Holmes v. State

The defendant violated two protective orders and a no-contact order by calling his wife numerous times, sending e-mails, leaving mail at his mother-in-law's house and following his wife and her family in his car.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A jury found Lloyd Holmes guilty of battery and aggravated stalking. Holmes appeals, alleging the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict and the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict on the aggravated stalking charge because of a variance in the date listed on the indictment and the date proven at trial. We find no error and affirm Holmes’ convictions. 1. 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

Viewed in this light, the evidence shows that Holmes admitted to an officer that he punched his wife in the face on January 5, 2006. The punch caused a broken nose and two black eyes. Holmes’ wife and eleven-year-old daughter both testified that Holmes struck his wife in the face. Holmes’ nineteen-year-old daughter testified that she walked into the kitchen, saw her mother covered in blood, and saw her younger sister trying to attack Holmes. An officer testified about the wife’s injuries, photographs of the injuries were admitted into evidence, and a doctor testified that he performed surgery to fix the wife’s broken nose. The evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Holmes guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of battery for intentionally causing his wife visible bodily harm.4

Holmes v. State

The defendant violated two protective orders and a no-contact order by calling his wife numerous times, sending e-mails, leaving mail at his mother-in-law's house and following his wife and her family in his car.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report