DAVIS, Justice:

In this criminal appeal, the petitioner herein and defendant below, Lillie Mae Trail ("Ms. Trail"), challenges her conviction by jury of murder in the first degree and her sentence of life without mercy.1 Ms. Trail herein alleges the following errors: (1) jury misconduct; (2) application of erroneous evidentiary standard for admission of autopsy and crime scene photographs during mercy phase; (3) improper reading to jury of West Virginia Slayer Statute; (4) flawed use of theme of "atonement" during prosecutor's mercy phase closing argument; (5) unsupported statements made by prosecutor during closing argument; (6) wrongful admission into evidence of a summary chart; (7) insufficient evidence to support jury's verdict; and (8) cumulative error. Upon thorough review of these issues, the party's briefs, oral argument, and relevant law, we find no error and, therefore, affirm. On the issue pertaining to the proper evidentiary standard for the admission of autopsy and crime scene photographs during the mercy phase, we hold that, autopsy or crime scene photographs may be particularly relevant to depicting the nature of the crime committed by a defendant who has been found guilty of first degree murder. Even if deemed gruesome, the probative value of these photographs is greater at the mercy phase of a bifurcated trial than at the guilt phase of such trial.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 22, 1994, Ms. Trail's husband, Chester Trail, was hunting in the woods when he was shot multiple times and killed. Ms. Trail's subsequent trial commenced on October 6, 1997, in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, and ended on October 27, 1997. During the course of the bifurcated trial, a jury first found Ms. Trail guilty of murder in the first degree at the close of the guilt phase.2 In reaching its verdict, the jury found that Ms. Trail had hired her nephew, Gregory Whittington, to kill her husband so that she could collect on various policies of insurance.3 At the close of the penalty phase of the bifurcated trial, the jury recommended no mercy. A sentencing hearing was held on December 9, 1997, after which, by order entered on April 7, 1998, the circuit court imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. This sentence was ordered to run concurrently with a sentence that had been previously imposed by the Circuit Court of Kanawha County following Ms. Trail's plea of no contest to a charge of unlawful wounding.4

Thereafter, in August 1998, Ms. Trail filed her post-trial motion for acquittal or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The motion alleged juror misconduct and various trial errors. The circuit court held a hearing on the alleged jury misconduct, as required by Syllabus point 2 of State v. Sutphin, 195 W.Va. 551, 466 S.E.2d 402 (1995), on November 5, 1998. By summary order entered several years later, on June 8, 2006,5 the circuit court denied both motions. The summary order was followed by a more detailed order, entered on January 8, 2007, containing more thorough findings of fact and conclusions of law pertaining to the circuit court's denial of Ms. Trail's post-trial motions. In that order, the circuit court noted that Ms. Trail's motion alleging jury misconduct, made under Rule 33 of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure, had not been timely filed. Nevertheless, the circuit court stated that its denial was based upon the merits of the motion.6

By subsequent order entered on July 15, 2014,7 the circuit court granted Ms. Trail's motion seeking resentencing in order to restart the appeal period to challenge her conviction and sentence. This appeal followed.8

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Ms Trail's case is before this Court on appeal from an order denying her motion seeking a new trial or, in the alternative, a judgment of acquittal based upon the insufficiency of the evidence. This Court applies the following general standard when reviewing a circuit court decision denying a new trial:

Syl. pt. 3, State v. Vance, 207 W.Va. 640, 535 S.E.2d 484 (2000). Additionally, we note that "[t]he Court applies a de novo standard of review to the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal based upon the sufficiency of the evidence." State v. Juntilla, 227 W.Va. 492, 497, 711 S.E.2d 562, 567 (2011) (per curiam) (citing State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294, 304, 470 S.E.2d 613, 623 (1996)). Accord State v. Minigh, 224 W.Va. 112, 124, 680 S.E.2d 127, 139 (2009) (per curiam).

With due regard for these general standards for our review, we will address the issues raised by Ms. Trail. We will observe additional standards for our review of particular issues she has raised as necessary below.

III.

DISCUSSION

Ms. Trail herein raises numerous errors to challenge her conviction of murder in the first degree and her sentence of life without mercy. We will address in turn each of the errors she has raised.

A. Jury Misconduct

Following the conclusion of the trial, Ms. Trail's lawyer received information that a juror, Teresa Nunley ("Juror Nunley"), may have discussed the case with a co-worker during the trial. On November 5, 1998, the circuit court conducted a Remmer hearing9 to consider evidence of the misconduct and to ascertain what, if any, prejudice resulted therefrom.

During the Remmer hearing, Linda Shamblin ("Ms. Shamblin"), the co-worker with whom Juror Nunley allegedly had engaged in an improper communication, testified that her daughter previously had been married to Ms. Trail's son. Through Ms. Shamblin's testimony, it became apparent that Ms. Shamblin and Ms. Trail did not have a friendly relationship. It also was revealed that Ms. Shamblin did not personally know Juror Nunley and had no authority over Juror Nunley at their place of employment. Ms. Shamblin testified that she had heard Juror Nunley was sitting on Ms. Trail's jury. According to Ms. Shamblin, one morning while the trial was ongoing she encountered Juror Nunley in their workplace break room and inquired "[a]re you on [Ms. Trail's] trial?" Ms. Shamblin testified that Juror Nunley responded that she was "not allowed to discuss that," and the conversation ended.

Juror Nunley's testimony differed from Ms. Shamblin's. According to Juror Nunley, Ms. Shamblin approached her in the break room and asked if she was serving on Ms. Trail's jury. Upon receiving an affirmative answer, Ms. Shamblin went on to comment "Oh, I know she is guilty," along with other similar, yet brief, comments. Juror Nunley stated that she promptly left the break room. On the issue of influence, Juror Nunley testified that, although she felt Ms. Shamblin was attempting to sway her, Ms. Shamblin's comments had no influence on the verdict she rendered in the case. Juror Nunley pointed out that the two women had one solitary encounter about the trial and that encounter lasted only a few seconds. She also testified that she did not tell any other jurors about the comments Ms. Shamblin made to her.

The third and final person to testify at the Remmer hearing was Misty Holtzman ("Ms. Holtzman), another of Juror Nunley's coworkers. Ms. Holtzman, who is a friend of the defendant, Ms. Trail, worked alongside Juror Nunley at their place of employment. She testified that Juror Nunley told her of the encounter with Ms. Shamblin. According to Ms. Holtzman's testimony, Juror Nunley described the encounter as being initiated when Juror Nunley approached Ms. Shamblin and inquired about her knowledge of Ms. Trail. The version of the encounter related by Ms. Holtzman was that Ms. Shamblin informed Juror Nunley of the history of problems between Ms. Shamblin's daughter and Ms. Trail's son, and that Ms. Shamblin encouraged Juror Nunley to "say that [Ms. Trail] is guilty because she was guilty as sin." Ms. Holtzman testified to her belief that Juror Nunley had been influenced by the conversation with Ms. Shamblin based upon Ms. Holtzman's observations of Juror Nunley's facial expressions as she described the encounter.

Following the Remmer hearing, by order entered on January 8, 2007, the circuit court found insufficient evidence of juror misconduct to warrant granting a new trial on this basis. On appeal, Ms. Trail contends that the circuit court erred by placing the burden of proof upon her to establish juror misconduct without first determining whether the source of the improper juror contact was an "interested party." The State responds that the circuit court properly applied the standards set out by this Court in Sutphin, 195 W.Va. 551, 466 S.E.2d 402.

At the outset, we note that our review of this issue is for an abuse of discretion:

Syl. pt. 1, Sutphin, 195 W.Va. 551, 466 S.E.2d 402. This Court is mindful that juror misconduct is an issue not to be taken lightly.

Sutphin, 195 W.Va. at 557, 466 S.E.2d at 408. Nevertheless, the mere allegation of juror misconduct is insufficient to warrant a new trial. First, their must be proof that some improper event has occurred. "Misconduct on the part of the jury as grounds for a new trial is not presumed but must be fully proved by the moving party." 58 Am. Jr. 2d New Trial § 143, at 195 (2012) (footnote omitted). When misconduct is established, a new trial is warranted where prejudice is established. "Misconduct of a juror, prejudicial to the complaining party, is sufficient reason to direct a mistrial or to set aside a verdict returned by the jury of which he is a member." Syl. pt. 3, Legg v. Jones, 126 W.Va. 757, 30 S.E.2d 76 (1944) (emphasis added).

There is no dispute that a communication about Ms. Trail was had between Juror Nunley and Ms. Shamblin during the course of the trial. The issue raised by Ms. Trail is whether the circuit court erred in failing to find Ms. Shamblin was an "interested party" to Ms. Trail's criminal action such that Ms. Trail was entitled to a presumption of prejudice:

Legg v. Jones, 126 W.Va. 757, 763-64, 30 S.E.2d 76, 80 (1944) (emphasis added). See also Bluestone Indus., Inc. v. Keneda, 232 W.Va. 139, 143, 751 S.E.2d 25, 29 (2013) (per curiam) ("Based on the Court's holding in Legg, we begin our analysis with two inquires. First, did the conversation between Mr. Cline and Juror Number Six raise a presumption of prejudice? Second, if a presumption of prejudice was raised, did the defendants present evidence rebutting it?"). In other words,

Sutphin, 195 W.Va. at 557, 466 S.E.2d at 408. The circuit court implicitly concluded that Ms. Shamblin was a stranger to the proceedings and placed the burden of establishing prejudice on Ms. Trail. Under the facts presented in this case, we find no error.

Ms. Trail argues that Ms. Shamblin is an "interested party" by virtue of her history with Ms. Trail, i.e., the fact that Ms. Shamblin's daughter previously had been married to Ms. Trail's son and Ms. Shamblin's "ill will"10 toward Ms. Trail. Although this Court has not provided an express definition of an "interested party" in the context of juror misconduct, our past cases clearly require a more direct connection to the litigants involved in the trial affected by the alleged misconduct than exists in this instance.

For example, in Sutphin the Court concluded that misconduct had been induced by a stranger where the juror's contact with the defendant's cousin "was not procured by the State or by the Defendant." 195 W.Va. at 559-60, 466 S.E.2d at 410-11 (emphasis added).11 Similarly, the following discussion in Legg v. Jones demonstrates that the Court considered an "interested party" to be the plaintiff, the defendant, or an attorney representing one of them:

Legg, 126 W.Va. 757, 763, 30 S.E.2d 76, 79-80 (emphasis added). See also Bluestone Indus., Inc., 232 W.Va. 139, 143, 751 S.E.2d 25, 29 (2013) (indicating trial representative of corporate defendant was an interested party); Haight v. Goin, 176 W.Va. 562, 564, 346 S.E.2d 353, 355 (1986) ("In Legg[, 126 W.Va. 757, 30 S.E.2d 76], we discussed the necessity of proving prejudice where the alleged misconduct does not involve a party." (emphasis added)); Griffin v. Tomlinson, 155 Va. 150, 153-54, 154 S.E. 483, 484 (1930) ("[A]lmost all of the courts and text writers are agreed that for reasons of public policy the verdict rendered by a jury, any of whose members has been treated or entertained by one having an interest in the litigation, must be set aside. The same rule applies to the acts of agents or attorneys of the parties litigant." (emphasis added)). Likewise, the West Virginia Trial Court Rules expressly prohibit a party to litigation, or the agent or attorney for a party, from communicating with a member of the jury. See W. Va. T.C.R. 4.09 ("No party, nor his agent or attorney, shall communicate or attempt to communicate with any member of the jury ... until that juror has been excused from further service for a particular term of court[.]" (emphasis added)).

In this case, Ms. Shamblin clearly was not a party to Ms. Trail's litigation, or acting as an agent or representative of a party. Rather than being an interested party, Ms. Shamblin simply was a member of the general public who appeared to be interested in the proceedings. This Court previously has found that a person's concern for a defendant does not make them an "interested party" to the litigation. In State v. Daniel, 182 W.Va. 643, 391 S.E.2d 90 (1990), a juror was contacted by a businesswoman, Betty Kelly, and encouraged to do what she could to help the defendant. Ms. Kelly was in the used car business and implied that she would give the juror's son a break on a used car. The Court found Ms. Kelly was not an interested party, commenting that, "[i]n the case now before us, Betty Kelly had no interest in the trial apart from her apparent concern for the appellant. No evidence was presented that the appellant induced her to act in his behalf ..." Daniel, 182 W.Va. at 647, 391 S.E.2d at 94. In the case sub judice, Ms. Shamblin's interest differed from that addressed in Daniel insofar as it appears to have been negative to, rather than in favor of, the defendant. Nevertheless, such a concern does not elevate her status to that of an "interested party." Therefore, her communication with Ms. Nunley created no presumption of prejudice that the state was required to overcome.

Syl. pt. 3, Sutphin, 195 W.Va. 551, 466 S.E.2d 402. See generally 58 Am. Jr. 2d New Trial § 216, at 255 (2012) ("[I]n both civil and criminal cases, a new trial generally will not be granted because of a conversation between a juror and a stranger when it does not appear that such conversation was prompted by a party or that any injustice or prejudice resulted to the complaining party. A new trial will be granted only where a conversation between a third person and a juror is of such a character as is calculated to impress the case upon the mind of the juror in a different aspect than was presented by the evidence in the courtroom or is of such a nature as is calculated to result in harm to a party on trial." (footnote omitted)).

Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has observed that,

Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217, 102 S.Ct. 940, 946, 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982).

In the instant case the trial court properly conducted a Remmer hearing and evaluated the evidence presented by Ms. Trail. Having the advantage of observing the witnesses and making appropriate credibility determinations,12 the circuit court concluded that Ms. Trail failed to establish she had been prejudiced to the extent that she did not receive a fair trial. See Syl. pt. 3, Sutphin, 195 W.Va. 551, 466 S.E.2d 402. Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion.13

B. Mercy Phase Evidentiary Standard for Autopsy and Crime Scene Photographs

Ms. Trail next argues that the trial court erred by allowing autopsy and crime scene photographs to be admitted during the mercy phase of her trial.14 Ms. Trail contends that the photographs were non-probative and unfairly prejudicial under Rules 401 and 403 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. According to Ms. Trail, bifurcation does not permit the circuit court to relax admissibility requirements during the mercy phase of trial to admit evidence that had been found to be inadmissible during the guilt phase.15 The State responds that the circuit court applied the correct evidentiary standard and found the photographs to have a higher probative evidentiary value in the mercy phase of the trial. Our review of this issue is for an abuse of discretion. "A trial court's evidentiary rulings, as well as its application of the Rules of Evidence, are subject to review under an abuse of discretion standard." Syl. pt. 4, State v. Rodoussakis, 204 W.Va. 58, 511 S.E.2d 469 (1998).

The admissibility of gruesome photographs previously has been addressed by this Court in State v. Derr, 192 W.Va. 165, 168, 451 S.E.2d 731, 734 (1994). The Derr Court explained that "[t]he admissibility of photographs over a gruesome objection must be determined on a case-by-case basis pursuant to Rules 401 through 403 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence." Syl. pt. 8, id. Moreover,

Syl. pt. 10, Derr, 192 W.Va. 165, 451 S.E.2d 731.

The trial in Derr does not appear to have been bifurcated, thus the standards for the admission of gruesome photographs announced therein would apply to the guilt phase of a prosecution. The instant case is one of first impression in asking this Court to determine whether the same high standard announced in Derr applies also to the admission of gruesome photographs during the mercy phase of a bifurcated trial.16 The type of evidence admissible in the mercy phase of a bifurcated trial was set out in Syllabus point 7 of State v. McLaughlin, 226 W.Va. 229, 700 S.E.2d 289 (2010), wherein this Court held:

(Emphasis added).

While Derr and McLaughlin both are clear that the proper analysis for determining the admissibility of gruesome photographs involves an evaluation under Rules 401 and 403, McLaughlin additionally establishes that "[t]he type of evidence that is admissible in the mercy phase of a bifurcated first degree murder proceeding is much broader than the evidence admissible for purposes of determining a defendant's guilt or innocence." Syl. pt. 7, in part, McLaughlin, 226 W.Va. 229, 700 S.E.2d 289 (emphasis added).17 What this means is that the probative value of evidence is greater at the mercy stage than at the guilt phase, because the relevant issues are broader. As the McLaughlin Court observed, during the mercy phase "[a]dmissible evidence necessarily encompasses evidence of the defendant's character, including evidence concerning the defendant's past, present and future, as well as evidence surrounding the nature of the crime committed by the defendant." Syl. pt. 7, in part, McLaughlin, 226 W.Va. 229, 700 S.E.2d 289. Indeed, the issue during the mercy phase of a bifurcated trial is whether or not the defendant, who already has been found guilty of murder in the first degree, should be afforded mercy, i.e., afforded the opportunity to be considered for parole after serving no less than fifteen years of his or her life sentence.18 In her dissenting opinion in Schofield v. West Virginia Department of Corrections, 185 W.Va. 199, 207, 406 S.E.2d 425, 433 (1991), Justice Workman pointed out that "[t]he determination of whether a defendant should receive mercy is so crucially important that justice for both the state and defendant would be best served by a full presentation of all relevant circumstances without regard to strategy during trial on the merits." Particularly relevant in the context of gruesome photographs is their depiction of the nature of the crime committed. Accordingly, we now expressly hold that, autopsy or crime scene photographs may be particularly relevant to depicting the nature of the crime committed by a defendant who has been found guilty of first degree murder. Even if deemed gruesome, the probative value of these photographs is greater at the mercy phase of a bifurcated trial than at the guilt phase of such trial.

In ruling to admit the offered photographs into evidence during the mercy phase of the case sub judice, the circuit court explained that, "while I didn't allow the autopsy photos or any other crime scene photos in, on the issue of guilt or no guilt, I believe that they are relevant, and that there [sic] probative value outweighs the prejudicial impact they would have on the issue of mercy or no mercy." We find no abuse of discretion in the circuit court's ruling.19

C. Slayer Statute

The West Virginia Slayer Statute is found at W. Va.Code § 42-4-2 (1931) (Repl. Vol. 2014). The statute prohibits a person who has been convicted of a felonious killing, or of conspiracy in the killing of another, from receiving funds or property from the victim:

W. Va.Code § 42-4-2. Upon motion of the State, and over Ms. Trail's objection, the circuit court took judicial notice of the statute and read its full text to the jury during the guilt phase of the trial.

Ms. Trail argues that the circuit court erred by reading the "Slayer Statute" to the jury. She contends that reading the statute resulted in unfair prejudice to her insofar as the statute was irrelevant, misleading, and created confusion. This is so, she argues, because the statute was read when she had not yet been convicted of the murder of her husband, and because the statute is relevant only in a civil proceeding resulting from the attempt of one convicted of murder to obtain funds or property, including insurance proceeds, from the victim. Accordingly, Ms. Trail contends that, under a proper application of Rules 401 and 403 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, the statute should not have been read to the jury. The State responds that the circuit court correctly read the Slayer Statute because Ms. Trail repeatedly had implied her innocence based upon her willingness to forego insurance proceeds. The State contends that counsel for Ms. Trail, on several occasions during the trial, made known to the jury that she was not receiving any proceeds from the policies that insured her husband's life.20 We agree with the State.

This issue challenges the circuit court's admission of evidence; therefore, our review is for an abuse of discretion. "The West Virginia Rules of Evidence ... allocate significant discretion to the trial court in making evidentiary ... rulings. Thus, rulings on the admissibility of evidence ... are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Absent a few exceptions, this Court will review evidentiary ... rulings of the circuit court under an abuse of discretion standard." Syl. pt. 1, McDougal v. McCammon, 193 W.Va. 229, 455 S.E.2d 788 (1995).

It is well established that,

State v. Wade, 200 W.Va. 637, 652, 490 S.E.2d 724, 739 (1997). In discussing Rule 401, this Court has elaborated that,

McDougal v. McCammon, 193 W.Va. 229, 236, 455 S.E.2d 788, 795. Finally, this Court has clarified that,

Syl. pt. 9, State v. Derr, 192 W.Va. 165, 451 S.E.2d 731 (1994).

A significant portion of the State's case-in-chief was directed toward establishing the existence of numerous policies of insurance under which the victim was the insured and Ms. Trail was the beneficiary.21 Ms. Trail responded to this evidence by pointing out that she did not receive proceeds from these policies. For example, while cross examining a representative of Allianz Insurance, who testified to the existence of an accidental death policy on Chester Trail's life with Ms. Trail as the beneficiary, defense counsel asked the following:

Similarly, the following is an excerpt of defense counsel's cross examination of a representative of Appalachian Life Insurance Company:

The foregoing portions of the record demonstrate that defense counsel implied to the jury that, because Ms. Trail had voluntarily relinquished her right to receive proceeds from the various policies of insurance covering her husband's life, she had no financial motive to orchestrate his death. Because of the presentation of this evidence to the jury, the Slayer Statute became relevant to show that, if she was found to be guilty of participating in the murder of her husband, Ms. Trail would be prohibited by law from receiving any proceeds from those policies.22 Furthermore, the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion did not substantially outweigh the probative value of the circuit court's reading of the Slayer Statute. As made evident above, it was necessary to read the statute to place in perspective Ms. Trail's assertions that she had received no proceeds from the insurance policies. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the circuit court's reading of the Slayer Statute.23

D. Prosecutor's Use of the Theme of "Atonement" During Mercy Phase Closing Argument

Ms. Trail next argues that the circuit court erred by allowing the prosecuting attorney to imply, during his mercy phase closing argument, that a finding of no mercy would bring atonement for the victim of an unrelated crime committed by Ms. Trail.24 The State contends that it merely adopted the defense theme of atonement in making its closing.

This Court has held that

Syl. pt. 6, State v. Sugg, 193 W.Va. 388, 456 S.E.2d 469 (1995). However, we need not apply the Sugg factors in this instance because we do not find the prosecutor's comments were prejudicial.

During the mercy phase opening statement by Ms. Trail's counsel, the following relevant comments were made:

(Emphasis added).

It is clear from this passage that the issue of atonement was interjected into the proceeding by the defense. To the extent that the prosecution then echoed the theme of atonement when it summarized the aggravating factors for showing no mercy, the defense opened the door to that theme and will not be heard to complain now. See Syl. pt. 4, State v. Mann, 205 W.Va. 303, 518 S.E.2d 60 (1999) ("A judgment will not be reversed for any error in the record introduced by or invited by the party seeking reversal." (internal citations omitted)). Cf. Syl. pt. 2, State v. Bowman, 155 W.Va. 562, 184 S.E.2d 314 (1971) ("An appellant or plaintiff in error will not be permitted to complain of error in the admission of evidence which he offered or elicited, and this is true even of a defendant in a criminal case.").25 Consequently, we find no error.

E. Prosecutorial Statements

Ms. Trail next complains that the circuit court erred by permitting the Prosecutor to make statements to the jury improperly implying that Ms. Trail mismanaged her credit cards and her husband was looking at her bank accounts.26 The State responds that the comment was fleeting and was supported by the evidence.27

Our review of the complained of statements, which were made during the State's guilt phase closing argument, quickly revealed that this issue was not preserved for appellate review.28 Following the complained of comment by the prosecuting attorney, the following exchange is reflected in the record:

Following this dialog, Mr. Blevins resumed his closing argument.

The above excerpt shows that defense counsel began to object, but was stopped by the trial court and invited to approach the bench to assert his objection and provide the grounds therefor. Significantly, defense counsel did not accept the trial court's invitation and the State's closing argument resumed with no objection to the statement herein challenged. Because there was no objection, there is no accompanying ruling by the trial court for our review. As this Court previously has explained:

State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294, 316, 470 S.E.2d 613, 635 (1996). This Court also has made clear that,

State ex rel. Cooper v. Caperton, 196 W.Va. 208, 216, 470 S.E.2d 162, 170 (1996) (citation omitted). See also Syl. pt. 3, O'Neal v. Peake Operating Co., 185 W.Va. 28, 404 S.E.2d 420 (1991) ("`Where objections were not shown to have been made in the trial court, and the matters concerned were not jurisdictional in character, such objections will not be considered on appeal.'" (citation omitted)); Syl. pt. 1, State Rd. Comm'n v. Ferguson, 148 W.Va. 742, 137 S.E.2d 206 (1964) (same). Because this issue was not preserved by the assertion of a proper objection at trial, we decline to address the same.

F. Admission of Summary Chart

Ms. Trail next complains that the circuit court erred by admitting into evidence a chart that summarized all of the insurance policies on Chester Trail's life. She contends that, because the summary chart was improperly admitted into evidence, the jury was allowed to have possession of the chart during its deliberations. She complains that the chart was not entirely accurate29 and was, therefore, misleading. In addition, Ms. Trail complains that the chart failed to identify the person who purchased each policy. The State responds that the trial court's admission of the summary chart was proper.

Although the use of summaries is governed by Rule 1006 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, we cannot apply that Rule to the facts of this case for a simple reason; Ms. Trail has failed to direct this Court to the portion of the record containing her objection to the admission of the summary chart. Pursuant to Rule 10(c)(7) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure, the argument section of the petitioner's brief "must contain appropriate and specific citations to the record on appeal, including citations that pinpoint when and how the issues in the assignments of error were presented to the lower tribunal. The Court may disregard errors that are not adequately supported by specific references to the record on appeal." (Emphasis added). This Court previously has found issues asserted on appeal to have been waived as a result of a petitioner's failure to comply with Rule 10(c)(7). See, e.g., Evans v. United Bank, Inc., 235 W.Va. 619, ___, 775 S.E.2d 500, 510 (2015) (observing that petitioners' argument failed to meet requirements of Rule 10(c)(7), and concluding, therefore, "the issue has been waived for purposes of appeal."). Even before the adoption of Rule 10(c)(7), this Court required an error to be preserved on the record in order to avoid waiver. See Caperton, 196 W.Va. 208, 216, 470 S.E.2d 162, 170 ("The rule in West Virginia is that parties must speak clearly in the circuit court, on pain that, if they forget their lines, they will likely be bound forever to hold their peace."); LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294, 316, 470 S.E.2d 613, 635 ("One of the most familiar procedural rubrics in the administration of justice is the rule that the failure of a litigant to assert a right in the trial court likely will result in the imposition of a procedural bar to an appeal of that issue." (quotations and citations omitted)); Syl. pt. 3, O'Neal v. Peake Operating Co., 185 W.Va. 28, 404 S.E.2d 420 (1991) ("`Where objections were not shown to have been made in the trial court, and the matters concerned were not jurisdictional in character, such objections will not be considered on appeal.'" (citation omitted)); Syl. pt. 1, Ferguson, 148 W.Va. 742, 137 S.E.2d 206 (same).

Because of Ms. Trail's failure to direct this Court to the portion of the record containing her objection to the admission of the summary chart, we deem this issue waived.

G. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Ms. Trail next argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant her motion for acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of guilty. The State contends the evidence was sufficient.

In addressing this issue, we are mindful that

Syl. pt. 1, State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995): The trial court bore a similar duty in addressing Ms. Trail's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

Syl. pt. 2, LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294, 470 S.E.2d 613. Finally, we observe the cumbrous task undertaken by a criminal defendant attempting to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence:

Syl. pt. 3, Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163.

Upon a careful review of Ms. Trail's argument it becomes apparent that she does not challenge the absence of evidence to establish her guilt. Rather, she challenges the weight afforded that evidence by the jury. Her primary complaints are that the jury accepted the testimony of Ms. Trail's nephew, Gregory Whittington, in spite of strong evidence challenging his veracity, and the jury accepted the State's theory that her crime was motivated by her desire to obtain the proceeds of the various insurance policies covering her husband's life. The circuit court rejected this argument finding there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. The circuit court commented:

We find no error.

Ms. Trail asks this Court to consider the sterile appellate record and decide that the jury made improper credibility determinations. Such a review is not a legitimate function of this Court. See Syl. pt. 2, State v. Martin, 224 W.Va. 577, 687 S.E.2d 360 (2009) ("The jury is the trier of the facts and in performing that duty it is the sole judge as to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses." (internal quotations and citation omitted)); Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 669, 461 S.E.2d 163, 175 ("It is well established that appellate review is not a device for this Court to replace a jury's finding with our own conclusion. On review, we will not weigh evidence or determine credibility."); Id., 194 W.Va. at 670 n. 9, 461 S.E.2d at 176 n. 9 ("An appellate court may not decide the credibility of witnesses or weigh evidence as that is the exclusive function and task of the trier of fact.... It is for the jury to decide which witnesses to believe or disbelieve. Once the jury has spoken, this Court may not review the credibility of the witnesses."); Syl. pt. 2, State v. Bailey, 151 W.Va. 796, 155 S.E.2d 850 (1967) ("The jury is the trier of the facts and in performing that duty it is the sole judge as to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses."); Syl. pt. 1, State v. Harlow, 137 W.Va. 251, 71 S.E.2d 330 (1952) ("In the trial of a criminal prosecution, where guilt or innocence depends on conflicting evidence, the weight and credibility of the testimony of any witness is for jury determination.").

In this case the jury heard Gregory Whittington testify that Ms. Trail hired him to murder her husband. The jury also was presented with ample evidence of Gregory Whittington's propensity to lie. It was the jury's role to weigh this evidence and to decide the credibility of Gregory Whittington's testimony. It was also for the jury to weigh the evidence of the insurance policies as a source of motive.30 The jury heard the conflicting testimony and ultimately found Ms. Trail guilty of murder in the first degree. This Court will not disturb weight and credibility determinations made by the jury.31

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out in the body of this opinion, the orders of the Circuit Court of Lincoln County upholding Ms. Trail's conviction of murder in the first degree and imposing a sentence of life in prison without mercy are affirmed.

Affirmed.