Opinion ID: 2192738
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: [¶ 15] Finally, Poulliot contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of attempted murder. In considering that contention, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and ask whether the jury could rationally have found beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged. See State v. Cooper, 617 A.2d 1011, 1015 (Me.1992). The only element at issue here is intent, since there is no dispute that shooting Aaron Mullen constituted a substantial step toward the commission of murder. 17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 152(1), 201(1)(A). The question for the jury was whether Poulliot had the conscious object of killing Mullen. Id. § 35(1)(A) (1983). [¶ 16] Poulliot testified that he did not intend to shoot Mullen. He claimed that he intended to shoot out the tires of Mullen's car, but that the gun just went off. The jury could well have found it implausible that an experienced hunter armed with a properly functioning rifle could intend to shoot at a tire and yet wind up shooting an approximately six-foot-tall man in the face. In addition, several witnesses provided testimony concerning Poulliot's statements before and after the shooting, from which the jury could reasonably have inferred that he intended to kill Mullen. On that basis, a jury could rationally have found every element of attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The entry is: Judgments affirmed.