[¶ 1] Arthur Lee Crissler appeals a district court judgment after a jury convicted him of possessing a weapon in a correctional facility. Because sufficient evidence was presented to support the jury’s verdict, and the testimony regarding the potential use and composition of an altered pencil was admissible, we аffirm.
I
[¶ 2] On October 13, 2016, the State charged Crissler with possessing an object in a correctional facility intended to be used for an assault on another person or to dаmage property. The charges arose from the search of Crissler’s cell block on September 3, 2016 during which a pencil wrapped in paper, thread, аnd elastic was found concealed underneath the mattress of Crissler’s bunk.
[¶ 3] At trial, Burleigh County Detention Center Officer Lucas Kuntz testified about the search and discovery of the pencil. Kuntz testified that the pencil was a flex pencil that is very flexible in an unaltered state. The pencil found concealed under Crissler’s mattress was wrapрed in paper that had first been wetted and then, when in place, allowed to dry which' had the effect of increasing the rigidity of the pencil. The rigidity was further increased by thread-like string. Finally, elastic that appeared to come from a pair of underwear was added in a manner that would have made the pencil easiеr to grip. The sharpened, stiffened, and reinforced flexible pencil protruded from the handle made of reinforced elastic in a manner that could allow a. person to stab another person while simultaneously punching him. The pencil, as modified, was admitted as an exhibit. Kuntz also testified that Crissler admitted the pencil was his. Crissler аlso told Kuntz, “I [Crissler] could see how you could think this [the modified pencil] is a weapon.”
[¶ 4] The jury found Crissler guilty of possessing a weapon in a correctional facility under N.D.C.C. § 12-44.1-21(5). The statute provides, “[i]t is unlawful for an inmate in a correctional facility to willfully procure, make, or possess an object, in-eluding
II
[¶ 5] Crissler argues there is insufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict against him. Crissler argues the State failed to establish the pencil was a weapon and that Crissler intended to use the pencil as a weapon. Crissler also argues the district court erred by allowing speculative testimony by Kuntz that the pencil could be used to stab, the modifications made the pencil more rigid, the paper was formed and wetted, and the pencil could be used to damage property.
[¶ 6] “The determination of whether to allow opinion testimony from a lay or expert witness is within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.” State v. Evans,
[¶ 7] Kuntz’s testimony challenged by Crissler is the opinion of a lay witness governed by N.D.R.Ev. 701. Rule 701 of the North Dakota Rules of Evidence provides:
If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is:
(a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; and
(b) helpful to clearly undеrstanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue.
Lay witness testimony may not be based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. Evans,
[¶ 8] In Evans, an оfficer testified about his experience with the mechanisms necessary for towing a boat trailer, as it related to a charge of negligent homicide in a vehicle accident.
[¶ 9] Kuntz’s testimony was admissible under Rule 701. Although Crissler did not challenge Kuntz’s testimony as expert testimony, Crissler argued the testimony was speculative. At oral argument, Cri'ssler’s counsel argued Kuntz should have testified about his observations of the pencil in terms of his training and experience. Howеver, each of the challenged statements was testimony of Kuntz’s perception: the pencil as modified could be used to stab, the modifications made the рencil more rigid, the paper was formed and wetted, and the pencil could be used to damage property. These statements were helpful
m
[¶ 10] Crissler’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is related to whether Crissler intended to use the pencil “for an assault on another pеrson.or to damage property.” N.D.C.C. § 12-44.1-r 21(5). The standard of review is well established when a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support.a jury vеrdict:
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to convict, we look: only to the evidence most favorable, -to the verdict and the reasonable inferences therefrom to see if there is substantial evidence to warrant a conviction. A conviction rests upon insufficient evidence only when no rational fact finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt after viewing the evidence in a light most •.favorable to the prosecution and giving the prosеcution the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn in its favor. , (
State v. Knowels,2003 ND 180 , ¶ 6,671 N.W.2d 816 (quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted). “A conviction may be justified on circumstantial evidence alone if the circumstantial evidence has such probative force as to enable the trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonаble doubt.” State v. Noorlun,2005 ND 189 , ¶ 20,705 N.W.2d 819 (citing State v. Steinbach,1998 ND 18 , ¶ 16,575 N.W.2d 193 ). “A verdict based on circumstantial evidence carries the same presumption of correctness as other verdicts.” Noorlun,2005 ND 189 , ¶ 20,705 N.W.2d 819 (citing Steinbach,1998 ND 18 , ¶ 16,575 N.W.2d 193 ). “[A] jury may find a dеfendant guilty even though evidence exists which, if believed, could lead to a not guilty verdict.” Noorlun, at ¶ 20 (citing State v. Wilson,2004 ND 51 , ¶ 9,676 N.W.2d 98 ).
State v. Rourke,
[¶ 11] Crissler did not object to the jury instruction regarding proof of intent. That instruction correctly stated that intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence and noted that intent can rarely be established by other means. State v. Sabo,
[¶ 12] After reviеwing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude the jury could have reasonably found Crissler possessed an object in a correctiоnal facility intended to be used for an assault on another person or to damage property in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12-44.1-21(5). Crissler’s arguments regarding the State’s lack of evidence that he intended to use the pencil for an assault on another person or to damage property are unpersuasive.
[¶ 13] The testimony challenged by Cris-sler was admissible, and the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence. We affirm the judgment.