Opinion
Case No. 20030704-CA.
Filed March 17, 2005. (Not For Official Publication).
Appeal from the Third District, Sandy Department, The Honorable Denise P. Lindberg.
Wesley J. Howard, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.
Roger S. Blaylock and David E. Yocom, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges Billings, Greenwood, and Thorne.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Defendant Don Enoch Peterson appeals his conviction for child abuse, a class A misdemeanor, in violation of Utah Code section 76-5-109. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-109 (1999). We affirm.
In support of his appeal, Defendant contends that (1) the State presented insufficient evidence for the jury to find that he intentionally inflicted injury on the victim, and (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion for directed verdict.
Examining Defendant's first argument, "[w]e will reverse a jury conviction `for insufficient evidence only if the evidence presented at trial is so insufficient that reasonable minds could not have reached the verdict.'" State v. Fedorowicz, 2002 UT 67, ¶ 40, 52 P.3d 1194 (quoting State v. Widdison, 2001 UT 60, ¶ 74, 28 P.3d 1278) (additional quotations and citation omitted).
At trial, the State presented evidence for the purpose of establishing the necessary mens rea, including evidence that the child's neck was injured while he was in Defendant's care; Defendant's statements to police that he had "lost it"; and Defendant's admission, during a police interview about the alleged child abuse, that he had a problem with anger. Assuming, as we must, that the jury believed this evidence, see Fedorowicz, 2002 UT 67 at ¶ 40 ("We also assume that the jury believed the evidence that supports the verdict."), reasonable minds could have determined that Defendant intentionally or knowingly injured the child, and thus, reached a guilty verdict. Therefore, the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient evidence.
Turning to Defendant's second claim,
[w]hen reviewing any challenge to a trial court's denial of a motion for directed verdict, we review the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be fairly drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the party moved against, and will sustain the denial if reasonable minds could disagree with the ground asserted for directing a verdict.
Smith v. Fairfax Realty, Inc., 2003 UT 41, ¶ 12, 82 P.3d 1064, cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 1716 (2004) (quotations and citation omitted).
As the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, it was, consequently, sufficient to support the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion for a directed verdict. Thus, the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion was not error.
Accordingly, Defendant's conviction is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Judith M. Billings, Presiding Judge, William A. Thorne Jr., Judge.