Opinion ID: 6350761
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: [1,2] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to ­support a conviction, the relevant question for an appellate court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a - 290 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. WORTHMAN Cite as 311 Neb. 284 reasonable doubt. 1 Whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, the standard is the same: An appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact. 2 [3,4] In a criminal case, a motion for new trial is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and unless an abuse of discretion is shown, the trial court’s determination will not be disturbed. 3 An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence. 4