 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Boone1/30/2004
h the issues to be proven and with some other theory or theories inconsistent therewith, it becomes a mere conjecture, and the rule of the burden of proof is not satisfied."
The defendant contends it is equally likely from the evidence in this case that the defendant drove with Steward to the house, assisted him with the stolen items after Steward removed them from the home, and then drove Steward back to wipe off fingerprints.
Fegles is not binding on this court. Moreover, it is a civil case and the defendant's reliance on it is misplaced. Even Fegles notes that the above rule does not
"alter the general rule that in civil cases a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient to establish the fact in issue. While the plaintiff must show that the inferences favorable to him are more reasonable or probable than those against him, the circumstantial evidence in civil cases need not rise to that degree of certainty which will exclude every other reasonable conclusion. . . . When two or more inferences can be reasonably deduced from the facts, the reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court." Fegles, 205 F.2d at 639.
This court has addressed a similar argument to that raised by the defendant in State v. Crosby, 182 Kan. 677, 685, 324 P.2d 197 (1958). Crosby was convicted of arson and argued on appeal that circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt because such evidence might also be deemed compatible with innocence. This court rejected that argument, reasoning that "the question before this court is not whether the evidence is incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis except guilt. That question was for the jury and trial court, and the function of this court is limited to ascertaining whether there was a basis in the evidence for a reasonable inference of guilt." 182 Kan. at 685.
A reasonable inference of guilt may be established by circumstantial evidence as Kansas case law is clear that a conviction for even the gravest offense may be sustained on circumstantial evidence. "Circumstantial evidence tends to prove a fact in issue by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for reasonable inference by the jury of the occurrence of the fact in issue." State v. Evans, 275 Kan. 95, 105, 62 P.3d 220 (2003). The element of intent necessary to show aiding and abetting may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. State v. Dunn, 243 Kan. 414, 431, 758 P.2d 718 (1988).
In this case, evidence that the defendant, either directly or as an aider and abettor, knowingly damaged Eads' home by means of fire was overwhelming. The defendant left with Steward, who proclaimed that he wanted to "kick the fag's ass and take his shit." The defendant returned a short time later with property taken from Eads' residence. After a few hours, Steward had a discussion with the defendant, and the defendant told his girlfriend that they were going "back to the fag's house" to wipe up fingerprints. Around the same time that Steward and the defendant returned to the Christner residence, a fire was reported at Eads' home. Eads was found dead with blunt trauma and cutting wounds, his blood was found on the defendant's jeans, and the defendant's fingerprints were found on property taken from Eads' residence in the trunk of the car that the defendant had borrowed.
From this evidence, the jury could form a reasonable inference that the defendant accompanied Steward to Eads' residence, assisted him in harming Eads and taking his property, and returned to the residence with the specific intent to remove evidence that they had left at the residence. Even if this evidence supported another
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Kansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|