Opinion ID: 1669274
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of evidence/second-degree murder

Text: Wilcox's last argument is that evidence was insufficient to support a conviction under SDCL 22-16-9, the South Dakota second-degree murder statute. SDCL 22-16-9 provides: Homicide is murder in the second degree when perpetrated without any design to effect death by a person engaged in the commission of any felony other than as provided in § 22-16-4. Here, the evidence supports killing, without design to effect death, in the commission of felony child abuse (of which Wilcox was also convicted). Wilcox's briefing, on this issue, consists of one very short paragraph and propounds that this Court's decision turns on the admissibility of Hallauer's testimony. The brief states: If that testimony was erroneously admitted, then the evidence to sustain the conviction is insufficient. This Court has, by this decision, determined that Hallauer's statement was admissible. However, we shall not determine the merit of this issue on the statements of Wilcox's brief. We note that Wilcox does argue, by approximately one and one-half pages, this issue in his reply brief. Wilcox concedes that his contention, on this insufficiency of evidence argument, is very limited in scope. He again reminds us that this issue, according to him, is controlled by this Court's determination of the admission of Hallauer's testimony. He ventures one step further, we note, by stating: If this Court finds the hearsay statement by Sheena Johnson admissible, Appellant concedes that the evidence then would meet the sufficiency test applied by a reviewing court. Notwithstanding our ruling, and notwithstanding his admission, we nonetheless determine that there is a sufficiency of evidence to sustain the second-degree murder conviction. Our scope of review on a challenge to a sufficiency of evidence, was again recently set forth in State v. Bartlett, 411 N.W.2d 411, 412 (S.D.1987), wherein we expressed: In determining the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal in a criminal case the issue before this court is whether there is evidence in the record which, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [I]n making such a determination this Court will accept that evidence and the most reasonable inferences that can be fairly drawn therefrom, which will support the verdict. .... (citations omitted) We do not resolve any conflicts of evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses. State v. Battest, 295 N.W.2d 739 (S.D. 1980). Questions of credibility and weight of the evidence are for the jury. State v. Blakey, 332 N.W.2d 729 (S.D.1983). Wilcox maintained, at the hospital, that the child had fallen down a flight of stairs. Testimony from lay witnesses and medical experts belie this statement. Accidental injury, such as Wilcox advanced, was disbelieved by the jury. It is obvious that the injuries, which this child sustained, were inconsistent with a fall down a flight of stairs. This case falls squarely within those cases involving the battered child syndrome, a disgrace to civilized society. Rarely are there witnesses to the battered child syndrome episodes and factual scenarios. These attacks are so cowardly that they are hidden from parents and associates of children. Here, however, we find one witness who actually saw these brutal blows struck upon this child's little body. We have, then, direct evidence, as distinguished from circumstantial evidence, in the case under consideration. We hold that there was ample testimony in the record sufficient to support a conclusion that Wilcox delivered a fatal blow which caused Sheena Johnson's death. Medical testimony stands uncontradicted that the cause of death was the rupture of the duodenum with resulting peritonitis and septic shock. At least three separate injuries, per the medical experts, were inflicted to the duodenum. Doctors Randall and Ophoven both gave their medical opinion that the fatal injury occurred as a result of a severe blow to the abdomen. Obviously, the jury sustained its finding of guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, based upon all of the testimony submitted to them. We refuse to tamper with this finding of guilt. Accordingly, we reject argument IV of Wilcox's and affirm his conviction of second-degree murder. Affirmed. WUEST, C.J., and MORGAN and MILLER, JJ., concur. SABERS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.