AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted after a jury trial for two counts of forgery, two counts of theft of identity, and one count of fraud. The charges stemmed from incidents where two stolen checks were cashed at a supermarket. Evidence presented at trial included surveillance videos, testimony from investigating police officers, the store manager, a cashier, and the Defendant herself. The Defendant argued she did not speak English well enough to write and cash the checks, despite testifying through an interpreter.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence at trial to establish her identity as the person who cashed the stolen checks at the supermarket.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence at trial to establish the Defendant's identity as the person who cashed the stolen checks.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions.

Reasons

• Per CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge, and CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, concurring): The Court considered the Defendant's argument regarding the insufficiency of evidence concerning her identity as the perpetrator. It referenced the standard for evaluating evidence sufficiency in criminal cases, emphasizing that the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, resolving all conflicts and indulging all permissible inferences to uphold the conviction. The Court found no basis to substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder or to re-weigh the evidence, leading to the affirmation of the Defendant's convictions.