Opinion ID: 2570498
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Was the evidence sufficient to convict appellant of each charge?

Text: [¶ 45] We recently restated our well-established standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims: When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim in a criminal case, we must determine whether a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not consider conflicting evidence presented by the unsuccessful party, and afford every favorable inference which may be reasonably and fairly drawn from the successful party's evidence. We have consistently held that it is the jury's responsibility to resolve conflicts in the evidence. `We will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury, ... our only duty is to determine whether a quorum of reasonable and rational individuals would, or even could, have come to the same result as the jury actually did.' [ Bloomquist v. State, 914 P.2d 812, 824 (Wyo.1996).] Urbigkit v. State, 2003 WY 57, ¶ 44, 67 P.3d 1207, 1225 (Wyo.2003) ( quoting Williams v. State, 986 P.2d 855, 857 (Wyo.1999)). See also Miller v. State, 2003 WY 55, ¶¶ 22-23, 67 P.3d 1191, 1197 (Wyo.2003) and Cureton v. State, 2003 WY 44, ¶ 6, 65 P.3d 1250, 1252 (Wyo.2003). [¶ 46] Appellant claims that the State failed to prove at least one element of each charged crime and that the victim's version of events just does not logically make sense. He contends that the evidence shows that, although he had a gun at all times, he did not threaten to use it, nor did he ever say he would harm the victim. He also contends that the evidence shows that the victim had several opportunities to escape or obtain assistance. Further, he argues that he removed the handcuffs the first time they stopped, which presumably was in Campbell County, so there was no evidence of unlawful confinement in Johnson County. Appellant's argument that proof of kidnapping was lacking can be summed up in his assertion that [the victim] chose to stay with Mr. Dean, even if that was due to her mistaken belief that Mr. Dean would somehow harm her. [¶ 47] As to the alleged sexual assaults, appellant contends that the State failed to prove that he caused the victim's submission by threat of death, serious bodily injury, or extreme physical pain. Once again, he argues that he never verbally threatened the victim and that his actions did not threaten her in any menacing way. [13] Finally, appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to show reasonable apprehension on the victim's part. [¶ 48] Without restating the facts detailed earlier herein, and without restating the standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence, we can state with no hesitation that acceptance of appellant's arguments would require us to ignore the former and to stand the latter on its head. Our standard of review requires us to accept the State's evidence and to ignore the evidence in conflict therewith, not vice versa. Appellant's argument to this Court is nothing short of an assertion that the jury should have believed him rather than the victim. [14] [¶ 49] Contrary to what appellant suggests, the record is replete with evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was kidnapped and sexually assaulted. The victim testified that appellant abducted her in the nighttime, at gunpoint, forced her face-down into his van, handcuffed her, and drove her out of Gillette toward Buffalo. She further testified that, along the way, he repeatedly displayed the gun and that she had sexual relations with him against her will because she feared he was going to kill her. [15] Finally, she also testified that her first real opportunity to escape was in the restaurant where she asked the waitress to call the police. The jury chose to believe the victim and it is not for us to second-guess that decision.