 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Chaney v. State12/18/2001
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: 02/25/2000
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ROBERT WALTER BAILEY
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LAUDERDALE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: BURGLARY OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING: SENTENCED TO SERVE FOUR YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MDOC, RESTITUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,124.
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 12/18/2001
EN BANC
. Lederrick Chaney was convicted in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County on the charge of burglary of a business. Judge Robert W. Bailey sentenced Chaney to four years imprisonment and restitution of $4,124. Feeling aggrieved of this verdict and sentence, Chaney appeals to this Court asserting that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. Finding no merit to his assertions, we affirm.
FACTS
. Lederrick Chaney, Lakel Cross and William Glass were indicted on charges of burglary of Loeb's Men's Store in Meridian. Chaney and Cross gave statements to the police confessing their involvement. The incident occurred when Chaney and Cross were picked up by Glass. Glass said he knew a "lick that was already open." The record shows that Glass was referring to Loeb's Men's Store. The three men went to Loeb's and stole merchandise. Glass and Cross went inside while Chaney was the lookout.
. Mr. Loeb testified that he locked the door to the store when he left and that no windows were broken. Both Chaney's and Cross's statements agreed that a window had already been broken and they merely walked in through the door. Once inside, they began to steal Mr. Loeb's merchandise. Chaney's share of the merchandise was found at his grandmother's house. Neither Chaney nor Cross testified on Chaney's behalf, but their statements were entered into evidence along with the testimony of the State's witnesses. The jury listened to the testimony, reviewed the evidence and found Chaney guilty
. After the prosecution presented its case in chief, Chaney made a motion for a directed verdict which was denied. The defense did not put on any evidence. When the jury returned with a verdict of guilty, Chaney made a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or new trial.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
. To review a challenge to a trial judge's ruling denying a JNOV, we must first give the prosecution the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. Jones v. State, 785 So. 2d 1099,1100 ( ) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001); Savage v. State, 764 So. 2d 445, 447 ( ) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). Reversal only occurs if the evidence regarding one or more of the elements of the crime "is such that reasonable and fair-minded jurors could only find the accused not guilty." Id.
If the facts and inferences so considered point in favor of the defendant with sufficient force that reasonable men could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty, granting the . . . judgment n.o.v. is required. On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence opposed to the request or motion - - that is, evidence of such quality and weight that, having in mind the beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof standard, reasonable fair minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions-- the request or motion should be denied. White v. State, 732 So. 2d 961, 966 ( ) (Miss. 1999)(citations omitted).
DISCUSSION
. Chaney challenges the "legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict." McClain v. State, 625 So. 2d 774, 778 (Miss. 1993). He hangs his hat on the assertion that the State di
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|