Opinion ID: 3134427
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Defendant next contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Where a criminal conviction is challenged based on insufficient evidence, a reviewing court, considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, must determine whether any rational fact finder could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the crime. A criminal conviction will not be set aside unless the evidence is so improbable or unsatisfactory as to create a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. People v. Eyler , 133 Ill. 2d 173, 191 (1989). Defendant argues that the State's case can be explained as consistent with his innocence. Defendant points to the defense expert DNA testimony and the conflict it created with the prosecution expert DNA testimony. Defendant further notes that even if his DNA was found in Donna's remains, it can be explained by the evidence that he and Donna had a sexual relationship prior to her murder. Defendant also attacks the credibility of Crosier and Chester, and the identification of Donna's ring found in defendant's box. Defendant also points to evidence which he claims implicates David Haynes in the murders. It is not the function of a reviewing court to retry a defendant when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Rather, it is the function of the fact finder to assess the credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given their testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from the evidence. People v. McDonald , 168 Ill. 2d 420, 448-49 (1995); People v. Tye , 141 Ill. 2d 1, 13 (1990). It is for the fact finder to resolve conflicts or inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses. People v. Phillips , 127 Ill. 2d 499, 514 (1989). When weighing the evidence, the fact finder is not required to disregard inferences that flow from the evidence, nor is it required to search out all possible explanations consistent with innocence and raise them to a level of reasonable doubt. McDonald , 168 Ill. 2d at 447. Also, speculation that another person might have committed the offense does not necessarily raise a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. People v. Herrett , 137 Ill. 2d 195, 206 (1990). Defendant's arguments address functions of the jury and not of this court. After reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we cannot say that the evidence was so improbable or unsatisfactory that no rational fact finder could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.