Sufficiency of the Evidence Eggert argues that the eyewitness-identification evidence presented to the jury was unreliable and insufficient as a matter of law to support his conviction. He contends that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the person who committed the offense. In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence in a criminal case, this court determines whether, under the facts in the record and any legitimate inferences that can be drawn from them, a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the conviction and assume the jury believed the state s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence. We will not set aside a verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the necessity to overcome that presumption by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably have concluded that the defendant was guilty.
Identification is a question of fact for the jury to determine.
Guthrie spent time with Eggert inside the bar, went outside with him to talk, watched Geisthardt walk some distance away, and was talking with Eggert when the first blow was struck. Other witnesses who viewed the photo display identified Eggert as the person who was talking with Guthrie in the bar before the attack. At trial, Guthrie identified Eggert as his assailant with absolutely no doubt. The jury could reasonably conclude from this evidence that Eggert committed the offense. Eggert argues that Dunbar s testimony is suspect because she did not mention until trial that he told her that he was going to beat up Guthrie and take his money.