Opinion ID: 1154678
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence (assignment of error xxiv

Text: Although we conclude that the defendant's conviction and sentence must be reversed on other grounds and the case remanded for a new trial (see discussion of Cause Challenge, Assignment of Error I, infra ), we address this assignment of error first because lack of sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction would entitle the defendant to an acquittal under Hudson v. Louisiana, 450 U.S. 40, 101 S.Ct. 970, 67 L.Ed.2d 30 (1981). The defendant was indicted with first degree murder for the killing of Paula Manning while engaged in the perpetration of aggravated rape. The relevant portions of La.R.S. 14:30 define first degree murder as follows: A. First degree murder is the killing of a human being: (1) When the offender has specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm and is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of ... aggravated rape.... Louisiana R.S. 14:42 provides, in pertinent part, that: A. Aggravated rape is a rape committed upon a person ... where the anal or vaginal sexual intercourse is deemed to be without lawful consent of the victim because it is committed under any one or more of the following circumstances: (1) When the victim resists the act to the utmost, but whose resistance is overcome by force. [5] In order to affirm a conviction, an appellate court must determine that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient for a rational fact finder to conclude that every element of the crime was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Martin, 93-0285 (La. 10/17/94); 645 So.2d 190; State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676 (La. 1984). The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, contending that the state failed to prove all of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [6] In particular, the defendant claims that there was insufficient proof that he acted with specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm. He also argues that the state failed to satisfy the elements of aggravated rape, namely, that the victim resisted to the utmost and that this resistance was overcome by force. In a related argument, the defendant also claims that the conviction is defective because the state failed to prove that the victim was alive at the time of intercourse. [7]