Weems v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Weems’s convictions and sentences, holding that the evidence was constitutionally and statutorily sufficient, the trial court properly declined to grant a new trial on the general grounds, and the court correctly sustained an objection to remote testimony under the governing rule. The court also rejected Weems’s unpreserved claim that the trial judge commented improperly on the evidence because the judge merely repeated testimony while ruling on an objection and no plain error was shown.