Opinion ID: 2593661
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Criminal Solicitation Conviction

Text: ¶ 66 As to the criminal solicitation count, Mead argues the evidence presented cannot support the jury's finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because the only evidence to support the jury's verdict is Hendrix's testimony. Mead contends Hendrix's testimony cannot support the verdict because Hendrix purportedly acted as Mead's accomplice, warranting [that] added scrutiny be given to his testimony, and because Hendrix was offered significant favorable treatment for his own numerous criminal problems in exchange for his testimony against [Mead]. We disagree. ¶ 67 Even if we were to accept Mead's contentions, as we recently stated, we do not sit as a second trier of fact: It is the exclusive function of the jury to weigh the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. So long as there is some evidence, including reasonable inferences, from which findings of all the requisite elements of the crime can reasonably be made, our inquiry stops. State v. Boyd, 2001 UT 30, ¶ 16, 418 Utah Adv. Rep. 8 (quotations omitted). In this case, the State presented some evidence to satisfy each element of the criminal solicitation count. It is the jury's role to determine the weight and credibility of this evidence. Id. Accordingly, Mead has provided us no reason to second guess the jury's determination. Id.