Opinion ID: 1624645
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and whether the verdict was against the overwhelming evidence.

Text: ¶ 56. In his final argument, Neal contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, and that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
¶ 57. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the critical inquiry is whether the evidence shows `beyond a reasonable doubt that accused committed the act charged, and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed; and where the evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to support a conviction.' Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836, 843 (quoting Carr v. State, 208 So.2d 886, 889 (Miss.1968)). However, this does not require the Court to ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (citations omitted) (emphasis in original)). If the facts and inferences ... `point in favor of the defendant on any element of the offense with sufficient force that reasonable men could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty,' the proper remedy is for the appellate court to reverse and render. Id. (quoting Edwards v. State, 469 So.2d 68, 70 (Miss.1985)). But if the evidence is sufficient to show that reasonable and fair-minded persons, in the exercise of impartial deliberations, might have reached a different conclusion on every element of the offense, while considering the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, the evidence will be deemed to have been sufficient. Id. ¶ 58. In order to find Neal guilty of murder, the jury had to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Neal had killed Cleveland without the authority of law and with deliberate design to effect her death. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational jury to find each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Neal gave two confessions to the police in which he admitted that he had killed Cleveland, in one confession stating that he had decapitated Cleveland, and in another stating that he had shot her twice in the head and then he had decapitated her. He further admitted that after killing Cleveland, he had taken steps in an effort to conceal his identity as the killer, such as bleaching Cleveland's body, sending misleading text messages, and disposing of Cleveland's head, the gun, and the knife. Neal's confession to being the killer was corroborated by the discovery of blood on his shorts and by Neal's uncharacteristic tardiness at work on the afternoon of the murder. There also was evidence that Neal acted with deliberate design; Neal confessed that he had killed Cleveland due to his mounting suspicion of her infidelity.
¶ 59. Neal argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial because the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. On review of a challenge to the weight of the evidence, this Court will reverse for a new trial only if the trial court's ruling was an abuse of discretion. Miller v. State, 980 So.2d 927, 929 (Miss.2008). We will not disturb the verdict unless 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 (citing Herring v. State, 691 So.2d 948, 957 (Miss.1997)). ¶ 60. On a motion for new trial, the court sits as a thirteenth juror. The motion, however, is addressed to the discretion of the court, which should be exercised with caution, and the power to grant a new trial should be invoked only in exceptional cases in which the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict. Id. (quoting Amiker v. Drugs for Less, Inc., 796 So.2d 942, 947 (Miss.2000)). All evidence should be weighed in the light most favorable to the verdict. Id. (citing Herring, 691 So.2d at 957). Reversing a verdict because it was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence does not mean that acquittal was the only proper verdict. Id. (quoting McQueen v. State, 423 So.2d 800, 803 (Miss.1982)). It simply means that this Court disagrees with the jury's resolution of the conflicting testimony. Id. This difference of opinion does not signify acquittal any more than a disagreement among the jurors themselves. Instead, the proper remedy is to grant a new trial. Id. ¶ 61. There was ample evidence to support the verdict of guilt in this case. In his confessions to the murder, Neal gave detailed explanations of what occurred and of his motive. Neal's confessions, along with the testimony of investigating officers set forth above, strongly preponderated in favor of the finding of guilt. We cannot say that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence such that a new trial is required in order to avoid a manifest injustice. This issue is without merit.