United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-3376

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Stanley Blake Morrison

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Pierre

____________

 Submitted: May 16, 2014

Filed: May 22, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Stanley Blake Morrison of one count of assault resulting in

serious bodily injury, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(6) and 1153. Morrison
appeals from the district court’s1

 denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. We

affirm.

On January 3, 2013, Gerald Condon left a party at his cousin’s residence in

Eagle Butte, South Dakota, and drove to Morrison’s home, which was located nearby. 

Shortly thereafter, Condon returned to his cousin’s residence. Condon’s face was

bleeding and his clothing and car seat were wet with blood. The bleeding did not

subside, and Condon was taken to a hospital.

The indictment charged Morrison with assaulting Condon. At trial, Condon

testified that Morrison had struck him twice, causing injuries to his face and chest. 

The district court denied Morrison’s motions for judgment of acquittal at the close of

the government’s case-in-chief and at the close of all of the evidence. Following the

entry of the guilty verdict, Morrison was sentenced to 37 months’ imprisonment. 

Morrison contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction

and that the district court therefore erred in denying his motion for judgment of

acquittal. “We review denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal de novo.” United

States v. Stroud, 673 F.3d 854, 861 (8th Cir. 2012). “In reviewing the denial of a

motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence, we consider

the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and reverse only if no rational

fact finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United

States v. Seibel, 712 F.3d 1229, 1236 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Kirkie,

261 F.3d 761, 768 (8th Cir. 2001)).

Morrison challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the ground that the only

evidence presented by the government to support the verdict was Condon’s

1

The Honorable Roberto A. Lange, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota.

-2-
uncorroborated testimony. But “a victim’s testimony alone can be sufficient to

support a guilty verdict.” United States v. Kenyon, 397 F.3d 1071, 1076 (8th Cir.

2005). To the extent that Morrison argues that the government failed to present

physical evidence of the assault from the crime scene, we note that the lack of physical

evidence does not warrant overturning Morrison’s conviction. See Kirkie, 261 F.3d

at 768 (concluding that a lack of physical evidence did not demonstrate insufficient

evidence because “[e]ven if the jury relied only on the testimony of the victim herself,

there would be sufficient evidence to support the convictions”); see also United States

v. Keys, 721 F.3d 512, 519 (8th Cir. 2013) (“[I]n reviewing a defendant’s challenge

to the sufficiency of the evidence, ‘[w]itness testimony . . . does not need to be

corroborated.’” (second and third alterations in original) (quoting United States v.

Perez, 663 F.3d 387, 391 (8th Cir. 2011))). Further, any argument that Condon’s

testimony was not credible or that it was not corroborated by independent evidence

is not within the scope of our review, as we do not weigh the evidence or consider the

credibility of witnesses in reviewing the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal. 

See Seibel, 712 F.3d at 1237; see also United States v. Malloy, 614 F.3d 852, 861 (8th

Cir. 2010) (holding that the defendant’s arguments that the witnesses who testified

were not credible and that their testimony was uncorroborated were not reviewable

because they involved questions reserved for the jury); United States v. Carpenter, 422

F.3d 738, 746 (8th Cir. 2005) (“While corroborating evidence can support the

testimony of witnesses, the cases relied on by [the defendant] do not hold that witness

testimony must be corroborated. Rather, the credibility of witnesses is for the jury to

evaluate.” (citations omitted)). Taken in the light most favorable to the verdict, the

evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-