It is not the province of the reviewing court to assess the credibility of witnesses unless the trial court's finding is clearly contrary to the evidence. State v. Cashen, 544 So.2d 1268 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1989); State v. Turner, 499 So.2d 1282 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1986). It is clear from the record that the trial court found the testimony of the prosecution witnesses to be credible.
This court will not review issues of credibility on appeal. State v. Turner, 499 So.2d 1282 (La.App., 4th Cir., 1986). Additionally, the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
The trial court apparently believed the testimony of Mr. Schmidt and Ms. Martinez over that of the appellant, and it is not the province of this court to assess the credibility of witnesses unless the trial court's finding is clearly contrary to the evidence. State v. Vessell, 450 So.2d 938 (La. 1984); State v. Turner, 499 So.2d 1282 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1986). Although the appellant theorizes that the payout money went to Schmidt and Ms. Martinez, perhaps in furtherance of their "affair", the trial court apparently chose not to believe the testimony from two defense witnesses, one of which thought something might be going on between them and the other of which testified to passionate kissing between them at a party also attended by Mr. Schmidt's wife.
However, I do not read our Supreme Court's Rosiere decision, or LSA-Const. Art. 5 ยง 10(B), to preclude review where the trial court's credibility determination constitutes an abuse of discretion, see State v. Sorina, 499 So.2d 376, 380 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1986), State v. Claiborne, 483 So.2d 1301, 1305 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1986); is clearly contrary to the evidence, see State v. Vessell, 450 So.2d 938, 943 (La. 1984); State v. Turner, 499 So.2d 1282, 1284 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1986); State v. Scott, 454 So.2d 851, 855 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1984); or where the sole evidence of guilt is internally contradictory and obviously fabricated testimony, see State v. Garlepied, 454 So.2d 1147, 1148 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied 462 So.2d 189 (La. 1984). In the present case the Jackson v. Virginia standard is not met.
The credibility of witnesses lies within the province of the jury, and a finding that one witness (here the arresting officer) is more credible than another (here the defendant) will not be disturbed unless it is clearly contrary to the evidence. State v. Vessell, 450 So.2d 938 (La. 1984); State v. Turner, 499 So.2d 1282 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1986). Having carefully reviewed the record, we cannot say that the jury's conclusions were irrational or clearly wrong.