Opinion ID: 2083536
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: In a related argument, defendant argues that the evidence presented by the State was not sufficient to support a verdict of first degree murder. Defendant argues that the evidence in this case could support only a verdict of involuntary manslaughter, not first degree murder. If the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support first degree murder, the conviction should be reversed outright and the State would be barred from again prosecuting defendant for first degree murder. Where the State has failed to provide sufficient evidence, it will not be given a second opportunity to gather additional evidence, based on principles of double jeopardy. See Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1,10-11, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 2147, 57 L.Ed.2d 1, 9-10 (1978); People v. Taylor, 76 Ill.2d 289, 309, 29 Ill.Dec. 103, 391 N.E.2d 366 (1979). Accordingly, defendant argues that we should not remand this cause for a new trial but should reduce the first degree murder conviction to involuntary manslaughter. When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial, this court will not retry the defendant. Brackett, 117 Ill.2d at 176, 109 Ill.Dec. 809, 510 N.E.2d 877. `[T]he relevant question 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 reasonable doubt.' (Emphasis in original.) People v. Collins, 106 Ill.2d 237, 261, 87 Ill.Dec. 910, 478 N.E.2d 267 (1985), quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979); see also People v. Campbell, 146 Ill.2d 363, 374, 166 Ill.Dec. 932, 586 N.E.2d 1261 (1992). Whether a defendant is guilty of first degree murder or involuntary manslaughter is ordinarily a question for the trier of fact. People v. Bartall, 98 Ill.2d 294, 307, 74 Ill.Dec. 557, 456 N.E.2d 59 (1983). As stated, inferences as to defendant's mental state are a matter particularly within the province of the jury. There was evidence supporting first degree murder. An eyewitness testified that she saw defendant kick the victim three times while he was lying motionless on the ground, once in the head. Dr. Jones testified that the victim had two bruises on his back and one on his head. After considering the credibility of these and other witnesses, a jury could reasonably infer that defendant acted with the knowledge that his acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm. An individual who kills another by punching and kicking can be convicted of first degree murder if he acts with the requisite mental state. After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The ultimate determination of defendant's guilt as to any offense must be made by the trier of fact at a new trial.