OF JUDGMENT: 08/17/2015
FROM WHICH APPEALED: COVINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, HON.
EDDIE H. BOWEN, JUDGE
COURT ATTORNEYS: STEPHANIE BRELAND WOOD CHRIS HENNIS OTTOWA
E. CARTER, JR. CATOUCHE J. BODY
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MERRIDA COXWELL
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY:
WALLER, C.J., KITCHENS AND COLEMAN, JJ.
WALLER, CHIEF JUSTICE
On July 23, 2015, a Covington County jury found Howard
Lindsey guilty of two counts of gratification of lust and two
counts of sexual battery. On appeal, Lindsey argues that the
jury's verdict is contrary to the overwhelming weight of
the evidence. Finding no issue with the verdict, we affirm
Lindsey's convictions and sentences.
& PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case involves a total of four alleged sexual offenses
committed by Howard Lindsey against two minor female victims.
On January 13, 2015, Lindsey was indicted for one count of
gratification of lust and one count of sexual battery against
his granddaughter M.L, as well as one count of gratification
of lust and one count of sexual battery against M.L.'s
cousin T.P. The alleged offenses against M.L. occurred
"during and about 2013 through and about 2014, "
and the alleged offenses against T.P. occurred "during
and about December 2013." At the time of these offenses,
M.L. was between eleven and twelve years old, and T.P. was
fourteen years old.
Lindsey's trial commenced on July 22, 2015. M.L. and T.P.
were the State's only witnesses. By the time of trial,
M.L. was thirteen years old, and T.P. was fifteen years old.
Lindsey called three witnesses in his defense: M.L.'s
older brother Antiquez Lindsey, M.L.'s uncle Sedrick
Lindsey, and M.L.'s cousin Sedrianna Lindsey. At the
conclusion of trial, the jury returned a verdict finding
Lindsey guilty on all counts. After the trial court denied
his post-trial motions, Lindsey filed a timely notice of
appeal with this Court. Lindsey's sole issue on appeal is
whether the jury's verdict is against the overwhelming
weight of the evidence.
"When reviewing a denial of a motion for a new trial
based on an objection to the weight of the evidence, we will
only disturb a verdict when it is so contrary to the
overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand
would sanction an unconscionable injustice." Bush v.
State, 895 So.2d 836, 844 (Miss. 2005) (citation
omitted). The evidence must be weighed in the light most
favorable to the jury's verdict. Id. If the
verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence,
the proper remedy is to grant a new trial, but this remedy
should be used only in ...