Court Opinion

ID: 9823337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 09:53:57.58203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:19.366571
License: Public Domain

Decision
PER CURIAM:
T1 Ricardo Emrique Carrera appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of another's identification document. Carrera argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. We affirm.
T2 When evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts "review the evidence and all inferences which may reasonably be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the verdict of the jury." State v. Shumway, 2002 UT 124, 1 15, 63 P.8d 94. "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, *866our inquiry stops." State v. Boyd, 2001 UT 30, ¶ 16, 25 P.3d 985.
T3 A person is guilty of unlawful possession of another's identification doenment if "he obtains or possesses an identifying document with knowledge that he is not entitled to obtain or possess the identifying document." - Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-(LexisNexis 2012). Carrera argues that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that he had knowledge that he was not entitled to obtain or possess the social security card found in his wallet. Based upon the totality of the evidence and inferences that could be reasonably drawn from that evidence, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. Specifically, police found what appeared to be a valid social security card in Carrera's wallet with a name on it other than his. Carrera told police that he did not know the person whose name appeared on the card. The fact that Carrera admitted that he did not know the person whose name appeared on the social security card contained within his wallet created a plausible inference that he knew that he was not entitled to possess that card, especially given that there are few plausible scenarios to explain his lawful possession of a social security card belonging to someone he did not even claim to know. Because it is a reasonable inference that Carrera knew that he was not entitled to possess the card, the jury had sufficient evidence to convict Carrera of unlawful possession of another's identification document.
[ 4 Affirmed.