Laterrence Lenoir v. State of Mississippi, 224 So. 3d 85

On September 6, 2012 two masked, gloved men robbed a Dollar General in Wesson, MS at gunpoint, stealing cash and employees’ cell phones; surveillance video (blurry, no audio) captured the incident.
Laterrence Lenoir was indicted in 2016 for two counts of armed robbery and one count of conspiracy (a third robbery count was dismissed); he pleaded not guilty and waived presenting a defense at trial.
State’s evidence: testimony from three employees (one, Vinshaun Motley, testified pursuant to a plea deal), surveillance video corroborating the robbery, and testimony that one robber was tall and the other had red-tipped dreadlocks.
Motley testified he knew Lenoir and Desmond Williams, identified a distinctive ‘‘waddle’’ gait he associated with Lenoir, related Lenoir’s pre-robbery comment that he would "hit a lick," and said Lenoir gave him money the day after the robbery and told him to keep quiet.
Forrest and Thomas (employees) knew Lenoir but could not identify him as a robber; the judge instructed the jury on accomplice testimony and denied defense motions for directed verdict and a new trial.
Jury convicted Lenoir on two armed-robbery counts and one conspiracy count; sentences affirmed by the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence linking Lenoir to the robbery	State: testimony + video + Motley’s corroborating details (gait, dreadlocks, pre-robbery statement, post-robbery money) suffice to prove identity and conspiracy	Lenoir: evidence is attenuated; ID rests on one accomplice’s memory of gait years later and no physical evidence ties him to crime	Affirmed: evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict on robbery and conspiracy counts
Weight of the evidence / new trial	State: testimonial evidence and inferences do not preponderate against verdict	Lenoir: eyewitnesses who knew him failed to identify him; surveillance blurry; no physical/DNA evidence, so verdict is against overwhelming weight	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence does not preponderate heavily against verdict

Cowart v. State, 178 So. 3d 651 (discusses standard for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and appellate review of sufficiency)
Ginn v. State, 860 So. 2d 675 (evidence/viewing in light most favorable to verdict; accomplice testimony principles)
King v. State, 47 So. 3d 658 (corroboration and assessment of accomplice testimony sufficiency)
Sheffield v. State, 749 So. 2d 123 (instructs on reasonable inferences to be drawn for the State)
Burleson v. State, 166 So. 3d 499 (absence of physical evidence does not negate testimonial evidence sufficient for conviction)
Brown v. State, 130 So. 3d 1074 (supports rule that testimonial evidence can sustain conviction without physical evidence)
Graham v. State, 812 So. 2d 1150 (similar authority on testimonial sufficiency)
Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836 (standard for appellate review of weight-of-evidence challenges)