 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Ahmed12/17/2002
esses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary." State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989) (citing State v. Wahlberg, 296 N.W.2d 408, 411 (Minn. 1980)).
We will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and * * * [the requirement of] proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that a defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged. State v. Alton, 432 N.W.2d 754, 756 (Minn. 1988) (citing State v. McCullum, 289 N.W.2d 89 (Minn. 1979)).
The dispositive consideration "is not whether reasonable doubt existed, but whether there was sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably conclude that no reasonable doubt existed." State v. Walen, 563 N.W.2d 742, 750 (Minn. 1997).
Ahmed argues that S.E. falsely accused him of committing the crimes for which he was convicted and that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was the assailant. In support of his argument, Ahmed points to inconsistencies and contradictions in S.E.'s testimony. He notes that after S.E. ran from her apartment on May 12, she first called her cousin and said only that "someone" had beaten her. She initially told the 911 operator that she did not know the man who had beaten her. But she later told the operator that the man was a Somali who lived in her neighborhood, that she knew him, and that she could describe him. Also, S.E. told investigating officers that she was waiting for her girlfriend, not her nephew, when Ahmed arrived at her apartment. When the police asked if she knew her assailant, she gave the police a slip of paper with Ahmed's name and telephone number on it. Ahmed also argues that there was no corroboration of S.E.'s testimony and that the police found no blood on Ahmed's clothing and no cuts or marks on his hands, although S.E. was cut and bleeding profusely.
"It is well established that a conviction can rest upon the testimony of a single credible witness." State v. Bliss, 457 N.W.2d 385, 390 (Minn. 1990) (citations omitted). The record supports S.E.'s testimony that Ahmed inflicted personal injury on her and that he attempted sexual penetration through the use of force and coercion. We leave credibility determinations to the fact-finders because they are "in a superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses." In re Welfare of L.A.F., 554 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Minn. 1996) (citation omitted). "Even inconsistencies in the state's case will not require a reversal of the jury verdict." State v. Pieschke, 295 N.W.2d 580, 584 (Minn. 1980) (citation omitted). The state need not present evidence that excludes all possibility that another person committed the crime; it need only make such other theories appear unreasonable. See State v. Anderson, 379 N.W.2d 70, 78 (Minn. 1985).
The discrepancies in S.E.'s testimony pertained to the identity of the person she was expecting to visit her apartment on May 12 and the identity of her assailant. The former is a minor inconsistency; the latter is more significant. But the discrepancies raise an issue of S.E.'s credibility and that is for the jury to resolve.
The jury heard testimony that the 911 operator and the translator had difficulty understanding S.E. The jury also heard testimony that S.E. was injured, bleeding, hysterical, and still crying when the police arrived. These facts reasonably support a conclusion that either S.E.'s condition compromised her clarity or that the recipients of her statements simply misunderstood her. Furthermore, the only discrepancy as to her assailant's identity occurred during her 911 conversation when she allegedly told the operator that she was beaten by a man that she did not know. Later in that same conver
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|