Opinion ID: 2052508
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: did the trial court err in denying donald's various motions for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the crimes charged?

Text: Donald moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of State's case and at the close of the defense case. The thrust of his argument is that, the case having been based entirely upon circumstantial evidence, the proved circumstances are not consistent with his guilt and can be reconciled with other rational conclusions. First, Donald reminds us that in State v. Ashker, 412 N.W.2d 97, 105 (S.D.1987), we said: When ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal, the trial court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party who is also given the benefit of all reasonable inferences in their favor. ... A motion for judgment of acquittal is properly denied if the state has introduced evidence which, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the crime charged. (Citations omitted.) In Ashker, we also quoted from State v. Esslinger, 357 N.W.2d 525, 530-31 (S.D.1984), as follows: The established rule in this state is that to warrant conviction upon circumstantial evidence alone, such facts and circumstances must be shown as are consistent with each other and with guilt of the party charged, and such as cannot by any reasonable theory be true and the party charged be innocent. Ashker, 412 N.W.2d at 105. Donald argues that the proved circumstances are not consistent with his guilt and can be reconciled with other rational conclusions. For this proposition he relies on the testimony of a defense expert and alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of State's witnesses as adduced under cross-examination. Donald relies on conflicts in the evidence. However, we have held that, in addition to viewing the evidence in favor of State, the trial judge in such circumstances does not resolve conflicts in the evidence. In State v. Luna, 264 N.W.2d 485, 488 (S.D.1978), in discussing refusal of a motion for new trial based on insufficient evidence, including circumstantial evidence, we adopted the reasoning of the North Dakota Supreme Court in State v. Allen, 237 N.W.2d 154, 161 (N.D.1975), wherein it was stated:    rule as to circumstantial evidence, at the trial level, is that such evidence must be conclusive and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but at the appellate level we do not substitute our judgment for that of the jury or trial court where the evidence is conflicting, if one of the conflicting inferences reasonably tends to prove guilt and fairly warrants a conviction. Consistent with that rule, we further noted that the jury was properly instructed as to the consideration and inferences to be drawn from circumstantial evidence[,] and that [t]he jury, as the trier of fact, makes the decision regarding the consistency of the theories. The scope of review of this court has traditionally been to accept `that evidence, and the most favorable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, which will support the verdict.' Luna, 264 N.W.2d at 487-88. In State v. Dietz, 264 N.W.2d 509, 510-11 (S.D.1978), we summarized our holding in Luna, as follows: Although the rule at the trial level requires that the jury find the circumstantial evidence be conclusively inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, (cite omitted) the rule at the appellate level is that a guilty verdict will not be set aside if the evidence, including the circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences, sustains a rational theory of guilt. In Ashker, supra, we reiterated our holding in Luna, supra . Just as in Ashker, we find that the jury was instructed on circumstantial evidence and they returned a guilty verdict against [Donald]. We may not, as a matter of law, set aside this verdict for insufficiency of the evidence, if the evidence sustains some rational theory of guilt. 412 N.W.2d at 106. Further, we find ample evidence to support the convictions. Lastly, we examine Donald's allegations of error in the trial court's instructions.