Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-10104.
March 11, 2009.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Patrick J. McKay, Judge, Trial Court No. 3AN-06-09386 CR.
Josie Garton and Sarah Kalish, Assistant Public Defenders, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for Appellant. Gustaf W. Olson, Assistant District Attorney, Adrienne P. Bachman, District Attorney, Anchorage, and Talis J. Colberg, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee.
Before: Coats, Chief Judge, and Mannheimer and Bolger, Judges.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
Shawn Malutin was convicted of robbery in the second degree and assault in the fourth degree. Malutin argues on appeal that the State did not present sufficient evidence at trial to support these convictions. We affirm the convictions.
AS 11.41.510(a)(1); AS 11.16.110(2)(A), (B).
AS 11.41.230(a)(1).
Patrick McNamara was robbed by a group of men while he was riding his bicycle. The men stole his bicycle, backpack, wallet, and $12 in cash. The police immediately began investigating the robbery. They presented several suspects to McNamara who were found in the immediate area of the robbery. McNamara stated that Malutin best matched the description of the person who started the attack, but he was unable to make any kind of positive identification.
The police detained another possible suspect, Kenneth Komakhuk Jr., near the scene of the robbery. Komakhuk told the police that he had witnessed the robbery. Komakhuk identified Malutin in a show up as the person who had instigated the robbery. The police arrested Malutin.
Komakhuk testified at Malutin's trial. He testified that he saw Malutin run up behind the bicycle rider and take him down. He testified that Malutin was the person who instigated the assault and described the clothing he was wearing. He stated that he saw four or five people punching and kicking the bicycle rider. He saw the men take the victim's bicycle.
In determining whether the evidence the State presented at trial was sufficient to support a guilty verdict, we review the evidence presented in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict. The question is whether a reasonable juror could conclude, based on the evidence presented, that there was no reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt.
Murray v. State, 778 P.2d 237, 239 (Alaska App. 1989).
Id.; see also Dorman v. State, 622 P.2d 448, 453 (Alaska 1981).
On appeal, Malutin points out that the victim, McNamara, was unable to identify him as the perpetrator of the robbery. He argues that the case against him turned on the testimony of Komakhuk, whom he describes as "an inebriated witness who was under extreme pressure to comply." Malutin points out that Komakhuk was the only witness who testified that he actually saw Malutin at the scene of the robbery, and he argues that Komakhuk was not a credible witness.
But, as Malutin recognizes, the jury evaluates the credibility of a witness. The jury could, and apparently did, conclude that Komakhuk was a credible witness. When we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, we conclude that a reasonable juror could find Malutin guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Anthony v. State, 521 P.2d 486, 492 (A laska 1974); Brown v. Anchorage, 680 P.2d 100, 104 (Alaska App. 1984).
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.