Court Opinion

ID: 9861394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:56:41.482482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:22.546672
License: Public Domain

LEVINE, Justice,
concurring specially.
I write separately to clarify and resolve, in my own mind at least, the reasons why we affirm this conviction.
To convict Dubs as an accomplice to Hu-ebner’s robbery, the State had to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Dubs intentionally aided Huebner in robbing Timian. NDCC § 12.1-03-01(l)(b). In determining whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Dubs, we look only to the evidence most favorable to the guilty verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom to see if there is substantial evidence to warrant a conviction. State v. Mertz, 362 N.W.2d 410 (N.D.1985). Substantial evidence exists when a rational fact finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. City of Fargo v. McMorrow, 367 N.W.2d 167 (N.D.1985).
Viewing the evidence in this light, we find that Dubs did not intercede, but stayed by Huebner’s side while Huebner robbed Timian; that Timian believed Dubs was blocking his escape and was a threat; and that following the robbery Dubs fled and hid from the police. From this evidence the trial court presumably inferred that Dubs remained in place during the robbery, instead of leaving the scene, in order to aid in its commission by blocking Timian’s escape, and that then Dubs bolted in order to avoid apprehension by the police. Although I would not have drawn them, I cannot say that these inferences are unreasonable or that a rational fact finder could not have found Dubs guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I therefore concur in the result.