Case Title: JORGE MENDOZA V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2006-02-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
JORGE MENDOZA V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2007 WY 26151 P.3d 1112Case Number: 05-222Decided: 02/13/2006
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2006

 
 
JORGE 
MENDOZA,

 
 
Appellant

(Defendant),

 
 
v.

 
 
THE 
STATE OF WYOMING,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff).

 
 

Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofCarbonCounty

The 
Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Kenneth 
M. Koski, State Public Defender; and Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate 
Counsel

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Patrick 
J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. 
Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Leda M. Pojman, 
Assistant Attorney General

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 

HILL, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1]      Appellant, Jorge 
Mendoza (Mendoza), contends that the evidence presented at his trial is 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) (LexisNexis 2005).1  We will 
affirm.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      Mendoza posits this 
issue:

 
 
Sufficient 
evidence does not exist to support [the] 
conviction.

 
 
The 
State responds that there is sufficient evidence for the jury to have found that 
Mendoza 
knowingly stabbed Troy Garcia (Garcia).

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶3]      In addressing a 
claim of insufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether any rational 
trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a 
reasonable doubt.  When considering 
a claim of the sufficiency of the evidence, we review that evidence with the 
assumption that the evidence of the prevailing party is true, disregard the 
evidence favoring the unsuccessful party, and give the prevailing party the 
benefit of every favorable inference that we may reasonably draw from the 
evidence.  We will not reweigh the 
evidence nor will we re-examine the credibility of the witnesses.  Perritt v. State, 2005 WY 121, ¶ 9, 
120 P.3d 181, 186 (Wyo. 2005).

 
 
FACTS 
AND DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶4]      The elements of 
the crime at issue were presented to the jury in Instruction No. 
5:

 
 
The 
elements of the crime of Aggravated Assault and Battery, as charged in this case, 
are:

 
 
            
1.  On or about the 24th day 
of April, 2004

 
 
            
2.  In the County of 
Carbon, and State of Wyoming

 
 
            
3.  The Defendant, Jorge Mendoza

 
 
            
4.  Knowingly caused

 
 
            
5.  Bodily injury to Troy Garcia

 
 
            
6.  With a deadly weapon.

 
 
If you 
find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these elements has 
been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the Defendant 
guilty.

            
If, on the other hand, you find from your consideration of all the 
evidence that any of these elements has not been proved beyond a reasonable 
doubt, then you should find the Defendant not 
guilty.

 
 
[¶5]      "Knowingly" was 
defined in Instruction No. 6:

 
 
            
An act is done knowingly if the defendant is aware of the act and does 
not act through ignorance, mistake or 
accident.  The State is not 
required to prove that the defendant knew that his acts or omissions were 
unlawful.  You may consider evidence 
of the defendant's words, acts, or omissions, along with all the other evidence, 
in deciding whether the defendant acted knowingly.  [Emphasis 
added.]

 
 
[¶6]      On April 24, 
2004, Mendoza 
was involved in a fight at Mike's Big City Bar in Rawlins.  Mendoza was 19 years old.  He had been denied entrance to that bar 
because he was underage but, after entering through a back door, he was kicked 
out of the bar just before the fight at issue broke out.  Some evidence suggests Mendoza may have started 
the fight, but that is not an especially pertinent part of the story.  Mendoza 
was born in Rawlins and at various times lived there, in Las 
Vegas, Nevada; Greeley, Colorado; and 
Riverton.

 
 
[¶7]      The crux of 
Mendoza's 
argument is that the stabbing occurred accidentally during a bar brawl and there 
is no evidence from which the jury could conclude that he acted 
"knowingly."  In this regard, in 
addition to the "knowingly" instruction recited above, we take note that a 
series of five self defense instructions were provided to the jury that made it 
clear that the State had to prove that Mendoza did not act in "self defense."  Moreover, Mendoza contends that a finding of guilt relies 
upon an "inference upon an inference:"

 
 
Mr. 
Mendoza argues that the record establishes that the only way the jury could have 
convicted him was by placing impermissible inference upon impermissible 
inference.  The impermissible 
inference being that Mr. Mendoza knowingly caused bodily injury based on Mr. 
Garcia, who was wearing a white shirt, having an injury and Mr. Mendoza 
admitting having the knife and possibly coming into contact with someone who was 
wearing a white shirt who fell against him.  There is no logical way to reach that 
conclusion without drawing an impermissible inference upon an impermissible 
inference.

 
 

[¶8]      The essence of 
the rule relied upon by Mendoza is the requirement that there must be 
some connection between the proven fact and the inference drawn from it.  See Mora v. State, 984 P.2d 477, 481 
(Wyo. 1999).2

 
 
[¶9]      Against this 
background, we set out the facts that the jury could have relied upon in 
reaching its verdict.  Unlike the 
recitation of the facts provided by Mendoza, we recite only those facts that we 
permit ourselves to consider under the applicable standard of review.  Rawlins Police Detective Michael 
Picerno, as well as other police officers, testified that they were called to 
Mike's Big City Bar at 1:05 a.m. on April 24, 2004.  Early on in the investigation, Detective 
Picerno talked with Mendoza.  
Mendoza 
told Picerno that he had been removed from the bar by the owner for being 
underage, and was removed for a second time after he entered the bar through a 
back door.  At that time, the owner 
of the bar also asked Mendoza's family members to leave (because they 
had let him in through a back door).  
Very shortly after that, Mendoza and several members of his family, 
along with a half dozen or so other bar patrons, got involved in a fight.  Mendoza was afraid, so he took out his knife 
and prepared himself to use it.  
Mendoza 
denied actually using the knife but told Picerno that one of the persons 
involved in the fight fell on him and may have come into contact with the 
knife.  Mendoza only described 
that person as "wearing a white shirt."  
Mendoza's 
knife was found at the scene and it had blood on it.  Mendoza admitted that the knife found at the 
scene was his.  No other knife was 
recovered at the scene of the fight nor were any other knives seen by any of the 
others involved in the fight or those who witnessed the 
fight.

 
 
[¶10]   Troy Garcia was one of the people 
involved in the fight.  He was 
wearing a white undershirt and white polo shirt.  He was in the same area of the fight as 
Mendoza.  He suffered a puncture wound to the 
abdomen.  All persons at the scene 
were checked for wounds and only Garcia had suffered such a wound.  He was the only person in Rawlins who 
was treated at the Rawlins hospital for a puncture wound during that time 
period.

 
 
[¶11]   Louis Mendoza, Jr., brother to 
Jorge Mendoza, the Appellant in this case, was questioned at the scene by Police 
Officer Castilleja.  Castilleja 
related that Louis, Jr., stated "that if his brother had stabbed anybody, that 
he would take the heat for it."  
Officer Castilleja also testified that the victim, Troy Garcia, accused 
Cain Cabello of stabbing him.  
Later, when Garcia was at the hospital, Cain showed up there, protesting 
that he had not stabbed Garcia.  The 
bouncer from the bar testified about the fight in general and, in particular, 
that Cain Cabello did not appear to be involved in it.  This testimony was also corroborated by 
Nicole Zink.  The bouncer also 
testified that he tried to protect a person who was taking the brunt of the 
fight, and that person was Troy Garcia.

 
 
[¶12]   Troy Garcia testified that before 
and during the fight he was drunk and angry.  It was only after the fight had subsided 
that Garcia realized he had been stabbed.  
He did not know when it happened or who might have done it.  He vaguely remembered falling down to 
the ground with some other people, although he was not sure who, and that his 
stab wound could have occurred then.  
Garcia did not remember seeing Mendoza at all that night.  Garcia was transported to the Rawlins 
hospital where he was treated for his stab wound.

 
 
[¶13]   Kandi Cisneros testified that it 
was Mendoza who threw the first punch, starting the big fight/melee that 
followed.  He hit Nicole Zink and 
soon all three, Mendoza, Cisneros, and Zink, were on the ground fighting.  Garcia was in the same group as Cisneros 
and Zink.  However, Cisneros did not 
actually see Garcia fighting with Mendoza.  
The only person she saw Garcia fighting with was Cain 
Cabello.

 
 
[¶14]   David Cesko, M.D., Garcia's 
treating physician, testified that he had considerable experience treating stab 
wounds and that the wound suffered by Garcia was an in-and-out stab wound.  The stab wound suffered by Garcia took 
considerable force so as to penetrate clothing, skin, fat, muscle, the abdominal 
cavity, and leave bruising at the wound site.  However, he continued on cross 
examination, it was possible that the wound could have resulted from Garcia 
falling onto the knife.  The wound 
was consistent with the knife found at the scene and which belonged to Mendoza.

 
 
[¶15]   Linda Oderhsatter, a forensic 
scientist at the State Crime Laboratory, testified that the tear in Garcia's 
shirt was from a cut/stab action and not tearing.

 
 
[¶16]   A portion of a letter written by 
Mendoza and 
copied by personnel at the Carbon County Jail was read for the 
jury:

 
 
            
Okay.  This [is] what 
happened after I got kicked out.  My 
dad and Louie came out maybe five minutes after that.  Three guys and, like, two or three girls 
came outside after Louie and my dad.  
And some guy in red said to Louie, you got a problem?  And that's when I got hella hot.  My dad didn't want to  want me to 
go.  He was holding me back, and I 
was, like, let me go, let me go.  
After two minutes, maybe, he did.  
The fight did not happen right away.  Louie said he didn't have a problem, 
because this is Rawlins, the cops will be here quick.  And the next thing I know the guys hit 
Louie and Louie swang back and then two guys started swinging at me.  I hit both of them but didn't do shit 
because when I was socking one, another one hit me and plus they are a lot 
bigger than me and Louie put together.  
And after that happened, one got off me and started hitting Louie.  I was scared hella scared and I pulled 
my knife out.  I was going to use it 
in self-defense.  I didn't have 
anything on my [mind] about killing anybody.  I pulled it out  about.  I had no choice.  Nobody seen the knife in my hand, 
because it was on the side of my hip.  
And after I pulled it out, I was, like, I don't want to use this, but 
like I said, I didn't have any other choice anyways.  I was going to put it away and that's 
when I got socked by one or both of the guys and I was dazed.  And then someone fell on me, someone in 
a white shirt, I'm guessing the guy that went to the hospital.  My dad was just trying to break it up, 
because if he hit someone, he would of [sic] put someone in the hospital.  One of the girls said that he hit her 
but that's bullshit, because I seen my dad fight.  He would of [sic] put that girl in a 
coma or worse.

 
 
[¶17]   Finally, evidence was presented 
that Louis Mendoza, Jr., apparently picked up the knife that his brother had 
pulled out during the fight and concealed that knife, along with his shirt, 
under the tire of a nearby car.

 
 
[¶18]   We conclude that the evidence was 
sufficient to convict Mendoza, and furthermore that that conclusion 
does not rely on improper inferences.  
Mendoza 
admitted that he pulled out his knife with the intent to use it in the fight, if 
necessary.  His was the only knife 
identified at the scene and an effort was made to conceal it from discovery, 
albeit by Mendoza's brother.  Mendoza stated to police that he thought a 
person in a white shirt might have "come in contact" with his knife.  The only person wearing a white shirt 
that night was Garcia and he was, in fact, stabbed.  The stab wound was consistent with an 
in-and-out stabbing, but not an accidental cut.  Moreover, we conclude that had Garcia 
actually fallen on the knife, the jury would not have been required to view that 
as an "accident."  Rather, it could 
have been viewed as a foreseeable result of pulling out a dangerous weapon such 
as a knife under circumstances like those that presented themselves during the 
early morning hours of April 24, 2004.

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶19]   After a careful examination of the 
evidence in the light most favorable to the State's position, we conclude that 
the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that Mendoza was guilty of 
aggravated assault and battery.  It 
was not necessary for the jury to rely upon improper inferences in reaching that 
conclusion.  The judgment and 
sentence of the district court is affirmed in all 
respects.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1§ 6-2-502. 
Aggravated assault and battery;  
penalty

            
(a)  A person is guilty 
of aggravated assault and battery if he:

(i)  Causes serious bodily injury to another intentionally, 
knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to 
the value of human life;

(ii)  Attempts to 
cause, or intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a 
deadly weapon;

(iii)  Threatens to use a drawn deadly weapon on another unless 
reasonably necessary in defense of his person, property or abode or to prevent 
serious bodily injury to another;  
or

(iv)  Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily 
injury to a woman whom he knows is pregnant.

            
(b)  Aggravated assault and battery is a felony punishable by 
imprisonment for not more than ten (10) years. {Emphases 
added.]

 
 

2Mendoza also calls our attention 
to the case Eagan v. State, 58 
Wyo. 167, 128 P.2d 215 (Wyo. 1942).  The principle articulated in that case 
has no application in the instant circumstances.  See, e.g., Butcher v. State, 2005 WY 146, 
¶¶ 25-27, 123 P.3d 543, 551 (Wyo. 
2005).