Opinion ID: 2765938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: [¶13] Perkins challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. The standard of review is well established: When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State to determine whether a fact-finder could rationally find beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged. The jury is permitted to draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence and is free to selectively accept or reject testimony presented based on the credibility of the witness or the internal cogency of the content. State v. Hayden, 2014 ME 31, ¶ 12, 86 A.3d 1221 (quotation marks and citation omitted). [¶14] Here, if the jury credited the testimony of the State’s witnesses, as it was entitled to do, it could rationally find beyond a reasonable doubt that Perkins broke into the locked Crowley Seafood warehouse without permission, was discovered dipping valuable elvers from a storage tank into a bucket while a driver waited for him outside, and then fled from both the employees of the business and the police. That evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Perkins does not challenge the court’s finding of guilt on the charge of violation of a condition of release that resulted from the verdict. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. 9 On the briefs: Matthew J. Foster, Esq., Law Offices of Matthew J. Foster, P.C., Ellsworth, and Dawn M. Corbett, Esq., Law Office of Dawn M. Corbett, PA, Ellsworth, for appellant Alan Perkins William B. Entwisle, Asst. Dist. Atty., Prosecutorial District No. VII, Ellsworth, for appellee State of Maine Hancock County Superior Court docket number CR-2013-82 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY