B. The trial court erred in failing to sustain the defense's motion for a new trial, or in the alternative, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, as the weight of the evidence did not support the jury's verdicts. On February 24, 2009, the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed Roberson's convictions and sentences. Roberson v. State, 19 So. 3d 95, reh'g denied, September 29, 2009 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (Cause No. 2007-KA-01412-COA). Roberson filed a pro se "Purposed Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief" along with an "Application for Leave to Proceed in the Trial Court" in the Mississippi Supreme Court on October 4, 2010, in which he alleged the following grounds for relief in the "Concise Statements of the Claims" (as stated by Roberson):
Id. Williams committed the crime of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon whether the decedent argued with him or not. Id. ; see alsoAnderson v. State , 185 So. 3d 1015, 1023-24 (¶¶ 34-35) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) ; Roberson v. State , 19 So. 3d 95, 101 (¶ 9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).¶23.
"When jury instructions are challenged on appeal, we are mindful that trial courts are given considerable discretion regarding the instructions’ form and substance." McNeer v. State, 307 So. 3d 508, 513-14 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting Roberson v. State, 19 So. 3d 95, 99 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009)). Further, "[i]t is well settled that the standard of review for the giving or refusing of jury instructions is an abuse of discretion."
¶25. "When jury instructions are challenged on appeal, we are mindful that trial courts are given considerable discretion regarding the instructions' form and substance." McNeer v. State, 307 So.3d 508, 513-14 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting Roberson v. State, 19 So.3d 95, 99 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009)). Further, "[i]t is well settled that the standard of review for the giving or refusing of jury instructions is an abuse of discretion."
¶8. "When jury instructions are challenged on appeal, we are mindful that trial courts are given considerable discretion regarding the instructions’ form and substance." Roberson v. State , 19 So. 3d 95, 99 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). The long-standing standard of review for the trial court's giving or refusing jury instructions is an abuse of discretion.
As stated, "[w]e will not substitute our factual findings for that of the jury in a contest of credibility." Bishop v. State , 282 So. 3d 633, 641 (¶32) (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Roberson v. State , 19 So. 3d 95, 105 (¶25) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) ). Here, the jury weighed the conflicting testimony and decided that Jones’ and Ledlow's testimony was more credible than Ware's testimony.
¶12. "When jury instructions are challenged on appeal, we are mindful that trial courts are given considerable discretion regarding the instructions form and substance." Roberson v. State , 19 So. 3d 95, 99 (¶3) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). It is well settled that the standard of review for the giving or refusing of jury instructions is an abuse of discretion.
¶74. In Roberson v. State , 19 So. 3d 95 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009), the Court held that [c]laims of self-defense in a homicide case must be supported by factual and circumstantial evidence from which a jury may determine that ‘a defendant was justified in having committed the homicide because he was, or had reasonable grounds to believe that he was, in imminent danger of suffering death or great bodily harm at the hands of the person killed ....’ Merely stating that a
We "will not substitute our factual findings for that of the jury in a contest of credibility," and as such, we find that the verdict was not so inadequate "as to shock the conscience and to indicate bias, passion and prejudice on the part of the jury." Roberson v. State , 19 So. 3d 95, 105 (¶25) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) ; Cade , 771 So. 2d at 407 (¶11). Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and its decision to deny Anderson's post-trial motion for additur or, in the alternative, for a new trial should be upheld.
We "will not substitute our factual findings for that of the jury in a contest of credibility." Roberson v. State , 19 So. 3d 95, 105 (¶25) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). Here, the jury weighed the conflicting testimony and determined Alice's testimony to be more credible than that of the Bishops.