Opinion ID: 2593661
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: ¶ 65 Mead next contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We will reverse on this ground `only when the evidence . . . is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt . . . .' State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116, 124 (Utah 1989) (quoting State v. Booker, 709 P.2d 342, 345 (Utah 1985)) (further quotations omitted). Put another way, we will overturn a conviction for insufficient evidence when it is apparent that there is not sufficient competent evidence as to each element of the crime charged for the fact-finder to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the crime. State v. Layman, 1999 UT 79, ¶ 12, 985 P.2d 911.
¶ 66 As to the criminal solicitation count, Mead argues the evidence presented cannot support the jury's finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because the only evidence to support the jury's verdict is Hendrix's testimony. Mead contends Hendrix's testimony cannot support the verdict because Hendrix purportedly acted as Mead's accomplice, warranting [that] added scrutiny be given to his testimony, and because Hendrix was offered significant favorable treatment for his own numerous criminal problems in exchange for his testimony against [Mead]. We disagree. ¶ 67 Even if we were to accept Mead's contentions, as we recently stated, we do not sit as a second trier of fact: It is the exclusive function of the jury to weigh the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. So long as there is some evidence, including reasonable inferences, from which findings of all the requisite elements of the crime can reasonably be made, our inquiry stops. State v. Boyd, 2001 UT 30, ¶ 16, 418 Utah Adv. Rep. 8 (quotations omitted). In this case, the State presented some evidence to satisfy each element of the criminal solicitation count. It is the jury's role to determine the weight and credibility of this evidence. Id. Accordingly, Mead has provided us no reason to second guess the jury's determination. Id.
¶ 68 We now turn to Mead's contention that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to the murder charge. Mere weeks before Pamela Mead's death, David Mead offered Hendrix $30,000 $40,000 to kill her. Further, Mead told both Walls and Simon he would kill his wife, have an alibi, and make it look like an accident. He told Hendrix this would happen after he had played the role of a good husband for a year to allay any suspicions of his involvement. While Mead had apparently been working on the pool for some time, he hastily completed it shortly after Pamela Mead's foot surgery. The backyard lights were in working order at the time of the murder; however, the bulbs had been unscrewed slightly, leaving the backyard dark. Moreover, Mead began dismantling the pool before the police even arrived, and his brothers completed this the next day. Additionally, the allegation that Mead was motivated to kill his wife for the life insurance money was bolstered by Mead's own prior statements and the fact that he began his efforts at recovering the insurance proceeds the day after his wife's death. We conclude there was sufficient competent evidence as to each element of the crime charged for the fact-finder to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the crime. Layman, 1999 UT 79, ¶ 12, 985 P.2d 911. [11]