Salt Lake City v. Christensen

2013 UT App 283
_________________________________________________________
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
SALT LAKE CITY,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
CELESTIAL CHRISTENSEN,
Defendant and Appellant.
Per Curiam Decision
No. 20121017-CA
Filed November 29, 2013
Third District Court, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Andrew H. Stone
No. 091907438
Richard G. Sorenson, Attorney for Appellant
Padma Veeru-Collings, Attorney for Appellee
Before JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME, CAROLYN B. MCHUGH, and
STEPHEN L. ROTH.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Celestial Christensen appeals her convictions of assaulting
a police officer and interfering with an arrest. We affirm.
¶2 Christensen asserts that there was insufficient evidence to
support the jury’s verdict. In reviewing a jury verdict, an appellate
court evaluates the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the
light most favorable to the verdict. State v. Fedorowicz, 2002 UT 67,
¶ 40, 52 P.3d 1194. Additionally, it is assumed that the jury believed
the evidence supporting the verdict. Id. Also, appellate courts
generally will not reevaluate the credibility of witnesses. Id. Rather,
“[w]hen the evidence presented is conflicting or disputed, the jury
serves as the exclusive judge of both the credibility of witnesses

Salt Lake City v. Christensen
20121017-CA 2 2013 UT App 283
and the weight to be given particular evidence.” State v. Workman,
852 P.2d 981, 984 (Utah 1993). An appellate court’s inquiry ends
when there is some evidence, including reasonable inferences
drawn therefrom, from which each element of the crime charged
may be found. State v. White, 2011 UT App 162, ¶ 8, 258 P.3d 594.
¶3 In this case, there was sufficient evidence presented at trial
from which the jury could find all the required elements of the
crimes charged. The person who called in the complaint about the
noise from the party testified that he recognized Christensen’s
voice during the party, contradicting Christensen’s own testimony
that she did not participate. The initial two responding officers
testified consistently about their arrival at the party and
Christensen’s conduct when she came to talk with the officers.
Their observations and recollections were congruous and were
sufficient for a jury to convict on both charges. Two defense
witnesses gave testimony that contradicted the officers’ testimony,
which Christensen argues renders the evidence insufficient.
However, contradictory evidence alone is not sufficient to overturn
a jury verdict. State v. Lucero, 2012 UT App 202, ¶ 13, 283 P.3d 594.
Rather, the jury determines which evidence to believe when
conflicting evidence is presented. Fedorowicz, 2002 UT 67, ¶ 40.
¶4 The evidence at trial was sufficient for the jury to find that
Christensen assaulted a police officer by kicking at him several
times. Although Christensen disputes that she caused any bodily
harm, an assault may be completed by an attempt to cause bodily
injury or by an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury.
See Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-601(3) (LexisNexis 2012). The testimony
regarding her efforts to kick the officer, including that Christensen
made at least one solid impact, is sufficient to support a jury verdict
of assaulting a police officer.
¶5 Additionally, the evidence was sufficient to support a
conviction for interfering with an arrest. Testimony was presented
that Christensen did not comply with requests from the officers
and resisted with violence multiple times.

Salt Lake City v. Christensen
20121017-CA 3 2013 UT App 283
¶6 Christensen argues that the officers were not acting within
the scope of their lawful authority because they used excessive
force to arrest her and that she was therefore entitled to defend
herself. However, the officers’ testimony of what occurred differs
from her testimony regarding the use of force. We assume that the
jury believed the officers’ account rather than Christensen’s and
accordingly determined that there was no use of excessive force in
effecting the arrest. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient
to support the jury’s verdict on both counts.
¶7 Affirmed.