State v. Davis
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---State of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Kendal Jacob Davis, Defendant and Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20050075-CA F I L E D (March 16, 2006) 2006 UT App 101 ----Third District, Salt Lake Department, 041902269 The Honorable J. Dennis Frederick Attorneys: Linda M. Jones and Lisa J. Remal, Salt Lake City, for Appellant Mark L. Shurtleff and Christine Soltis, Salt Lake City, for Appellee ----- Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Thorne. BENCH, Presiding Judge: Defendant Kendal Davis appeals a conviction of burglary, a second-degree felony, in violation of Utah Code section 76-6-202. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-202 (2003). Davis contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. This court will uphold a jury verdict unless "the evidence[, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict,] is so inconclusive or inherently improbable that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime." State v. Gonzales, 2000 UT App 136,¶10, 2 P.3d 954 (quotations and citation 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, [the appellate court's] inquiry stops." State v. Brooker, 709 P.2d 342, 345 (Utah 1985). The jury convicted Davis pursuant to section 76-6-202(1)(c), which provides that "[a]n actor is guilty of burglary if he enters or remains unlawfully in a building or any portion of a building with intent to commit: . . . (c) an assault on any person." Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-202(1)(c). Davis specifically asserts that the evidence did not support a finding that he had the intent to commit an assault. The Utah Supreme Court has held "that a person is guilty of burglary under section 76-6-202(1) if he forms the intent to commit a felony, theft, or assault at the time he unlawfully enters a building or at any time thereafter while he continues to remain there unlawfully." State v. Rudolph, 970 P.2d 1221, 1229 (Utah 1998). Therefore, even if Davis did not have the requisite intent upon entering the home, the evidence supports a finding that he formed the intent to assault thereafter when he stomped on Ken's foot.1 Davis argues that because Ken physically stopped him from escaping, Davis could lawfully respond with force. We find no basis in the law to support this argument. Thus, the evidence is sufficient for a conviction of burglary with the intent to commit assault pursuant to Utah Code section 76-6-202. Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ Russell W. Bench, Presiding Judge ----WE CONCUR: ______________________________ James Z. Davis, Judge ______________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Judge 1 The State points to other plausible evidence to support the conviction. In particular, the State asserts that the evidence supports a finding of intent to commit an assault on Alyssa. Because we conclude that Davis's actions in regards to Ken established the requisite intent, we do not need to consider this alternate argument. 20050075-CA 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
