Opinion ID: 2078773
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Taylor argues there was not sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. We will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses when a party raises a sufficiency argument on appeal. Loyd v. State (1980), 272 Ind. 404, 398 N.E.2d 1260, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 881, 101 S.Ct. 231, 66 L.Ed.2d 105. We will review only the evidence most favorable to the verdict, and the reasonable inferences therefrom, to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Taylor first argues that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a deadly weapon was used to perpetrate the two crimes. He argues that the testimony of the cook and the waitress showed that Taylor did not have possession of the gun continually while he was allegedly attacking the cook. The women testified that the gun was passed back and forth between Adams and Taylor. The cook testified that at times during the attack she could not see the gun, but she said that she knew (Taylor) had it somewhere on his person when he forced her to perform oral sex. To commit rape or deviate sexual conduct while armed with a deadly weapon, Taylor did not need to keep the gun in his hand at all times. Taylor v. State (1982), Ind., 438 N.E.2d 294. Before and during the assault, Taylor threatened to kill the waitress. He held the gun to her head at times. The evidence showed that when Adams had the gun, he pointed it at the women. The entire attack occurred within the car where the gun was always within the reach, if not in the hands, of Adams or Taylor. The combination of threats of murder and the presence of the gun only a few feet away at all times is sufficient to support the jury's determination that Taylor perpetrated these crimes with the aid of a gun. Taylor further alleges that the evidence was insufficient to show that the criminal deviate conduct even occurred. The cook testified that Taylor forced her to have oral sex. Appellant finds contradicting evidence in the waitress' testimony that she did not see this occur, even though all three were sitting in the back seat at the time. However, the waitress told the jury that the car was dark and she could not see all of the events transpiring in the back seat. To the extent that this represented any contradiction at all, it was the jury's role to resolve it. The jury was entitled to render a verdict of guilty in reliance on even uncorroborated testimony by the victim. Garcia v. State (1984), Ind., 463 N.E.2d 1099. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to support both Taylor's convictions. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. GIVAN, C.J., and DeBRULER, PIVARNIK and DICKSON, JJ., concur.