Opinion
No. C1-97-1036.
Filed February 10, 1998.
Appeal from the District Court, Washington County, File No. K4-96-5129.
Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, and
Eric C. Thole, Assistant County Attorney, (for respondent)
Lawrence W. Pry, Assistant State Public Defender, (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Harten, Presiding Judge, Huspeni, Judge, and Klaphake, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant Bradley Allen Wendt was convicted of third-degree assault in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.223, subd. 1 (1996). The district court imposed a 15-month prison sentence to run consecutive to the sentence appellant was then serving for a separate offense. Because the evidence at trial was sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction, we affirm.
DECISION
Appellant's third-degree assault conviction stems from an altercation he had with a prison guard that resulted in the guard sustaining a broken nose. Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction because the state failed to prove he intentionally struck the victim, or, if he did, that he intended the injury. See Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 10(2) (1996) (defining intent element of assault as "[t]he intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another").
"Intent * * * is usually established by reasonable inferences drawn from the surrounding circumstances." State v. Witucki , 420 N.W.2d 217, 221 (Minn.App. 1988), review denied (Minn. Apr. 15, 1988). In this case, two of the state's witnesses testified that they saw appellant hit the victim with his fists. The victim also testified that he saw appellant's clenched fist hit him in the nose on the right side of his face. See State v. King , 414 N.W.2d 214, 221 (Minn.App. 1987) (victim's testimony sufficient to sustain assault conviction), review denied (Minn. Jan. 15, 1998). While appellant insists that he did not strike the victim, in light of the verdict, the jury must have been persuaded by the testimony of the state's witnesses and not by appellant's testimony. See State v. Moore , 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989) (reviewing court assumes "the jury believed the state's witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary"). Thus, when viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to prove that appellant intended to strike and injure the victim. See State v. Webb , 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989) (appellate review of sufficiency of evidence cases "limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did").