Opinion ID: 2546552
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was There Sufficient Evidence to Support Hughes' Conviction?

Text: ¶ 64 Hughes challenges the sufficiency of the evidence upon which he was convicted. He asks this court to look closely at the evidence and challenges the conclusions drawn by the trial court. Additionally, he challenges the testimony of two witnesses and the court's reliance thereon. ¶ 65 But in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the reviewing court does not determine whether it believes the evidence at trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt .... `the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. ' State v. Green, 94 Wash.2d 216, 221, 616 P.2d 628 (1980) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). Determinations of credibility are for the fact finder and are not reviewable on appeal. State v. Camarillo, 115 Wash.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850 (1990). ¶ 66 Hughes has not met his burden of showing that no rational trier of fact could have found facts supporting his conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm his conviction.