Opinion ID: 901102
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: issues

Text: [¶ 23.] Is the evidence sufficient to sustain Bousum's convictions? [¶ 24.] Bousum argues that the evidence is insufficient in several respects to sustain his convictions. In determining the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal in a criminal case, the issue before this Court is whether there is evidence in the record which, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In making that determination, we accept the evidence and the most favorable inferences fairly drawn therefrom, which will support the verdict. Moreover, the jury is ... the exclusive judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence. Therefore, this Court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, or pass on the credibility of witnesses, or weigh the evidence. No guilty verdict will be set aside if the evidence, including circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, sustains a reasonable theory of guilt. State v. Laplante, 2002 SD 95, ¶ 19, 650 N.W.2d 305, 310 (citations omitted). [¶ 25.] Bousum first argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish the amount of the damage to the patrol car. However, the evidence and testimony presented during trial on the issue of damages has been previously discussed in this decision. Although Bousum argues over the mark-up price of some of the parts used to repair the patrol car, that evidence was also presented to the jury and the jury obviously found sufficient evidence to establish damage to the patrol car exceeding five hundred dollars. This Court does not re-weigh evidence on appeal. Id. [¶ 26.] Bousum also questions the sufficiency of the evidence to show his intent to commit the crime of intentional damage to property. Intentional damage to property is a general intent crime. State v. Balint, 426 N.W.2d 316, 318 (S.D. 1988). There is no additional mental state required beyond that accompanying the injurious or destructive act. Id. In Balint, this Court upheld an intentional damage to property conviction where a defendant in a drunken stupor had repeatedly pushed against a plate glass window and broke it. We find even more persuasive evidence of intent here where Bousum repeatedly kicked against the window of the patrol car in an enraged state after struggling with law enforcement to resist arrest. [¶ 27.] Based upon the foregoing, we hold that Bousum's claims of insufficient evidence lack merit.