Opinion ID: 2550126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Bolden contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to convict him on any of the charges. In short, he claims that the entire body of proof against him established no more than his mere presence during the events in question. In this, the district court instructed the jury that mere presence of the defendant, or his knowledge that a crime is being committed, is insufficient to establish guilt without proof that the defendant was a participant and not merely a knowing spectator. [3] More specifically, Bolden asserts that the State failed to prove his participation in a conspiracy; failed to prove the intent elements of the home invasion, robbery, burglary, first-degree kidnapping and second-degree kidnapping charges; failed to prove that the kidnapping charges were not incidental to the robbery charges; and failed to present sufficient evidence in support of the deadly weapon enhancements. The relevant inquiry in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury's verdict 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.' [4] Moreover, circumstantial evidence alone may support a conviction. [5] In resolving Bolden's contentions, we have reviewed the evidence supporting the jury's findings of guilt with respect to each of the charged offenses. Additionally, with respect to the nonconspiracy offenses, we have reviewed the evidence supporting the jury's verdicts under the three separate theories of guilt alleged by the State for those offenses.