Opinion ID: 6357541
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: [¶ 50] Hopkins argues that there was not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she [r]ecklessly, or with criminal negligence, cause[d] the death of her baby. See 17-A M.R.S. § 203(1)(A). [¶ 51] On a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and determine whether a trier of fact rationally could find beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the offense charged. State v. McBreairty , 2016 ME 61 , ¶ 14, 137 A.3d 1012 . The jury may draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at trial and decide issues of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Id. [¶ 52] Direct evidence of a defendant's exact actions in committing a crime is not required; the fact-finder may properly find beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant acted recklessly or with criminal negligence based solely on circumstantial evidence. See State v. Brown , 2017 ME 59 , ¶ 9, 158 A.3d 501 . A conviction based on circumstantial evidence may be affirmed even if the inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence are contradicted by parts of the direct evidence. State v. Cummings , 2017 ME 143 , ¶ 12, 166 A.3d 996 ; State v. Medeiros , 2010 ME 47 , ¶ 17, 997 A.2d 95 . [¶ 53] To convict Hopkins of manslaughter, 17-A M.R.S. § 203(1)(A), the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she acted recklessly or with criminal negligence and caused the death of her baby. See  17-A M.R.S. § 35(3), (4)(A) (2017). In addition, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the death would not have occurred but for Hopkins's conduct operating either alone or concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the defendant was clearly insufficient. See 17-A M.R.S. § 33. [¶ 54] Assessing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the jury, based on the evidence presented, could have found that the baby was home with Hopkins and Hopkins's two older sons at the time of his death, the baby's cause of death was consistent with severe inflicted trauma rather than an act of a sleeping person or falling, and the evidence was not consistent with the alternative cause of death asserted by Hopkins-that her older boys were responsible for the baby's death. See State v. Allen , 2006 ME 20 , ¶¶ 25-27, 892 A.2d 447 (holding that there was sufficient evidence supporting the defendant's manslaughter conviction where the State presented evidence that the toddler was alone with the defendant at the time of injury, the cause of death was consistent with inflicted trauma rather than an accidental fall as the defendant claimed, and the evidence was not consistent with an alternative cause of death advanced by the defendant). The evidence was sufficient to support Hopkins's conviction of manslaughter. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.