State v. Wright, 89-853
| Decision Date | 08 June 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-853,89-853 |
| Citation | 235 Neb. 564,456 N.W.2d 288 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Darren E. WRIGHT, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Convictions: Appeal and Error. In reviewing a criminal conviction, it is not the province of the Supreme Court to resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, determine the plausibility of explanations, or weigh the evidence. Such matters are for the finder of fact, whose findings must be sustained if, taking the view most favorable to the State, there is sufficient evidence to support them.
2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. A finding of guilty by the trier of fact will not be overturned on appeal unless it is based on evidence so lacking in probative force that it can be said as a matter of law that the evidence is insufficient to support a guilty finding.
3. Criminal Law: Proof. The burden is on the State to prove all essential elements of the crime charged.
Michael L. Munch, Asst. Sarpy County Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert M. Spire, Atty. Gen., and Wynn Clemmer, for appellee.
Contending the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for first degree trespass, Darren E. Wright appeals a district court for Sarpy County order that affirmed his Sarpy County Court conviction. We affirm.
In reviewing a criminal conviction, it is not the province of the Supreme Court to resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, determine the plausibility of explanations, or weigh the evidence. Such matters are for the finder of fact, whose findings must be sustained if, taking the view most favorable to the State, there is sufficient evidence to support them. State v. Jones, 235 Neb. 1, 453 N.W.2d 447 (1990).
Taking the view most favorable to the State, the evidence reflects the following. Bellevue police were called to a disturbance at a residence at 1406 Wilshire Drive in Bellevue, Nebraska, on December 11, 1988, where the defendant's estranged wife was visiting. Defendant went to the residence to see his wife. Michael Barksdale, the defendant's brother-in-law, testified that the defendant was banging on the door of the Wilshire Drive residence. When Barksdale opened the door, Wright barged into the residence uninvited. According to Barksdale, Wright, with his hand underneath his clothing, proceeded to threaten some of the occupants, stating, "I got a bullet for you." Four witnesses testified that Wright was told to leave. The defendant refused to leave and had to be forcibly removed from the residence. Wright attempted to reenter the residence, but was prevented from doing so only through the efforts of Barksdale and at least one other person. Wright was subsequently arrested and charged with first degree trespass, a Class I...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Victor
...must be sustained if, taking the view most favorable to the State, there is sufficient evidence to support them. State v. Wright, 235 Neb. 564, 456 N.W.2d 288 (1990); State v. Jones, 235 Neb. 1, 453 N.W.2d 447 Taking the view most favorable to the State, the facts reflect that at approximat......
-
State v. Stanko
...v. Thalken , supra note 1.8 § 29-2316.9 See id.10 State v. Johnson , 298 Neb. 491, 904 N.W.2d 714 (2017).11 Id.12 State v. Wright , 235 Neb. 564, 456 N.W.2d 288 (1990).13 See id.14 87 C.J.S. Trespass § 151 (2018). See 75 Am. Jur. 2d Trespass § 40 (2018).15 See id.16 See Uston v. Resorts Int......
-
State v. Saltzman, 89-1195
...witnesses, determine the plausibility of explanations, or weigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact. State v. Wright, 235 Neb. 564, 456 N.W.2d 288 (1990); State v. Badami, 235 Neb. 118, 453 N.W.2d 746 (1990); State v. Jones, 235 Neb. 1, 453 N.W.2d 447 (1990); State v. Bopp......
-
State v. Janssen, A-97-968
...the burden of proving all essential elements of the crime charged. State v. Fahlk, 246 Neb. 834, 524 N.W.2d 39 (1994); State v. Wright, 235 Neb. 564, 456 N.W.2d 288 (1990). A vulnerable adult is defined as any person 18 years of age or older who has a substantial mental or functional impair......