Opinion ID: 2643677
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Petitioner argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed these crimes. In addition to his alibi evidence, petitioner asserts that Mr. Taylor was shown to be the true aggressor. He also argues that the eyewitnesses were impeached or were unreliable. We review a sufficiency of the evidence argument under the following framework: The function of an appellate court when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, is sufficient to convince a reasonable person of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the relevant inquiry 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 proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995). Viewing the evidence in this 6 case in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we easily conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of second degree murder, attempted murder, and malicious wounding were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There were multiple eyewitnesses at trial who saw petitioner at the bar, saw petitioner in the car with Cross, and who saw petitioner and Cross commit the crimes. There was no dispute that Taylor and Jackson were stabbed multiple times and that Jackson died from his wounds. There was also flight evidence, which, as discussed above, is admissible to show guilt. Petitioner’s alibi defense and any inconsistencies in the testimony were presented to the jury, and we have no grounds to second-guess the jury’s decision.