Given the evidence we have previously discussed, we do not find the State's proof “so lacking that a fair-minded juror could only find the defendant not guilty.” Williams v. State, 868 So.2d 346, 354 (¶ 26) (Miss.Ct.App.2003). It is well established that the testimony of the victim in a rape case is sufficient to sustain a rape conviction.
Bush, 895 So. 2d at 843 (¶ 16). Given the evidence we have previously discussed, we do not find the State's proof "so lacking that a fair-minded juror could only find the defendant not guilty." Williams v. State, 868 So. 2d 346, 354 (¶ 26) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003). It is well established that the testimony of the victim in a rape case is sufficient to sustain a rape conviction.
¶ 19. However, in Williams v. State, 868 So.2d 346 (Miss.Ct.App.2003), which involved similar circumstances to those in the present case, this Court stated that although the issue was waived for failure to object, the circuit court's remarks did not constitute reversible error. After the jury in Williams reported that it was deadlocked, the circuit court made a remark regarding the amount of work that went into the trial.
¶ 19. However, in Williams v. State, 868 So. 2d 346 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003), which involved similar circumstances to those in the present case, this Court stated that although the issue was waived for failure to object, the circuit court's remarks did not constitute reversible error. After the jury in Williams reported that it was deadlocked, the circuit court made a remark regarding the amount of work that went into the trial.
¶ 7. "A motion for a directed verdict challenges the sufficiency of the evidence." Doss v. State, 906 So.2d 836, 838 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App. 2004) (citing Williams v. State, 868 So.2d 346, 354 (¶ 26) (Miss.Ct.App. 2003)). In reviewing a denial of a motion for a directed verdict, this Court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.
A motion for a directed verdict challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Williams v. State, 868 So.2d 346 (¶ 26) (Miss.Ct.App. 2003). Once the jury has returned a verdict of guilty in a criminal case, we are not at liberty to direct that the defendant be discharged short of a conclusion on our part that given the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the verdict, no reasonable, hypothetical juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty. This Court will reverse only where one or more elements of the offense are not proven.