Opinion ID: 2198330
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: We can briefly dispose of appellants' remaining contentions that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions. The standard we apply is as clear as our review is narrow. [I]t is only where the government has produced no evidence from which a reasonable mind might fairly infer guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that this court can reverse a conviction. Nixon, 730 A.2d at 148 (quoting Zanders v. United States, 678 A.2d 556, 562 (D.C.1996)) (internal citations omitted). In determining whether there is sufficient evidence (or reasonable inferences therefrom), we must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). To prove assault with intent to kill while armed, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused: (1) made an assault on the complainant; and (2) did so with the specific intent to kill the complainant; (3) while armed. See id; D.C.Code §§ 22-501,-3202 (1996), recodified as D.C.Code §§ 22-401,-4502 (2001). A person commits the offense of aggravated assault if: (1) By any means, that person knowingly or purposely causes serious bodily injury to another person; or (2) Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, that person intentionally or knowingly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of serious bodily injury to another person, and thereby causes serious bodily injury.