Opinion ID: 1281673
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Finally, Scott argues that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and, therefore, the conviction should be overturned. Scott argues that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that malice existedan element required to be found before a jury can return a verdict of guilty for second degree murder. Scott contends that there was no evidence that he had ever met Brandon Rosenberger before the day of the shooting nor was there any evidence admitted tending to show that Scott acted with malice when he shot Brandon Rosenberger. Scott asserts that there was only one eyewitness to the fatal shooting, Scott himself, and he testified that the shooting was accidental. We have established the following standards for reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge: The function of an appellate court when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, is sufficient to convince a reasonable person of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt. A criminal defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction takes on a heavy burden. An appellate court must review all the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the prosecution and must credit all inferences and credibility assessments that the jury might have drawn in favor of the prosecution. The evidence need not be inconsistent with every conclusion save that of guilt so long as the jury can find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Credibility determinations are for a jury and not an appellate court. Finally, a jury verdict should be set aside only when the record contains no evidence, regardless of how it is weighed, from which the jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To the extent that our prior cases are inconsistent, they are expressly overruled. Syllabus Points 1 and 3, State v. Guthrie, 194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995). We have stated that a defendant faces an uphill climb when he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and that we will reverse only if no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. LaRock, 196 W.Va. 294, 303, 470 S.E.2d 613, 622 (1996). The record in this matter indicates that Scott killed Brandon Rosenberger with a .22 caliber weapon from a distance of approximately 50 to 60 yards while Brandon was walking down a path. Scott argued that he was hunting. However, evidence was introduced that the shooting took place on a Sundaywhen it was illegal to huntand in an area where it was illegal to hunt. Evidence was also introduced demonstrating that Scott had not hunted for a period of 1 to 2 years prior to the shooting, and did not have a hunting license. In addition to this evidence, the jury also heard from neighbors and children who testified that Scott had a history of brandishing firearms in an attempt to intimidate people and keep individuals away from his property. Finally, the jury also heard testimony suggesting that not only did Scott leave Brandon Rosenberger after shooting him, but when Mr. Wheeler came to investigate the matter, Scott shot at him as well. Taken in a light most favorable to the prosecutor, we believe that the evidence was sufficient to convince a reasonable person of Scott's malice in his actions toward Brandon Rosenberger. Consequently, we find that Scott's claim that the evidence was insufficient to support a guilty verdict for second degree murder is without merit.