McFarlane v. State, No. 00-58.
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming |
Writing for the Court | HILL, Justice. |
Citation | 17 P.3d 31,2001 WY 10 |
Parties | James Charles McFARLANE, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
Decision Date | 02 February 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 00-58. |
17 P.3d 31
2001 WY 10
v.
The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
No. 00-58.
Supreme Court of Wyoming.
February 2, 2001.
Representing Appellant: Sylvia Lee Hackl, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; and Tina N. Hughes, Assistant Appellate Counsel.
Representing Appellee: Gay Woodhouse, Wyoming Attorney General; Paul Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Georgia L. Tibbetts, Senior Assistant Attorney General.
Before LEHMAN, C.J., and THOMAS, GOLDEN, HILL, and KITE, JJ.
HILL, Justice.
[¶ 1] Appellant, James Charles McFarlane (McFarlane), seeks review of his conviction for larceny, contending that the conviction must be reversed because there was insufficient evidence to sustain it. McFarlane contends that he was not appropriately charged, i.e., that the evidence may support a conviction for possession of stolen property, but not for the larceny itself. We disagree with his view of the evidence and affirm.
ISSUE
[¶ 2] The sole issue in this appeal is simply stated by both parties: Is the evidence sufficient to sustain McFarlane's conviction for larceny?
FACTS
[¶ 3] In September of 1998, Karla and Tony Doll took a 1997 Artic Cat Powder Special snowmobile to Dampier's Snowmobiles, Inc., in Newcastle, Wyoming, to be sold
DISCUSSION
[¶ 4] McFarlane contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grissom v. State, No. 04-154.
...would, or even could, have found the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. McFarlane v. State, 2001 WY 10, ¶ 4, 17 P.3d 31, 32 (Wyo.2001). See also Leyo v. State, 2005 WY 92, ¶¶ 11-16, 116 P.3d 1113, 1116-18 [¶ 25] "To be convicted of possession with the......
-
Allen v. State, No. 00-192.
...would, or even could, have found the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. McFarlane v. State, 2001 WY 10, ¶ 4, 17 P.3d 31, 32 (Wyo.2001). Even though it is possible to draw other inferences from the evidence which has been presented, the jury has the re......
-
Davis v. State, No. 04-95.
...would, or even could, have found the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. McFarlane v. State, 2001 WY 10, ¶ 4, 17 P.3d 31, 32 [¶ 38] The district court separately instructed the jury on the elements of forgery for each of the four counts alleged in the ......
-
Leyo v. State, No. 04-18.
...To that end, this Court must presume that the jury resolved any conflict in the evidence in favor of the prosecution. McFarlane v. State, 2001 WY 10, ¶ 4, 17 P.3d 31, ¶ 4 (Wyo.2001). Ultimately, in order to preserve the role of the fact-finder, this Court does not review the record evidence......
-
Grissom v. State, No. 04-154.
...would, or even could, have found the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. McFarlane v. State, 2001 WY 10, ¶ 4, 17 P.3d 31, 32 (Wyo.2001). See also Leyo v. State, 2005 WY 92, ¶¶ 11-16, 116 P.3d 1113, 1116-18 [¶ 25] "To be convicted of possession with the......
-
Allen v. State, No. 00-192.
...would, or even could, have found the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. McFarlane v. State, 2001 WY 10, ¶ 4, 17 P.3d 31, 32 (Wyo.2001). Even though it is possible to draw other inferences from the evidence which has been presented, the jury has the re......
-
Davis v. State, No. 04-95.
...would, or even could, have found the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. McFarlane v. State, 2001 WY 10, ¶ 4, 17 P.3d 31, 32 [¶ 38] The district court separately instructed the jury on the elements of forgery for each of the four counts alleged in the ......
-
Leyo v. State, No. 04-18.
...To that end, this Court must presume that the jury resolved any conflict in the evidence in favor of the prosecution. McFarlane v. State, 2001 WY 10, ¶ 4, 17 P.3d 31, ¶ 4 (Wyo.2001). Ultimately, in order to preserve the role of the fact-finder, this Court does not review the record evidence......