Opinion ID: 1597531
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether inconsistencies and contradictions in testimony warrant reversal.

Text: ¶ 8. Next, Turner argues that the failure to test the gun, the failure to see Turner pull the trigger, and Dean's statement that he was not sure what happened created inconsistencies sufficient to reverse the conviction. However, Dean testified that the gun was in his face and clicked. He was sure it clicked a second time, but he was not certain that he saw and heard Turner rack the gun before the second click, and that he was just trying to get out of there. ¶ 9. It is well settled that in such a case of conflicting testimony, each distinct view is absorbed into the minds of the jury as the finders of fact, and it is within the province of the jury to determine the credibility among several witnesses. Hughes v. State, 724 So.2d 893, 896 (Miss.1998) (citing Jackson v. State, 614 So.2d 965, 972 (Miss.1993)). ¶ 10. It is clear that the jury is the only arbiter of the credibility of witnesses. Collier v. State, 711 So.2d 458, 462 (Miss.1998). When asked to reverse on the ground of inconsistencies or contradictions in testimony, we have held this is clearly in the jury's province and refused. Id. Jurors are permitted, indeed have the duty, to resolve the conflicts in the testimony they hear. It is enough that the conflicting evidence presented a factual dispute for jury resolution. Groseclose v. State, 440 So.2d 297, 300 (Miss.1983) (quoting Gandy v. State, 373 So.2d 1042, 1045 (Miss.1979)). This assignment of error is without merit.