Opinion ID: 2068469
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the trial court err in denying ganrude's motions for a judgment of acquittal?

Text: At the close of state's case, and at the close of all the evidence, Ganrude moved for a judgment of acquittal on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence. On appeal, Ganrude again urges insufficiency of the evidence as a basis for reversal of his aggravated assault conviction. [The] standard of review on a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is whether the state set forth sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably find the defendant guilty of the crime charged. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict. A guilty verdict will not be set aside if the state's evidence and all favorable inferences that can be drawn therefrom support a rational theory of guilt. State v. Blalack, 434 N.W.2d 55, 59-60 (S.D.1988) (citations omitted). Ganrude was convicted of aggravated assault under SDCL 22-18-1.1(5): Any person who:       (5) Attempts by physical menace with a deadly weapon to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily harm; is guilty of aggravated assault. Aggravated assault is a Class 3 felony. Ganrude asserts state failed in its burden of proof concerning three elements of the offense: first, that there was insufficient evidence he attempted, by physical menace, to commit the offense; second, that there was insufficient evidence he made the attempt, with a deadly weapon, i.e., a knife; and, third, that there was insufficient evidence victim was placed, in fear of imminent serious bodily harm. In State v. Gallegos, 316 N.W.2d 634, 637 (S.D.1982), a defendant who lunged at a police officer with a knife was convicted of aggravated assault under an information charging that he, `attempted by physical menace with a knife to put [the officer] in fear of eminent [sic] serious bodily harm....' In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence we held appellant pulled a knife and waved it in the direction of [the police officer]. [The officer] jumped back to avoid being stabbed ... This evidence is sufficient to support a rational theory of guilt. Gallegos, 316 N.W.2d at 639. If anything, the evidence of physical menace in this case is more overwhelming than in Gallegos. Ganrude kept a knife pointed at victim in a threatening manner for a period of hours rather than for a single swipe. At times, he vocally threatened victim with loss of his fingers and a, Columbian necktie. At at least one point, Ganrude placed the blade of his knife directly at victim's throat in the area of his adams apple. Out of fear of being stabbed, victim was forced to endure hours of terrorizing, humiliating acts. Ganrude contends victim was not menaced because he was within touching distance of security officers several times throughout the incident and did nothing to seek their assistance. However, the testimony established that the reason victim did not seek assistance was his fear of being stabbed by Ganrude who had his knife surreptitiously pointed at him throughout that time. This was verified by testimony from the security officers themselves who saw Ganrude with his arm around victim in the manner victim described at trial. Accordingly, based upon the precedent of Gallegos, there is sufficient evidence to meet the menace element. In asserting failure of proof of the element of a, deadly weapon, Ganrude argues, the record is overwhelming with regard that no knife was used and that perjured testimony was presented by state to establish the knife's existence. This ignores the testimony at trial. Victim himself testified that Ganrude held a knife on him throughout the assault incident and that he first saw the knife while he and Ganrude were walking around the fairgrounds. Arcand verified that he saw the knife, that he saw it with the blade out and that Ganrude held the knife behind victim. Palmer also testified that Ganrude had a knife on victim, that he still had the knife on victim when he tied victim up and that he had the knife at or near victim almost the whole period of the incident. Finally, Patalano testified that he saw the knife, that Ganrude took it out of his pocket, that it was a switchblade and that Ganrude used the knife to threaten victim. The pages of the transcript Ganrude uses to substantiate his contention that no knife was used refer to instances where Ganrude attempted to impeach state's witnesses with prior inconsistent testimony from the preliminary hearing. However, each of the three witnesses explained that their prior inconsistent statements were made out of fear of Ganrude. Although, the credibility of the witnesses during trial was clearly in question, in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence this court does not resolve conflicts of evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses. These are matters for the jury to decide. State v. Gallipo, 460 N.W.2d 739, 743 (S.D.1990) (citations omitted). Here, the jury apparently found the testimony of the victim and the three witnesses more credible than Ganrude's [3] . Their testimony, if believed, fully established the existence of the knife used in the assault. Accordingly, Ganrude's contentions concerning failure of proof of a dangerous weapon lack merit. Finally, as to Ganrude's contention concerning lack of proof that victim was placed in fear of imminent serious bodily harm, the record is replete with testimony regarding victim's fear on the night of the assault. At varying points in his own testimony, victim described himself as, panicking, real scared, terrified, scared out of my mind and scared for my life. Victim's fear was verified by all three of state's witnesses who were present during the incident. All three described victim in varying terms as, scared, real scared and wanting to cry. Victim's fear was also verified by the security officers who interviewed him shortly after the incident. One of the officers described victim as, real nervous ... rocking back and forth ... very upset and distraught ... very broken in speech and seemed real troubled. Another officer testified that victim, was very nervous, very shaken up ... physically, mentally withdrawn, very tired. He was frightened. Although Ganrude again attempts to make much of victim's failure to summon the security officers for assistance during the incident, as previously discussed, the victim testified that he failed to call for help because of his fear of being stabbed by Ganrude. Victim's testimony in this regard was verified by Arcand's personal observations of the victim clearly exhibiting fear on the night of the incident. Based upon the evidence and testimony in this case favorable to the verdict, state provided more than sufficient evidence that Ganrude attempted by physical menace with a deadly weapon to put victim in fear of imminent serious bodily harm. Therefore, the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict and the trial court committed no error in denial of Ganrude's motion for a judgment of acquittal.