Opinion ID: 2251353
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence: Murder Convictions

Text: Appellant claims that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain his convictions because he and an alibi witness testified that he was at a different place when the crime was committed. This Court does not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses when the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged. Rather, we consider only that evidence most favorable to the State and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support each element of the offense, then the finding of the trier of fact will not be disturbed. Napier v. State (1983), Ind., 445 N.E.2d 1361. The jury's verdict represents the result of their evaluation and determination of the weight to be accorded to the testimony and other evidence presented at trial and their assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. The jury was entitled to find that the evidence recited above proved Martin's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt despite Martin's presentation of alibi evidence.