¶ 10. In reviewing denials of motions for new trial, this Court will not order a new trial unless the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that allowing the verdict to stand sanctions an unconscionable injustice. Gossett v. State, 660 So.2d 1285, 1294 (Miss.1995). In motions for a new trial, the evidence is viewed in the light most consistent with the verdict. Veal v. State, 585 So.2d 693, 695 (Miss.1991). Morris argues that the State’s case is a walking contradiction; no two witnesses agree on certain specific points of the assault, which either did or did not include death threats. He neglects to mention that at the time the threats were uttered, one of the victims of the assaults was in shock and thus unable to hear any threats. ¶ 11. Morris relie 7) (<HOLDING>); Spiers v. State, 231 Miss. 307, 313, 94 So.2d
holding contradictory testimony does not invalidate a verdict holding miranda violation does not invalidate consent to search as fifth amendment only protects testimonial and communicative evidence holding lawrence does not invalidate charges of criminally prohibited sexual activity with minors holding that in the absence of contradictory testimony a reasonable person would not be justified in rejecting the witnesss unimpeached testimony holding that arresting officers testimony at suppression hearing supported finding of probable cause to arrest defendant for dwi despite contradictory testimony of defendant and his passenger and despite minor inconsistencies in officers testimony