State of Utah v. Howell

State of Utah v. Howell, Case No. 991050-CA, Filed December 14, 2000 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS   ----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Martha Jane Howell,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 991050-CA

F I L E D
December 14, 2000 2000 UT App 349 -----

Third District, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Leon A. Dever

Attorneys:
Catherine E. Lilly and David V. Finlayson, Salt Lake City, for Appellant
Jan Graham, Scott Keith Wilson, and C. Dane Nolan, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Thorne.

BENCH, Judge:

Defendant Martha Howell argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict, alleging there was insufficient evidence to warrant a conviction of aggravated assault because of her self-defense claim. We have stated on previous occasions that "[a] challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence presents the defendant with a heavy burden. [She] must first marshal all the evidence supporting the jury's verdict and then demonstrate how this evidence, even viewed in the most favorable light, is insufficient to support the verdict." State v. Strain, 885 P.2d 810, 819 (Utah Ct. App. 1994).

Defendant attempts to meet this burden by listing the evidence that supports the jury's verdict. However, Defendant fails to show how this evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, is still insufficient. Instead, Defendant presents the evidence contrary to the jury's verdict and alleges that inferences derived from that evidence lead to a conclusion that Defendant acted in self-defense.

The evidence Defendant claims is insufficient to support the conviction is witness accounts of the events that transpired. Rather than showing how this testimonial evidence fails to support the jury verdict, Defendant simply points to contradictory testimony to question the veracity of the witnesses whose testimony supports the conviction. The existence of conflicting testimony alone "is not grounds for reversal." State v. Buel, 700 P.2d 701, 703 (Utah 1985). It is the duty of the jury, not this court, to weigh the evidence and assess witness credibility. See State v. Lamm, 606 P.2d 229, 231 (Utah 1980). We "'assume that the jury believed the evidence and inferences that support the verdict.'" State v. Chaney, 1999 UT App 309,¶30, 989 P.2d 1091 (citation omitted).

We reverse a criminal conviction "'only when the evidence is so inconclusive or so inherently improbable that "reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt" that the defendant committed the crime.'" Strain, 885 P.2d at 819 (citations omitted). "So long as there is some evidence, including reasonable inferences, from which findings of all the requisite elements of the crime can reasonably be made, our inquiry stops." State v. Booker, 709 P.2d 342, 345 (Utah 1985). After reviewing the evidence in this case in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence such that the jury could reasonably disbelieve Defendant's self-defense claim. Therefore, we defer to the jury's assessment of witness credibility and its rejection of Defendant's self-defense claim.

Defendant's conviction is affirmed.
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge -----

WE CONCUR:
 
 
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge
 
 
 

______________________________
William A. Thorne, Jr., Judge