11

Chapter 4Chapter 4

Direct and Circumstantial Direct and Circumstantial Evidence and the Use of Evidence and the Use of InferencesInferences

22

EVIDENCE AND PROOFEVIDENCE AND PROOF

THE MEANS OF ESTABLISHING AND PROVING THE THE MEANS OF ESTABLISHING AND PROVING THE TRUTH OR UNTRUTH OF ANY FACT THAT ISTRUTH OR UNTRUTH OF ANY FACT THAT IS ALLEGED ALLEGED IS WHAT IS KNOWN ASIS WHAT IS KNOWN AS EVIDENCEEVIDENCE

PROOFPROOF IS THE RESULT OF EVIDENCE AND EVIDENCE IS THE RESULT OF EVIDENCE AND EVIDENCE IS THE MEANS OF ATTAINING PROOFIS THE MEANS OF ATTAINING PROOF

THE BURDEN-OF-PROOF REQUIREMENT IS ACTUALLY THE BURDEN-OF-PROOF REQUIREMENT IS ACTUALLY TWO BURDENS:TWO BURDENS: BURDEN OF PRODUCTIONBURDEN OF PRODUCTION WHICH REQUIRES WHICH REQUIRES

THE PARTY WITH THE BURDEN ON A FACTUAL THE PARTY WITH THE BURDEN ON A FACTUAL ISSUE TO INTRODUCE SUFFICIENT RELEVANT ISSUE TO INTRODUCE SUFFICIENT RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE FACT AT ISSUEEVIDENCE TO PROVE THE FACT AT ISSUE

BURDEN OF PERSUASIONBURDEN OF PERSUASION WHICH REQUIRES WHICH REQUIRES THE PARTY WITH THE BURDEN TO PRODUCE THE PARTY WITH THE BURDEN TO PRODUCE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PERSUADE THE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PERSUADE THE FACT FINDER THAT A FACT EXISTSFACT FINDER THAT A FACT EXISTS

33

THE REASONABLE DOUBT THE REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARDSTANDARD

IN ORDER TO CONVICT AND PUNISH A IN ORDER TO CONVICT AND PUNISH A DEFENDANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED, DEFENDANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED, EVERY ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CRIME EVERY ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CRIME MUST BE PROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT MUST BE PROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT BEYONDBEYOND REASONABLE DOUBTREASONABLE DOUBT

COURTS AND LEGAL SCHOLARS HAVE NOT COURTS AND LEGAL SCHOLARS HAVE NOT REACHED A CONSENSUS ON THE EXACT REACHED A CONSENSUS ON THE EXACT DEFINITION OF REASONABLE DOUBTDEFINITION OF REASONABLE DOUBT

DUE TO THIS THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT TRIAL DUE TO THIS THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT TRIAL JUDGES GIVE JURIES CAN DIFFER FROM JUDGES GIVE JURIES CAN DIFFER FROM STATE TO STATE AND FROM COURT TO STATE TO STATE AND FROM COURT TO COURT WITHIN A STATECOURT WITHIN A STATE

44

THE REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD THE REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD (Cont.)(Cont.)

DUE TO THESE DIFFERENCES THE U.S. DUE TO THESE DIFFERENCES THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS HAD TO CONSIDER IF SUPREME COURT HAS HAD TO CONSIDER IF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE HAS BEEN THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE HAS BEEN SATISFIED BY A “REASONABLE DOUBT” SATISFIED BY A “REASONABLE DOUBT” INSTRUCTIONINSTRUCTION

THE INSTRUCTIONS MUST INFORM THE JURY THE INSTRUCTIONS MUST INFORM THE JURY THAT THEY MUST JUDGE THE GUILT OF THE THAT THEY MUST JUDGE THE GUILT OF THE DEFENDANT ACCORDING TO DEFENDANT ACCORDING TO A HIGH DEGREE A HIGH DEGREE OF CERTAINTYOF CERTAINTY

THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO UPHELD THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO UPHELD DEFINITIONS OF REASONABLE DOUBT THAT DEFINITIONS OF REASONABLE DOUBT THAT SPOKE TO THE DEGREE OF DOUBTSPOKE TO THE DEGREE OF DOUBT

55

THE REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD THE REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD (Cont.)(Cont.)

FROM THESE CASES IT CAN BE SAID THAT FROM THESE CASES IT CAN BE SAID THAT REASONABLE DOUBT IS LESS THAN “ACTUAL REASONABLE DOUBT IS LESS THAN “ACTUAL SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT” BUT MORE THAN “A SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT” BUT MORE THAN “A MERE POSSIBLE DOUBT”MERE POSSIBLE DOUBT”

A JURY SHOULD NOT FIND A DEFENDANT A JURY SHOULD NOT FIND A DEFENDANT GUILTY BECAUSE IT DID NOT HAVE GUILTY BECAUSE IT DID NOT HAVE “SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT” ABOUT THE “SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT” ABOUT THE DEFANDAT’S GUILT BUT IT SHOULD NOT DEFANDAT’S GUILT BUT IT SHOULD NOT REFUSE TO FIND THAT SAME DEFENDANT REFUSE TO FIND THAT SAME DEFENDANT GUILTY SIMPLY BECAUSE A “MERE POSSIBLE GUILTY SIMPLY BECAUSE A “MERE POSSIBLE DOUBT” EXISTS ABOUT THE DEFENDANT’S DOUBT” EXISTS ABOUT THE DEFENDANT’S GUILTGUILT

66

DIRECT EVIDENCE AND DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCECIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE

DRAWN ON THE PART OF THE FACT FINDER DRAWN ON THE PART OF THE FACT FINDER DIRECT EVIDENCE, CIRCUMSTANCIAL DIRECT EVIDENCE, CIRCUMSTANCIAL (INDIRECT)(INDIRECT) EVIDENCE OR BOTH CAN BE EVIDENCE OR BOTH CAN BE USED TO PROVE EACH AND EVERY ESSENTIAL USED TO PROVE EACH AND EVERY ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF A CRIMEELEMENT OF A CRIME

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCECIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS THAT IS THAT WHICH INDIRECTLY PROVES OR WHICH INDIRECTLY PROVES OR DISPROVES A FACT IN ISSUE AND THE DISPROVES A FACT IN ISSUE AND THE FACT FINDER MUST REASON OR DRAW FACT FINDER MUST REASON OR DRAW INFERENCES.INFERENCES.

DIRECT EVIDENCE IS THAT WHICH DIRECT EVIDENCE IS THAT WHICH PROVES OR DISPROVES A FACT IN ISSUE PROVES OR DISPROVES A FACT IN ISSUE WITHOUT ANY REASONING OR WITHOUT ANY REASONING OR INFERENCES BEINGINFERENCES BEING

77

DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANCIAL DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE (Cont.)EVIDENCE (Cont.)

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE MUST ALSO BE USED TO PROVE MENTAL MUST ALSO BE USED TO PROVE MENTAL ELEMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF MANY CRIMESELEMENTS OF MANY CRIMES

88

INTENTINTENT

THE LAW INFERS THAT PEOPLE THE LAW INFERS THAT PEOPLE INTEND THE REASONABLE, INTEND THE REASONABLE, FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCES OF FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR INTENTIONAL AND THEIR INTENTIONAL AND DELIBERATE ACTS TO PROVE DELIBERATE ACTS TO PROVE INTENTINTENT

THESE INFERENCES MUST FLOW THESE INFERENCES MUST FLOW RATIONALLY FROM THE EVIDENCE RATIONALLY FROM THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN COURTPRESENTED IN COURT

99

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCECIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

IN SOME CASES, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN SOME CASES, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ALONE IS USEDALONE IS USED

WHEN ONLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS WHEN ONLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS USED, MANY STATES DO NOT FOLLOW THE USED, MANY STATES DO NOT FOLLOW THE FEDERAL RULE STATED IN THE FEDERAL RULE STATED IN THE HOLLAND HOLLAND DECISIONDECISION BUT ADD REQUIREMENTS BUT ADD REQUIREMENTS

HOLLAND V. U.S., “THAT CIRCUMSTANTIAL HOLLAND V. U.S., “THAT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS … NO DIFFERENT FROM EVIDENCE IS … NO DIFFERENT FROM TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE.” TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE.”

IN A FEW CRIMES PROSECUTORS ARE LIMITED IN A FEW CRIMES PROSECUTORS ARE LIMITED TO DIRECT EVIDENCE IN PROVING THE TO DIRECT EVIDENCE IN PROVING THE OFFENSESOFFENSES

1010

MEANS-OPPORTUNITY AS MEANS-OPPORTUNITY AS CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCECIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE

When eyewitness evidence is not available, the When eyewitness evidence is not available, the three questions used in investigating crimes three questions used in investigating crimes are:are: Who had the means of committing the crime?Who had the means of committing the crime? Who had the opportunity to commit the crime?Who had the opportunity to commit the crime? Who had the motive to commit the crime?Who had the motive to commit the crime?

Evidence that a person satisfied one or all of Evidence that a person satisfied one or all of these circumstances could make the person a these circumstances could make the person a suspect, justifying further investigationsuspect, justifying further investigation

Evidence tending to establish motive can take Evidence tending to establish motive can take a variety of forms.a variety of forms.

Defendants may also use circumstantial Defendants may also use circumstantial evidence by presenting a fact from which a evidence by presenting a fact from which a strong inference of innocence could be drawnstrong inference of innocence could be drawn

1111

FINGERPRINTS AND SHOEPRINTS FINGERPRINTS AND SHOEPRINTS AS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCEAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

INFERENCES CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE INFERENCES CAN BE DRAWN FROM THE PRESENCE OF FINGERPRINTS AND PRESENCE OF FINGERPRINTS AND SHOEPRINTS AT A CRIME SCENE, MAKING SHOEPRINTS AT A CRIME SCENE, MAKING THEM CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCETHEM CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

THE PRESENCE OF FINGERPRINTS AT A CRIME THE PRESENCE OF FINGERPRINTS AT A CRIME SCENE IS INSUFFICIENT BY ITSELF TO SCENE IS INSUFFICIENT BY ITSELF TO SUPPORT A GUILTY FINDING.SUPPORT A GUILTY FINDING.

EVEDENCE MUST BE PRESENTED, BY THE EVEDENCE MUST BE PRESENTED, BY THE PROSECUTION, THAT REASONABLY EXCLUDES PROSECUTION, THAT REASONABLY EXCLUDES THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE FINGERPRINT THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE FINGERPRINT WAS IMPRESSED AT A TIME OTHER THAN WAS IMPRESSED AT A TIME OTHER THAN WHEN THE CRIME WAS BEING COMMITTEDWHEN THE CRIME WAS BEING COMMITTED

1212

SHOEPRINTS ARE NOT PART OF THE HUMAN SHOEPRINTS ARE NOT PART OF THE HUMAN BODY, THUS THE USE OF THEM IS DIFFERENT BODY, THUS THE USE OF THEM IS DIFFERENT THAN THAT OF FINGERPRINTSTHAN THAT OF FINGERPRINTS

IT MUST BE SHOWN THAT THE SHOE BELONGED IT MUST BE SHOWN THAT THE SHOE BELONGED TO THE DEFENDANT AND THEN AN INFERENCE TO THE DEFENDANT AND THEN AN INFERENCE OF USE BY THE DEFENDANT COULD BE DRAWNOF USE BY THE DEFENDANT COULD BE DRAWN

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE MAY PRODUCE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE MAY PRODUCE INFERENCES THAT NEED ONLY TO BE INFERENCES THAT NEED ONLY TO BE REASONABLE, NOT NECESSARY OR INESCAPABLEREASONABLE, NOT NECESSARY OR INESCAPABLE

THE JURY IS PERMITTED TO REACH A THE JURY IS PERMITTED TO REACH A CONCLUSION USING THE INFERENCES BUT IT IS CONCLUSION USING THE INFERENCES BUT IT IS UP TO THE PROSECUTION TO PERSUADE THE UP TO THE PROSECUTION TO PERSUADE THE JURY TO MAKE THE INFERENCEJURY TO MAKE THE INFERENCE

1313

INFERENCES DRAWN FROM OTHER INFERENCES DRAWN FROM OTHER BAD ACTS OR OTHER BAD ACTS OR OTHER

CONVICTIONS OF DEFENDANTSCONVICTIONS OF DEFENDANTS

A DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH A CRIME MUST A DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH A CRIME MUST ANSWER FOR ONLY THAT CRIME AT HIS TRIALANSWER FOR ONLY THAT CRIME AT HIS TRIAL

DUE TO THE PREJUDICE IT COULD CAUSE IN THE DUE TO THE PREJUDICE IT COULD CAUSE IN THE MINDS OF THE JURY OR FACT FINDER, EVIDENCE MINDS OF THE JURY OR FACT FINDER, EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMES OR OTHER OF PRIOR CRIMES OR OTHER PRIORPRIOR BAD ACTSBAD ACTS ARE GENERALLY HELD TO BE INADMISSIBLEARE GENERALLY HELD TO BE INADMISSIBLE

THERE ARE, HOWEVER, EXCEPTIONS TO THE THERE ARE, HOWEVER, EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE FORBIDDING EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMES RULE FORBIDDING EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMES OR BAD ACTS (SEE RULES 404(B), 413,& 414 OF OR BAD ACTS (SEE RULES 404(B), 413,& 414 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE)THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE)

1414

WHERE NO INFERENCES SHOULD WHERE NO INFERENCES SHOULD BE DRAWNBE DRAWN

WHEN A DEFENDANT OR SUSPECT ASSERTS WHEN A DEFENDANT OR SUSPECT ASSERTS THE FIFTH AMENDMENT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATIONSELF-INCRIMINATION, AN INFERENCE OF , AN INFERENCE OF GUILT GUILT SHOULD NOT BE DRAWNSHOULD NOT BE DRAWN

WHERE INFORMATION IS PROTECTED BY THE WHERE INFORMATION IS PROTECTED BY THE RAPE SHIELD LAWRAPE SHIELD LAW

THE CESSATION OF SIGNATURE CRIMES THE CESSATION OF SIGNATURE CRIMES AFTER THE ARREST OF A SUSPECTAFTER THE ARREST OF A SUSPECT

WHERE A SUSPECT SEEKS TO CONTACT A WHERE A SUSPECT SEEKS TO CONTACT A LAWYERLAWYER

1515

USING DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANCIAL USING DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCEEVIDENCE

FINDING ILLEGAL DRUGS IN A MOTOR VEHICLEFINDING ILLEGAL DRUGS IN A MOTOR VEHICLE DURING A LAWFUL STOP OF A VEHICLE, AN DURING A LAWFUL STOP OF A VEHICLE, AN

OFFICER MAY HAVE SEEN OR SMELLED ILLEGAL OFFICER MAY HAVE SEEN OR SMELLED ILLEGAL DRUGSDRUGS

AN INFORMANT OR OTHER SOURCE MIGHT HAVE AN INFORMANT OR OTHER SOURCE MIGHT HAVE PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DRUGS PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DRUGS WERE IN THE VEHICLEWERE IN THE VEHICLE

THE INFERENCE OF ILLEGAL POSSESION IS THE INFERENCE OF ILLEGAL POSSESION IS STRONGEST AGAINST THE OWNER AND DRIVER STRONGEST AGAINST THE OWNER AND DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE, WHEN MORE THAN ONE OF THE VEHICLE, WHEN MORE THAN ONE PERSON IS IN THE CARPERSON IS IN THE CAR

THE LOCATION OF THE DRUGS, THE AMOUNT OF THE LOCATION OF THE DRUGS, THE AMOUNT OF ILLEGAL DRUGS FOUND, THE CRIMINAL RECORD ILLEGAL DRUGS FOUND, THE CRIMINAL RECORD OF THE PASSENGER AND THE PASSENGER’S OF THE PASSENGER AND THE PASSENGER’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DRIVER AND OWNER RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DRIVER AND OWNER WOULD ALL BE CIRCUMSTANCIAL FACTORS IN WOULD ALL BE CIRCUMSTANCIAL FACTORS IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT TO CHARGE THE DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT TO CHARGE THE PASSENGERPASSENGER

1616

USING DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANCIAL USING DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE (Cont.)EVIDENCE (Cont.)

PROVING THE CRIME OF POSSESSION OF PROVING THE CRIME OF POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL DRUGS WITH INTENT TO DELIVERILLEGAL DRUGS WITH INTENT TO DELIVER WHEN A DEFENDANT APPREHENDED IN THE WHEN A DEFENDANT APPREHENDED IN THE

ACT OF SELLING ILLEGAL DRUGSACT OF SELLING ILLEGAL DRUGS WHEN THE DEFENDANT HAS A LARGE WHEN THE DEFENDANT HAS A LARGE

QUANTITY OF ILLEGAL DRUGS IN HIS/HER QUANTITY OF ILLEGAL DRUGS IN HIS/HER POSSESSION & BY THE WAY IT IS PACKAGEDPOSSESSION & BY THE WAY IT IS PACKAGED

THE POSSESSION OF BEEPERS AND/OR GUNS THE POSSESSION OF BEEPERS AND/OR GUNS ALONG WITH THE ILLEGAL DRUGSALONG WITH THE ILLEGAL DRUGS

1717

USING DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANCIAL USING DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE (Cont.)EVIDENCE (Cont.)

PROVING PHYSICAL AND SEXUAL ABUSE OF PROVING PHYSICAL AND SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDRENCHILDREN WHERE AN ADULT HAS SOLE CUSTODY OF WHERE AN ADULT HAS SOLE CUSTODY OF

A CHILD AND IT IS SHOWN THAT THE A CHILD AND IT IS SHOWN THAT THE INJURY WAS NOT ACCIDENTAL OR SELF-INJURY WAS NOT ACCIDENTAL OR SELF-INFLICTEDINFLICTED

WHEN THE VICTIM IS A CHILD, SEXUAL WHEN THE VICTIM IS A CHILD, SEXUAL INTERCOURSE OR ABUSE IS SHOWN EVEN INTERCOURSE OR ABUSE IS SHOWN EVEN IF NO PHYSICAL FORCE WAS USED AND IF NO PHYSICAL FORCE WAS USED AND NO THREATS WERE UTTERED BY THE NO THREATS WERE UTTERED BY THE ADULT (ADULT (FORCIBLEFORCIBLE COMPULSIONCOMPULSION))

1818

USING DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANCIAL USING DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE (Cont.)EVIDENCE (Cont.)

PROVING THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS PROVING THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS THE DRIVER OF A MOTOR VEHICLETHE DRIVER OF A MOTOR VEHICLE WHERE A WITNESS TESTIFIES THAT WHERE A WITNESS TESTIFIES THAT

HE/SHE SAW THE DEFENDANT CLIMB OUT HE/SHE SAW THE DEFENDANT CLIMB OUT OF THE DRIVER’S SEAT OF THE TRUCK OF THE DRIVER’S SEAT OF THE TRUCK WHILE ANOTHER PERSON TOOK HIS PLACEWHILE ANOTHER PERSON TOOK HIS PLACE

AN INTOXICATED PERSON IS FOUND IN AN INTOXICATED PERSON IS FOUND IN THE DRIVER’S SEAT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THE DRIVER’S SEAT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE PARKED ON PRIVATE OR PUBLIC PARKED ON PRIVATE OR PUBLIC PROPERTY WITH THE KEY IN THE IGNITIONPROPERTY WITH THE KEY IN THE IGNITION

WHERE THE VEHICLES OWNER HAS A WHERE THE VEHICLES OWNER HAS A SUSPENDED DRIVER’S LICENSESUSPENDED DRIVER’S LICENSE

1919

PROVING CORPUS DELICTI BY PROVING CORPUS DELICTI BY DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANCIAL DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANCIAL

EVIDENCEEVIDENCE IN ALL CRIMINAL CASESE, THE STATE OR IN ALL CRIMINAL CASESE, THE STATE OR

GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT:GOVERNMENT MUST PROVE THAT: A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY

SOMEONE (SOMEONE (CORPUS DELICTICORPUS DELICTI) AND) AND THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE

OFFENSEOFFENSE CORPUS DELICTI MAY BE PROVED BY A CORPUS DELICTI MAY BE PROVED BY A

COMBINATION OF DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL COMBINATION OF DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR BY EITHER ALONEEVIDENCE OR BY EITHER ALONE

THE CORPUS DELICTI OF MOST CRIMES IS THE CORPUS DELICTI OF MOST CRIMES IS ORDINARILY PROVED BY DIRECT EVIDENCE, AS ORDINARILY PROVED BY DIRECT EVIDENCE, AS WHEN THE VICTIM OR A WITNESS TELLS THE WHEN THE VICTIM OR A WITNESS TELLS THE POLICE OF THE CRIMEPOLICE OF THE CRIME

2020

PROVING CORPUS DELICTI BY DIRECT OR PROVING CORPUS DELICTI BY DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE (Cont.)CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE (Cont.)

THE CORPUS DELICTI OF OTHER CRIMES ARE THE CORPUS DELICTI OF OTHER CRIMES ARE PROVED BY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE; A PROVED BY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE; A BURGLARY IS SHOWN BY A BROKEN WINDOW BURGLARY IS SHOWN BY A BROKEN WINDOW AND MISSING VALUABLESAND MISSING VALUABLES

THE CORPUS DELICTI OF A MURDER COULD THE CORPUS DELICTI OF A MURDER COULD BE PROVED BY A DEAD BODY WITH A KNIFE IN BE PROVED BY A DEAD BODY WITH A KNIFE IN THE CHESTTHE CHEST

WHEN AN ATTEMPT IS MADE TO PROVE WHEN AN ATTEMPT IS MADE TO PROVE CORPUS DELICTI BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL CORPUS DELICTI BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT THE EVIDENCE, THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT THE EVIDENCE MUST BE SO CONCLUSIVE AS TO EVIDENCE MUST BE SO CONCLUSIVE AS TO ELIMINATE ALL REASONABLE DOUBT IN ELIMINATE ALL REASONABLE DOUBT IN CONCLUDING THAT A CRIME WAS COMMITTEDCONCLUDING THAT A CRIME WAS COMMITTED

2121

THE SUFFICIENCY-OF-EVIDENCE THE SUFFICIENCY-OF-EVIDENCE REQUIREMENT TO JUSTIFY A VERDICT OR REQUIREMENT TO JUSTIFY A VERDICT OR

FINDING OF GUILTFINDING OF GUILT ONE OF THE MOST COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL ONE OF THE MOST COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL

OF A JURY VERDICT OR A JUDGE’S FINDING OF OF A JURY VERDICT OR A JUDGE’S FINDING OF GUILTY IS THAT OF INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE GUILTY IS THAT OF INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE ((SUFFICIENCY-OF-EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTSUFFICIENCY-OF-EVIDENCE REQUIREMENT))

DEFENSE ARGUES THAT THERE WASN’T DEFENSE ARGUES THAT THERE WASN’T SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT/ SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE VERDICT/ FINDING OF GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBTFINDING OF GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

EITHER DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE EITHER DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WILL SUPPORT A FINDING OF GUILT IF THE WILL SUPPORT A FINDING OF GUILT IF THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO PROVE ALL EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO PROVE ALL OF THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME CHARGEDCHARGED

2222

THE USE OF PRESUMPTIONS AND THE USE OF PRESUMPTIONS AND INFERENCESINFERENCES

THE THE PRESUMPTIONPRESUMPTION STATED IN THE JURY STATED IN THE JURY INSTRUCTION IS ORDINARILY REFERRED TO AS INSTRUCTION IS ORDINARILY REFERRED TO AS THE “PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE”THE “PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE”

THIS PRESUMPTION CAN BE REBUTTED BUT THE THIS PRESUMPTION CAN BE REBUTTED BUT THE STATE MUST CARRY THIS BURDEN STATE MUST CARRY THIS BURDEN THROUGHOUT THE TRIALTHROUGHOUT THE TRIAL

THIS PRESUMPTION IS MANDATORYTHIS PRESUMPTION IS MANDATORY CONCLUSIVECONCLUSIVE OR OR IRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONSIRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONS

ARE THOSE THAT CANNOT BE OVERCOME BY ARE THOSE THAT CANNOT BE OVERCOME BY EVIDENCE SHOWING OTHERWISEEVIDENCE SHOWING OTHERWISE

INFERENCESINFERENCES ARE REASONABLE CONCLUSIONS ARE REASONABLE CONCLUSIONS OR DEDUCTIONS THAT FACT FINDERS MAY OR DEDUCTIONS THAT FACT FINDERS MAY DRAW FROM THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO DRAW FROM THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THEMTHEM

2323

AN AN INFERENCE INFERENCE IS A CONCUSION THAT A IS A CONCUSION THAT A JURY OR JUDGE JURY OR JUDGE MAYMAY MAKE BASED UPON MAKE BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTEDTHE EVIDENCE PRESENTED

PERSONS CHARGED WITH A CRIME HAVE PERSONS CHARGED WITH A CRIME HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A JURY A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A JURY TRIALTRIAL

IF A JURY INSTRUCTION INTERFERES OR IF A JURY INSTRUCTION INTERFERES OR INFRINGES UPON THE JURY’S OBLIGATION INFRINGES UPON THE JURY’S OBLIGATION TO DETERMINE AND DECIDE ISSUES OF TO DETERMINE AND DECIDE ISSUES OF FACT, A VIOLATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S FACT, A VIOLATION OF THE DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO JURY HAS OCCURREDRIGHT TO JURY HAS OCCURRED

2424

RES IPSA LOQUITURRES IPSA LOQUITUR

THE DOCTRINE, THE DOCTRINE, RES IPSA RES IPSA LOQUITURLOQUITUR (“THE THING SPEAKS (“THE THING SPEAKS FOR ITSELF”),FOR ITSELF”),

USED IN BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL USED IN BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LAW, LAW,

PERMITS BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE, A PERMITS BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE, A JURY TO DRAW A CONCLUSIONJURY TO DRAW A CONCLUSION