Works v. State

The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's pro se demand for a speedy trial, since the record showed that a public defender had been representing defendant for several weeks before he filed the motion.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A jury found Robert Works guilty of aggravated assault, aggravated battery, and giving a false name to a law enforcement officer. Works appeals, contending 1 the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the aggravated assault and aggravated battery charges, 2 the trial court erred in denying his speedy trial demand, 3 the trial court erroneously involved itself in plea negotiations and aided the state in presenting its case, 4 the trial court erred in allowing into evidence expert testimony regarding the cycle of domestic violence, 5 the trial court erred in not directing a verdict of acquittal for failure to prove venue, 6 the trial court erred in failing to merge the aggravated battery charge into the aggravated assault charge, and 7 trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. For reasons that follow, we find no error and affirm. 1. Works contends the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict as to the aggravated assault and aggravated battery charges. We disagree.

On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to support the jury’s verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence; moreover, this Court determines evidence sufficiency and does not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility.1 “Resolving evidentiary conflicts and inconsistencies, and assessing witness credibility, are the province of the factfinder, not this Court.”2 As long as there is some evidence, even though contradicted, to support each necessary element of the state’s case, this Court will uphold the jury’s verdict.3

Works v. State

The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's pro se demand for a speedy trial, since the record showed that a public defender had been representing defendant for several weeks before he filed the motion.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report