Opinion ID: 1689170
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether jackson's convictions were supported by the vidence adduced at trial or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

Text: ¶ 14. Jackson appeals the denial of both his motion for directed verdict [1] and his motion for a new trial. Our standard of review for a motion for directed verdict is as follows: This Court's standards of review regarding a denial of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a peremptory instruction are the same. Our standards of review for a denial of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a directed verdict are also identical. Under this standard, this Court will consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee, giving that party the benefit of all favorable inference that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. If the facts so considered point so overwhelmingly in favor of the appellant that reasonable men could not have arrived at a contrary verdict, we are required to reverse and render. On the other hand if there is substantial evidence in support of the verdict, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair minded jurors in the exercise of impartial judgment might have reached different conclusions, affirmance is required. The above standards of review, however, are predicated on the fact that the trial judge applied the correct law. Coleman v. State, 697 So.2d 777, 787-88 (Miss.1997). ¶ 15. In contrast, our standard of review for claims that a judgment is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence is as follows: 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. 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. As such, if the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, then a new trial is proper. Dudley v. State, 719 So.2d 180, 182 (Miss.1998)(internal citations omitted). ¶ 16. Jackson offers three challenges to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. First, he repeats his earlier argument that the evidence showed he lacked the requisite intent to commit murder, presumably due to his drugged state. As was noted above under Issue II, voluntary intoxication is not a defense to murder. Greenlee, 725 So.2d at 822-23. Second, Jackson once again argues that the facts of the case supported a finding of accident or misfortune. We have already addressed and rejected this argument in Issue I. ¶ 17. Finally, Jackson asserts that the record does not support murder but only heat of passion manslaughter. In support of that theory, Jackson points to his own testimony dealing with his mental state at the time of the shooting and the fact that he was distraught over being denied visitation. Jackson offers no authority whatsoever for this proposition. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-3-19 (2000) defines murder as: (1) The killing of a human being without authority of law by any means or in any means or in any manner shall be murder in the following cases: . . . . (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; We have held that the question of whether the defendant has committed murder or manslaughter is ordinarily a question to be resolved by the jury. Strahan v. State, 729 So.2d 800, 806 (Miss.1998). ¶ 18. The record reflects that heat-of-passion manslaughter instructions were given. However, clearly a jury could reasonably consider firing a weapon through the door of a dwelling, immediately after someone has gone inside, to be an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved heart. Thus, pursuant to our standard of review, and considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and accepting as true the evidence supporting the verdict, the trial court did not err in denying Jackson's motions for directed verdict and for a new trial.