Opinion ID: 2613468
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to sustain a conviction for grand theft

Text: Evans asks this Court to review the record in the present case and determine whether the evidence as to grand theft was substantial and competent so as to sustain the conviction of Evans. A verdict will not be set aside where there is substantial evidence upon which a trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Filson, 101 Idaho 381, 386, 613 P.2d 938, 943 (1980). In State v. DeGrat, 128 Idaho 352, 913 P.2d 568 (1996), this Court discussed its review of criminal convictions as follows: When this Court reviews convictions in criminal cases, it gives full consideration to the right of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be afforded evidence, as well as the right to draw all justifiable inferences from the evidence before them. But, at the same time, judicial review requires that we peruse that evidence to determine whether a reasonable mind would conclude that the defendant's guilt as to each material element of the offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Erwin, 98 Idaho 736, 740, 572 P.2d 170, 174 (1977). We will uphold a jury verdict if `there was substantial evidence from which a rational trier of facts could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that' the state proved the elements of the crime. State v. Babb, 125 Idaho 934, 943, 877 P.2d 905, 914 (1994) (quoting State v. Filson, 101 Idaho 381, 386, 613 P.2d 938, 943 (1980)). DeGrat, 128 Idaho at 355, 913 P.2d at 571. Evans argues that there were other employees who were present at the store that had access to the funds in question and therefore the evidence as to grand theft was totally circumstantial in nature. In State v. Randles, 117 Idaho 344, 787 P.2d 1152 (1990), we stated: The function of an appellate court with regards to the facts of a case is to determine whether there was substantial and competent evidence supporting the verdict (citations omitted). To require the court at the appellate level to evaluate whether the evidence suggests any reasonable hypothesis which is consistent with the innocence of a defendant already convicted by a jury would be an impermissible usurpation of the role of the trier of fact. Therefore, we hold that the language of the Holder instruction is to be applied only at the trial level, and is not an appellate standard of review. Randles, 117 Idaho at 350, 787 P.2d at 1158. There was substantial and competent evidence to support the jury's finding of guilt in the present case. We affirm the conviction for grand theft.