Nash v. State, 47382
| Decision Date | 05 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 47382,47382 |
| Parties | Paul Wayne NASH v. STATE of Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Fielding L. Wright, Jr., Pascagoula, for appellant.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Wayne Snuggs, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
Paul Wayne Nash was indicted for the unlawful sale of marijuana, a controlled substance, by a grand jury of Jackson County. He was convicted and sentenced to twelve years in the state penitentiary by the Circuit Court of the county. He appeals from this conviction and presently contends that the trial court erred in permitting the State to reopen its case after it has rested and that the verdict of the jury was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
At the conclusion of the State's evidence and after the State had announced that if had rested, the defendant moved the court to exclude the evidence offered against him and to direct a verdict in his behalf. Whereupon, the State was permitted to reopen its case and recall a witness who identified the marijuana previously introduced into evidence as being the same which he received from the defendant. As mentioned, it is contended this was reversible error. We are of the opinion that this does not constitute error since we have long held that the reopening of a case is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Ford v. State, 218 So.2d 731 (Miss.1969), and Riley v. State, 248 Miss. 177, 157 So.2d 381 (1963). There being nothing to indicate there was an abuse of this discretion, we conclude this assignment to be without merit.
It is next charged that the verdict of the jury was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence in that it was based upon the testimony of an undercover agent. We have reviewed the evidence in detail and are of the opinion that the jury's verdict is supported by it. We need not cite authority to support the established rule that the jury is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight and worth of their testimony. It is also true that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction though there may be more than one witness testifying to the contrary.
The record overall supports the conviction of the appellant as a vendor of marijuana. Our review discloses no error in the proceedings resulting in prejudice to the defendant. His conviction and sentence will therefore be affirmed.
Affirmed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruffin v. State
...valid, and reject the other part. See Oates v. State, 421 So.2d 1025 (Miss.1982); Jones v. State, 381 So.2d 983 (Miss.1980); Nash v. State, 278 So.2d 779 (Miss.1973); Alexander v. State, 251 Miss. 847, 171 So.2d 517 (1965); Gathings v. State, 46 So.2d 800 (Miss.1950); and Duke v. State, 166......
-
Lyle v. State
...the decision to allow a party to reopen its case is "in the sound discretion of the court," without further analysis. See Nash v. State, 278 So.2d 779, 780 (Miss.1973); Ford v. State, 218 So.2d 731, 732-33 1969); Perkins v. State, 229 Miss. 299, 90 So.2d 650, 652 (1956); Richardson v. State......
-
Wilson v. State
...to support a conviction, even though denied by the accused." Young v. State , 236 So. 3d 49, 56 (Miss. 2017) (citing Nash v. State , 278 So. 2d 779, 780 (Miss. 1973) ).¶52. Wilson admitted that he intended to hit Pierce. But Wilson claims that he acted in self-defense. "To the extent [Wilso......
-
Redmond v. State
...witness. Ragland v. State, 403 So.2d 146, 147 (Miss.1981). See also Williams v. State, 512 So.2d 666, 670 (Miss.1987); Nash v. State, 278 So.2d 779, 780 (Miss.1973); Spiers v. State, 231 Miss. 307, 313, 94 So.2d 803, 806 (Miss.1957) (stating that "the strength or weakness of testimony is no......