Opinion ID: 1351998
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: substantial evidence to support jury verdict

Text: Appellant argues that the evidence presented by the State was not legally sufficient to support the jury's verdicts of guilty on the two crimes of which he was convicted. On appeal the test to ascertain the legal sufficiency of the evidence is whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury. Richardson v. State, supra ; State v. Kekaualua, 50 Haw. 130, 433 P.2d 131 (1967). See also 1 Wharton's Criminal Evidence § 11 (13th ed. 1972). And, ... the evidence must be considered in its strongest light for the State. State v. Cummings, 49 Haw. 522, 423 P.2d 438 (1967); State v. Carvelo, 45 Haw. 16, 31, 361 P.2d 45, 53 (1961). A. Attempted Rape in the First Degree. Our analysis in part I of this opinion as to appellant's specific intent and substantial steps taken to commit rape in the first degree is applicable here and amply illustrates how the substantial evidence test is met. B. Attempted Assault in the First Degree. Here, the substantial step is clearly evidenced by the same facts that constituted the substantial steps toward commission of the rape (discussed supra ). The crucial question then, is whether there was substantial evidence to support the jury's conclusion that appellant had the specific intent to inflict serious bodily injury [5] upon Jessica. The surrounding circumstances of the case and the nature of the act, we believe, provide substantial evidence to support the jury's conclusion. Of especial significance were the circumstances surrounding the incident; they manifest enmity between appellant and the children. There was obvious jealousy on the part of appellant for Mrs. Kachlic's attention, and Jessica's tearful outburst upon appellant's arrival at the dwelling place as well as the beating appellant inflicted upon Mickey were strongly suggestive of the hostile relationship. The fact that Mrs. Kachlic had, on the day before, told appellant that she no longer wanted to see him is also relevant as to appellant's state of mind on the day of the crimes. His lack of concern for Jessica's welfare upon discovery of what appeared to be a serious injury also supports a conclusion that appellant intended to inflict serious bodily injury upon her. Furthermore, the nature of the act, i.e., sexual intercourse by an adult male with an 18-month old female, implicitly involves a grave risk of serious bodily injury to the child. As the State's medical witness had testified, the inevitable tear that would result from an attempt to effect such intercourse, could be quite a major injury if it extends into the peritoneal cavity or into the rectum. Appellant argues that the substantial evidence test is not met because there was no evidence that the victim had sustained serious bodily injuries. He cites the State's medical witness as proof because the doctor was unable to characterize the victim's wound as major. Appellant's argument would be relevant on an appeal from an assault in the first degree conviction but not on an appeal from an attempted assault in the first degree verdict. As implied earlier, the critical elements in a criminal attempt are an intent to commit the target crime coupled with conduct which amounts to a substantial step toward commission of that intended crime. These two elements of a criminal attempt imply conduct that falls short of completion of the intended crime and so the fact that an element of that intended crime is not met is immaterial. We are of the opinion that the record, especially the particular facts we have emphasized, shows clearly that appellant's convictions on both charges are supported by substantial evidence.