Moreover, defendant's actions occurred when Dilworth, unconscious and already severely injured from being hit in the head with a table leg, was defenseless and unable to protect his head or fight back. Given the severity of the assault, coupled with Dilworth's condition at the time, the evidence was sufficient to allow reasonable minds to conclude that defendant had an intent to kill. The trial court properly denied defendant's Crim. To support defendant's felonious assault conviction, the state was required to prove that the defendant knowingly caused serious physical harm to Dilworth. Because the evidence already noted was more than sufficient to allow any rational fact finder to conclude that the state had sustained its burden, the trial court properly denied defendant's Crim.
Defendant also challenges the verdict as against the manifest weight of the evidence.
When presented with a manifest weight argument, we engage in a limited weighing of the evidence to determine whether the jury's verdict is supported by sufficient competent, credible evidence to permit reasonable minds to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. No. 93AP-387, unreported. Determinations of credibility and weight of the testimony remain within the province of the trier of fact. In response to the state's evidence, defendant testified to a different version of the incident. Resolution of the discrepancies, however, is a credibility determination within the province of the jury.