Opinion ID: 884648
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was the evidence sufficient to support Appellants' convictions for the charged offense?

Text: ¶ 22 This Court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case to determine whether, upon viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Ford (1996), 278 Mont. 353, 359, 926 P.2d 245, 248. ¶ 23 Appellants were charged and convicted of threats and other improper influence in official and political matters, a felony, pursuant to § 45-7-102(1)(b), MCA, which provides in relevant part: (1) A person commits an offense under this section if the person purposely or knowingly: ... (b) injures the person or property of a public servant ... because of the public servant's lawful discharge of the duties of the office or to prevent the public servant from discharging the public servant's official duties. Public servant means any officer or employee of government. Section 45-2-101(62), MCA. ¶ 24 Appellants do not dispute that Adams is a public servant. Appellants also do not dispute that they purposely or knowingly injured Adams. Appellants only dispute the sufficiency of the evidence regarding whether they injured Adams because of Adams' lawful discharge of his duties or to prevent Adams from discharging his official duties. Appellants argue that no evidence exists to support a finding that Appellants' actions were motivated by either distaste for Adams' work or a desire to prevent Adams from completing his work. Appellants argue the evidence shows their actions were motivated by self-defense in response to Adams pushing D.J. Appellants further argue that because Adams pushed D.J. first, the State must prove that pushing D.J. was part of Adams' official duties in order to convict them of the charged offense. ¶ 25 The State counters that proof that pushing D.J. was part of Adams' official duties is not an element of the charged offense and, therefore, need not be proven. The State further argues that Appellants have focused on a narrow time frame of the incident and have glossed over the relevant events occurring before Adams pushed D.J. The State argues that given the totality of circumstances, Appellants' arguments are without merit. We agree with the State. We will address Appellants' arguments in turn. ¶ 26 First, to obtain a conviction for a criminal offense, the State need only prove the elements of the offense as defined by statute. See Patterson v. New York (1977), 432 U.S. 197, 211 n. 12, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 53 L.Ed.2d 281 ([t]he applicability of the reasonable doubt standard has always been dependent on how a state defines the offense that is charged in any given case); State ex rel. Keyes v. Thirteenth Judicial District, 1998 MT 34, ¶¶ 15-24, 55 St. Rep. 125, 127-28, ___ Mont. ___, ___ _ ___, 955 P.2d 639, 642-43 (Court considered the plain language of the accountability and felony murder statutes in determining whether the defendant was charged with a legitimate offense under Montana law). A conviction pursuant to § 45-7-102(1)(b), MCA, requires proof of the following elements: 1. That the defendant injured the person of a public servant because of the public servant's lawful discharge of the duties of the office or to prevent the public servant from discharging the public servant's official duties; and 2. That the defendant acted purposely or knowingly. We hold that the State was not required to prove that pushing D.J. was part of Adams' official duties because it is not an element of the charged offense. ¶ 27 Second, the State produced sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could find that Appellants' actions were motivated by either distaste for Adams' work, or a desire to prevent Adams' from completing his work, or both. Appellants saw the men working and 35 mph signs posted at both ends of the construction zone, yet disregarded them and continued traveling at a high rate of speed. When Appellants came upon Adams' grader in the middle of the road, Appellants either did not stop or could not stop. Appellants were forced to move left and ended up with the their truck in the ditch. ¶ 28 D.J. got out of his truck and ran toward Adams' grader. D.J. said something to Adams. Adams couldn't hear and began to climb backwards out of his grader, as was his practice when someone wanted to talk to him. As Adams turned around, D.J. was standing four inches from his face. In response to D.J.'s invasion of Adams' personal space, Adams put his hands on D.J.'s shoulders and pushed him back. Bert Todd saw Adams lying on the ground and Gerald standing over him with his leg drawn back. Todd tackled Gerald, rolled him off of Adams, and the two landed in the ditch at which point Gerald put a choke hold on Todd and asked him whether he gives up. ¶ 29 Bob Richardson heard Todd say over the radio, They have Charlie [Adams]down. Richardson saw Adams lying on the ground and D.J. standing over him. He could already see that Adams had a severe eye injury. Richardson saw Todd and Gerald in the ditch and informed them that he would call the police. Appellants then got in their vehicle and left. Neither Todd nor Richardson ever saw Adams hit, kick, or fight in any way with either D.J. or Gerald. Adams came away from the incident with a swollen black eye, a contusion to his cheek, and abrasions and a contusion to his chest, whereas D.J. came away with no visible injuries, and Gerald came away with only light bruising to his lower back. ¶ 30 Appellants argue that their convictions were based on mere suspicion or conjecture and, therefore, require reversal. State v. Phillips (1966), 147 Mont. 334, 340, 412 P.2d 205, 208. We do not agree. Although Appellants' convictions were based on circumstantial evidence, we have held numerous times that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a conviction. State v. Miller (1988), 231 Mont. 497, 511-12, 757 P.2d 1275, 1284. Montana law permits a jury to draw inferences from the evidence presented at trial. Section 26-1-501, MCA. `Evidence' is the means of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a question of fact, including but not limited to witness testimony, writings, physical objects, or other things presented to the senses. Section 26-1-101(2), MCA. Given the evidence presented in this case, a rational jury could infer that Appellants were upset that their swift travel on the road was impeded by Adams' duties as a road grader operator, and that Appellants took their anger and frustration out on Adams. ¶ 31 Appellants' theory of self-defense is wholly dependent on their version of the facts, which the jury was entitled to reject. The weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are exclusively within the province of the trier of fact; when the evidence conflicts, the trier of fact determines which shall prevail. State v. Bower (1992), 254 Mont. 1, 8, 833 P.2d 1106, 1111. It is the jury's prerogative whether to accept or reject a defendant's claim of self-defense. State v. Crazy Boy (1988), 232 Mont. 398, 401, 757 P.2d 341, 343. In this case, the jury weighed the evidence, assessed the credibility of the witnesses, and found the State's version of the incident more credible than Appellants'. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we hold there existed sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could find that Appellants injured Adams because of the discharge of his duties or to prevent Adams from discharging his duties, and that Appellants were not justified in the use of force against Adams.