Opinion ID: 2580920
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: [¶ 25] Appellant in her second issue argues that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to prove that appellant had the specific intent to defraud the victim, a specific element required Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-602(a)(iii). In particular, appellant asserts the only testimony that tended to prove the requisite intent of appellant was presented through handwriting expert Mr. Crivello, and his sole testimony was that he was unable to testify with any certainty that the victim did not write the subject checks or that appellant did write these checks. Appellant cites the case of Hamburg v. State, 820 P.2d 523 (Wyo.1991) in support of this position, contending that in the Hamburg opinion this court refused to equate a handwriting expert's statements that it was probable that the defendant prepared certain signatures on an election petition to the necessary beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof required in a criminal case. [5] [¶ 26] Upon our independent review, we hold that sufficient evidence was presented that each of the crimes alleged were committed by appellant. Considerable additional evidence other than simply the testimony of Mr. Crivello exists in this case whereby the jury could have found appellant guilty of the crimes alleged beyond a reasonable doubt. [¶ 27] The victim testified that he had not given appellant the involved checks and had never intended to pay appellant over $950.00 to help him paint his house. In addition, Officer Chris Dahmke testified that when he interviewed appellant, she told him her agreement with the victim was that she would receive between $500.00 to $600.00 for such services, including costs for needed supplies. The victim, however, testified that he had already purchased supplies and there was no agreement ever reached as to the amount he would pay appellant for her painting services. [¶ 28] The victim went on to testify he was out of town in New Mexico when appellant endorsed the checks over to the bank, and that she had a number of opportunities to take the checks when she was alone in his home or later because, when he left for New Mexico, he had left his home unlocked so a neighbor could get inside his home. Additionally, Officer Dahmke testified appellant had lied to him about being in Arkansas when they were initially trying to contact her about the checks evidencing at least some intent on her part to deceive. [¶ 29] Critically, additional detailed evidence was presented as to appellant's activities surrounding the involved checks. Bank employees testified to appellant's odd behavior when cashing and depositing the checks and to her banking transactions. On March 23, 2000, appellant deposited at the bank's lobby counter check number 5673, drawn on the victim's account and made payable to appellant, into her savings account. Appellant was required and did open a savings account in order to cash this check. The check was in the amount of $150.00 and was dated March 24, 2000. Appellant retained $100.00 in cash from that check. [¶ 30] The next day at approximately 9:36 a.m., appellant, using the drive-through window at the bank, withdrew $10.00 from her savings account. On March 27, 2000, at approximately 8:57 a.m., appellant, again using the drive-through window, withdrew $20.00 from her savings account. Approximately one hour later, at 9:56 a.m., appellant again utilized the drive-through window to deposit check number 5687, drawn on the victim's account and made payable to appellant. The check was in the amount of $275.00. Appellant retained $225.00 in cash from that check. Finally, that same day at approximately 2:29 p.m., appellant deposited check number 5686, drawn on the victim's account and made payable to appellant, at the bank's lobby counter. The check was in the amount of $50.00 and was dated March 29, 2000. Appellant retained $30.00 in cash from that check. [¶ 31] The following day, on March 28, 2000 at approximately 9:01 a.m., appellant, at the drive-through window, withdrew $60.00 from her savings account. That same date, again only a short time later, at 10:30 a.m., appellant withdrew $10.00 from her savings account in the lobby of the bank. Thereafter, at 12:53 p.m., appellant deposited check number 5695, drawn on the victim's account and made payable to appellant at the bank's lobby counter. The check was in the amount of $275.00. There was no date on this check. Appellant retained $75.00 in cash from that check. [¶ 32] Still, on March 28, 2000, at approximately 1:18 p.m., appellant deposited check number 5694 using the drive through window. This check, in the amount of $200.00 and dated March 28, 2000, was likewise drawn on the victim's account and made payable to appellant. Appellant retained $200.00 in cash from that check. Also, during this same transaction, appellant withdrew $219.00 from her savings account, leaving $1.00 remaining in that account. Mr. Crivello testified that it was his opinion based upon his examination of the checks and the exemplars obtained from appellant that appellant had endorsed the back of each of the subject checks. Officer Dahmke also stated that appellant had admitted to him that she had endorsed these checks. [¶ 33] In addition, appellant's argument regarding the applicability of our holding in Hamburg v. State, 820 P.2d 523, to this case lacks merit. In Hamburg, the defendant was convicted of forging several names on a political petition. With respect to certain signatures on the petition, the handwriting expert testified that the defendant either very probably or probably forged these signatures. As this was the sole testimony leading to conviction by the jury, this court held that the words very probably or probably could not equate to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [¶ 34] In this case, Mr. Crivello testified that he had no opinion concerning whether appellant had written on the front of the subject checks because he could not identify that she had or had not written the statements that appeared on this side of the checks. He also testified it was his opinion that the handwriting that appeared on the front of the checks was not consistent with those exemplars obtained from the victim. Finally, when specifically questioned by appellant's counsel concerning the nine point ASTM standard E1658, Mr. Crivello testified that if he had to equate his findings to those terms or standards with respect to whether the victim had or had not made the handwriting that appeared on the face of the checks, he stated that it would be similar to that of saying probable or very probable they were not prepared by [the victim]. [¶ 35] Therefore, unlike the testimony in Hamburg, Mr. Crivello did not present any opinion on whether or not appellant had authored the front of the checks. Indeed, he expressed no opinion on this topic. Mr. Crivello's testimony that the victim very probabl[y] or probabl[y] did not author the front of the checks is much different than the testimony of the handwriting expert in Hamburg who opined that the defendant probably authored the signature on the petition. Additionally, as pointed out above, a substantial amount of additional evidence was presented at trial concerning appellant's actions with respect to the checks, while in Hamburg no other evidence aside from the handwriting expert's testimony was presented on that particular topic. Accordingly, we find the facts in this case to be distinguishable from those facts involved in Hamburg, and our opinion in Hamburg is not applicable to our conclusion in this case. [¶ 36] Adequate evidence existed in this case for the jury to form the basis for an inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when such evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State as required. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury; our only duty is to determine whether a quorum of reasonable and rational individuals would, or even could, have come to the same result as the jury actually did. Black v. State, 2002 WY 72, ¶ 4, 46 P.3d 298.