Aaron Lynch v. State of Mississippi ( 1993 )


Menu:
  •                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 06/18/96
    OF THE
    STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
    NO. 93-KA-00331 COA
    AARON LYNCH
    APPELLANT
    v.
    STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
    APPELLEE
    THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND
    MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-B
    TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ELZY J. SMITH
    COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: COAHOMA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
    RICHARD B. LEWIS
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
    BY: PAT FLYNN
    DISTRICT ATTORNEY: LAURENCE Y. MELLEN
    NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL MURDER
    TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: CONVICTED OF MURDER AND SENTENCED TO LIFE
    IMPRISONMENT IN THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
    BEFORE BRIDGES, P.J., COLEMAN, AND PAYNE, JJ.
    BRIDGES, P.J., FOR THE COURT:
    Aaron Lynch was convicted by a Coahoma County jury of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment
    in the Mississippi Department of Corrections. On appeal, Lynch contends that the verdict of the jury
    was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Finding no error in the lower court we affirm
    Lynch’s conviction and sentence.
    FACTS
    Cassandra Faye Bays was shot to death on the night of October 3, 1992. She was found lying face
    down on her bed, in her bedroom, with five gunshot wounds, three to the head, one to the cheek and
    one to the hand. After interviewing several witnesses, Aaron Lynch, Bays’ boyfriend and father of
    two of her children, was arrested.
    At trial, the evidence showed that the incident began when Lynch called Bays to tell her that he was
    bringing their three year old son, Jerome, home. He had taken the child earlier to buy some candy and
    soda. During the conversation, Bays told Lynch to keep the boy a while longer. Lynch, suspicious
    that another man was with Bays, went to her house. He was driven by Lennon Sims.
    When Lynch, Sims, and the boy arrived, Sims waited in the car outside and Lynch and the child went
    inside. They entered the living room where Jonathan Bays, eight, and Erica Bays, six, were watching
    television. Lynch asked Bays for some bullets for his gun. Bays responded negatively and Lynch hit
    her in the face and drug her to the bedroom. Once in the bedroom, there were no eyewitnesses. The
    children testified that they heard an argument between Bays and Lynch followed by five gunshots.
    Both children testified that there were no other adults in the house at this time.
    After the shots were heard, Jonathan Bays testified that he saw Lynch exit the house, through the
    front door, carrying a gun. Jonathan was coming out of the bathroom, where he had been hiding
    during the argument and gunshots.
    Lynch claims that the reason he came into the house asking for the bullets was to protect himself
    against Bays’ new boyfriend, who he claims was "supposed to kill" him. After she refused, he slapped
    her, and they went to the bedroom. He testified that he and Bays were "kissing and stuff" in the
    bedroom when "all of a sudden somebody come out of the back" and began shooting at them. He
    pushed the intruder out of the way, ran out of the house, got into Sims’ car and drove off. At trial
    Lynch testified that he told Sims that someone was shooting at him. Contrary to this testimony, Sims
    claims that Lynch did not say anything about someone shooting at him when he came back to the car.
    After leaving the house, Sims and Lynch drove to Espy Street where Lynch told Sims to stop. Lynch
    then ejected six empty shells from his gun and reloaded. Sims later took Officer Hill to the area where
    the gun was unloaded, and six empty hulls were retrieved.
    During the trial, three relatives of the Defendant, his sister, niece and nephew, testified that Jonathan
    had told them someone had paid him three dollars to say Lynch was the one who shot Bays.
    DISCUSSION OF THE LAW
    WHETHER THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF
    THE EVIDENCE.
    On appeal, Lynch argues that the verdict was against the substantial weight of the evidence. The
    Appellant asks that the jury’s guilty verdict be vacated and a new trial be ordered. This motion for a
    new trial challenges the weight of the evidence. Courts will reverse the denial of a motion for a new
    trial only where the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it
    to stand would be allowing an unconscionable injustice. Hall v. State, 
    644 So. 2d 1223
    , 1228 (Miss.
    1994) (citing Guilbeau v. State, 
    502 So. 2d 639
    , 641 (Miss. 1987)). In reviewing this motion for a
    new trial, the court must accept all evidence put on by the prosecution as true, together with any
    reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. If there is sufficient evidence to support
    a verdict of guilty, the court must overrule the motion for a new trial. Roberson v. State, 
    595 So. 2d 1310
    , 1320 (Miss. 1992).
    Moreover, it is well settled that matters regarding the weight and credibility of the evidence are to be
    resolved by the jury. McClain v. State, 
    625 So. 2d 774
    , 778 (Miss. 1993). The jury, and not the
    reviewing court, hold the responsibility to pass upon the credibility of witnesses, and where the
    evidence justifies the verdict, it must be accepted. Burrell v. State, 
    613 So. 2d 1186
    , 1192 (Miss.
    1993).
    In the case at hand, the jury convicted Aaron Lynch of murder. This conviction was based on a belief,
    beyond a reasonable doubt, that Lynch had shot and murdered his girlfriend, Cassandra Bays. A court
    is authorized to reverse such a decision only where the evidence considered is such that reasonable
    and fair-minded jurors could only find the accused not guilty. McClain, 625 So. 2d at 778. In this
    instance, the reasonable and fair-minded jurors found Aaron Lynch guilty.
    In deciding the question of whether Jonathan Bays lied about who shot his mother for the payment of
    three dollars, the jury decided either not to believe this testimony or to give it very little weight. In
    deciding who to believe, the jury was entitled to take into consideration the motives and interests of
    the testifying witnesses. Burrell, 613 So. 2d at 1192. Here, the jury was able to view the demeanor
    and weigh the credibility of Jonathan’s statement that Lynch had shot his mother. The jury chose to
    believe the testimony of the State’s witness over that of Lynch. They weighed the evidence and
    convicted Lynch of murder.
    Accordingly, we find the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and we
    affirm the judgment and sentence of the lower court.
    THE JUDGMENT OF THE COAHOMA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OF CONVICTION
    OF MURDER AND SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE
    MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED. COAHOMA COUNTY
    IS TAXED WITH ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL.
    FRAISER, C.J., THOMAS, P.J., BARBER, COLEMAN, DIAZ, KING, McMILLIN, PAYNE,
    AND SOUTHWICK, JJ., CONCUR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 93-KA-00331-SCT

Filed Date: 2/9/1993

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014