Opinion ID: 1224760
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: defense counsel's failure to move for a judgment of acquittal at the end of the state's case was a failure to provide effective assistance of counsel, given the insufficiency of the evidence presented.

Text: Appellant claims that a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case was warranted because the State did not present evidence which corroborated Mr. Huskinson's testimony. A motion for judgment of acquittal is to be granted only when the evidence is such that a reasonable juror must have a reasonable doubt as to the existence of any of the essential elements of the crime. Or, stated another way, if there is substantial evidence to sustain a conviction of the crime, the motion should not be granted. This standard applies whether the supporting evidence is direct or circumstantial. (citations omitted) Leppek v. State, 636 P.2d 1117, 1119 (Wyo.1981). Apodaca v. State, 796 P.2d 806, 807 (Wyo. 1990). See also DeVries v. State, 909 P.2d 977, 978 (Wyo.1996). Mr. Huskinson testified that Appellant had delivered one-quarter pound of marihuana to him in the Wal-Mart parking lot on or around September 1994. The parties stipulated before the trial that marihuana was recovered from Mr. Huskinson's home during the police search. Sufficient evidence, therefore, existed to establish all the elements of the charged crime, and the jury was left to determine whether the evidence was adequate to convict Appellant. A motion for a judgment of acquittal would not have been successful; therefore, Appellant's counsel did not perform in a deficient manner by failing to present such a motion to the trial court.