On appeal, we do not retry the defendant. People v. Robinson, 213 Ill.App.3d 1021, 1025, 157 Ill.Dec. 790, 572 N.E.2d 1254 (1991). Instead, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we ask whether any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
We, as a reviewing court, are not to substitute our judgment. People v. Robinson, 213 Ill. App.3d 1021, 1025, 572 N.E.2d 1254, 1257 (1991). Although defendant has pointed out weaknesses in the State's proof, we cannot say that such efforts created a reasonable doubt of guilt.
¶ 11 When the determination of a defendant's guilt or innocence depends upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, the reviewing court must defer to the fact finder and cannot substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact. People v. Robinson, 213 Ill. App. 3d 1021, 1025 (1991). The relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
People v. Campbell, 146 Ill. 2d 363, 380, 586 N.E.2d 1261, 1268 (1992). A reviewing court must allow all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution (People v. Cardamone, 232 Ill. 2d 504, 511, 905 N.E.2d 806, 810 (2009)) and is not to substitute its judgment for the trier of fact. Peoplev. Robinson, 213 Ill. App. 3d 1021, 1025, 572 N.E.2d 1254, 1257 (1991). ¶ 18 The witness harassment statute provides as follows:
We, as a reviewing court, are not to substitute our judgment. See People v. Robinson, 213 Ill. App.3d 1021, 1025, 572 N.E.2d 1254, 1257 (1991). In the instant case, the victim testified she was sexually assaulted in her automobile on her way home from work and that the perpetrators took her cellular phone and $150 in cash.