Eric M. Rogers v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-KA-01594-COA
ERIC M. ROGERS A/K/A MARCHON ROGERS
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
9/7/2001
HON. ROBERT G. EVANS
JASPER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
RANCE N. ULMER
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: JOHN R. HENRY
EDDIE H. BOWEN
CRIMINAL - FELONY
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT - 12 YEARS
AFFIRMED - 12/17/2002
BEFORE MCMILLIN, C.J., THOMAS AND CHANDLER, JJ.
THOMAS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Eric Rogers was found guilty of aggravated assault and sentenced to twelve years in the Mississippi
State Penitentiary. Aggrieved he asserts the following on appeal:
I.
THE COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT THE MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT
AND JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT BASED ON THE
INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.
II.
THE COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL AS THE JURY VERDICT
WAS AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
FACTS
¶2.
On September 30, 2000, eighteen year old Benjie Keys, the victim in this case, met Eric Rogers
at the Jitney Jungle on 16th Street in Laurel, Mississippi. Keys was meeting Rogers for the purpose of
acquiring a stereo from Rogers' cousin. Keys and Rogers had come to know each other through mutual
employment at Howard Industries.
¶3.
Upon meeting at the Jitney Jungle, Keys exited his vehicle and entered Rogers' vehicle. The two
traveled to Rogers' home leaving Keys' vehicle parked in the Jitney Jungle parking lot. When the two
arrived at Rogers' residence there was no stereo and no seller. After a few hours of waiting Keys decided
he wanted to leave. He described that he was "catching on to" Rogers. Throughout the period of waiting
for the seller of the stereo to arrive, Rogers had made some comments that led Keys to believe Rogers was
a homosexual and had nefarious intentions for bringing Keys to his residence. Rogers played a "gyrue"1
video and Keys began to watch it while waiting for Rogers to decide to bring him back to his car. While
Keys' attention was directed at the video Rogers came from behind him and hit him over the head with a
hammer. Keys, quite surprised, then picked himself off the floor and asked what happened. Rogers then
punched him in the mouth. The two consecutive blows caused Keys to have a seizure. Rogers then picked
Keys up and assisted him to a room where he fell asleep. Upon Keys regaining consciousness, Keys found
that Rogers was watching him.
¶4.
Rogers began to prepare a marijuana cigarette and offered some to Keys. When Keys declined,
Rogers insisted as he pointed a .38 caliber handgun at Keys' forehead. After Keys obliged, Rogers
1
After extensive research, the term "gyrue" seems to be associated with some type of
pornographic material.
2
handcuffed Keys' left arm to an object in the room. Rogers then began to masturbate near Keys' face.
Keys attempted to push Rogers away. At this point Rogers prepared another marijuana cigarette.
¶5.
At approximately 1:00 A.M. Rogers, armed with the .38 handgun, took Keys to a deer stand and
told Keys to stay there. Keys objected and pleaded with Rogers to bring him home at which time Rogers
decided to comply.
¶6.
Rogers drove to the Jitney Jungle parking lot where Keys' car was located. As they approached
the parking lot, Keys became adamant about Rogers dropping him at the hospital. He explained that he
was unable to drive due to poor vision. When the two arrived at the hospital Rogers began to question
Keys as to whether he would tell anyone what occurred. Rogers asked Keys if they were still "cool." As
Rogers was talking to Keys, his car was parked out of the hospital's security camera's line of sight. Keys
then exited the vehicle and entered the hospital. His injuries included a fractured skull and two chipped
teeth.
¶7.
Rogers did not testify at trial but his videotaped statement was shown and admitted into evidence.
The hammer which was used to fracture Keys' skull was found in the trunk of Rogers' vehicle.
I.
DID THE COURT ERR IN FAILING TO GRANT THE MOTION FOR DIRECTED
VERDICT AND JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT BASED ON THE
INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE?
¶8.
Rogers contends the circuit court erred in not granting his motion for a directed verdict or in the
alternative a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Our supreme court stated the applicable standard of
review in McClain v. State, 625 So. 2d 774 (Miss. 1993).
In appeals from an overruled motion for JNOV the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter
of law is viewed and tested in a light most favorable to the State. The credible evidence
consistent with [the accused's] guilt must be accepted as true. The prosecution must be
given the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the
evidence. Matters regarding the weight and credibility of the evidence are to be resolved
3
by the jury. We are authorized to reverse only where, with respect to one or more of the
elements of the offense charged, the evidence so considered is such that reasonable and
fair-minded jurors could only find the accused not guilty.
Id. at 778 (citations omitted). "If there is sufficient evidence to support a verdict of guilty, this Court will
not reverse." Meshell v. State, 506 So. 2d 989, 990 (Miss. 1987). See also Haymond v. State, 478
So. 2d 297, 300 (Miss. 1985); Fairley v. State, 467 So. 2d 894, 902 (Miss. 1985).
¶9.
The evidence here was more than sufficient to support the verdict. Rogers bases his lack of
sufficiency argument on the fact that Keys sat down and began watching a video, and that this just did not
agree with Keys' story of being scared and unwilling to be at Rogers' residence. Rogers argues that the
two were lovers and that Keys concocted this elaborate story to hide his sexuality from his family. He
argues Keys admitted to hospital employees and to the jury that he did not remember what happened. The
facts were a matter for the jury to determine and they did. This issue is without merit.
II.
DID THE COURT ERR IN REFUSING TO GRANT A NEW TRIAL AS THE JURY
VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE?
¶10.
Rogers argues that the trial court erred in not granting his motion for a new trial, or in the alternative,
his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Rogers contends that Keys' testimony is not credible
based on Rogers' description of their relationship as lovers.
¶11.
The standard of review in determining whether a jury verdict is against the overwhelming weight
of the evidence is well settled. "This Court must accept as true the evidence which supports the verdict and
will reverse only when convinced that the circuit court has abused its discretion in failing to grant a new
trial." Dudley v. State, 719 So. 2d 180, 182 (¶8) (Miss. 1998). On review, the State is given "the benefit
of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence." Griffin v. State, 607 So.
2d 1197, 1201 (Miss. 1992). "Only in those cases where the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming
4
weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice will this Court
disturb it on appeal." Dudley, 719 So. 2d at 182. It has been established that "the jury is the judge of the
weight and credibility of testimony and is free to accept or reject all or some of the testimony given by each
witness." Meshell v. State, 506 So. 2d 989, 991 (Miss. 1987). See also Hilliard v. State, 749 So. 2d
1015, 1017 (¶9) (Miss. 1999); Lewis v. State, 580 So. 2d 1279, 1288 (Miss. 1991);Gandy v. State,
373 So. 2d 1042, 1045 (Miss. 1979). This Court may not make an assessment on the credibility of the
trial witnesses as this task is one for the jury presiding over the matter. Kinzey v. State, 498 So. 2d 814,
818 (Miss. 1986). When this Court analyzes a jury's verdict to determine whether it goes against the
overwhelming weight of the evidence, we must keep in mind that the jury is the ultimate finder of fact. This
Court does not have the task of re-weighing the facts in each case to, in effect, go behind the jury to detect
whether the testimony and evidence they chose to believe was or was not the most credible. The law
provides:
Jurors are permitted, indeed have the duty, to resolve the conflicts in the testimony they
hear. They may believe or disbelieve, accept or reject the utterances of any witness. No
formula dictates the manner in which jurors resolve conflicting testimony into finding of fact
sufficient to support their verdict. That resolution results from the jurors hearing and
observing the witnesses as they testify, augmented by the composite reasoning of twelve
individuals sworn to return a true verdict. A reviewing court cannot and need not determine
with exactitude which witness or what testimony the jury believed or disbelieved in arriving
at its verdict. It is enough that the conflicting evidence presented a factual dispute for jury
resolution.
Langston v. State, 791 So. 2d 273, 280 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001)(citing Groseclose v. State, 440
So. 2d 297, 300 (Miss. 1983)). We see no basis for doubting the verdict. The trial judge did not abuse
his discretion when he denied the motion for a new trial or judgement notwithstanding the verdict.
¶12. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JASPER COUNTY OF
CONVICTION OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AND SENTENCE OF TWELVE YEARS IN
5
THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS AFFIRMED.
ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO JASPER COUNTY.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, LEE, IRVING,
MYERS, CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
6
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
