La. Stat. Ann. § 15:438

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before a conviction.

State v. Tuesno · filed 1984-08-31

When circumstantial evidence is involved, La.R.S. 15:438 requires: Assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before it can support a conviction.

State v. Johnson · filed 1984-10-03

Furthermore, when the conviction is based (at least partially) on circumstantial evidence, the rule stated in LSA R.S. 15:438 [5] is useful in determining the existence of a reasonable doubt, "because, when the overall evidence, direct and circumstantial, does not exclude a reasonable hypothesis of innocence, there exists a reasonable doubt as to guilt." State v. Nolan Camp, 446 So.2d 1207 (La.1984). The evidence, although mostly circumstantial, was sufficient to support a finding of guilt.

Section 15:438 requires the evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when guilt is proved through circumstantial evidence.

State v. Patterson · filed 1984-11-14

Given the foregoing facts, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to have concluded that defendant broke into the vacant house with the requisite intent to commit theft, to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, though it need not exclude every possible theory of innocence.

State v. Lilly · filed 1984-11-20

The statutory rule as to circumstantial evidence is that assuming every fact proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. ... We must look to the inferences made by the trier of fact based on circumstantial evidence and these inferences need only exclude all reasonable hypotheses, not every possible theory of innocence. ... We feel in this case that this burden has been met.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Brown · filed 1984-12-10

Moreover, where the conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence, the evidence must have excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. ... Thus viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have excluded Brown’s claim of self defense and thus have found him guilty of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Daley · filed 1985-01-23

The rule with relation to circumstantial evidence is that the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. ... Therefore, the jury properly exercised its prerogative in concluding that the circumstantial evidence ruled out every reasonable theory except that the defendant, his accomplice, or both had made an unauthorized entry into the Futch dwelling.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Benton · filed 1985-02-12

Because this case involves circumstantial evidence, we also must determine whether a rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the State's evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... From the evidence presented at trial, we find that a rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that every reasonable hypothesis of Benton's innocence had been excluded.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Necaise · filed 1985-03-11

Where circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 mandates that: "Assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." ... In the instant case, the victim was shot twice in the back of the head and three times in the back while in bed, indicating he may have been asleep at the time of the shooting (this can be construed as circumstantial evidence that the defendant did not kill in self-defense). We are of the opinion that principal facts and evidence brought out by the State at the trial, as enumerated and set out above, are more than sufficient to show that the State fully carried its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Necaise did not attack his wife in such a manner as to bring about a reasonable apprehension by her of death or great bodily harm.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence as part of the test for whether the evidence supports a conviction.

State v. Raynal · filed 1985-03-11

Under the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, infra, and reiterated in State v. Wright, 445 So.2d 1198, 1201 (La.1984), we find the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was operating his vehicle at the time of the accident. ... Where circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 mandates that: ‘Assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, assuming every fact the evidence tends to prove.

State v. Smith · filed 1985-03-12

The standard of proof is set by La.R.S. 15:438: "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence."

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Johnson · filed 1985-05-08

This standard of review also encompasses La.R.S. 15:438, which requires that circumstantial evidence exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... We find in this case sufficient evidence for a rational fact-finder to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that every reasonable hypothesis of defendant’s innocence was excluded.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, as part of the overall test for sufficiency of the evidence.

State v. Porretto · filed 1985-05-14

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La.R.S. 15:438 mandates that "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." This is not a purely separate test from the Jackson standard to be applied instead of a sufficiency of the evidence test whenever circumstantial evidence forms the basis for the conviction. Ultimately, all evidence, both direct and circumstantial, must be sufficient under Jackson to satisfy a rational juror that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt before conviction.

State v. Harris · filed 1985-05-29

The statutory rule as to circumstantial evidence is that, assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, every reasonable hypothesis but guilty must be excluded.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Lambert · filed 1985-08-22

In a case such as this one which, according to the defendant, involves solely circumstantial evidence, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438; State v. Chism, 436 So.2d 464 (La. 1983). The record reveals that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence was excluded.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to support a conviction.

State v. Holbrook · filed 1985-10-10

Although no one actually saw defendant enter Mrs. Edmonson’s residence, the circumstantial evidence sufficiently excludes every other reasonable hypothesis.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before it can support a conviction.

State v. Magee · filed 1986-03-05

In addition, Louisiana's circumstantial evidence rule says, assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. State v. Graham, 422 So.2d 123 (La.1982), appeal dismissed, 461 U.S. 750, 103 S.Ct. 2419, 77 L.Ed.2d 1309 (1983). In this case, the jury reasonably rejected the defendant's contentions that the shotgun was accidentally discharged by the victim having grabbed or swatted the muzzle or that the shooting was in self-defense. The state presented the jury with evidence reasonably sufficient to exclude every hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before it can support a conviction.

State v. Whitaker · filed 1986-05-28

Although the evidence against the defendant is circumstantial, it is considerable. The fact that his bloody footprints were found on the floor of the victim's house combines with the other evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Maresco · filed 1986-09-12

La.R.S. 15:438 provides that where the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, assuming every fact the evidence tends to prove.

State v. Smith · filed 1976-11-08

Where, as here, the State's case depends upon circumstantial evidence the rule is: "* * * assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." La.R.S. 15:438. We have held that the issue of whether every reasonable hypothesis of innocence had been excluded presents a question of law. State v. Pryor, 306 So.2d 675 (La.1975); State v. Williams, 310 So.2d 513 (La.1975). Because of the evidence summarized at the beginning of this opinion and discussed again above in relation to the motion for directed verdict we conclude that, if the jury assumed every fact to be proved that the evidence tended to prove, it would have been justified in concluding that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence had been excluded.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before it can support a conviction.

State v. Finley · filed 1976-12-13

We are also satisfied that circumstantial evidence of the commission of simple burglary was adduced which, if accepted by the jury, would justify a jury in concluding that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence had been excluded.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, assuming every fact the evidence tends to prove.

State v. Martin · filed 1978-03-06

The rule as to circumstantial evidence is: assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. See, La.R.S. 14:27 and 14:64. Taken in context defendant's words and deed excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, assuming every fact the evidence tends to prove.

State v. Walker · filed 1981-01-26

In order to convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence, assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438; State v. Williams, 310 So.2d 513 (La.1975). The record indicates that the trial judge specifically recognized this standard in the charges he read into the record. We find that the evidence was clearly sufficient to support the trial judge's finding that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence was excluded.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; a mere possibility of another cause does not defeat a conviction when the evidence as a whole makes that possibility unreasonable.

State v. Adams · filed 1981-02-04

However, as previously noted, when circumstantial evidence is utilized to prove the commission of an offense the test is that assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. We recognize the possibility that the victim's injuries could have been caused in a manner other than rape, however we conclude that such a possibility does not constitute a reasonable hypothesis when all of the evidence is considered.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when every fact the evidence tends to prove is assumed.

State v. LaFleur · filed 1981-05-18

Because of the evidence summarized throughout this opinion we conclude that, if the jury assumed every fact to be proved that the evidence tended to prove, it would have been justified in concluding that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence had been excluded.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Buxton · filed 1982-06-21

The rule as to circumstantial evidence is that the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. Thus, on review of a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, we must determine that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence had been excluded.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Ruple · filed 1983-01-05

When reviewing a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence, it must be determined that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence has been excluded. La.R.S. 15:438; State v. Ennis, 414 So.2d 661 (La.1982); State v. Austin, 399 So.2d 158 (La.1981).

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Oliney · filed 1983-04-05

When reviewing a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence, it must be determined that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence has been excluded. La.R.S. 15:438; State v. Ennis, 414 So.2d 661 (La.1982); State v. Austin, 399 So.2d 158 (La.1981). ... Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence in the record before us on appeal is clearly sufficient to support the jury's finding that the defendant made an unauthorized entry into another's dwelling with the specific intent to commit a theft.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before it can support a conviction.

State v. Sanders · filed 1983-05-03

Therefore, we conclude that in this case assuming every fact that the evidence tends to prove, the evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of a lack of specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm or innocence, and this conviction is clearly based upon evidence from which, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational juror could find that the essential elements of the crime of second degree murder had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence supporting a criminal conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Chism · filed 1983-06-27

In criminal cases, the rule as to circumstantial evidence is: assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. [3] La.R.S. 15:438. ... In this case we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support an ultimate finding that the reasonable findings and inferences permitted by the evidence exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before conviction.

State v. Daigle · filed 1983-10-11

Since circumstantial evidence must be considered, a second standard of review is applicable: assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... After a review of the evidence herein, we find that there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to support a conviction.

State v. Thomas · filed 1983-10-11

Following the standard to be used for review of circumstantial evidence as set forth in La.R.S. 15:438 and State v. Graham, supra , we must conclude such evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of defendant's innocence. ... Consequently, we conclude, assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, it does exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and is sufficient to support defendant's conviction.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; the court found that the state also presented direct eyewitness evidence.

State v. Foy · filed 1983-10-17

Additionally, the statutory rule regarding circumstantial evidence of guilt provides that, assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. Reviewing the evidence in this case, [2] the state is not relying solely on circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the defendant.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before it can support a conviction.

State v. Donald · filed 1983-10-24

Assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. ... We further find that the evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of the defendant’s innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before it can support a conviction.

State v. Robinson · filed 1983-11-09

In cases where an essential element of the crime is not proven by direct evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides a methodology for review of this evidence. ... We conclude the evidence is sufficient to support an ultimate finding that the reasonable findings and inferences permitted by the evidence exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Robinson · filed 1983-12-09

The standards of Jackson v. Virginia, supra and La.R.S. 15:438 have been met. The evidence was sufficient to prove the elements of the crime and exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires a conviction based on circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Singleton · filed 1983-12-22

When reviewing a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence, it must be determined that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence has been excluded. La.R.S. 15:438. ... Viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence in the record is sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence has been excluded.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Sly · filed 1984-02-02

We also conclude that the circumstantial evidence on which this conviction is based excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Hayes · filed 1984-03-01

However, the State's case against Hayes was based almost exclusively on circumstantial evidence, and La.R.S. 15:438 provides that, in order to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... Applying the rule of circumstantial evidence, we conclude that, assuming as true, every fact which the evidence tends to prove, that evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Britton · filed 1984-05-10

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis for the conviction, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... Thus, the evidence presented at trial excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when the State’s case rests solely on circumstantial evidence.

State v. Scott · filed 1984-05-14

Scott would have us apply the more stringent standard of review discussed in State v. Williams, 423 So.2d 1048 (La. 1983), wherein the Supreme Court of Louisiana, citing LSA-R.S. 15:438, stated that convictions based on circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. However, the Court noted that “... the state’s case is built solely on circumstantial evidence,” unlike the case against Scott.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence, assuming every fact it tends to prove, to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Cox · filed 1984-05-30

Additionally, where the evidence against a defendant is circumstantial in nature, this evidence, assuming every fact proven which it tends to prove, must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. ... We find the evidence does, in fact, exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to support a conviction.

State v. Handley · filed 1984-06-26

Thus the evidence adduced at trial corroborated in every detail the confession of the defendant. A rational trier of fact could not form a hypothesis which could conclude anything other than the defendant's guilt. Certainly, the state met its burden of establishing defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, assuming every fact the evidence tends to prove.

State v. Garay · filed 1984-07-03

We further find that, assuming every fact to be proved that the circumstantial evidence presented in this case tends to prove every reasonable hypotheses of innocence is excluded. La.R.S. 15:438; State v. Wright, 445 So.2d 1198 (La.1984).

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before conviction.

State v. Price · filed 1984-07-31

Additionally, when circumstantial evidence is involved, La.R.S. 15:438 requires: "Assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." In this case, the identification report from Odyssey Gold Exchange contained information including the defendant's signature, driver's license number, height and weight. Defendant's claim that the seller might have been one of his two sons, who are named John and Johnny, is insupportable. An establishment which requires detailed identification would certainly not allow a young man in his 20's or 30's to use as identification a driver's license containing the picture of a 50 year old man. The overall evidence, direct and circumstantial, was sufficient for a rational juror to conclude that the defendant was guilty of possession of stolen property.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before conviction.

State v. Whitlock · filed 1984-07-31

La.R.S. 15:438 further provides: "The rule as to circumstantial evidence is: assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." The state presented sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to conclude that the defendant had the requisite intent when he shot and killed the victim.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; a jury's reasonable inference from the evidence can satisfy that rule.

State v. Williams · filed 1975-03-31

La.R.S. 15:438 provides: "The rule as to circumstantial evidence is: assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." ... If the evidence was so reasonably accepted by the trial jury, it excluded other reasonable hypotheses of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Buchanan · filed 1983-10-11

Additionally, since circumstantial evidence must be considered in this case a second standard of review is applicable; i.e., in order to convict every reasonable hypothesis of innocence must be excluded. La.R.S. 15:438; State v. Graham, 422 So.2d 123 (La.1982).

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Lewis · filed 1984-03-14

Defendant asserts that his conviction was based entirely upon circumstantial evidence. La.R.S. 15:438. In State v. Shapiro, 431 So.2d 372 (La.1983), the Supreme Court of Louisiana held that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence presented must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. After reviewing the evidence, we can find no reasonable hypothesis of innocence in this case.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; a jury’s reasonable rejection of the defendant’s account satisfies that rule when no other reasonable hypothesis remains.

State v. Ester · filed 1984-10-31

The jury reasonably rejected defendant's version of the crime and there does not appear to be any other hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before it can support a conviction.

State v. Smith · filed 1984-12-10

Even though these facts testified to by Taylor and Mothershead were contradicted by defendant and McGhee, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, every reasonable hypothesis of innocence was excluded.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before conviction.

State v. Johnson · filed 1984-12-28

The statutory rule as to circumstantial evidence is that assuming every fact proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. ... Evaluation of the totality of evidence presented convinces us that the jury could have excluded every reasonable hypothesis except murder by defendant.

Section 15:438 provides a method for assessing reasonable doubt in a circumstantial evidence case by evaluating whether another hypothesis of innocence is reasonable.

State v. Hines · filed 1985-02-27

As stated by the supreme court in State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676 (La.1984), when a case involves circumstantial evidence, an evaluation of the reasonableness of another hypothesis of innocence, under La.R.S. 15:438, provides a helpful methodology for determining the existence of a reasonable doubt. ... In the instant case, using the Jackson v. Virginia standard, considering the direct evidence and drawing reasonable inferences in favor of the state for the circumstantial evidence, we find there was sufficient evidence upon which a rational fact finder could find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

Section 15:438 requires the factfinder to be satisfied that the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when evaluating circumstantial evidence.

State v. Rounds · filed 1985-10-08

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that the finder of fact must be satisfied the overall evidence "excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence". ... After reviewing the jurisprudence and the facts in the instant case, we conclude the circumstantial evidence herein is sufficient to allow any rational trier of fact to infer the defendant intended to commit a theft in the premises beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Sharlow · filed 1986-07-23

Where the evidence against a defendant is circumstantial in nature, the evidence, assuming every fact proven which it tends to prove, must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... After reviewing the testimony of the witnesses and the chain of evidence, we find the jury acted reasonably in rejecting the defendant's hypothesis of innocence on the basis that the state's evidence was unreliable and not worthy of belief.

When the State's case depends on circumstantial evidence, § 15:438 requires the proved facts to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Butler · filed 1985-01-14

The second paragraph is taken directly from La.R.S. 15:438 and states the rule to be applied when the State's case depends on circumstantial evidence. ... Reading the charge as a whole, it is clear the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the State's burden of proof. The charges, when read as a whole, are clear and correctly state the law.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence as part of the overall sufficiency inquiry.

State v. Roy · filed 1986-10-15

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La.R.S. 15:438 mandates that "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." This is not a purely separate test from the Jackson standard to be applied instead of a sufficiency of the evidence test whenever circumstantial evidence forms the basis of the conviction. Ultimately, all evidence, both direct and circumstantial, must be sufficient under Jackson to satisfy a rational juror that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires the factfinder to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when evaluating circumstantial evidence.

State v. Scott · filed 1986-10-15

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that the finder of fact must be satisfied the overall evidence “excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence”. ... Thus, applying the statutory rule as to circumstantial evidence as a component of the more comprehensive reasonable doubt standard, we find that the evidence supports the trier of fact’s finding of guilty of the offense of attempted simple burglary.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, assessed on appeal in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

State v. Barbre · filed 1986-12-10

The statutory rule as to circumstantial evidence is that assuming every fact be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. Therefore, when we review a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence we must determine that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence has been excluded.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence as part of the overall sufficiency inquiry.

State v. Thomas · filed 1987-03-04

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La.R.S. 15:438 mandates that "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." This is not a purely separate test from the Jackson sufficiency standard to be applied instead of a sufficiency of the evidence test whenever circumstantial evidence forms the basis of the conviction. ... Although the defense contends that Manuel Perkins committed this offense, the prosecution introduced testimony from several witnesses to prove that Manuel Perkins was at a party during the time period in which this offense occurred. ... When all of the evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the second degree murder of George Thompson.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Ford · filed 1987-03-04

Considering all the evidence, we find that this evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, excludes every reasonable hypothesis that the defendant was innocent of the production of marijuana.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence as part of the reasonable doubt inquiry.

State v. Edge · filed 1987-03-16

Where circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La.R.S. 15:438 mandates that: "Assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." This is not separate from the Jackson standard, but rather a "helpful methodology for determining the existence of reasonable doubt."

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Harrison · filed 1987-04-01

The statutory rule as to circumstantial evidence is that assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. LSA-R.S. 15:438. ... Viewing all these factors and the circumstances of this case in the light most favorable to the prosecution, which we are required to do upon appellate review, we conclude that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence was excluded and there was sufficient evidence to find Harrison guilty of one count of illegal possession of stolen things and three counts of receiving stolen things.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; on appeal, the court asks whether a reasonable trier of fact could find that requirement satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. St. Romain · filed 1987-04-08

Regarding circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 sets forth the rule that in order to convict, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Under Jackson, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution and from the viewpoint of a rational trier of fact. Therefore, when we review a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence we must determine that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence had been excluded.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence used to prove an offense to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Domingue · filed 1987-05-13

La.R.S. 15:438 requires that when circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... Items found near where the defendant was stopped and arrested corroborated the testimony of the victim and Andre Franques and further exclude any other reasonable hypothesis.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Cupit · filed 1987-06-10

Not only does this evidence prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but it also excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

When the evidence against a defendant is circumstantial, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, assuming every fact it tends to prove.

State v. Murphy · filed 1987-10-14

Additionally, where the evidence against a defendant is circumstantial in nature, this evidence, assuming every fact proven which it tends to prove, must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. ... From the evidence presented, the jury could validly find beyond a reasonable doubt that every element of the offense had been proved and every reasonable hypothesis of innocence had been excluded.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; that requirement is part of the overall test for whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Brown · filed 1987-12-08

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 mandates that “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” This is not a purely separate test from the Jackson standard to be applied instead of a sufficiency of the evidence test whenever circumstantial evidence forms the basis for the conviction. ... On the basis of our review of the record, we find that the evidence is sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction and the state has met its burden of proof.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with the defendant's innocence.

State v. Bertram · filed 1987-12-15

We find, as did the trial judge, that by excluding every reasonable hypothesis that defendant had authority to make and issue the check, this evidence is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not have authority to make and issue the check. See La.R.S. 15:438.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence as part of the reasonable doubt sufficiency standard.

State v. Allen · filed 1988-04-06

The rule set forth in La.R.S. 15:438 is not a separate test from the Jackson standard, nor does it establish a stricter standard of review than the “sufficient to satisfy a rational juror that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” called for in Jackson. ... Since the testimony of Thomas alien was not believed by the jury, the only hypothesis of innocence was excluded.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but provides an evidentiary guide rather than a separate or stricter sufficiency test.

State v. Wilson · filed 1989-05-25

Where the evidence is based on circumstantial evidence La.R.S. 15:438 requires that such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. State v. Camp, 446 So.2d 1207 (La.1984). This circumstantial evidence rule provides a evidentiary guide and does not establish a separate test nor a stricter standard than the more general rational juror's reasonable doubt formula.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and serves as a guide for the jury, not a stricter standard of appellate review.

State v. Jackson · filed 1990-02-15

La.R.S. 15:438 provides that when a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438 is an evidentiary guide for the jury, not a stricter standard of review.

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove an essential element of a crime, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Meshell · filed 1990-10-03

In addition, where an essential element of a crime is sought to be proven by circumstantial evidence, in order to convict, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires the factfinder to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when evaluating circumstantial evidence, but does not impose a stricter sufficiency standard than Article 821.

State v. Alpaugh · filed 1990-10-16

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that the finder of fact must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438 does not establish a stricter standard of review than that of La.C.Cr.P. art. 821, but "provides a helpful methodology for its implementation in cases which hinge on the evaluation of circumstantial evidence." State v. Chism, 436 So.2d 464, 470 (La.1983).

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and guides the jury without imposing a stricter standard of appellate review.

State v. Hunter · filed 1994-12-15

La.R.S. 15:438 does not establish a stricter standard of review than the more general “rational jurors reasonable doubt formula”; it is merely an evidentiary guide for the jury when considering circumstantial evidence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; this test operates within the broader sufficiency-of-evidence standard.

State v. Sampson · filed 1995-05-30

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 mandates that, "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." This statutory test is not a purely separate one from the Jackson constitutional sufficiency standard.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and guides appellate review under the reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Johnson · filed 1995-08-23

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La.R.S. 15:438. R.S. 15:438 is not a separate test from Jackson v. Virginia, supra , but rather is an evidentiary guideline to facilitate appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires courts reviewing circumstantial evidence to assume every fact the evidence tends to prove and determine whether every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded.

State v. Huls · filed 1996-05-29

In conducting this review, we also must be expressly mindful of Louisiana's circumstantial evidence test, i.e., "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove," every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. ... Under these circumstances, the evidence was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but it does not create a separate sufficiency test.

State v. Ortiz · filed 1997-10-21

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of an offense, La. R.S. 15:438 requires that "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." This is not a separate test to be applied when circumstantial evidence forms the basis of a conviction; all evidence, both direct and circumstantial, must be sufficient to satisfy a rational juror that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires the evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and guides appellate review under the reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Nowak · filed 1998-12-09

The elements must be proven so that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. La. R.S. 15:438 is not a separate test from Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, but rather is an evidentiary guideline to facilitate appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; it guides the jury and appellate review rather than creating a separate sufficiency test.

State v. Johnson · filed 1999-01-27

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. This is not a separate test from Jackson v. Virginia, supra , but is an evidentiary guide for the jury and facilitates appellate review.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and guides review of whether a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Smith · filed 1999-04-07

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. La. R.S. 15:438 is not a separate test from Jackson v. Virginia, supra , but rather is an evidentiary guideline to facilitate appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but it does not impose a stricter standard of review than Jackson v. Virginia.

State v. Caldwell · filed 1999-09-22

Nonetheless, the circumstantial evidence rule of La. R.S. 15:438 does not establish a stricter standard of review than the more general Jackson v. Virginia formula, but a hypothesis of innocence that is sufficiently reasonable and strong must necessarily lead a rational fact finder to entertain a reasonable doubt about guilt.

Section 15:438 guides juries evaluating circumstantial evidence but does not impose a stricter standard of appellate review than the rational juror reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Randle · filed 1999-12-22

La. R.S. 15:438 does not establish a stricter standard of review than the more general rational juror's reasonable doubt formula; it is merely an evidentiary guide for the jury when considering circumstantial evidence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and guides review under the reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Berry · filed 1999-12-29

La. R.S. 15:438 is not a separate test from Jackson v. Virginia, supra, but rather is an evidentiary guideline to facilitate appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when a conviction rests on circumstantial evidence.

State v. Demease · filed 2000-04-05

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis for the conviction, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. However, the instant conviction was only based partly on circumstantial evidence. The Jackson standard is applicable in cases involving both direct and circumstantial evidence. ... The defendant's assertion that his conviction was based solely upon circumstantial evidence, and therefore every reasonable hypothesis of innocence must be excluded, is without merit.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; its rule guides appellate review of sufficiency rather than creating a separate test.

State v. Everett · filed 2000-04-12

With circumstantial evidence the rule is: “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” La. R.S. 15:438. This rule is not a separate test from the review standard established by Jackson v. Virginia, but rather it is an evidentiary guideline which facilitates appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; this rule guides review of whether a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Womack-Grey · filed 2000-05-17

The elements must be proved such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. This is not a separate test from Jackson v. Virginia, supra , but rather is an evidentiary guideline to facilitate appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, assuming every fact the evidence tends to prove.

State v. Henderson · filed 2000-06-23

In conducting this review, we also must be expressly mindful of Louisiana's circumstantial evidence test, which states in part, "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove," every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438.

Section 15:438 applies when an essential element is proved by circumstantial evidence, and whether that evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is a question of law.

State v. Ashley · filed 2000-10-04

In all cases where an essential element of the crime is not proven by direct evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 applies. ... Whether circumstantial evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence presents a question of law.

Section 15:438 requires proof that excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and serves as an evidentiary guideline for reviewing whether circumstantial evidence meets the reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Holmes · filed 2001-06-27

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. La. R.S. 15:438 is not a separate test from Jackson v. Virginia, supra , but rather it is an evidentiary guideline to facilitate appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but it does not create a separate test from the ordinary sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard.

State v. Daggs · filed 2002-08-14

The rule as to circumstantial evidence is that, assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. However, this statutory rule for circumstantial evidence does not provide a separate test from the Jackson v. Virginia standard to be applied instead of a sufficiency of the evidence test whenever the state relies on circumstantial evidence to prove an element of the crime.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; this requirement guides review under the reasonable doubt standard rather than creating a separate test.

State v. Coleman · filed 2002-10-09

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. This is not a separate test from Jackson v. Virginia, supra , but rather an evidentiary guideline to facilitate appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but does not impose a stricter standard of appellate review than reasonable doubt.

State v. Toups · filed 2002-10-15

Further, when the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 provides that such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... La. R.S. 15:438, however, does not establish a stricter standard of review than the more general rational juror's reasonable doubt formula; it is merely an evidentiary guide for the jury when considering circumstantial evidence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and serves as a guideline for reviewing whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Thomas · filed 2003-02-19

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. This is not a separate test from Jackson, but rather is an evidentiary guideline to facilitate appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 guides the assessment of circumstantial evidence but does not impose a stricter standard of review than the rational juror reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Brown · filed 2003-05-20

However, La. R.S. 15:438 does not establish a stricter standard of review than the more general rational juror's reasonable doubt standard; it is merely an evidentiary guide for the jury when considering circumstantial evidence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, assuming every fact the evidence tends to prove.

State v. Loston · filed 2004-02-23

In conducting this review, we also must be expressly mindful of Louisiana's circumstantial evidence test, which states in part, assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. ... The reasonable inferences from the evidence showed that the victim may have been stabbed at one location and the two men continued to struggle, falling to the ground some distance away. ... Either of these determinations was reasonably supported by the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but it does not impose a stricter standard of appellate review than the rational juror standard.

State of Louisiana v. Hamilton · filed 2004-03-03

However, La.R.S. 15:438 does not establish a stricter standard of review on appeal than the rational juror’s reasonable doubt standard. The statute serves as a guide for the jury when considering circumstantial evidence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; the rule guides review under the reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Genter · filed 2004-04-07

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. This is not a separate test from Jackson, but rather is an evidentiary guideline to facilitate appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but does not impose a stricter appellate review standard.

State v. Major · filed 2004-12-01

Further, when the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 sets forth the rule that "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, [the circumstantial evidence] must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." However, La. R.S. 15:438 does not establish a stricter standard of review than the more general rational juror's reasonable doubt formula; rather it serves as a helpful evidentiary guide for jurors when evaluating circumstantial evidence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to support a conviction; appellate courts review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

State v. Williams · filed 2005-05-31

In cases involving circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 mandates that "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." A different test is applied on appellate review.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence but does not impose a stricter standard of review than reasonable doubt.

State v. Tensley · filed 2007-04-04

Further, when the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 sets forth the rule that "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." However, La. R.S. 15:438 does not establish a stricter standard of review than the more general rational juror's reasonable doubt formula; rather it serves as a helpful evidentiary guide for jurors when evaluating circumstantial evidence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, as part of the overall test for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Adams · filed 2007-11-02

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of an offense, La. R.S. 15:438 requires that assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... This is not a separate test to be applied when circumstantial evidence forms the basis of a conviction; all evidence, both direct and circumstantial, must be sufficient to satisfy a rational juror that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; the rule is an evidentiary guideline within reasonable doubt review, not a separate test.

State v. Williams · filed 2008-02-13

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. This is not a separate test from Jackson v. Virginia, supra , but rather an evidentiary guideline to facilitate appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and serves as a guide for reviewing whether guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Boyd · filed 2008-11-12

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. This is not a separate test from Jackson v. Virginia , but rather an evidentiary guideline to facilitate appellate review of whether a trier of fact could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and guides the reasonable-doubt inquiry.

State v. Sparkman · filed 2009-01-28

The rule as to circumstantial evidence is "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." La. R.S. 15:438. This is not a separate test from the Jackson standard, but rather provides a helpful basis for determining the existence of reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; it helps assess reasonable doubt under the Jackson standard rather than creating a separate test.

State v. Schaller · filed 2009-05-26

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 provides that “assuming every fact to be proved that the [circumstantial] evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” It is not a separate test from the Jackson standard; rather, it provides a helpful basis for determining the existence of reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and serves as a guideline for reviewing whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Johnson · filed 2009-09-16

When a conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 provides that such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of | ^innocence. Rather than being a separate test from that found in Jackson v. Virginia, it is an evidentiary guideline to facilitate appellate review of the ability of a rational juror to find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before it can support a conviction.

State v. Peters · filed 2011-02-16

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 requires that “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Booker · filed 2011-05-18

For circumstantial evidence to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; it guides review of whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. McMillian · filed 2011-05-18

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. This is not a separate test from Jackson v. Virginia, but rather is an evidentiary guideline to facilitate appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 guides jurors evaluating circumstantial evidence but does not impose a stricter standard than Jackson v. Virginia.

State v. Russell · filed 2011-08-17

However, R.S. 15:438 does not establish a stricter standard than Jackson v. Virginia ; rather, it serves as a helpful evidentiary guide for jurors in evaluating circumstantial evidence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and serves as a guideline for reviewing whether the evidence satisfies the reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Cooks · filed 2011-12-14

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. This is not a separate test from Jackson v. Virginia, supra, but rather an evidentiary guideline to facilitate appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State ex rel. K.G. · filed 2012-03-21

When a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 requires that such evidence “must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”

Section 15:438 guides jurors in evaluating circumstantial evidence and does not impose a stricter standard than Jackson v. Virginia.

State v. Johnson · filed 2012-04-11

However, La. R.S. 15:438 does not establish a stricter standard than Jackson v. Virginia; rather, it serves as a helpful evidentiary guide for jurors in evaluating circumstantial evidence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but does not impose a stricter standard of review than reasonable doubt.

State of Louisiana v. Baxley · filed 2014-05-07

Further, where the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove[,]” the evidence must exclude every “reasonable hypothesis of innocence[.]” State v. Leger, 05-11, p. 91 (La. 7/10/06), 936 So.2d 108, 170 (quoting La.R.S. 15:438), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1221, 127 S.Ct. 1279 (2007). However, the circumstantial evidence rule does not establish a stricter standard of review than the more general “reasonable doubt” formula. State v. Chism, 436 So.2d 464 (La.1983).

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; that rule guides the reasonable doubt inquiry under the Jackson sufficiency standard.

State v. Richardson · filed 2014-05-28

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of an offense, La. R.S. 15:438 provides that “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” ... This is not a separate test from the Jackson standard but rather provides a helpful basis for determining the existence of reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; this is an evidentiary guideline within the reasonable doubt standard, not a separate test.

State v. Canales · filed 2014-12-10

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. This is not a separate test from the Jackson reasonable doubt standard; rather, it is an evidentiary guideline to facilitate appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State ex rel. T.W. · filed 2015-09-23

Where the evidence is circumstantial, La. R.S. 15:438 requires that the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but it does not impose a stricter standard of appellate review than the rational juror reasonable doubt test.

State v. Richardson · filed 2016-12-28

As stated in Major, 888 So.2d at 801, La.R.S. 15:438 “does not establish a stricter standard of review than the more general rational juror’s reasonable doubt formula[.]”

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; it provides a basis for assessing reasonable doubt under the Jackson standard, rather than a separate test.

In re State · filed 2018-02-21

The rule as to circumstantial evidence is that "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." La. R.S. 15:438. This is not a separate test from the Jackson standard but rather provides a helpful basis for determining the existence of reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, assuming every fact the evidence tends to prove.

State v. Magee · filed 2018-02-27

In conducting this review, we also must be expressly mindful of Louisiana's circumstantial evidence test, which states in part, "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove," every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but does not impose a stricter standard of review.

State of Louisiana v. Dukes · filed 2019-10-02

However, La. R.S. 15:438 does not establish a stricter standard of review than the more general rational fact finder's reasonable doubt formula; rather it serves as a helpful evidentiary guide for the trier of fact when evaluating circumstantial evidence.

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove an offense, Section 15:438 requires it to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; this guides the reasonable doubt inquiry rather than creating a separate test.

State of Louisiana Versus Freddie B. Gatson · filed 2021-12-29

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of an offense, La. R.S. 15:438 provides that assuming that the evidence tends to prove every fact to be proven, “in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” ... This is not a separate test from the Jackson standard but rather provides a helpful basis for determining the existence of reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; that rule helps assess reasonable doubt under the Jackson standard rather than creating a separate test.

State of Louisiana Versus Darren K. Lloyd · filed 2022-08-24

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of an offense, La. R.S. 15:438 provides that “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” State v. Wooten, 99-181 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/1/99); 738 So.2d 672, 675, writ denied, 99-2057 (La. 1/14/00); 753 So.2d 208. This is not a separate test from the Jackson standard but rather provides a helpful basis for determining the existence of reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 guides the jury in evaluating circumstantial evidence and does not impose a stricter appellate sufficiency standard than the rational juror’s reasonable doubt standard.

State of Louisiana v. McPhearson · filed 2024-02-21

However, La.R.S. 15:438 does not establish a stricter standard of review on appeal than the rational juror’s reasonable doubt standard. The statute serves as a guide for the jury when considering circumstantial evidence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence as part of the reasonable doubt inquiry, rather than as a separate test.

State of Louisiana Versus Joshua L Martin AKA "Joshua Dennis" AKA "Ruga" · filed 2025-02-26

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 provides, “[A]ssuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” ... This is not a separate test from the Jackson standard but rather provides a helpful basis for determining the existence of reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and does not impose a stricter standard of review than Jackson v. Virginia.

State of Louisiana v. Curtis Lee Stewart, Jr. · filed 2026-06-29

When the State relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the commission of a crime, La R.S. 15:438 sets forth the applicable standard: “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but not every possibility of innocence.

State v. Holmes · filed 1980-09-24

Under R.S. 15:438, the circumstantial evidence need not exclude all possibilities of innocence but only all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove an offense, Section 15:438 requires it to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence as part of the reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Ellzey · filed 1986-10-09

Where circumstantial evidence is utilized to prove the offense, La.R.S. 15:438 mandates that "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." Exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is a component of the more comprehensive reasonable doubt standard in such cases.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but does not require the jury to exclude an unreasonable one.

State v. James · filed 1986-12-10

In view of all the other circumstances the jury properly excluded this hypothesis of innocence as an unreasonable one.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence as part of the overall sufficiency inquiry.

State v. Williams · filed 1986-12-23

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 mandates that, "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." This statutory test is not a purely separate one from the Jackson constitutional sufficiency standard. ... A review of the record indicates that the evidence is more consistent with the jury's finding than with any hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before conviction.

State v. McCullough · filed 1987-03-04

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that a rational trier of fact would have concluded that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence had been excluded beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires consideration of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when a conviction rests on circumstantial evidence.

State v. Vanvorst · filed 1987-03-16

Where the conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must include every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438; State v. Camp, 446 So.2d 1207 (La., 1984). ... The jury apparently rejected the hypothesis of innocence due to intoxication as presented by the defendant and they inferred criminal intent from the circumstances of the crime and the defendant's actions. This finding is supported by the record.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, as part of the overall reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Converse · filed 1987-10-14

Defendant's testimony that the victim fainted and mortally wounded herself during the fall was clearly discredited by the medical testimony. The only other hypothesis of innocence, that the victim died from a brain hemorrhage, was rebutted by the expert testimony of Dr. Freeman and was also rejected by the jury. We find that the evidence of guilt presented by the state is sufficient to support the verdict.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Schlessinger · filed 1988-02-03

The circumstantial evidence must show that if all facts are assumed proved that the evidence tends to prove, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence in order to prove guilt. La.R.S. 15:438. ... The circumstantial evidence in this case is sufficient to exclude appellant’s claim that he did not enter the building and was only in the yard to get the lawn mower wheels from the lawn mower in the yard and ran only due to the fear of being shot.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Buxton · filed 1988-05-11

The rule as to circumstantial evidence is: assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. ... The juvenile presented his hypothesis of innocence to the trial judge and it was rejected. No other reasonable hypothesis of innocence was presented. Accordingly, this assignment of error lacks merit.

Section 15:438 requires the finder of fact to determine whether the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when evaluating circumstantial evidence.

State v. McLean · filed 1988-05-17

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that the finder of fact must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... Thus, applying the statutory rule as to circumstantial evidence as a component of the more comprehensive reasonable doubt standard, we find that the evidence supports the trier of fact's finding of guilty of the theft as charged.

Circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to support a conviction.

State v. Skipper · filed 1988-06-22

Furthermore, although the evidence presented was circumstantial, the evidence appears to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Lewis · filed 1988-07-12

Under these facts we conclude that viewing the circumstantial evidence in accord with the Jackson standard, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, while excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Spencer · filed 1988-10-11

All of this circumstantial evidence tends to prove that Griffin possessed pentazocine with the intent to distribute. If we assume this fact as proved the only reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that Griffin possessed the drugs solely for his own use, is excluded.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but does not impose a stricter standard of review than reasonable doubt.

State v. Causey · filed 1988-10-27

As noted in State v. Woods, 526 So.2d 443, 445 (La.App. 4th Cir.1988), “R.S. 15:438 does not establish a stricter standard of review than the more general rational juror’s reasonable doubt formula; it is merely an evidentiary guide for the jury when considering circumstantial evidence.”

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to support a conviction.

State v. Daniel · filed 1988-12-14

La.R.S. 15:438 mandates, "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." State v. Jacobs, supra . We do not believe that every other reasonable hypothesis of innocence can be excluded in this case.

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove an element, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; this rule does not create a separate standard of appellate review.

State v. Mullins · filed 1988-12-29

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis of proof, assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, every reasonable hypothesis of innocence must be excluded as to that element of the crime which the circumstantial evidence tends to prove. La.R.S. 15:438. However, this rule of circumstantial evidence does not establish a separate standard of appellate review. State v. Chism, 436 So.2d 464 (La.1983). ... The circumstantial evidence tends to prove that the defendant had the specific intent to inflict serious bodily injury when he punched Ms. Tribe in the nose. Assuming this fact as true it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before it can support a conviction.

State v. Warren · filed 1989-01-30

By contrast, Dean concluded the items were stolen based on ambiguous circumstantial evidence. This circumstantial evidence does not exclude the reasonable hypothesis of innocence suggested by the defendant.

Section 15:438 requires jurors in a circumstantial evidence case to find that the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Trahan · filed 1989-04-19

"When the case involves circumstantial evidence, the defendant is additionally entitled, under the provisions of La.R.S. 15:438, to have jurors instructed that they must be satisfied that the overall evidence `excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence'." State v. Jacobs, 504 So.2d 817 (La.1987). However, the circumstantial evidence and Jackson tests are not completely separate.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Freeman · filed 1989-05-09

When the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before conviction.

State v. Thompson · filed 1989-05-16

The statutory rule as to circumstantial evidence is that, assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. ... The jury's verdict indicates that the jurors believed Jackson's testimony that he had not committed the offense. We find, therefore, that the evidence as a whole, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the offense.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence used to prove an essential element of a crime to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. McIntyre · filed 1989-05-24

The rule concerning circumstantial evidence is set forth in La.R.S. 15:438, which provides that where an essential element of a crime is sought to be proven by circumstantial evidence that, in order to convict, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... While this evidence was self-serving, the State presented no direct or circumstantial evidence to contradict the defendant's assertion.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before it can support a conviction.

State v. Davis · filed 1989-06-20

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of a crime, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that, assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... The prosecution’s evidence is at least as consistent with defendant’s theory as it is with the prosecution’s theory. The overall evidence, both direct and circumstantial, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, does not exclude every reasonable doubt that defendant made an unauthorized entry into the furniture store to spend the night there.

Section 15:438 requires the State to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when proving guilt by circumstantial evidence.

State v. Porter · filed 1989-06-28

In order to prove guilt by circumstantial evidence, the State must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. ... We therefore find that the State has failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence in this case.