Opinion ID: 1189686
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Defendant was convicted of first degree murder as defined in section 76-5-202(1)(b) of the Utah Code. That provision reads: (1) Criminal homicide constitutes murder in the first degree if the actor intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another under any of the following circumstances: (a) .... (b) The homicide was committed incident to one act, scheme, course of conduct, or criminal episode during which two or more persons are killed. Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the existence of the aggravating circumstance in paragraph (b) of section 76-5-202(1). He insists that the entire fight lasted only minutes and therefore no evidence supported the existence of a plan, scheme or criminal objective to kill Shayne and Don Newingham. Defendant also contends that the criminal episode provision applies only to single defendants committing a series of criminal offenses. If this were the case, the provision would be inapplicable because the jury acquitted defendant of the murder of Shayne Newingham. We reject these arguments. When a jury verdict is challenged on the ground that the evidence is insufficient, we review the evidence and all inferences which may be reasonably drawn from it in the light most favorable to the verdict of the jury. State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 236 (Utah 1992). We will not reverse a conviction unless the evidence, so viewed, is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime of which he was convicted. Id. On the evidence, a jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant murdered Don Newingham incident to one ... criminal episode during which two or more persons [were] killed. Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-202(1)(b). To convict under the criminal-episode portion of section 76-5-202(1)(b), the jury must have concluded that (1) the conduct giving rise to the deaths of Shayne and Don Newingham was closely related in time, and (2) the conduct was incident to an attempt or an accomplishment of a single criminal objective. The evidence supports the jury verdict. Defendant concedes that the fighting lasted about five minutes. Therefore, the conduct giving rise to the deaths of Shayne and Don Newingham was closely related in time. See generally State v. Valdez, 748 P.2d 1050, 1052, 1054 (Utah 1987) (two homicides committed during a ninety-minute period held to be part of one criminal episode). However, contrary to defendant's contention, the definition of criminal episode does not require that the criminal objective be murder. In this case, defendant brandished a large-bladed knife and ordered a reluctant Don Newingham to leave the premises. Flanked by some fifteen to twenty other individuals, defendant and Gabaldon followed Don to the car, where Gabaldon struck him in the face. When Don fought back, defendant jumped on his back and stabbed him to death. The single criminal objective in these assaults was group action to remove two uninvited guests from Gabaldon's residence by means of unlawful and violent force, which could have, and did, result in the intentional deaths of two persons. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-5-102, 76-5-103. [9] Finally, there is no requirement that a defendant kill the two or more persons referred to in section 76-5-202(1)(b) or that a defendant kill one person and be a party to the murder of the others. The killings must occur during one act, scheme, course of conduct, or criminal episode, but the defendant need only be responsible for one of them. This is the case here. During the above-described criminal episode, defendant stabbed Don Newingham four times, killing him. During or within minutes of this act, Shayne Newingham suffered multiple stab wounds which caused his death. Thus, defendant caused the death of Don Newingham incident to one ... criminal episode during which two or more persons [were] killed. Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-202(1)(b). From the record, we cannot conclude that the evidence is so inconclusive or inherently improbable that reasonable minds would have entertained a reasonable doubt that defendant committed first degree murder in violation of section 76-5-202(1)(b). The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict.