Opinion ID: 3150731
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: and VIII. Weight of the Evidence

Text: 13 ¶23. Graves argues that his convictions should be reversed because the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Graves again argues that G.W. provided inconsistent testimony and that other various witnesses provided various versions of the events. ¶24. This Court will disturb a verdict only when “it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Bush, 895 So. 2d at 844. “The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the evidence must preponderate heavily against the verdict.” Brown v. State, 152 So. 3d 1146, 1165 (Miss. 2014) (citing Cotton v. State, 144 So. 3d 137 (Miss. 2014)). For the reasons stated in the sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis, we find that Graves’s conviction was not an “unconscionable injustice,” and this issue also is without merit.