Summary 2007 WY 26

Summary of Decision issued February 13, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Mendoza v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 26

Docket Number: 05-218

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, the Honorable Wade Waldrip, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Ken Koski, State Public Defender, PDP; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Leda M. Pojman, Assistant Attorney General.

Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to have found that Appellant knowingly stabbed the victim.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant contended that the evidence presented at his trial was not sufficient to sustain his conviction for the crime of aggravated assault and battery in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-502(a)(ii).
In addressing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, the Court must determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
The crux of Appellant’s argument is that the stabbing occurred accidentally during a bar brawl and there was no evidence from which the jury could conclude that he acted “knowingly”. The Court reviewed the facts the jury could have relied upon in reaching its verdict. The Court concluded the evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant and furthermore that that conclusion did not rely on improper inferences.

Holding: After a careful examination of the evidence in the light most favorable to the State’s position, the Court concluded the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that Appellant was guilty of aggravated assault and battery. It was not necessary for the jury to rely on improper inferences in reaching that conclusion.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yv2m79 .