Court Opinion

ID: 9561279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:06:14.012242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:42.434416
License: Public Domain

HALL, Chief Justice
(dissenting):
I do not join the Court in overturning the jury verdict.
When faced with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict,1 and it is not our prerogative to intercede unless the evidence is so lacking and insubstantial that the jury could not possibly have reached a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.2 Also, it is the exclusive function of the jury to weigh the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses, and this Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the jury.3 “So long as there is some evidence, including reasonable inferences, from which findings of all the requisite elements of the crime can reasonably be made, our inquiry stops.”4
Applying the foregoing standards, the evidence is sufficient to support defendant James Hill’s convictions of burglary and second degree felony theft. The jury could reasonably have concluded that he was guilty of those crimes by reason of the following facts: he was present in the antique shop the evening before the crimes were committed, at which time he examined many of the items that were stolen; he hurriedly left for Oregon the morning after the offenses were committed; he unsatisfactorily explained his possession of one of the stolen items; and he was implicated in the crimes by the testimony of Bruce Black. The jury could have reasonably concluded that he either directly committed the offenses or that he solicited, requested, commanded, encouraged, or intentionally aided another in the commission of the offenses.5 Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to establish guilt,6 and it was for the jury to decide whether his explanation of his possession of the stolen property was satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
Furthermore, the jury could also have reasonably determined that defendant James Hill committed theft of all of the property missing from the antique shop, thereby making him guilty of second degree felony theft. The uncontroverted testimony of the owner of the property was that it was worth $1,871. Simply because not all of the property was found in defendant’s possession does not prohibit the conclusion that he stole all of it.7
Likewise, there was sufficient evidence to support defendant Larry Hill’s convic*225tion of second degree felony theft. The jury could have reasonably concluded guilt by reason of his presence at the antique store with his father the evening before the burglary and theft; his comment to a gas station attendant the morning after the crimes were committed that he and his father were in a hurry to return to Oregon, traveling in a van with the windows covered; his unsatisfactory explanation concerning his possession of items stolen; and the testimony of Bruce Black that connected him and his father to the crimes.
I would affirm the conviction and judgment of the trial court.
HOWE, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of HALL, C.J.

. State v. McCardell, 652 P.2d 942, 945 (Utah 1982).

. Id.

. State v. Lamm, 606 P.2d 229, 231 (Utah 1980).

. State v. Booker, 709 P.2d 342, 345 (Utah 1985).

. U.C.A., 1953, § 76-2-202 (Repl.Vol. 8B, 1978 ed.).

. State v. Clayton, 646 P.2d 723, 724-25 (Utah 1982).

. State v. Pacheco, 13 Utah 2d 148, 150, 369 P.2d 494, 495 (1962).