Opinion ID: 1891330
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Challenge to Sufficiency of the Evidence

Text: Trump contends that the jury had insufficient evidence to convict him. When a defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction, [t]he standard is whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [48] In conducting such an analysis, this Court carefully avoids second-guessing judgments within the traditional province of the jury. [49] Trump argues that the evidence could not sustain a conviction because neither the complainant nor any of the State's witnesses could establish the specific dates and times on which many of the alleged sexual assaults occurred. The jury, however, acquitted Trump of nine counts suggesting that it judged that the evidence against Trump was sufficiently strong despite that error in the complainant's recollection. Furthermore, the elements of the charged offense do not require the State to prove exactly when the unlawful sexual intercourse occurred, just that it in fact occurred. To convict Trump of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree, the State needed to prove four elements beyond a reasonable doubt: that Trump had sexual intercourse with the complainant; that the age of the complainant was less than sixteen; that the complainant was not Trump's voluntary social companion; [50] and that Trump's conduct was intentional. [51] Sufficient evidence existed at trial for a rational jury to find that the State proved all of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.