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 of voluntary manslaughter, challenged on the grounds that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he shot and killed the victim. The evidence against the Defendant was largely circumstantial.

Procedural History

• APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY: Conviction for voluntary manslaughter affirmed.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he shot and killed the victim, contending the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury's inference of guilt.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the State provided sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant shot and killed the victim.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for voluntary manslaughter.

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge, with JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge, and JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge concurring, found that the Defendant did not present any new facts, laws, or arguments that would persuade the Court that the evidence supporting the conviction was insufficient. The Court concluded that the circumstantial evidence, when viewed in light of the surrounding circumstances, was sufficient for a reasonable fact-finder to infer beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant shot the victim. The Court emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence on appeal and that circumstantial evidence can be substantial.