Summary
This Utah Court of Appeals opinion reviews Alberto Frank Hernandez's convictions for aggravated assault and obstruction of justice following a confrontation at a tow yard involving an airsoft gun. Hernandez appealed, arguing insufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict, particularly regarding whether he pointed the weapon and his intent to remove it from the scene. The court affirmed the convictions, finding that some evidence existed from which a reasonable jury could find the elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether sufficient evidence supported Hernandez's aggravated-assault conviction.
- Whether Hernandez preserved and could prevail on his claim that the employee's testimony was inherently improbable under Utah precedent.
- Whether sufficient evidence supported Hernandez's obstruction-of-justice conviction based on removing the gun from the scene.
- Whether sufficient evidence supported the obstruction-of-justice conviction based on providing false information to police.
Holdings
- Hernandez did not preserve a claim that the employee's testimony should be disregarded as inherently improbable because his directed-verdict motion raised only a general sufficiency challenge and did not specifically invoke the inherent-improbability doctrine or request that the testimony be disregarded.
- Sufficient evidence supported the aggravated-assault conviction because the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find that Hernandez intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly threatened bodily injury while displaying a dangerous weapon and making a show of immediate force or violence.
- Sufficient evidence supported the obstruction-of-justice conviction under the theory that Hernandez caused the gun to be removed from the scene with intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the investigation.
- Sufficient evidence supported the obstruction-of-justice conviction under the theory that Hernandez intentionally provided false information about his conduct to hinder the investigation.
Key quotations
“we will uphold a trial court’s denial of a motion for directed verdict based on a claim of insufficiency of the evidence if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, some evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find that the elements of the crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” (¶ 20)
“The directed verdict motion did not assert that Employee’s testimony should be wholly disregarded; instead, the motion went to the weight of the totality of the evidence.” (¶ 24)
“As an appellate court, “we are not normally in the business of reassessing or reweighing evidence”; instead, “we resolve conflicts in the evidence in favor of the jury verdict.”” (¶ 28)
Factual background
Hernandez confronted a tow-yard employee while trying to retrieve his impounded vehicle, threatened to physically harm him, and displayed an airsoft gun in an effort to frighten or warn him. A witness testified that Hernandez pointed the gun at the employee, while other witnesses saw him display the gun but did not see it pointed at anyone. Hernandez gave the gun to his sister, who left the scene with it, and initially falsely told police that he had displayed a thermos rather than a gun before later admitting that he had used an airsoft gun.
Procedural history
Hernandez was charged and tried in the Third District Court, Salt Lake Department. After the State presented its case and again after Hernandez testified, he moved for a directed verdict on both charges. The district court denied the motion, the jury found him guilty of aggravated assault and obstruction of justice, and he appealed.