Opinion ID: 2166128
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Evidence Was Sufficient to Support Conviction for Second Degree Assault

Text: Thurman also contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for second degree assault. Thurman argues that the evidence was not sufficient because A.W. testified that she did not know whether the injury to her head was caused by the butt of the gun or by Thurman's hand. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-309 (Cum.Supp. 2006) provides in relevant part that [a] person commits the offense of assault in the second degree if he or she [i]ntentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to another person with a dangerous instrument. A.W. testified on direct examination that Thurman struck her on the head with the butt of a handgun. On cross-examination, in response to an inquiry as to whether it might have been Thurman's hand that struck her rather than the butt of the gun, A.W. testified that whatever it was it cut the head open. Also admitted into evidence was Galvan's testimony that A.W. had cuts to her head and a photograph of the head wound in question. An appellate court does not pass on the credibility of witnesses. [17] Based upon the evidence presented to it, a jury could have reasonably concluded that A.W.'s head wound was caused by the gun, rather than by Thurman's bare hand. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to support Thurman's conviction for second degree assault. Thurman's second assignment of error is without merit.