Opinion ID: 1658853
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Did the lower court err in denying the appellant's motion for a peremptory instruction or in denying a new trial?

Text: This Court recently held in Edwards v. State, 469 So.2d 68 (Miss. 1985): Where a defendant in a criminal prosecution has requested a peremptory instruction or moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, each element of the offense is tested for evidentiary sufficiency. In such a setting, the trial court must consider all of the evidence  not just the evidence which supports the State's case  in the light most favorable to the State. May v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 781 (Miss. 1984). The State must be given the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from objective facts established by the evidence. Glass v. State, 278 So.2d 384, 386 (Miss. 1973). ..... If there is substantial evidence opposed to the motion ... the motion should be denied. In the case sub judice, the sheriff testified the appellant admitted he had done it all. Ora Lee Baker testified she received the check from the appellant and Linda Bennett testified that she knew that the signature on the check did not match the bank's record of Clinton Clay's signature. Furthermore, Clinton Clay testified the signature on the check was not his. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, there was clearly substantial evidence to justify denying the peremptory instruction. As to the denial of a motion for a new trial, this Court enunciated the rule in Pharr v. State, 465 So.2d 294, 302 (Miss. 1984): Under our established case law, the trial judge should set aside a jury's verdict only when, in the exercise of his sound discretion, he is convinced that the verdict is contrary to the substantial weight of the evidence. May v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 781 (Miss. 1984); Pearson v. State, 428 So.2d [1361] at 1364 [(Miss. 1983)]. In the case sub judice the motion for a new trial was properly denied.