insufficiency of evidence claim in Utah

2019Sufficiency of the Evidence ¶28 “In considering an insufficiency-of-evidence claim,” an appellate court will not reverse a jury verdict provided it can “conclude that some evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find that the elements of the crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Maestas, 2012 UT 46, ¶ 177 , 299 P.3d 892 (cleaned up).

2019Sufficiency of the Evidence ¶28 “In considering an insufficiency-of-evidence claim,” an appellate court will not reverse a jury verdict provided it can “conclude that some evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find that the elements of the crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Maestas, 2012 UT 46, ¶ 177 , 299 P.3d 892 (cleaned up).

2025“A person commits aggravated assault . . . if he or she uses a dangerous weapon and intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly makes a threat, accompanied by a show of immediate force or violence, to do bodily injury to another.” State v. Brown, 2025 UT App 31, ¶ 16 , 566 P.3d 737 (cleaned up); see also Utah Code § 76-5-103(2)(a)(ii), (b)(i)(A) (defining aggravated assault in the context of using a dangerous weapon). ¶28 Here, there is ample evidence that Hernandez made a threat and a show of immediate force or violence against Employee.

2025“A person commits aggravated assault . . . if he or she uses a dangerous weapon and intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly makes a threat, accompanied by a show of immediate force or violence, to do bodily injury to another.” State v. Brown, 2025 UT App 31, ¶ 16 , 566 P.3d 737 (cleaned up); see also Utah Code § 76-5-103(2)(a)(ii), (b)(i)(A) (defining aggravated assault in the context of using a dangerous weapon). ¶28 Here, there is ample evidence that Hernandez made a threat and a show of immediate force or violence against Employee.

2024Sufficiency ¶42 “In considering an insufficiency-of-evidence claim, an appellate court will not reverse a jury verdict provided it can conclude that some evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find that the elements of the crime have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Rivera, 2019 UT App 188, ¶ 28 , 455 P.3d 112 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 458 P.3d 749 (Utah 2020).

2024Sufficiency ¶42 “In considering an insufficiency-of-evidence claim, an appellate court will not reverse a jury verdict provided it can conclude that some evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find that the elements of the crime have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Rivera, 2019 UT App 188, ¶ 28 , 455 P.3d 112 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 458 P.3d 749 (Utah 2020).

2020ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW ¶49 Wall argues that the evidence of guilt was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict “because the inference that [Wall] killed [Uta] is less likely than the inference that [Uta] killed herself, whether accidentally or intentionally.” “In considering an insufficiency-of-evidence claim, we review the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the verdict.” State v. Jones, 2015 UT 19, ¶ 15 , 345 P.3d 1195 (cleaned up).

2020ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW ¶49 Wall argues that the evidence of guilt was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict “because the inference that [Wall] killed [Uta] is less likely than the inference that [Uta] killed herself, whether accidentally or intentionally.” “In considering an insufficiency-of-evidence claim, we review the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the verdict.” State v. Jones, 2015 UT 19, ¶ 15 , 345 P.3d 1195 (cleaned up).

2019“In considering an insufficiency-of-evidence claim,” an appellate court will not reverse a jury verdict provided it can “conclude that some evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find that the elements of the crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Maestas, 2012 UT 46, ¶ 177 , 299 P.3d 892 (cleaned up). ¶17 Hunter argues that his “conviction was based on speculation and not reasonable inferences because of the unreliable eyewitness identifications of [him] and problematic chain of evidence procedures.” More specifically, Hunter argues that “the officers took down

2013On appeal, Gibson argues only that his convictions should be reversed because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he pawned Victim's ring. 2 In reviewing an insufficiency of evidence claim, we view "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, ¶ 15 , 63 P.3d 94 .

2013On appeal, Gibson argues only that his convictions should be reversed because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he pawned Victim's ring. 2 In reviewing an insufficiency of evidence claim, we view "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, ¶ 15 , 63 P.3d 94 .

2013"We reverse a jury verdict only when the evidence, so viewed, is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable such that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime for which he or she was convicted." *1028 State v. Hamilton, 2003 UT 22, ¶ 18 , 70 P.3d 111 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 13 Victim testified for the State at Gibson's trial, as did an employee of Big Dog Pawn, the investigating detective, and Victim's ex-husband.

2013"We reverse a jury verdict only when the evidence, so viewed, is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable such that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime for which he or she was convicted." *1028 State v. Hamilton, 2003 UT 22, ¶ 18 , 70 P.3d 111 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 13 Victim testified for the State at Gibson's trial, as did an employee of Big Dog Pawn, the investigating detective, and Victim's ex-husband.

2006In addition, Defendant claims that because the check had no value, the most serious applicable crime is the lesser included offense of attempted theft by deception. 3 17 "[In considering an insufficiency-of-evidence claim, we review the evidence and all inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the verdict." State v. Honie, 2002 UT 4, ¶ 44 , 57 P.3d 977 .

2006In addition, Defendant claims that because the check had no value, the most serious applicable crime is the lesser included offense of attempted theft by deception. 3 17 "[In considering an insufficiency-of-evidence claim, we review the evidence and all inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the verdict." State v. Honie, 2002 UT 4, ¶ 44 , 57 P.3d 977 .

2003To establish plain error, Smith must show that: “(i) an error was made; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error was harmful, so that in the absence of the error, a more favorable outcome was reasonably likely.” State v. Helmick, 2000 UT 70, ¶ 9 , 9 P.3d 164 . ¶ 12 Finally, Smith argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

2003To establish plain error, Smith must show that: “(i) an error was made; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error was harmful, so that in the absence of the error, a more favorable outcome was reasonably likely.” State v. Helmick, 2000 UT 70, ¶ 9 , 9 P.3d 164 . ¶ 12 Finally, Smith argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance.