State v. Ring, 300 P.3d 1291

Ring was convicted of robbery and assault after punching the victim, taking her cell phone, and attempting to flee the store.
On appeal, Ring contends the evidence is insufficient to prove each offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
The appellate standard requires reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and resolving conflicts in favor of the jury.
The State proved Ring intentionally took the phone by force and kept possession while fleeing; this supports the robbery conviction even if the taking was temporary.
Ring argues the intent to permanently deprive was lacking, and thus the robbery element fails; the State contends the statute requires depriving either permanently or temporarily.
Ring also challenges the assault conviction, arguing self-defense because the victim allegedly threw a bottle after he spat in her face; the court finds the force used was not for self-defense and supports the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is there sufficient evidence of robbery element?	Ring argues no intent to permanently deprive.	State argues intent to deprive temporarily suffices under statute.	Sufficient evidence; temporary deprivation allowed.
Is there sufficient evidence of assault?	Ring claims self-defense justified force.	Victim turned away; no imminent threat; Ring aggressor.	Sufficient evidence; not justified as self-defense.

State v. Shumway, 63 P.3d 94 (Utah Supreme Court 2002) (set forth standard for sufficiency review of evidence)
State v. Boyd, 25 P.3d 985 (Utah Supreme Court 2001) (establishes favorable-inference approach to sufficiency)
State v. Workman, 852 P.2d 981 (Utah 1993) (requires appellate court not to reassess credibility or reweigh evidence)