Opinion ID: 2132698
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Defendant next argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction. According to defendant, he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. When reviewing an insufficiency of the evidence claim in a criminal conviction, a court determines 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. People v. Evans, 209 Ill.2d 194, 209, 283 Ill.Dec. 651, 808 N.E.2d 939 (2004). We will not reverse a conviction unless the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable or unsatisfactory that it raises a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt. Evans, 209 Ill.2d at 209, 283 Ill.Dec. 651, 808 N.E.2d 939. In our harmless-error analysis in this case, we held that the evidence presented at trial, though largely circumstantial, nevertheless was overwhelming in support of defendant's convictions. This analysis excluded Rivera's grand jury testimony. Looking at this evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. In our view, the evidence is not so unreasonable, improbable or unsatisfactory that it raises a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt. We therefore reject defendant's claim that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.