Opinion ID: 2514259
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Last, Smith argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. We disagree. Our standard of review is whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, we are convinced a rational factfinder could have found Smith guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Mason, 268 Kan. 37, 39, 986 P.2d 387 (1999). Smith does not attack the evidence supporting his convictions; rather, he attacks Wilson's credibility. He argues that Wilson's testimony must be discounted not only because he was an admitted liar and perjurer, but also because he received substantial benefits for testifying and those benefits were never fully revealed to the jury. Wilson's alleged deal with the State in exchange for his trial testimony has been discussed in our opinion. The jury was instructed that it should consider Wilson's testimony with caution unless supported by other evidence and that it may consider Wilson's received benefit from the State for his testimony. As for Wilson's credibility, we do not reweigh the evidence or pass on the credibility of witnesses. State v. Orr, 262 Kan. 312, 322, 940 P.2d 42 (1997). Affirmed.