State v. Mangum, 318 P.3d 250

Mangum was convicted of aggravated assault, a third-degree felony, under Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-108(1)(b).
Victim testified that Mangum stabbed her in the back during an altercation.
Victim described a stab wound located between her spine and scapula and saw something shiny in Mangum's hand.
A witness testified he heard Victim yell that she had been stabbed.
Mangum’s ex-husband testified that Mangum called him after the incident and admitted stabbing someone.
Mangum denied stabbing Victim at trial; the jury weighed conflicting evidence and credibility.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence of a dangerous weapon under 76-5-108(1)(b)?	Mangum (plaintiff) argues insufficient evidence of a weapon.	Mangum (defendant) contends evidence fails to show use of a dangerous weapon.	Yes; evidence supports use of a dangerous weapon.
Does Hutchings require specific intent under § 76-5-108(1)(b)?	Hutchings requires specific intent to injure.	Hutchings does not apply to Mangum's subsection (1)(b) case.	No specific intent required for § 76-5-108(1)(b); Hutchings not controlling.

State v. Fedorowicz, 2002 UT 67 (Utah Supreme Court, 2002) (jury credibility and standard of review for conflicting evidence)
State v. Workman, 852 P.2d 981 (Utah 1993) (jury as exclusive judge of credibility and weight of evidence)
State v. Gardner, 2007 UT 70 (Utah Supreme Court, 2007) (presumption that jury disbelieved conflicting evidence supports verdict)
State v. Lucero, 2012 UT App 202 (Utah Appellate Court, 2012) (conflicting evidence does not overturn jury verdict)
State v. Ekstrom, 2013 UT App 271 (Utah Appellate Court, 2013) (two subsections of aggravated assault are separate variants; only relevant subsection need be proven)
State v. Hutchings, 2012 UT 50 (Utah Supreme Court, 2012) (clarified that specific intent to injure is required under § 76-5-108(1)(a))