Secondly, the jury had the right to infer that the officer did feel pain when Murrell was throwing him to the ground and choking him. This Court has held in Pryor v. State, 349 So.2d 1063 (Miss. 1977), that a jury, as fact finder, is entitled to consider not only facts testified to by witnesses but all inferences that may be reasonably and logically deduced from the facts in evidence. We held in Campbell v. State, 278 So.2d 420 (Miss. 1973), that all proof need not be direct and the jury may draw any reasonable inferences from all evidence in a case.
1980); Jones v. State, 367 So.2d 458 (Miss. 1979); Pyron v. State, 349 So.2d 1063 (Miss. 1977). This Court confines itself to objections made in the trial court.
It was up to the jury to decide this issue. In Pryor v. State, 349 So.2d 1063, 1064 (Miss. 1977), this Court stated: It is well established in Mississippi that a jury, as the finder of fact, is entitled to consider not only facts as testified to by witnesses, but all inferences that may be reasonably and logically deduced from the facts and evidence.
1980); Jones v. State, 367 So.2d 458 (Miss. 1979); Pryor v. State, 349 So.2d 1063 (Miss. 1977); Meyer v. State, 309 So.2d 161 (Miss. 1975).
See, e.g., Miller v. State, 492 So.2d 978, 981 (Miss. 1986); Pryor v. State, 349 So.2d 1063, 1064 (Miss. 1977). IV.
This comment requires some examination. In Spots v. State, 427 So.2d 127 (Miss. 1983), citing Pryor v. State, 349 So.2d 1063 (Miss. 1977), this Court listed four factors which, at that time, were to be considered before reversal of a trial court's decision based on failure to produce discovery material. The fourth factor listed was . . "Whether . . . the introduction of the evidence was harmful to the defendant in the light of all the circumstances."
Gathright v. State, 380 So.2d 1276, 1278 (Miss. 1980); Pryor v. State, 349 So.2d 1063, 1064-65 (Miss. 1977). Moreover, the evidence was such that no one could rationally say that the verdict was contrary to its weight.
See also, Love v. State, 441 So.2d 1353, 1355 (Miss. 1983); Pryor v. State, 349 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Miss. 1977); Gentry v. State, 338 So.2d 1229, 1231 (Miss. 1976); Sisk v. State, 260 So.2d 485, 488 (Miss.
" This comment requires some examination. In Spots v. State, 427 So.2d 127 (Miss. 1983), citing Pryor v. State, 349 So.2d 1063 (Miss. 1977), this Court listed four factors which, at that time, were to be considered before reversal of a trial court's decision based on failure to produce discovery material. The fourth factor listed was "Whether . . . the introduction of the evidence was harmful and prejudicial to the defendant in the light of all the circumstances."
The Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice were recently amended and approved on October 26, 1982. In addressing this question the Court has held that the failure to produce discovery material is not a per se ground for reversal. Pryor v. State, 349 So.2d 1063 (Miss. 1977). In Pryor, this Court listed four factors which should be considered before reversal of a trial court's decision.