Opinion ID: 2330426
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Assault Evidence Sufficient

Text: Anderson first contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence from which the jury could find him guilty of Assault in the First Degree beyond a reasonable doubt, as their case failed to show that the bullets causing Perez's injuries were fired from Anderson's gun. On appeal, challenges to the sufficiency of evidence are reviewed to determine whether a rational trier of fact, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could find the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. [10] In performing our appellate review, we do not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence. [11] The record reflects that Anderson was charged with the Attempted Murder of Hector Perez. The indictment read: TERRANCE ANDERSON AND BOBBY THOMAS, [12] on or about the 30th day of September, 2005, in the County of New Castle, State of Delaware, did intentionally attempt to cause the death of Hector Perez by shooting him, which under the circumstances as they believed them to be, constituted a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime of Murder in the First Degree, in violation of Title 11, Section 636 of The Delaware Code. Anderson was convicted of the lesser-included offense of Assault in the First Degree. The trial judge instructed the jury on the Assault charge, as follows: In order to find the defendant guilty of Assault in the First Degree, you must find that each of the following two elements have been established beyond a reasonable doubt: One, the defendant engaged in conduct which created a substantial risk of death to Hector Perez and thereby caused serious physical injury to Hector Perez. And [second] the defendant acted recklessly. Serious physical injury means any physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious and prolonged disfigurement, prolonged impairment of health, or prolonged loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ. Recklessly means the defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk to Hector Perez that would result from his conduct. At trial, Anderson's attorney moved for a judgment of acquittal on the charge of Attempted Murder, arguing that the State had not offered a prima facie case, that, in fact, Anderson is the one who shot Perez and that there had been sufficient evidence . . . that would go towards the intent to commit a murder. With regard to the lesser-included offense of Assault in the First Degree, however, Anderson's attorney stated: I would have to in my argument, I suppose, review the fact that an assault and serious physical injury has at least been presented of [sic] the prima facie case by the State. With respect to that charge, I will defer to Your Honor's discretion. But with respect to the Murder First charge, Attempted Murder First, it is lacking in two elements, two very specific elements that would be required for a guilty verdict. The denial of the motion for a judgment of acquittal is not an issue on appeal because the jury acquitted Anderson of Attempted Murder and convicted him of Assault in the First Degree, a lesser-included offense. On appeal, Anderson now argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of Assault in the First Degree. At trial, however, Anderson's attorney moved for judgment of acquittal only on the charge of Attempted Murder, of which he was acquitted. Accordingly, Anderson's first claim on appeal has been waived. [13] Moreover, in addressing whether the evidence was sufficient to submit the Attempted Murder charge to the jury, Anderson's attorney acknowledged that the State has established a prima facie case of Assault in the First Degree. On appeal, Anderson is bound by his attorney's limited motion for a judgment of acquittal of Attempted Murder only and separate factual acknowledgment that the State had established a prima facie case of Assault in the First Degree. [14] Alternatively, we hold that even if there has been no waiver or acknowledgement by Anderson's trial attorney, a reasonable jury could have concluded from the direct and circumstantial evidence that Anderson caused Perez's injuries. Cruz testified that Bobby Thomas exited a white Dodge and fired two or three shots in the direction of his uncle, Hector Perez. Perez testified that when he heard three shots, he ran south on South Van Buren Street. Perez was not hit by any of those shots. At that point, Cruz looked up and saw a second gunman, later identified as Anderson, appear and begin firing in the direction of Perez. As Perez was running away, he felt something hot . . . in [his] stomach and when [he] got in the middle of the street, [he] felt another bullet hit [him] in [his] cheek, eventually causing him to [collapse] at the end of the street. When officers appeared on scene, Anderson was the only one shooting. Officer Jordan testified that he observed [Anderson] backing up toward the [white Dodge] holding a large black in color semiautomatic handgun, which he was observed firing. Based on this testimony, the jury could have concluded that the first shooter fired three shots, all of which missed Perez, and then stopped shooting. At that time, Anderson began shooting and struck Perez with two bullets. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational jury could have found that Anderson was guilty of Assault in the First Degree by recklessly causing serious physical injury to Perez. Accordingly, for the alternative reasons of waiver and sufficiency of the evidence, we hold that Anderson's first argument is without merit.