Opinion ID: 1655531
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether holmes's motion to set aside the verdict or for a new trial should have been granted because the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Text: ¶ 15. Holmes argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for new trial because the evidence presented by his co-defendant, Kenneth Brown, cannot support the verdict and because Holmes did not knowingly enter into a common plan to kill Simmons. In its brief, the State responds to this argument by contending that Holmes is procedurally barred from making this argument on appeal. ¶ 16. As in Collier v. State, 711 So.2d 458, 461 (Miss.1998), Holmes's discussion of the above assignment of error implicates both an argument concerning the legal sufficiency of the evidence and an argument that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Questions of whether the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence are raised when a motion for new trial is made. Questions of the legal sufficiency of the evidence are raised when a motion for a directed verdict is made. As such, this Court has stated that these arguments represent motions that are separate and distinct and perform different offices within our criminal procedural system.... Id. (citing May v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 780 (Miss.1985)). Holmes's contention that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence was not assigned as a ground for new trial in the lower court, and it may not be raised here for the first time. A trial judge cannot be put in error on a matter which was not presented to him for decision. Ponder v. State, 335 So.2d 885, 886 (Miss. 1976), citing Cooper v. Lawson, 264 So.2d 890 (Miss.1972); Mercier v. Davis, 234 So.2d 902 (Miss.1970); Carpenter v. Savage, 93 Miss. 233, 46 So. 537 (1908). ¶ 17. While Holmes does not raise the issue of whether the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence in his motion for new trial, he does contend that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict arguing that the prosecution failed to prove that Defendant was conspiring with or murdered Simmons, beyond a reasonable doubt.... Therefore, we will discuss the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict. ¶ 18. Sufficiency questions are raised in motions for directed verdict and also in JNOV motions. McClain v. State, 625 So.2d 774, 778 (Miss.1993). Where a defendant moves for a JNOV or a directed verdict, the trial court considers all of the credible evidence consistent with the defendant's guilt, giving the prosecution the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be reasonably drawn from this evidence. Id. This Court is authorized to reverse only where, with respect to one or more of the elements of the offense charged, the evidence is such that reasonable and fairminded jurors could not find the accused guilty. Wetz v. State, 503 So.2d 803, 808 (Miss.1987).
¶ 19. Holmes was convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. A conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons agreeing to accomplish an unlawful purpose, or agreeing to accomplish a lawful purpose unlawfully. Clayton v. State, 582 So.2d 1019, 1021 (Miss.1991)(citing Miss.Code Ann. § 97-1-1). The act of any conspirator is the act of all of the conspirators. Norman v. State, 381 So.2d 1024, 1029 (Miss.1980)(citing Riley v. State, 208 Miss. 336, 44 So.2d 455 (1950)). ¶ 20. Holmes contends that there is no evidence that he ever consented to a plan to kill Simmons. He claims that he was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. The State argues that, from the evidence presented, a reasonable juror could have found that (1) Holmes went to Gowdy's house armed with a 9mm handgun; (2) Kenneth Brown was there and also armed with a 9mm handgun; (3) Gowdy's house had allegedly been burglarized by Simmons and Gowdy was looking for a gun; (4) Holmes saw Simmons and announced that fact to Gowdy and Brown; (5) Gowdy and Brown then went inside the house while Holmes stood outside and talked to Simmons, knowing Gowdy and Brown were going to come out and shoot Simmons; (6) after the shooting, at least two witnesses saw Holmes and Brown, with their weapons drawn, asking each other, Did you get him? Did you get that nigger? ¶ 21. We find that reasonable jurors could find Holmes guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. There were conflicting statements and testimony from Holmes and Brown about the above listed facts, but it was for the jury to weigh the credibility of the testimony and statements. Jones v. State, 381 So.2d 983, 989 (Miss. 1980).
¶ 22. Holmes also argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's verdict that he is guilty of murdering Simmons. Holmes was indicted and convicted of murder under Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-19 (2000), which, in part, provides: (1) The killing of a human being without the authority of law by any means or in any manner shall be murder in the following cases: (a) When done with deliberate design to effect the death of the person killed, or of any human being; (b) When done in the commission of an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved heart, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual. ¶ 23. As previously stated, we must give the prosecution the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence. McClain, 625 So.2d at 778. ¶ 24. Holmes asserts that the jury based its verdict not on the testimony from witnesses who said that Gowdy committed the shooting and not Holmes, but on the multiple inconsistent statements of Holmes and his co-defendant, Kenneth Brown. ¶ 25. In response, the State again argues that the inconsistencies in Holmes's and Brown's statements, which were taken soon after the shooting, and their testimony at trial (three and a half years after the shooting), were to be determined by the jury and not the judge. ¶ 26. Continuing the State's aforementioned list of evidence, reasonable jurors could have found that (7) Holmes and Brown were seen by the Gordon sisters holding their guns in the air; (8) Holmes ran down an alley with the intent to head off Simmons as he was trying to get away; (9) Holmes was seen, by Christopher Simmons, running down Ridgeway Street with a gun in his hand; and (10) Holmes left Simmons in the alley, dying, then hid his gun. ¶ 27. The State is correct in its assertion that Holmes's and Brown's admissions and confessions to law enforcement, Holmes's and Brown's contradictory testimony at trial, and the testimony from other witnesses, were sufficient to support Holmes's convictions of conspiracy to commit murder and murder less than capital.