 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Musayev3/4/2002
e incident. Before expressing his opinion that Musayev had tried to cut his throat, Davidyants testified that he heard Musayev come up behind him and proclaim, 'I am going to slit your throat.' He explained how he caught the knife with his hand as the blade came at his throat, opining that the injury to his neck would have been much more severe were it not for the fact that his thumb came between the blade and his neck. That opinion, in turn, is supported by the degree of injury to Davidyants' thumb. Moreover, the alternative explanation for the incident proposed by Musayev was not credible. The trial court did not err in admitting this testimony.
Next, Musayev argues that the evidence does not support a finding that he acted with the intent to kill Davidyants. Therefore, according to Musayev, the verdict is not sufficiently supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. McKnight, 54 Wn. App. 521, 524, 774 P.2d 532 (1989). An insufficiency claim admits the truth of the State's evidence and all its reasonable inferences, which must be drawn in favor of the State and against the defendant. State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). To convict Musayev of attempted second degree murder, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, with intent to cause the death of another, Musayev took a substantial step towards killing that person or a third person. RCW 9A.32.050(1)(a). A person acts with intent 'when he acts with the objective or purpose to accomplish a result which constitutes a crime.' RCW 9A.08.010(1)(a). 'Evidence of intent to kill is to be gathered from all of the circumstances of the case, including not only the manner and act of inflicting the wound, but also the nature of the prior relationship and any previous threats.' State v. Woo Won Choi, 55 Wn. App. 895, 906, 781 P.2d 505 (1989).
Viewing the testimony in the light most favorable to the State, there is ample evidence to support the conviction. There was testimony that Musayev had previously threatened Davidyants with a knife and told him not to return to his apartment. There was also testimony that on July 10, 1999, Davidyants was sitting on a chair in the yard outside of Musayev's apartment when Musayev came outside, reminded Davidyants of his previous threats, went back into his apartment, grabbed a knife, and attacked Davidyants from behind while saying that he was going to slit Davidyants' throat. The evidence further established that Davidyants grabbed the blade of the knife while struggling to push the knife away from his throat, and that his hand lacerations were consistent with defensive wounds. Based on this evidence, if believed, any rational juror would conclude that Musayev acted with the intent to kill and took a substantial step in furtherance of that intent.
In arguing that the evidence fails to establish intent to kill, Musayev points to the 'superficial' nature of Davidyants' neck wound, and suggests that he had the opportunity to inflict more damage but did not do so. He also claims that Davidyants looked calm and unruffled on the videotape and did not appear to be in any pain or to be bleeding. However, the fact that Davidyants's injuries were not more severe does not negate the intent to kill. The most reasonable inference from the evidence is that Davidyants managed to avoid more severe injury to his neck by grabbing the blade of the knife and pushing it away from his neck during the struggle. Musayev also challenges the State's version of events, arguing tha
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Washington DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|