In this appeal the court addressed their standard for review when looking at an issue of a district court’s denial of a motion for a directed verdict.
Facts
Barner was charged with aggravated robbery after while driving away from a 7-Eleven with a stolen pack of beer, he hit the store clerk with his car (the clerk was not injured). At trial, Barner moved for a directed verdict arguing that the State had failed to present sufficient evidence that Barner had “knowingly or intentionally used force or fear of immediate force against the clerk.” The district court denied the motion, and Barner was convicted of a lesser included offense of robbery. Barner appealed his conviction.
On appeal, Barner argued that the clerk had followed him out of the 7-Eleven and stood in front of Barner’s vehicle as Barner drove away. Barner claimed that the State had not presented evidence that Barner intended to hit the clerk, rather he was simply driving away from the parking lot and only incidentally ran into him.
Relevant Issue
Which standards govern a trial court’s denial of a motion for directed verdict?
Rule
A district court’s denial of a motion for directed verdict is reviewed for correctness.
Analysis
The Court noted that Barner’s claim relied on the insufficiency of the evidence, therefore their review would be highly deferential to the district court’s ruling. State v. Hawkins, 2016. The Court state further that they will uphold the district court’s denial 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 have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.
To uphold Barner’s conviction of robbery, the State must show that, “the person intentionally or knowingly use[d] force or fear of immediate force against another in the course of committing a theft or wrongful appropriation.” The evidence presented to the jury had shown that Barner and the clerk made eye contact as the clerk stood in front of Barner’s vehicle. Barner drove the vehicle into the clerk, regardless. A reasonable jury could conclude from this evidence that Barner intended to use force or fear of immediate force with the vehicle to aid his own escape, even if he didn’t intend to hit the clerk.
Holding
The Court held that the district court correctly denied Barner’s motion for a directed verdict and affirmed his conviction for robbery.