 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hawn6/30/2000
rove all of the elements of the crime. State v. Miley (1996), 114 Ohio App.3d 738.
"Sufficiency" of the evidence refers to its logical capacity to demonstrate both the criminal conduct and the culpable mental state that the alleged criminal liability requires. The test is whether all or some part of the evidence that was admitted in the trial would, if believed, convince the average mind beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of committing the offense charged. State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259, paragraph two of the syllabus. "Weight" of the evidence refers to the inclination of the greater amount of the credible evidence presented in a trial to prove the issue established by the verdict that was reached. State v. Thompkins (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 380. The test is whether that evidence is capable of inducing belief in its truth, and whether those truths preponderate in favor of the verdict according to the applicable burden of proof. Id. State v. Bradley (Oct. 2, 1997), Champaign App. No. 97-CA-03, unreported, at 7.
A sufficiency of the evidence argument challenges whether the State has presented adequate evidence on each element of the offense to allow the case to go to the jury or sustain the verdict as a matter of law. Thompkins, supra. The proper test to apply to such an inquiry is the one set forth in paragraph two of the syllabus of State v. Jenks (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 259:
An appellate court's function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The evidence presented by the State in this case, if accepted as true, demonstrates that only Stephen Hawn and Sue Jack were present at the time of this shooting. Hawn claimed that Ms. Jack committed suicide. Hawn gave differing versions of what happened to various people at different times. Neither Sue Jack's nor Stephen Hawn's fingerprints were found on the gun. There was no gunshot residue found on either Sue Jack's or Stephen Hawn's hands. Hawn did have blood all over his hands and clothing, whereas Sue Jack did not. The forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy on Sue Jack did not find gunpowder residue on Sue Jack's body or clothing near the entrance wound, or inside the wound track itself, which would indicate a close range or contact shot. Based upon his tests of this gun and his examination of Sue Jack's clothing, the State's firearms expert opined that this gun was at least five feet away when it was fired into Sue Jack's chest.
Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the State, as we must for purposes of a Crim .R.29 motion, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could find all of the essential elements of murder proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Hawn's conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and the trial court properly overruled Hawn's Crim.R. 29 motions for acquittal.
Hawn's seventh assignment of error is not well taken and is overruled.
EIGHTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT APPELLANT HAWN'S CONVICTION FOR PURPOSEFUL MURDER WITH A FIREARM SPECIFICATION IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
NINTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF NUMEROUS ERRORS OCCURRING DURING THE PROCEEDINGS RESULTED IN A FUNDAMENTAL
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|