 660 So.2d 1285 (Miss. 1995)). This Court has stated the standard to be applied in determining whether evidence was sufficient to support a verdict is, when reviewing such evidence, all evidence supporting or tending to support the verdict, together with all inferences which reasonably may be drawn therefrom, shall be taken as true. ( Aldridge v. State, 398 So.2d 1308 (Miss.1981)). The State offers the following authority for the standard of review: For review of the findings of a trial judge sitting without a jury, this Court will reverse `only where findings of the trial judge are manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.' Amerson v. State, 648 So.2d 58, 60 (Miss.1994) citation omitted; The trial judge has the sole authority to determine the credibility of the witnesses when sitting as trier of fact in a bench trial. Rice Researchers, Inc. v. Hiter, 512 So.2d 1259, 1265 (Miss.1987). Where evidence is contradictory, this Court `generally must affirm'. Lesley v. State, 606 So.2d 1084, 1091 (Miss. 1992) (citations omitted). ¶ 25. Boatner's argument on this issue seems to suggests the following four things: (1) Her burden is increased because as this was a bench trial, no Motion for a New Trial was filed. (Appellant cites no authority for this proposition.) (2) Her burden is further increased because for reasons unknown to Boatner, such Final Judgment is not a part of the record in this appeal. (Appellant cites no authority for this proposition.) (3) Contradictions in the evidence call for reversal based on weight of the evidence argument. (4) The Circuit Judge demonstrated bias toward her and partiality toward the prosecution. ¶ 26. Regarding the fact that the final judgment does not appear in the record, this Court has repeatedly stated that the appellant must make sure the record contains all matters necessary for appeal. Shelton v. Kindred, 279 So.2d 642 (Miss. 1973); Burney v. State, 515 So.2d 1154 (Miss.1987); Baugh v. State, 388 So.2d 141 (Miss.1980); Yates v. State, 342 So.2d 312 (Miss.1977). Boatner failed to do so. Furthermore, Boatner received a copy of the judgment. [4] ¶ 27. Regarding Boatner's suggestion that contradictions in the evidence warrant reversal, the judge as the fact-finder in this case, upon hearing the testimony and observing the demeanor of the witnesses, resolved any issues of fact against Boatner. ¶ 28. In suggesting that the Circuit Judge demonstrated bias toward her and partiality toward the prosecution, Boatner refers the Court to Jones v. State, 669 So.2d 1383 (Miss.1995) and West v. State, 519 So.2d 418 (Miss.1988). The only citation from the record to support Boatner's claim of bias or partiality of the trial judge is taken from the Court's pronouncement of guilt, whereas, in Jones and West, the trial judge actually questioned the witnesses. The West Court found thirty instances where the trial judge improperly interjected himself into the proceedings, twenty of which the court characterized as coaching the district attorney. West, at 421. No such participation was present in this case. A pronouncement of guilt necessarily favors the prosecution. Boatner's assignment of error in this issue, as in the preceding three issues, is without merit.