Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-12003 No. 6388
10-05-2016
JOSHUA R. WELTY, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Appearances: Justin A. Tapp, Denali Law Group, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Benjamin J. Hofmeister, Assistant District Attorney, Ketchikan, and Craig W. Richards, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
NOTICE Memorandum decisions of this Court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding authority for any proposition of law. Trial Court No. 1KE-13-813 CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appeal from the Superior Court, First Judicial District, Ketchikan, William B. Carey, Judge. Appearances: Justin A. Tapp, Denali Law Group, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Benjamin J. Hofmeister, Assistant District Attorney, Ketchikan, and Craig W. Richards, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee. Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, Allard, Judge, and Suddock, Superior Court Judge. PER CURIAM.
Sitting by assignment made pursuant to Article IV, Section 16 of the Alaska Constitution and Administrative Rule 24(d).
Following a jury trial, Joshua R. Welty was convicted of first-degree burglary based on evidence that he unlawfully entered the home of Sharon Stoakes with the intent to assault her friend Floyd "Mason" Kervin. On appeal, Welty argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient, as a matter of law, to support his conviction for first-degree burglary.
AS 11.46.300(a). Welty was also convicted of fourth-degree assault for assaulting Kervin; he does not challenge that conviction on appeal.
When an appellate court assesses the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we must view the evidence — and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence — in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdict. We therefore present the facts of Welty's case in that light.
See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 188 P.3d 700, 702 (Alaska App. 2008).
Early in the evening of October 31, 2013, Welty and his girlfriend (Stoakes's adult daughter) went to Stoakes's trailer to participate in Halloween activities with Welty's two children. Welty knocked and was invited in. After a short time, Welty and his girlfriend left to take the children trick-or-treating.
Shortly before midnight, Welty returned alone to Stoakes's trailer. He was "angry and drunk." (Welty was apparently angry because he believed Kervin, had consumed a bottle of liquor belonging to him.)
According to Stoakes's statements to the police, Welty "barged in" without knocking. Stoakes tried to block Welty's path, but Welty pushed past her and began punching Kervin, who was sleeping on the couch. Kervin grabbed his gun and fired several shots at Welty, hitting Welty in the arm.
At trial, however, Stoakes told a different version of events. Stoakes testified that Welty knocked before he entered the trailer and Stoakes voluntarily let him in. Stoakes was then impeached with her earlier statements to the police.
To prove first-degree burglary in this case, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Welty entered or remained unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime in the building; (2) the building was a dwelling.
See AS 11.46.300; AS 11.46.310.
Welty argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove the first element beyond a reasonable doubt because there was too much conflicting testimony at trial regarding whether Welty unlawfully entered the trailer.
But Welty's argument is premised on viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to himself, rather than viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdict. Which version of events to believe was a matter for the jury to decide, not this Court.
Johnson v. State, 188 P.3d 700, 702 (Alaska App. 2008).
Id. (noting that the appellate court does not re-weigh the evidence or evaluate a witness's credibility on claims of insufficiency — those are matters for the jury to decide); cf. Maloney v. State, 667 P.2d 1258, 1267-68 (Alaska App. 1983) (explaining that the judge may consider witness credibility in determining whether the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence for purposes of a motion for new trial). --------
Having reviewed the trial record in this case, we conclude that a fair-minded fact-finder could find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Welty entered the trailer unlawfully based on Stoakes's first version of events.
We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the superior court.