La. Stat. Ann. § 15:438

When an essential element is proved by circumstantial evidence, conviction requires excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Livings · filed 1989-07-17

Where an essential element is proved by circumstantial evidence, the trier of fact, as well as the reviewing court, must accept as proved all that the evidence tends to prove and then only convict if every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La.R.S. 15:438; State v. Jackson, 419 So.2d 837 (La.1982). ... Although no one saw him drop the envelope on the ground, there was sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could infer that the envelope found was in fact the same one seen in the defendant’s hands in the parking lot at Freddie’s.

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

State v. Marquez · filed 1989-12-28

The appropriate standard of review concerning the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction is whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); State v. Maresco, 495 So.2d 311 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986); La.R.S. 15:438.

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

State v. Neidlinger · filed 1990-04-10

In cases involving circumstantial evidence, the overall evidence 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. Daigrepont · filed 1990-04-18

La.-R.S. 15:438, setting forth the rule as to circumstantial evidence, 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.” ... After reviewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that no rational trier of fact could have excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and found that the State had proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant knew or had good reason to believe that the ATV was the subject of a theft.

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

State v. Stanfield · filed 1990-05-23

Since the evidence in this case is circumstantial, the law requires that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence be excluded in order to convict. La.R.S. 15:438. ... These facts exclude all reasonable theories of innocence.

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

State v. Desdunes · filed 1990-11-16

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. Though no expert testified that the Armand Miller III signature on each of the checks was the same, our review of the checks convinces us that the jury could have reasonably concluded they were signed by the same person and that the similarities among all the Regency Motors checks excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence of forgery as to the other checks.

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

State v. Randel · filed 1991-01-23

The lack of evidence leaves open alternate, but equally reasonable hypotheses, that Randel had the specific intent to steal an eyeglasses case, a cigarette case, or even loose cash. Therefore, our review compels us to conclude that the State did not meet its burden of proving an essential element of the offense of attempted purse snatching, the specific intent to commit theft of anything of value contained within a purse or wallet.

Section 15:438 permits conviction based on circumstantial evidence only when every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded.

State v. Stanford · filed 1991-01-23

The circumstantial evidence rule as provided by La.R.S. 15:438 restricts the fact-finder, in the first instance, as well as the reviewer on appeal to accept as proven all that the evidence tends to prove and then to convict only if every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we hold that the jury could rationally have found all hypotheses of innocence excluded 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. Blake · filed 1991-02-27

When circumstantial evidence is used to convict, the statutory rule is that assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. ... The court did not exclude the hitchhiker theory as incredible, and the evidence presented did not exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence used to prove an essential element of a crime to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, including a claim of self-defense that the state must disprove.

State v. Makar · filed 1991-04-17

Where an essential element of a crime is sought to be proven by circumstantial evidence, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. Because Makar relied on self-defense, that it was not done in self-defense became an essential element of the crime sought to be proved. ... Under our burden of proof principles applicable to criminal cases, the state has failed to prove circumstances that exclude every reasonable hypothesis of justification by self-defense.

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

State v. Baker · filed 1991-05-30

When the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438; State v. Camp, 446 So.2d 1207 (La. 1984). This is not a stricter standard of review, but rather an evidentiary guide for the jury when it considers circumstantial evidence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and serves as a guide for the jury rather than a stricter standard of review.

State v. Collins · filed 1991-07-30

When the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438; State v. Camp, 446 So.2d 1207 (La.1984). This is not a stricter standard of review, but it is an evidentiary guide for the jury when it considers circumstantial evidence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; it guides the fact finder without imposing a stricter standard of review.

State v. Renney · filed 1991-09-12

When 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 before a conviction.

State v. Dauzat · filed 1991-11-13

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. ... Viewing the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the $1,800.00 in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find the trial court properly concluded that the evidence excludes any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. Powell · filed 1992-04-08

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove an element of the offense, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438; State v. Shapiro, 431 So.2d 372 (La.1982). ... Though the evidence is circumstantial, it excludes any reasonable hypothesis of Powell's innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; appellate courts review all evidence under the Jackson standard.

State v. Bellamy · filed 1992-04-08

Though circumstantial evidence "must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence," La.R.S. 15:438, the Jackson standard applies to the appellate review of all evidence, direct and circumstantial. ... The fact that Bellamy was not carrying any stolen property does not generate a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 treats the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence as an evidentiary guide for the jury when a conviction rests on circumstantial evidence.

State v. Pierre · filed 1993-03-03

Rather, the language of La.R.S. 15:438, "[W]hen the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence," is just an evidentiary guide for the jury.

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

State v. Williams · filed 1993-09-30

Because of the difficulties of finding direct evidence of a state of mind, a jury may properly infer intent from circumstantial evidence which excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. In this case, the only direct evidence which links the defendant to the killing is the testimony of the defendant; and he testified that the killing was an accident. The defendant was convicted based upon circumstantial evidence. That circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and it does not.

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

State v. Turner · filed 1993-11-03

La. R.S. 15:438, which addresses circumstantial evidence, provides that in order to convict the fact finder, as well as the reviewer on appeal, must find that assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, the evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... Additionally, this evidence was sufficient to support the jury's exclusion of the hypothesis that the gun went off accidentally during the scuffle.

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

State v. Monds · filed 1994-01-14

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 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; a merely conceivable alternative driver does not defeat proof of operation.

State v. Corvers · filed 1994-11-16

"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. ... Under these facts it is conceivable that a person other than the defendant could have been driving and could have left the scene before the police arrived. However, that hypothesis is unreasonable.

Section 15:438 permits a conviction based on circumstantial evidence if the evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Etienne · filed 1995-02-01

Circumstantial evidence may be used to support a conviction if it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. Incorporating this rule under the Jackson standard, an appellate court must determine whether viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable trier of fact would have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence had been excluded. ... Applying this standard to the present case in relation to the discharge of the weapon, every reasonable hypothesis of innocence was excluded beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires the fact finder, when analyzing circumstantial evidence, to be satisfied that the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Powell · filed 1995-10-06

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides the fact finder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. Brooks · filed 1995-12-06

When the state uses circumstantial evidence to prove an element of a crime, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence in order to convict. La.R.S. 15:438.

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

State v. Kimbrough · filed 1996-04-24

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 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; on appeal, the court applies that rule while viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

State v. Parker · filed 1996-08-28

Incorporating this under the Jackson standard, an appellate court must determine that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable trier of fact would have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence had been excluded.

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

State v. Gallow · filed 1996-09-18

Although no direct evidence clearly establishes that Gallow killed Tremie, or even that he robbed Tremie, we find that there is no reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires proof that excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and guides appellate review of whether the evidence satisfies the reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Gaines · filed 1997-01-29

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 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 v. Rubin · filed 1997-05-07

These facts form a ease strong enough to 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 review than Jackson v. Virginia.

State v. Bullard · filed 1997-09-24

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 sufficiently strong must necessarily lead a rational fact finder to entertain a reasonable doubt about guilt.

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

State v. Evans · filed 1997-09-24

Where circumstantial evidence is used to prove execution of the offense, assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, every reasonable hypothesis of innocence must be excluded to convict. ... These hypotheses are just as reasonable as the one proffered by the State.

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

State v. Jack · filed 1997-10-08

Their testimony, as the testimony of the officers in Green, 524 So.2d 927, in no way offered a basis to negate the possibility that the marijuana was intended only for personal use. See La.R.S. 15:438. ... The burden was on the State to adduce the evidence to convict, including evidence excluding every reasonable hypotheses of innocence. The State has not met its burden.

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

State v. Fredieu · filed 1997-10-08

Incorporating the circumstantial evidence rule, La.R.S. 15:438, with the Jackson standard, we find that a rational trier of fact could not have found Fredieu guilty, since there was another reasonable hypothesis for his actions which was not excluded beyond a reasonable doubt..

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

State v. Neeley · filed 1997-12-23

La. R.S. 15:438, which deals with circumstantial evidence, requires exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence in order to convict. It provides an evidentiary guideline, emphasizes the need for careful observation of the Jackson standard, and provides a helpful methodology for its implementation in cases which hinge on the evaluation of circumstantial evidence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and guides application of the reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Dunn · filed 1998-02-25

For circumstantial evidence to convict, upon assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. However, that rule does not establish a stricter standard of review than the rational juror's reasonable doubt formula, but, instead, provides a helpful methodology for its implementation in cases which hinge on the evaluation of circumstantial evidence.

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

State v. Douglas · filed 1998-02-25

For circumstantial evidence to convict, upon assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. ... The circumstantial evidence fails to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and the conviction is therefore reversed.

Section 15:438 requires the fact finder to be satisfied that the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Jones · filed 1998-05-15

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 provides that the fact finder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... After reviewing the record, we are convinced that a rational trier of fact, viewing all the evidence as favorable to the prosecution as any rational fact finder can, could have concluded that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, the elements of driving while intoxicated, fourth offense.

Section 15:438 requires every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to be excluded before a conviction rests on circumstantial evidence.

State v. Young · filed 1998-05-15

The rule regarding the use of circumstantial evidence is contained in La. R.S. 15:438. This rule restrains the fact finder, as well as the reviewer on appeal, to accept as proven all that the evidence tends to prove, and then to convict only if every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded.

Section 15:438 requires the state to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when proving guilt by circumstantial evidence; this rule is part of the Jackson sufficiency standard.

State v. Williams · filed 1998-05-27

In order to prove guilt by circumstantial evidence, the state must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. This is not separate from the Jackson standard. 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 fact finder to be satisfied that the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when analyzing circumstantial evidence.

State v. Forbes · filed 1998-06-29

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 provides, the fact finder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... It is obvious that the jury rejected defendant's testimony at trial and his hypothesis of innocence and believed the testimony of the victim.

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

State v. Joseph · filed 1998-07-01

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. ... Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the evidence adduced at trial excluded the reasonable hypothesis that the contraband belonged solely to Ms. Slater and that the defendant exercised no dominion or control over the illegal drugs.

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

State v. President · filed 1998-07-15

In a case involving circumstantial evidence, assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when assessed under the standard for sufficiency of the evidence.

State v. Lambert · filed 1998-09-30

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. Incorporating this rule under the Jackson standard, an appellate court must determine that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable trier of fact would 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.

State v. Barthelemy · filed 1999-01-20

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. ... Barthelemy asserts that several other adults had access to the trailer who could have possibly placed the drugs in the trailer. However, the officers testified that they actually had observed Barthelemy engaging in drug transactions. When they, executed the warrant, they found him nude in the bathroom standing next to the cabinet where the drugs were found. He was the only adult in the house who had access to the bathroom at that time. The owner had been at work all day, and her daughter was confined to her bed and could not use the bathroom. The evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession of cocaine.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but this requirement is part of the overall test for whether a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Barnes · filed 1999-02-10

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 defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence as part of the review of whether the evidence is sufficient to convict.

State v. Hennis · filed 1999-02-19

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. ... After viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we are convinced that any rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of any reasonable hypothesis of innocence that all of the elements of aggravated burglary and defendant's identity as the perpetrator were proven.

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

State v. Martin · filed 1999-02-24

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. State v. Wright, 445 So.2d 1198 (La.1984).

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

State v. Baker · filed 1999-03-03

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 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 before a conviction.

State v. Moreau · filed 1999-03-31

In all cases where an essential element of the crime is not proven by direct evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 applies. As an evidentiary rule, it restrains the fact finder in the first instance, as well as the reviewer on appeal, to accept as proven all that the evidence tends to prove and then to convict only if every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded.

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. Postell · filed 1999-04-22

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. ... The State failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish its burden of proof in this case. Therefore, we must reverse the trial court's conviction.

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

State v. Guy · filed 1999-05-19

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 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 as part of the standard for reviewing whether evidence supports a conviction.

State v. Long · filed 1999-08-25

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. ... The only logical interpretation of Det. Duplantier's testimony is that the defendant made the actual sale, just as he had done with the cocaine.

Section 15:438 requires the State to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when proving guilt by circumstantial evidence; this rule is part of the overall sufficiency standard.

State v. Hollins · filed 1999-08-31

In order to prove guilt by circumstantial evidence, the State must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. This is not separate from the Jackson standard. 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 of innocence and serves as a guideline within reasonable doubt review.

State v. Booth · filed 1999-10-20

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. ... In the instant case, viewing all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found that Mr. Booth knowingly exercised dominion and control over the heroin found in his apartment, and that all of the essential elements of the offense of possession of heroin were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

State v. Bullitts · filed 1999-11-03

Additionally, 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." ... Considering Defendant's actions and circumstances in the instant case, a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded that no other reasonable hypothesis of innocence existed.

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

State v. Marston · filed 1999-12-01

The rule of 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. ... Second, the State failed to “exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence” that the writings on the checks were made by the defendant.

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

State v. Magee · filed 1999-12-15

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 the fact finder to be satisfied that the overall circumstantial evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Kelly · filed 1999-12-28

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that the fact finder must be satisfied |Bthat the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. Thompson · filed 2000-03-01

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis for conviction, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. ... Thompson's participation in the charged offense is the only reasonable explanation for his flight, the forcible entry into Mr. Plane's apartment and his attempt to conceal himself.

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

State v. Lee · filed 2000-03-01

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis for the conviction, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. The court does not determine whether another possible hypothesis suggested by the defendant could afford an exculpatory explanation of events; rather, when evaluating the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the court determines whether the possible alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under Jackson v. Virginia .

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

State v. Young · filed 2000-03-31

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. ... Accordingly, a rational trier of fact could not have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the State proved the "intent to distribute" element of the crime.

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

State v. Young · filed 2000-04-17

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. ... We find that the state’s evidence, including the victim’s testimony, was sufficient to negate any motive for the attack other than robbery, and conclude that the evidence precluded beyond a reasonable doubt a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; imagined alternatives that a rational juror would find unreasonable do not defeat a conviction.

State v. McCadney · filed 2000-04-19

The elements must be proved such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. ... However, while alternative scenarios tending to exonerate defendant could be imagined from the evidence presented, a rational juror, relying on common sense and experience, would have found such scenarios to be extremely unlikely — that is, unreasonable.

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

State v. Boles · filed 2000-05-10

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. Lucas · filed 2000-05-12

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. ... A thorough review of the record convinces us that the evidence presented herein, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, all of the elements of the offense of second degree murder and the defendant's identity as the perpetrator of that offense.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when determining whether guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Vortisch · filed 2000-05-30

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." ... Based on the foregoing, we find that the State's evidence at trial was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and that a rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the offense of simple burglary.

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

State v. Robinson · filed 2000-06-21

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis for the conviction, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. ... Accordingly, when viewed in the light most favorable to the state, the testimonial and physical evidence supports the reasonable conclusion that Robinson was attempting to hunt deer by means and under circumstances proscribed by law to the exclusion of every possible alternative hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when assessing whether a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence.

State v. Ballansaw · filed 2000-09-06

Under the jurisprudence, the State produced sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant’s conviction for possession of cocaine. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. McGrew · filed 2000-09-26

La. R.S. 15:438 provides that when evidence is circumstantial, the applicable rule 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.” ... After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that a reasonable trier of fact could have excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and found the Defendant guilty of two counts of second degree murder.

When a conviction rests on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Collins · filed 2000-09-27

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis for the conviction, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. ... On this record, every reasonable hypothesis of innocence was excluded.

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

State v. Jones · filed 2000-10-18

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." ... This is not a separate test from the Jackson standard, but rather provides a helpful basis for determining the existence of reasonable doubt. ... In the instant case, the threats could have been for no other reason than to prevent arrest after Deputy Wingrove had probable cause for his arrest.

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

State v. Cazenave · filed 2000-10-31

La. R.S. 15:438 provides that when evidence is circumstantial, the applicable 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." Based on these facts, the jury could have determined that the circumstantial evidence excluded the reasonable hypothesis that Cazenave was an innocent bystander, but knew that Turner intended to commit an armed robbery.

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

State v. Cummings · filed 2000-11-03

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 provides the fact finder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. Marshall · filed 2000-11-08

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 provides that the fact finder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... We believe that a rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, as favorable to the prosecution as any rational fact finder can, could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that the defendant was guilty.

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

State v. Handy · filed 2000-11-08

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 as part of the reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Carter · filed 2000-11-15

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 guideline within reasonable doubt review.

State v. Simmons · filed 2000-12-06

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.

When a conviction rests on circumstantial evidence, § 15:438 requires the evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Leger · filed 2000-12-20

Additionally, 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." State v. Bullitts, 99-515, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/3/99); 746 So.2d 260, 262. In light of the defendant's testimony regarding her whereabouts and the corroboration of that testimony, the history of vandalism in the area, the ability for someone to have entered the house trailer with the spare key, and the defendant's actions which were inconsistent with having started the fire, we do not find that the evidence of the unidentified white car was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence in this case as to the identity of the person who started the fire.

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

State v. Schleve · filed 2000-12-20

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 provides the fact finder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. Turner · filed 2000-12-22

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 provides that the fact-finder must be satisfied that the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... The evidence presented at trial in the instant case, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was clearly sufficient to sustain a 1 ^conviction for driving while intoxicated and to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. Hodge · filed 2001-01-17

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La.R.S. 15:438. ... As it is, if Roger Hodge was selling the marijuana, he could have recently brought this bag of marijuana onto the property and deposited it in the dryer, planning to package it later, all unbeknownst to Mrs. Hodge. This is all speculation. However, so is the conclusion that Allison Hodge had knowledge of and exercised dominion and control over the marijuana.

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. Chairs · filed 2001-02-07

Such evidence must also exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. ... This is not a separate test from Jackson v. Virginia , but is instead an evidentiary guideline for the jury when considering circumstantial evidence and facilitates appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

State v. Richardson · filed 2001-02-07

The elements must be proven such that 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 and guides review of whether a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Hebert · filed 2001-04-11

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. ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of possession with intent to distribute cocaine.

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

State v. Roberts · filed 2001-05-09

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. 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 of innocence; an alternative hypothesis does not defeat a conviction unless it is sufficiently reasonable to prevent a rational juror from finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Allen · filed 2001-05-09

Viewing all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, and considering that defendant admitted he smoked crack cocaine and let others smoke crack cocaine in his residence, the hypothesis of innocence posited by him — that all of the contraband belonged to others and was not subject to his dominion and control — is not sufficiently reasonable that a rational trier of fact could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; on review, the question is whether a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Walker · filed 2001-05-16

Such evidence must also exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. The court does not determine whether another possible hypothesis suggested by the defendant could afford an exculpatory explanation of the events; rather, when evaluating the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the court determines whether the possible alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under Jackson v. Virginia.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence as part of appellate review for reasonable doubt.

State v. Baudier · filed 2001-05-23

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 supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Piker · filed 2001-05-30

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis of the conviction, the elements must be proven so that every “reasonable” hypothesis of innocence is excluded.

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

State v. Lewis · filed 2001-06-22

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis for conviction, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. The court does not determine whether another possible hypothesis suggested by the defendant could afford an exculpatory explanation of the events; rather, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the court determines whether the possible alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under Jackson v. Virginia . This is not a separate test from Jackson v. Virginia .

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

State v. Marino · filed 2001-06-27

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis for the conviction, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. ... Therefore, the evidence showed that defendant exercised dominion and control over the marijuana.

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

State v. Camese · filed 2001-07-11

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.

State v. Alvarez · filed 2001-07-18

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. ... The appellant’s suggestion that someone else would place that amount of drugs in his spare tire without his knowledge and with such a significant' street value is irrational and an unreasonable hypothesis as envisioned by State v. Lee, supra.

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

State v. Ledet · filed 2001-07-30

In a case involving circumstantial evidence, 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 evidence at trial showed that there was no reasonable explanation for the defendant's blood to be on the victim's brassiere other than that he was in the house beating her to death.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and serves as a guide to reviewing whether the evidence supports a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Allen · filed 2001-08-01

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 to support a conviction.

State v. BJD · filed 2001-09-26

Regarding whether Defendants directly committed the act of cutting the pool's liner, we find that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence was not excluded in this case.

Section 15:438 directs the fact finder and reviewing court to convict on circumstantial evidence only if every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded.

State v. Mathews · filed 2001-09-28

When circumstantial evidence is used to show specific intent, La. R.S. 15:438 should be considered as it provides a rule regarding the use of such evidence. The rule directs the fact finder, as well as the reviewer on appeal, to accept as proven all that the evidence tends to prove, and then to convict only if every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded.

When a conviction rests on circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Singleton · filed 2001-11-07

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis of the conviction, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. ... It can be inferred from the circumstances of the encounter between Mrs. Lind and the defendant that the defendant possessed the specific intent to take her car, and did an act in furtherance of the offense to support the conviction for attempted carjacking.

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

State v. Crotwell · filed 2001-11-09

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that the fact-finder must be satisfied that the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... We are convinced that a rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence as favorable to the prosecution as any rational fact finder can, could have concluded that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that the defendant was guilty of the instant offense.

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove a case, the jury must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to convict.

State v. Daniels · filed 2001-11-27

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove a case, in order to convict, the jury must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. A different test is applied on appellate review.

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

State v. Lee · filed 2001-11-28

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis of the conviction, “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. Jacobs, 504 So.2d 817, 820 (La.1987); State v. Porretto, 468 So.2d 1142, 1146 (La.1985) (La. 15:438 serves as an evidentiary guide for the jury when considering circumstantial evidence). ... Thus, evaluating the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that possible alternative hypotheses of innocence are sufficiently reasonable that a rational trier of fact could not have found proof that Burns planted the napkins beyond a reasonable doubt under Jackson v. Virginia.

When a conviction rests on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence under the rational-juror sufficiency standard.

State v. Johnson · filed 2001-12-07

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis for the conviction, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. The court does not determine whether another possible hypothesis suggested by the defendant could afford an exculpatory explanation of the events; rather, when evaluating the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the court determines whether the possible alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under Jackson v. Virginia, supra.

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

State v. Williams · filed 2001-12-28

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides the fact finder must be satisfied that the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... When all of the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the state, we find any rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that the state established each essential element of second degree murder and that defendant did not kill the victim in self-defense.

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

State v. MacKens · filed 2001-12-28

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis for the conviction, such evidence 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.

State v. Gordon · filed 2002-02-15

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See La. R.S. 15:438. ... Based on the evidence of record, the defendant's unknown shooter hypothesis is not sufficiently reasonable to prevent a rational juror from finding proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

State v. Plaisance · filed 2002-03-06

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. ... Thus, we find no merit to the defendant's argument that his statement contains a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. George · filed 2002-03-13

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; it guides review of evidentiary sufficiency rather than creating a separate test.

State v. Keeley · filed 2002-03-27

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis of the conviction, the elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. 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 and guides appellate review under the reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Robinson · filed 2002-04-17

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. ... Despite any inconsistencies in Hughes' testimony, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that when defendant shot Willie Nabonne and Danielle Brown, he had the specific intent to kill them or inflict great bodily harm upon them.

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

State ex rel. D.P.B. · filed 2002-05-08

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis for the conviction, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. ... Thus, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, we find that the state failed to eliminate, beyond a reasonable doubt, the rational theory that D.P.B. believed deadly force was necessary to compel P.R. to leave his home.

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

State v. Karam · filed 2002-07-31

In the event a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 instructs the factfinder 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." ... Having reviewed the evidence, and given the short time frame advanced by the State and indication that the shots were not defensively fired, we find no error in the jury's rejection of the above hypotheses.

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

State v. Floyd · filed 2002-10-23

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis for the ■ conviction, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. ... This evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that the state established that the defendant took a gold bracelet from Boone’s immediate control with force and intimidation while armed with a gun thereby satisfying every element of the crime.

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

State v. Cho · filed 2002-10-29

In cases involving circumstantial evidence, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S.15:438; Mitchell, 99-3342 at p. 7, 772 So.2d at 83. ... Rather, the court must evaluate the evidence in a light most favorable to the state and determine whether the possible alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. ... Under the Jackson analysis, then, we find that the Defendant's conviction was based on proof sufficient for any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

State v. Jack · filed 2002-10-30

Additionally, considering the evidence presented, there is no reasonable hypothesis of innocence present that would prevent a rational juror from finding proof of the Defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

State v. Armstead · filed 2002-11-06

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438.

Circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; a speculative possibility that the seized substances were fake cocaine is not a reasonable hypothesis.

State v. Everidge · filed 2002-12-11

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. ... Defendant’s hypothesis of innocence — that some of the white crumbs or pieces in the six individuál bags containing the rocks were cocaine, but that the rocks might have been fake crack cocaine — is not reasonable.

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. Davis · filed 2003-01-22

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 supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Stevenson · filed 2003-01-22

When the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 provides that such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... Accordingly, the evidence failed to establish that the defendant took or used the vehicle with the knowledge that it was stolen.

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

State v. Gilbert · filed 2003-01-28

In cases involving circumstantial evidence, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S.15:438; Mitchell, 99-3342, p. 7, 772 So.2d at 83.

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

State v. Millien · filed 2003-02-14

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, in order to convict," every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. ... Further, any circumstantial evidence that the defendant presented those checks in payment failed to exclude the reasonable hypothesis of innocence that someone other than the defendant presented those checks in payment.

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

State v. Wright · filed 2003-03-05

Even though the evidence is circumstantial, it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. Johnson · filed 2003-03-14

In all cases where an essential element of the crime is not proven by direct evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 applies. As an evidentiary rule, it restrains the fact finder in the first instance, as well as the reviewer on appeal, to accept as proven all that the evidence tends to prove and then to convict only if every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded.

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

State v. Roberts · filed 2003-03-26

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 used to convict to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Anderson · filed 2003-04-09

For circumstantial evidence to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypotheses of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. ... When viewed in its entirety, we find this circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish that Anderson possessed the specific intent to distribute marijuana.

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis of a conviction, Section 15:438 requires the evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State Ex Rel. Dpb · filed 2003-05-20

Additionally, when circumstantial evidence forms the basis of the conviction, the evidence, "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove ... must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocense." La. R.S. 15:438; see State v. Jacobs, 504 So.2d 817, 820 (La.1987) (all direct and circumstantial evidence must meet the Jackson test); State v. Porretto, 468 So.2d 1142, 1146 (La.1985) (La. R.S. 15:438 serves as an evidentiary guide for the jury when considering circumstantial evidence). ... In addition, the state adequately negated defendant's hypothesis of innocence in that the shooting was an accident.

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

State v. Taves · filed 2003-06-06

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. Incorporating this rule under the Jackson standard, an appellate court must determine that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable trier of fact would have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence had been excluded. ... This does not mean, however, that every possibility of innocence must be excluded.

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

State of Louisiana v. Magdaleno · filed 2003-10-01

In cases where circumstantial evidence has played a significant role in conviction, La.R.S. 15:438 also 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 jury’s verdict of guilt reflects a rejection of the defendant’s hypothesis of innocence. Given the evidence in the record, this rejection was reasonable, as was the jury’s determination of guilt.

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

State of Louisiana v. Major III · filed 2003-10-08

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. ... Similar to our recent holding in LeBlanc, we find that the State failed to establish that Mr. Major had guilty knowledge of the cocaine. The record evidence is simply insufficient for an inference of actual or constructive possession. Thus, a rational factfinder could not have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that he was aware of the cocaine and that he exercised dominion and control over it.

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

State v. Toups · filed 2003-10-08

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; a theory with no evidentiary basis does not prevent conviction.

State v. Ceasar · filed 2003-10-09

Thus, there is no evidentiary basis to support a reasonable hypothesis that one of the other bystanders actually committed the aggravated battery on Poullard. Every reasonable hypothesis of Defendant's innocence has been excluded.

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

State v. Emanuel-Dunn · filed 2003-11-07

After a thorough review of the record, we are convinced the evidence presented herein, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, all of the elements of second degree murder and the defendant's identity as the perpetrator of that offense.

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

State v. Holland · filed 2003-12-10

For circumstantial evidence to convict, it must exclude 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. Douglas · filed 2003-12-10

For circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction, upon assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... Although there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, there was likewise no evidence to support defendant’s version of events that caused the child’s injuries and death.

Circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, assuming every fact the evidence tends to prove.

State v. Smith · filed 2003-12-31

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. ... Thus, viewing the totality of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that the defendant possessed the marijuana with the specific intent to distribute it.

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

State v. Robinson · filed 2004-04-14

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." ... The circumstantial evidence presented at defendant's trial excluded any reasonable hypothesis of his innocence.

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

State v. Herron · filed 2004-05-14

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 provides the fact finder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... While it is certainly possible that the defendant was the shooter or that he and Oatis planned to kill the victim, either of which would have supplied the requisite specific intent, the evidence, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, does not support such findings. Proof of the defendant's participation in the robbery plans and subsequent attempt to carry them out, without more, does not support a rational inference that he specifically intended to kill the victim.

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

State of Louisiana v. Burgess · filed 2004-06-16

As in the instant case, when circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, or more specifically the specific intent, 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.”

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

State v. Barakat · filed 2004-06-23

For circumstantial evidence to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. ... Although the defendant offered a hypothesis of innocence — that the drugs belonged to Hicks and were present without his knowledge — this hypothesis was obviously rejected and not considered reasonable by the jury.

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

State v. Smith · filed 2004-06-29

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 standard separate from the Jackson rule, but provides a helpful methodology for determining the existence of reasonable doubt. ... After considering all of the evidence, direct and circumstantial, we find that a rational trier of fact could have reasonably rejected Smith's version of events and concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that, at the very least, Kortney died at the hands of Smith while the latter was engaged in the perpetration of cruelty to juveniles.

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

State v. Bennett · filed 2004-08-18

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; that requirement is part of the overall sufficiency review.

State v. Picard · filed 2004-09-17

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. ... After a careful review of the record and viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find that any rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of any reasonable hypothesis of innocence that the defendant was intoxicated at the time he operated the vehicle on the night in question and, therefore, was guilty of DWI, fourth offense.

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

State v. Shrader · filed 2004-09-24

For circumstantial evidence to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. ... Accordingly, from this evidence, the jury could have reasonably concluded to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis of innocence that Shrader knowingly and intentionally possessed the gun for his own purposes while in the possession of Diazepam.

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

State v. Benoit · filed 2004-09-28

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." ... After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and could exclude the hypothesis that the Defendant was not intoxicated.

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

State of Louisiana v. Alexander · filed 2004-11-17

Because there were no witnesses to the shooting other than Defendant, the State had to rely on circumstantial evidence to disprove his self-defense claim. Where an essential element of a crime is sought to be proven by circumstantial evidence, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. When all of the evidence presented by the State is examined in the light most favorable to the prosecution, it is legally insufficient to meet the State’s heavy burden of proof for the purpose of excluding every reasonable hypothesis that Defendant did not shoot Mr. Victorian in self-defense.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; it provides a method for assessing reasonable doubt rather than a separate sufficiency standard.

State v. Simms · filed 2004-12-28

Under La.R.S. 15:438, "[t]he 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." However, this requirement does not establish a standard separate from the Jackson standard, but provides a helpful methodology for determining the existence of reasonable doubt.

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

State v. Pigford · filed 2005-01-26

For circumstantial evidence to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. ... The state’s evidence does nothing to exclude that possibility.

Section 15:438 requires the trier of fact to find that the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when evaluating circumstantial evidence.

State v. Montecino · filed 2005-02-11

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 provides that the trier of fact must be satisfied that the overall evidence excludes 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. Mitchell · filed 2005-02-17

Regarding circumstantial evidence, however, 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. ... From all of these facts both before and after the shooting, the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt Mitchell's aid in the commission of a crime with specific intent to inflict death or great bodily harm on the large crowd of people outside of Lacy's.

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

State v. Yrle · filed 2005-03-29

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." ... Under these facts, it is reasonable to infer that the Defendant obtained all of the bottles from Winn-Dixie, rather than to assume he carried some of the bottles into the store with him in his pants and then concealed three more the same way.

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

State v. Taylor · filed 2005-04-06

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