Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-9914.
July 9, 2008.
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, Palmer, John W. Wolfe, Judge, Trial Court No. 3PA-06-2037 CR.
David D. Reineke, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Jarom B. Bangerter, Assistant District Attorney, and Roman J. Kalytiak, District Attorney, Palmer, and Talis J. Colberg, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Coats, Chief Judge, and Mannheimer and Stewart, Judges.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The State of Alaska charged Jack L. Vogel with two counts of fourth-degree assault, based on allegations that he assaulted his wife on two separate occasions in August 2005 (August 1st and August 4th). The jury convicted Vogel of the assault charged on August 1st but was unable to reach a verdict on the other charge. Vogel now appeals his conviction, arguing that the evidence presented at his trial was legally insufficient to support the jury's verdict. In particular, Vogel contends that no reasonable jury could have rejected his claim of self-defense.
When a verdict is challenged as lacking a sufficient basis in the evidence, the question is whether the evidence and the inferences to be drawn from it, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict, are sufficient to support a conclusion by fair-minded jurors that the State had met its burden of proof — here, proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the elements of fourth-degree assault, and disproof beyond a reasonable doubt of Vogel's claim of self-defense.
See Dorman v. State, 622 P.2d 448, 453 (Alaska 1981); Eide v. State, 168 P.3d 499, 500-01 (Alaska App. 2007).
Vogel points out that there were arguable reasons to question the State's case and to credit his claim of self-defense. Indeed, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision on the other assault charge (the assault alleged to have occurred on August 4th). However, with regard to the guilty verdict for the August 1st assault, the law obliges us to proceed under the premise that the jury resolved all issues of credibility, and all disputes in the testimony, in favor of the State. Viewing the evidence in this light, it was sufficient to support the jury's decision to reject Vogel's claim of self-defense.
Vogel admitted to the police that he inflicted bruises on his wife on August 1st. Vogel claimed that he did this because his wife attacked him, but Vogel's wife testified to a different version of events.
Vogel's wife testified that she had been assaulted and abused by her husband on a number of occasions during their relationship. She stated that, on August 1st, Vogel became angry when she nearly dropped some boxes that she was carrying up the stairs; Vogel kicked her and called her a "stupid bitch". Later that evening, Vogel punched her in the head and kicked her in the stomach and legs.
This evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient to support the jury's decision to reject Vogel's claim of self-defense and to convict Vogel of fourth-degree assault. Accordingly, the judgement of the district court is AFFIRMED.