” “Knowledge or intent is a state of mind generally to be inferred from the person's conduct viewed in light of all the accompanying circumstances.” State v. Kihlstrom, 1999 UT App 289, ¶ 10, 988 P.2d 949 (citing Harline v. Barker, 912 P.2d 433, 442 (Utah 1996) ; State v. James, 819 P.2d 781, 789, 792 (Utah 1991) (holding a jury could infer intent from overall circumstances of murder); State v. Eagle, 611 P.2d 1211, 1213 (Utah 1980) (allowing a jury instruction stating that “[a] person's state of mind is not always susceptible of proof by direct and positive evidence, and, if not, may ordinarily be inferred from acts, conduct, statements or circumstances”)).¶ 30 The State presented no direct evidence of Bingham's state of mind when he engaged in the course of conduct, and the trial court made no express findings with respect to Bingham's mental state.

The State's failure to present evidence to satisfy this necessary element of the offense would have entitled Smith to a dismissal on that count. See, e.g., State v. Kihlstrom, 1999 UT App 289, ¶ 8, 988 P.2d 949, cert denied, 4 P.3d 1289 ("If the prosecution has failed to present sufficient evidence to support its case, the trial court should dismiss."). Section 76-10-504 provides

Id. (quoting State v. Potello, 40 Utah 56, 119 P. 1023, 1029 (1911)). But see State v. Kihlstrom, 1999 UT App 289, ¶ 9, 988 P.2d 949 (stating, in reviewing a denied motion to dismiss, that “this court's review of the sufficiency of the evidence is limited to the evidence adduced by the prosecution in its case-in-chief”). ¶ 45 In any event, in the present case, McCallie himself has placed the entire record before us.

” Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction “if, ‘upon reviewing the evidence and all inferences that can be reasonably drawn from it, ... 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. Kihlstrom, 1999 UT App 289, ¶ 8, 988 P.2d 949 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Dibello, 780 P.2d 1221, 1225 (Utah 1989)); see also State v. Colwell, 2000 UT 8, ¶ 11, 994 P.2d 177 (explaining that Utah appellate courts “review the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may fairly be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the jury verdict”). ¶ 14 When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts “may not reassess credibility or reweigh the evidence, but must resolve conflicts in the evidence in favor of the jury verdict.”