A jury found Roy Butch McGraw guilty of attempted arson and five counts of aggravated assault based on evidence that McGraw poured gasoline near two ignition sources a light bulb and hot water heater in the crawlspace of his estranged girlfriend’s house and then told the estranged girlfriend’s adult children to light the water heater’s pilot flame. McGraw appeals, alleging the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict, a fatal variance exists between the indictment and the state’s proof at trial, the trial court erred in its charge to the jury, and his counsel provided ineffective assistance. We find no error and affirm McGraw’s convictions. 1. McGraw first contends the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict on all counts and failing to grant his judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict. Specifically, he argues it was scientifically impossible for him to have poured the gasoline into the crawlspace ground on August 8, 2002 because the state’s expert testified that the samples obtained by the investigator on August 9, 2002 showed that the gasoline had been in the ground a minimum of three days. He further argues that the evidence shows that his ex-girlfriend had noticed a strange smell in the crawlspace before August 8, 2002. We find that McGraw’s arguments misconstrue the evidence.
The standard of review for the denial of a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal or a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is the same as for determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction.1 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.2 Resolving evidentiary conflicts and inconsistencies, and assessing witness credibility, are the province of the factfinder, not this Court.3 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.4
