Opinion ID: 1639715
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in denying Caldwell's motion for a new trial because the verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Text: ¶ 22. Finally, Caldwell asserts that the trial judge erred by declining to grant his motion for a new trial because the jury reached its verdict against the great weight of the evidence. Denial of such a motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Dudley v. State, 719 So.2d 180, 182 (Miss.1998). In determining whether a jury verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, 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. Id. (quoting Herring v. State, 691 So.2d 948, 957 (Miss.1997)). Only in those cases where the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice will this Court disturb it on appeal. Id. (quoting Pleasant v. State, 701 So.2d 799, 802 (Miss.1997)). ¶ 23. The evidence presented in this case fully proves the elements of sexual battery. J.D.'s testimony regarding the incidents of sexual battery was never discredited, and all other witness testimony was consistent with J.D.'s account. Matters regarding the credibility and weight to be accorded the evidence are to be resolved by the jury. Meshell v. State, 506 So.2d 989, 992 (Miss.1987). The fact that the jury did not believe Caldwell's theory of the case does not render the verdict untenable. ¶ 24. The jury's verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and the trial court did not err when it denied Caldwell's motion for a new trial. Therefore, we find that this issue is without merit.