GENE BOCK v. STATE OF ALASKA (2010)

NOTICE Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent.  See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3).  Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding precedent for any proposition of law.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

A jury found Gene Bock guilty of vehicle theft in the first degree.¹  Bock now appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

Backgound

On December 14, 2000, employees of the Kenai Chrysler Center discovered that a white Dodge Ram pickup truck was missing from the used car lot.   After some initial investigation, Kenai Police Officer Thomas Carver contacted Isaac Truesdell on December 20, and Truesdell led him to the missing pickup, which was parked on a snow-machine trail outside of town.

At trial, Sean Stewart testified that he had seen Truesdell with a white Dodge pickup during the same time period.   Truesdell and Bock stopped by Stewart's residence with the pickup, and Truesdell told Stewart that he and Bock took the truck from the dealer's lot because the keys were in the vehicle.

Bock talked about the stolen pickup with Ryan Fielden, his co-worker.   Bock told Fielden that he and Truesdell first took the keys from the pickup while it was parked on the dealer's lot, and then returned several days later to take the vehicle.

Discussion

When we review the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence and the inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.²  We ask whether a fair-minded juror exercising reasonable judgment could conclude that the State had proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.³  “[T]he weight and credibility of evidence are matters for the jury to consider in reaching a verdict, not for the reviewing court to decide.” ⁴

In this appeal, Bock argues that there were substantial weaknesses in the State's case:  there were no eyewitnesses and there was no physical evidence linking Bock to the stolen pickup.   Bock also argues that some of the testimony at trial was vague, inconclusive, and inconsistent with the witnesses' prior statements to the police.

Bock's arguments would require us to view the evidence in the light most favorable to acquittal.   But, as discussed above, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdict.   Viewed in this light, the observations of Stewart and Officer Carver, along with Bock's admissions to Fielden, constituted sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion that Bock was guilty of this crime.

We therefore AFFIRM the superior court's judgment.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. AS 11.46.360(a)(1)..  FN1. AS 11.46.360(a)(1).

FN2. Spencer v. State, 164 P.3d 649, 650 (Alaska App.2007)..  FN2. Spencer v. State, 164 P.3d 649, 650 (Alaska App.2007).

FN3. Collins v. State, 977 P.2d 741, 747 (Alaska App.1999)..  FN3. Collins v. State, 977 P.2d 741, 747 (Alaska App.1999).

FN4. Ratliff v. State, 798 P.2d 1288, 1291 (Alaska App.1990) (citing Anthony v. State, 521 P.2d 486, 492 (Alaska 1974))..  FN4. Ratliff v. State, 798 P.2d 1288, 1291 (Alaska App.1990) (citing Anthony v. State, 521 P.2d 486, 492 (Alaska 1974)).

BOLGER, Judge.