Sufficiency of evidence in appellate cases

 Posted on September 02, 2013 in Criminal Defense

Last week we extensively covered a case involving a Chicago man named Gary who was challenging his conviction of aggravated battery against his neighbor's girlfriend. Ultimately the problem is that sufficiency of evidence appeals are notoriously hard to win in cases that hinge on the testimony of witnesses rather than hard physical evidence.

In reviewing a case based on sufficiency of evidence, a Cook County appeals court asks whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and makes all reasonable inference in the prosecution's favor.

This means that that even if the appeals court judge would have decided the case differently, the court will uphold a verdict if it is possible that any reasonable trial court or jury could have decided in favor of the prosecution.

This makes it easy to see why the court could not overturn the Gary's aggravated battery conviction. Although it's highly likely that his neighbors were more intoxicated and hostile than they admitted to, it is also likely that Gary had ill-will toward his neighbor and hit Tara in the heat of the argument.

Gary argued that it did not make sense that he would punch a woman he did not know, but the court noted that his neighbor testified that Gary was yelling unprovoked explicative's the entire evening. The court said that a person who was willing to scream at a stranger in this manner could also foreseeably assault that person. This means that a reasonable trier of fact could have chosen not to believe Gary's versions of events and find him guilty, which is why he was unable to overturn his conviction.

Source: People v. Daniel, 2013 IL App (1st) 121120-U Aug. 14, 2013