Although the evidence may be "susceptible to multiple interpretations, not all of which point toward guilt," it is not our role to second-guess the interpretations of the jury. State v. O'Neill, 2019 VT 19, ¶ 35, ––– Vt. ––––, 209 A.3d 1213. Rather, we determine only "whether the State's theory of the evidence could fairly support the conviction."
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed O'Neill's conviction. State v. O'Neill, 2019 VT 19, 209 A.3d 1213. After conclusion of her direct appeal in the Vermont Supreme Court, O'Neill filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition in the Superior Court in 2020 asserting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. O'Neill v. State, No. 20-cv-00127 (Vt. Super. Ct.)
Without explanation, he cites State v. O'Neill, a case in which we affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to suppress incriminating statements. 2019 VT 19, ¶ 46, 209 Vt. 599, 209 A.3d 1213. There, the defendant disclosed the statements after she invoked the right to counsel, and she was not provided Miranda warnings.
When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, "this Court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, excluding any modifying evidence, to ‘determine whether that evidence sufficiently and fairly supports a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ " State v. O'Neill, 2019 VT 19, ¶ 35, 209 Vt. 599, 209 A.3d 1213 (quoting State v. Brochu, 2008 VT 21, ¶ 21, 183 Vt. 269, 949 A.2d 1035 ). The jury's verdict will stand "so long as the jury by way of a process of rational inference could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the acts ... charged."