La. Stat. Ann. § 15:438

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. Jacques · filed 2014-10-29

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, 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 of Louisiana v. James Craig Johnson, Jr. · filed 2014-12-10

Where the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, in order to convict, “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. ... Defendant’s reasonable hypothesis of innocence was that JW was the one who stabbed the victim to death. However, there was no evidence of JW’s presence in the house at the time of the murder.

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

State v. Handy · filed 2014-12-10

Thus, no legitimate purpose for entering the property is shown to exist to support Handy’s hypothesis of innocence. It was therefore not irrational for the jury to conclude from the evidence that Handy had the intent to commit a theft or other felony at the time he entered Berenson’s property.

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

State v. Belvin · filed 2014-12-16

“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.” State v. Smith, 106 So.3d at 1053. See also La. R.S. 15:438. ... The evidence likewise failed to show that either Mr. Poche or Ms. Washington, or anyone else for that matter, had the requisite access to the apartment to show they had dominion or control over the premises and its contents.

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

State v. Dibartolo · filed 2015-02-11

Examining all of these factors we find that a rational trier of fact could have found, to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that defendant did have specific intent to commit a theft or robbery at the Omars’ residence.

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

State v. Estes · filed 2015-02-25

“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.” ... Based on our review of the record, we find that the jurors did not unreasonably or irrationally reject the defense’s construction of the evening’s events, and any rational trier of fact could have found that the State proved the essential elements of La. R.S. 14:30.1 beyond a reasonable doubt.

When the state uses circumstantial evidence to prove an essential element, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Edwards · filed 2015-02-26

When the state relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of an essential element of a crime, the court must assume every fact that the evidence tends to prove and the circumstantial 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; on appeal, the court asks whether a rational juror could find that requirement met.

State of Louisiana v. Harris · filed 2015-03-04

[W]hen the conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... Considering all facts established––...––we find the jury’s rejection of the defendant’s hypothesis of innocence reasonable.

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

State v. Aguillard · filed 2015-03-04

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.

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

State v. Simonson · filed 2015-03-04

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis of the conviction, the applicable standard 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. ... Despite the defendant’s contention, the testimony and evidence indicate that the defendant intended to commit a theft, and the pry marks, defeated locks, and removal of the doors prove an unauthorized entry. Thus, reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have concluded that the defendant burglarized the residence.

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

State v. Griffin · filed 2015-03-11

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.

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

State v. Nelson · filed 2015-03-11

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.

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

State v. Thompson · filed 2015-03-18

When the state relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of an essential element of a crime, the reviewing court must assume every fact that the evidence tends to prove, and the circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. Beene · filed 2015-04-15

Circumstantial evidence “must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence” in order to support a conviction. La. R.S. 15:438. ... We find no merit to the defendant’s arguments that the evidence established reasonable doubt as to whether the accident was caused by another vehicle hitting the rear of her Expedition or as to whether the defendant’s intoxication was a contributing cause of the accident.

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

State v. Bias · filed 2015-04-24

A thorough review of the record indicates that any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence presented in this case in the light most favorable to the State, could find that the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, all of the elements of armed robbery, felon in possession of a firearm, and the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator of the crimes.

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

State v. Etienne · filed 2015-05-06

Although it was reasonable to infer that K.O. may have had consensual sex with the defendant and perhaps been raped and beaten by another man, the evidence excluded that reasonable hypothesis because the jury was not presented with any evidence that suggested that scenario.

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. Lemoine · filed 2015-05-06

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.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when proving the elements of an offense.

State v. Thomas · filed 2015-05-20

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 to support a conviction.

State v. Dock · filed 2015-06-03

Circumstantial evidence “must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence” in order to support a conviction. La. R.S. 15:438.

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

State v. Bernard · filed 2015-06-03

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, 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 v. Allen · filed 2015-06-04

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 provides that the factfinder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... The evidence in this case does not exclude these or other reasonable hypotheses of innocence.

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

State v. Reeder · filed 2015-08-25

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.” ... Defendant presented to the jury his alternative hypothesis of innocence; however, in returning a guilty verdict, the jury, as the trier of fact, evidently gave more credence to the State’s version and rejected defendant’s.

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

State v. Nealon · filed 2015-09-30

When the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438; State v. Cummings, 95-1377 (La.2/28/96), 668 So.2d 1132. This evidentiary rule restrains the factfinder in the first instance, and 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 as part of the review for sufficient evidence.

State v. Powell · filed 2015-10-28

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

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

State v. Patterson · filed 2015-11-18

When the state relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of an essential element of a crime, the court must assume every fact that the evidence tends to prove, and the circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. Rumley · filed 2015-12-16

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

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

State v. Garrison · filed 2015-12-23

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.”

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. Johnson · filed 2015-12-23

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.

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

State v. Turner · filed 2016-01-20

Because this direct and circumstantial evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt, to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that it was Turner who perpetrated the second degree murder of McCready, we find no merit to this argument.

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

State v. Paul · filed 2016-01-27

.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 reviewing .court is not required to determine whether another possible hypothesis of innocence suggested by the defendant offers an exculpatory explanation of events. Rather, the reviewing court must determine whether the possible alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

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. Gibson · filed 2016-01-27

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, but rather is an evi-dentiary 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. Warrick · filed 2016-02-24

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.” ... We find no merit to Defendant’s argument that, the State failed to exclude his reasonable hypothesis of innocent activity.

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

State v. Jackson · filed 2016-02-24

When the state relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of an essential element of a crime, the court must assume every fact that the evidence tends to prove and the circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State of Louisiana v. Adam Batiste, III · filed 2016-04-06

The state proved that beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant committed second degree murder of Gabriella Spencer, to the exclusion of any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; on appeal, a suggested alternative is evaluated in the light most favorable to the State.

State v. Hutchinson · filed 2016-04-27

The rule as to circumstantial evidence is: assuming 17every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order-to. convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... Instead, the appellate court must evaluate the evidence in the 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.

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

State ex rel. J.J. · filed 2016-06-03

When analyzing 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. ... Officer Farris’s observations about the occupancy level of the vehicle and its recklessly driven manner, combined with J.J.’s flight and subsequent apprehension with an adult having no lawful claim to the vehicle, gave rise to a reasonable.inference that J.J. possessed the guilty mind required to support an adjudication for this offense.

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

State v. Matthews · filed 2016-08-10

In all cases where an essential element of the. crime is not proven by direct evidence, La. R.S. .15:438, concerning proof by circumstantial evidence, applies. As an evidentiary rule, it 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 circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Wells · filed 2016-09-14

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

When a jury reasonably rejects the defendant’s hypothesis of innocence in a circumstantial evidence case, that hypothesis does not prevent conviction unless another hypothesis raises a reasonable doubt.

State v. Hayes · filed 2016-09-19

We find that it was reasonable for the jury to reject defense counsel’s hypothesis. ... When a case involves circumstantial evidence and the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defense, that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty, unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt. ... No such hypothesis is present here.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; when the jury reasonably rejects the defense’s hypothesis, the conviction stands unless another hypothesis raises reasonable doubt.

State v. Heard · filed 2016-12-02

When a case involves circumstantial evidence and the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defense, that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis that raises a reasonable doubt. ... No such hypothesis exists in the instant case.

Section 15:438 permits a conviction based on circumstantial evidence when the facts exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State of Louisiana v. Melancon Jr. · filed 2016-12-07

Defendant argues this aggregation of descriptions constitutes circumstantial evidence and is thus subject to the dictates of La.R.S. 15:438, which states that: “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.” ... In addition, the circumstances indicated not only that a robbery occurred, as Defendant concedes, but also that the man in the ditch was the robber. ... Combined with the evidence discussed above, a rational jury could have concluded not only that Defendant was the driver of the truck that sped away from the casino, but also that the man who dove into the back of the truck was the robber.

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

State v. Kyles · filed 2016-12-07

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.”

When evidence is circumstantial, a conviction requires it to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Sayles · filed 2016-12-07

In light of the foregoing, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence was sufficient under the Jackson standard to support the theft of goods conviction and that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. Castro · filed 2016-12-14

The essential |Relements must be proven in such a way that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. ... And, considering Ms, Jones’s testimony and the DNA evidence presented by the prosecution, we find every reasonably hypothesis of innocence has been excluded.

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

State v. Breedlove · filed 2017-01-11

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.”

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

State of Louisiana v. Dangerfield · filed 2017-03-01

Where the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, in order to convict, “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.

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

State v. Dickerson · filed 2017-04-12

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 provides that, in order to convict, the factfinder must be satisfied that the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. Lattin · filed 2017-05-02

If a case rests essentially upon circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, while allowing a jury to reject hypotheses based on rational credibility and evidentiary determinations.

State of Louisiana v. Nathaniel McCoy, Jr. · filed 2017-05-10

“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. ... We find that the jury’s rejection of the defendant’s hypotheses of innocence is based upon its rational credibility and evidentiary determinations. Therefore, we find no merit in this assignment of error.

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

State v. Hawkins · filed 2017-05-17

This principle is codified in La. R.S. 15:438, which provides that “[t]h’e 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.”

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

State v. Dyson · filed 2017-06-02

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 provides that the fact finder, in prder to convict, must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of. innocence, When a case involves circumstantial evidence and the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defense, that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires evidence in a case resting essentially on circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Bowers · filed 2017-08-09

If a case rests essentially upon circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. Mays · filed 2017-08-16

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.

When the state relies on circumstantial evidence to establish an essential element of a crime, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Johnson · filed 2017-09-27

When the state relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of an essential element of a crime, the court must assume every fact that the evidence tends to prove and the circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. Mays · filed 2017-11-03

If a case rests essentially upon circumstantial evidence, that 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. Simon · filed 2018-01-10

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.

When the state relies on circumstantial evidence to prove an essential element, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Wooten · filed 2018-02-13

When the state relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of an essential element of a crime, the court must assume every fact that the evidence tends to prove and the circumstantial evidence must 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. James · filed 2018-02-27

When a case involves circumstantial evidence and the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant's own testimony, that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis that raises a reasonable doubt. ... A rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the State, could have found the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, all of the elements of second degree murder.

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

State v. Malarcher · filed 2018-04-13

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 provides that, in order to convict, the fact finder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we are convinced that a rational trier of fact 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 DWI offense.

Section 15:438 requires the overall circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; a hypothesis the jury reasonably rejects does not create reasonable doubt unless another hypothesis does.

State v. Nixon · filed 2018-04-13

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 provides that the factfinder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... When a case involves circumstantial evidence, and the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis of innocence presented by the defendant's own testimony, that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; an alternative hypothesis must be reasonable enough to prevent a rational juror from finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Perry · filed 2018-06-27

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 provides: "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 reviewing court is not required to determine whether another possible hypothesis of innocence suggested by the defendant offers an exculpatory explanation of events. Rather, the reviewing court must determine whether the possible alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

State v. Becnel · filed 2018-06-27

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."

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

State ex rel. W.S. · filed 2018-07-05

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, assuming every fact the evidence tends to prove.

State v. Howard · filed 2018-09-21

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; speculation alone does not establish one.

State of Louisiana v. George E. Byrd AKA George Byrd · filed 2018-09-26

We find that there was no foundation to Defendant’s two hypotheses of innocence, which, in both cases, were based solely on speculation.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; on appeal, the question is whether an alternative hypothesis is reasonable enough to prevent a rational juror from finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Hicks · filed 2018-10-17

The reviewing court is not required to determine whether another possible hypothesis of innocence suggested by the defendant offers an exculpatory explanation of events. Rather, the reviewing court must determine whether the possible alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 applies when an essential element is not proved by direct evidence and requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Hampton · filed 2018-11-14

In all cases where an essential element of the crime is not proven by direct evidence, La. R.S. 15:438, concerning proof by circumstantial evidence, applies. As an evidentiary rule, it 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 circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Williams · filed 2018-12-19

"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.' " ... Viewing all of the testimony and evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find sufficient evidence establishing that defendant was the driver of the Charger that pursued the victim and that defendant pulled the Charger alongside the victim's car to allow Mahogany to shoot the victim.

Section 15:438 requires evidence in a case resting essentially on circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Barnett · filed 2019-01-16

For a case resting essentially upon circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. Mathis · filed 2019-01-16

If a case rests essentially upon circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... In the case before us, the evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and the State met its burden of negating any reasonable probability of misidentification.

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

State of Louisiana v. Charles P. Mayeux, Jr. AKA Charles P. Mayeux · filed 2019-02-06

Because the instant case involves a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence, we are further mindful of the following in connection with our review: When the conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that the state “must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence” in order to convict.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; a jury may reject a hypothesis through reasonable inferences from the evidence.

State of Louisiana v. Hoang · filed 2019-03-26

Where a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, as is the case here, the evidence “must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” La. R.S. 15:438. ... To accept defendant’s hypothesis of innocence, that the license plate went coincidentally missing at some point after the murder, would indeed be to accept an “extraordinary coincidence” when viewed in the context of the entirety of the State’s case, as noted by the dissent in the court below.

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

State v. Quinn · filed 2019-03-27

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis of the conviction, the prosecution's case must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. Spruell · filed 2019-04-10

Based on the evidence presented at trial, reasonable jurors could find that Spann was the individual responsible for M.P.'s injuries, thus rejecting every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, including that M.P.'s injuries were caused by an accident or illness or that they were inflicted by someone else.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before a defendant may be convicted.

State v. Flores · filed 2019-04-10

In order to convict, the jury had to determine that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. In an appropriate exercise of discretion and assessment of the credibility of witnesses, a reasonable trier of fact could have rejected the version of events presented by Flores and his witnesses-that Keith drove Flores to Elsie's, left him there with the truck, walked home, and that Flores then purchased alcohol at Elsie's and became drunk while sitting in the parked truck, without ever placing the keys in the ignition.

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

State v. Jones · filed 2019-05-22

Considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that Jones was guilty of aggravated arson.

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

State v. Sanders · filed 2019-05-22

In cases resting on circumstantial evidence, 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. ... As noted by the trial court in its ruling, simply no reasonable hypothesis of innocence can explain the presence of the forensic evidence in the home other than Sanders' guilt.

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

State v. Davis · filed 2019-05-22

To convict a defendant based upon circumstantial evidence, every reasonable hypothesis of innocence must be excluded. ... Further, the evidence of record excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State of Louisiana v. Leger · filed 2019-06-26

Where a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, as is the case here, the evidence “must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” La. R.S. 15:438. ... Further, the jury rationally rejected the hypothesis of innocence proposed by defendant that his intoxication could be forgiven and found not to be a contributing factor because Hall engaged in equally combative behavior despite being sober.

Section 15:438 requires evidence in a case resting essentially on circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State of Louisiana v. Loyd · filed 2019-08-14

If a case rests essentially upon circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438; State v. Mingo, supra. The appellate court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determines whether an alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

State of Louisiana Versus Roger Barber · filed 2019-10-02

The total circumstances did not exclude the hypothesis of innocence that defendant did not operate the vehicle while intoxicated.

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

State of Louisiana in the Interest of L.R. . · filed 2019-12-13

Applying the hybrid of the Jackson and the manifest-error standards, we conclude the evidence does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and the juvenile court judge erred in finding that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that L.R. committed simple burglary.

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

State of Louisiana v. Lacon · filed 2019-12-30

Despite the lack of any eyewitness identification of the defendant as one of the shooters, the circumstantial evidence presented by the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was one of the shooters and excluded all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.

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

State of Louisiana v. Miller · filed 2020-04-22

Where a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, as is the case here, the evidence “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 of Louisiana Versus Emmett Garrison, IV AKA "Lil Emmet" · filed 2020-04-23

Further, we find that the elements of the crime proven in whole or in part by circumstantial evidence were proven sufficiently to allow the jury to reasonably conclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence had been excluded.

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. Ebarb · filed 2020-11-10

When the state relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of an essential element of a crime, the court must assume every fact that the evidence tends to prove and the circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have rejected defendant’s claims of innocence and found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

State of Louisiana v. Dorsey · filed 2020-12-09

La. R.S. 15:438 provides that 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.” ... As Victim testified that ... Defendant shot her and Decedent and left, a rational juror could conclude that Defendant took his firearm with him when he left immediately after the shooting.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; on review, an alternative hypothesis matters if it is reasonable enough to prevent a rational juror from finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State of Louisiana Versus Charles R. Lane · filed 2020-12-23

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 reviewing court is not required to determine whether another possible hypothesis of innocence suggested by the defendant offers an exculpatory explanation of events. Rather, the reviewing court must determine whether the possible alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

When the State relies on circumstantial evidence to establish an essential element of a crime, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State of Louisiana v. Patrick Newton Harris · filed 2021-01-13

When the State relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of an essential element of a crime, the court must assume every fact that the evidence tends to prove and the circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438; State v. Lilly, supra; State v. Green, supra. ... In summary, even when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that no rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide of Flowers was not committed in self-defense.

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

State of Louisiana v. Sullivan · filed 2021-05-05

If a case rests essentially upon circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438; State v. Mingo, supra.

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

State of Louisiana v. Durham · filed 2021-06-30

Likewise, if a case rests essentially upon circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438; see also, State v. Mingo, 51, 647 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/27/17), 244 So. 3d 629, writ denied, 17-1894 (La. 6/1/18), 243 So. 3d 1064. ... Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that all elements of the charge of possession of methamphetamine was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

State of Louisiana v. Simmons · filed 2021-10-06

To convict a defendant based upon circumstantial evidence, every reasonable hypothesis of innocence must be excluded. La. R.S. 15:438; State v. Barakat, 38,419 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/23/04), 877 So. 2d 223. ... A reasonable juror could conclude that something other than the victim swerving into the defendant’s lane caused the defendant to initially swerve to the right. Therefore, this assignment of error lacks merit and is rejected.

Section 15:438 requires evidence in a case resting essentially on circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State of Louisiana v. Vinson · filed 2021-11-17

Likewise, if a case rests essentially upon circumstantial evidence, that 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 of Louisiana v. Joseph Michael Elie, III · filed 2021-12-08

Under La.R.S. 15:438, “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.” ... Defendant and appellate counsel contend the State failed to disprove the reasonable hypothesis that someone else set the fire at Ms. Duncantel’s home. When viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence presented is sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, as a way to assess reasonable doubt under Jackson.

State of Louisiana Versus Husam Odeh · filed 2021-12-23

Pursuant to La. R.S. 15:438, assuming every fact to be proven 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 that is separate from the Jackson standard, but instead provides a helpful methodology for determining the existence of reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; an appellate court asks whether a rational juror could reject the defendant’s alternative explanation.

State of Louisiana v. John James Edmond, Jr. A/K/A Johnny James Edmond, Jr. A/K/A John Edmond, Jr. · filed 2022-02-16

Under La.R.S. 15:438, “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.” ... Given the unanimous guilty verdict returned in this case, the jury clearly rejected this hypothesis, leaving this court to evaluate only whether the jury’s rejection was reasonable. We find that it was.

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

State of Louisiana v. Quantavious R. Green · filed 2022-03-09

The jury acted in a rational decision-making process, excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to find Green guilty as charged on the firearm charge as well as the aggravated flight from an officer charge.

When a conviction rests on circumstantial evidence, Section 15:438 requires proof that excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State of Louisiana Versus George Cepriano, Jr. · filed 2022-03-30

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis of a conviction, La. R.S. 15:438 requires that the elements of the offense be proven so that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded.

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

State of Louisiana v. Manuel · filed 2022-04-06

Ultimately, “[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.” La. R.S. 15:438. ... From our review of the record of this case, viewing all evidence and testimony in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that a rational trier of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant attempted to obstruct justice by tampering with evidence with the specific intent of distorting the results of the criminal investigation of the shooting.

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. Moran · filed 2022-05-25

When the State relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of an essential element of a crime, the court must assume every fact that the evidence tends to prove and the circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State of Louisiana in the Interest of J.K.. · filed 2022-07-13

“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. ... Thus, we conclude the State’s uncontroverted evidence was reasonably sufficient to identify J.K. as the offender and adjudicate J.K. delinquent beyond a reasonable doubt of aggravated second degree battery.

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

State of Louisiana v. Worley · filed 2022-08-03

When the conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that the state “must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence” in order to convict.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; a hypothesis is reasonable if it would leave a rational fact finder with reasonable doubt.

State of Louisiana in the Interest of R.B. Vs. · filed 2022-08-26

“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. A reasonable hypothesis of innocence must sufficiently lead a rational fact finder to entertain a reasonable ... doubt about guilt. ... We therefore conclude that R.B. was concerned in the commission of the armed robbery of Mr. Crafton, and that the State’s uncontroverted evidence was reasonably sufficient to identify R.B. and adjudicate him delinquent beyond a reasonable doubt of the lesser offense of principal to armed robbery.

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

State Of Louisiana in the Interest of D.W. · filed 2022-09-21

When analyzing 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. ... Viewing the evidence in its entirety, whether admissible or inadmissible, in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence that D.W. was guilty of simple burglary.

When a case rests essentially upon circumstantial evidence, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State of Louisiana v. Parks · filed 2022-12-14

If a case rests essentially upon circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State of Louisiana v. Bernard Grant a/k/a Lucius B. Cummings · filed 2022-12-14

To convict a defendant based upon circumstantial evidence, every reasonable hypothesis of innocence must be excluded. La. R.S. 15:438; State v. Johnston, 53,981 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/22/21), 326 So. 3d 970. ... Thus, the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions for constructive possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and possession of cocaine.

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

State of Louisiana v. Rotrick Deon Ivory · filed 2023-01-11

Further, the evidence presented by the state excluded every reasonable hypothesis of Defendant’s innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before a defendant may be convicted.

State of Louisiana v. Bolden · filed 2023-03-01

Regarding circumstantial evidence, 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 Court finds that there was ample evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the essential elements of the offenses of armed robbery and aggravated battery, as well as Bolden’s identification as the perpetrator, and that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to find Bolden guilty as charged was excluded, especially when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

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

State of Louisiana Versus Christopher L. Davis · filed 2023-03-08

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 provides, “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 reviewing court is not required to determine whether a defendant’s suggested hypothesis of innocence offers an exculpatory explanation of events. Rather, the reviewing court must evaluate the evidence in the 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.

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

State of Louisana Versus Dan Robertson · filed 2023-03-29

For the reasons stated herein, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found that the State proved the essential elements of attempted simple burglary beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence used to convict to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; this rule informs the Jackson sufficiency standard.

State of Louisiana Versus Seth Redell · filed 2023-04-26

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 before it can support a conviction.

State of Louisiana v. Gee · filed 2023-05-10

Where the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, in order to convict, “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. ... We find the evidence incriminating defendant compelling such that it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of defendant’s innocence.

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

State of Louisiana Versus Lanard A. Lavigne · filed 2023-05-24

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.” ... 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; on review, the court asks whether an alternative hypothesis would prevent a rational juror from finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State of Louisiana Versus David Bourgeois · filed 2023-05-31

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.” The reviewing court is not required to determine whether a defendant’s suggested hypothesis of innocence offers an exculpatory explanation of events. Rather, the reviewing court must evaluate the evidence in the 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.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; evidence of participation as a principal can defeat a hypothesis that someone else committed the physical act.

State of Louisiana in the Interest of D.W. · filed 2023-10-20

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis of the conviction, the evidence, “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.” La. R.S. 15:438; State v. Toups, 2001-1875, p. 3 (La. 10/15/02), 833 So.2d 910, 912 (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). ... Taken as a whole, the State’s evidence is sufficient to permit a reasonable inference that D.W., at the least, was a principal in the commission of the delinquent acts, and, thus, even if he did not himself burglarize the vehicle, he provided some direction to the person who did and then received the stolen proceeds from that person and disposed of them.

Section 15:438 requires evidence in a case resting essentially on circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State of Louisiana v. Demetrious McCoy, Sr. · filed 2023-11-15

In light of the multiple incidents involving McCoy and Pappillion, after reviewing the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, we conclude there was sufficient evidence upon which the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that McCoy had the specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm upon Pappillion.

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

State of Louisiana Versus Antonio Dante Key · filed 2023-12-27

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.”

Section 15:438 requires the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to convict a defendant based on circumstantial evidence.

State of Louisiana v. Pearson · filed 2024-01-10

To convict a defendant based upon circumstantial evidence, every reasonable hypothesis of innocence must be excluded. ... After reviewing the record and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that the state presented sufficient evidence at trial for a reasonable jury to convict the defendant of second degree murder.

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

State of Louisiana v. Flenory Frazier, III · filed 2024-01-10

To convict a defendant based upon circumstantial evidence, every reasonable hypothesis of innocence must be excluded. ... Defendant’s claim that he was simply cleaning the vehicle for hire is self-serving and readily refuted by the evidence presented at trial.

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

State of Louisiana v. Cole · filed 2024-01-10

Regarding circumstantial evidence, 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.” ... Although this case hinges mostly on circumstantial evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Cole’s identification as the perpetrator and each of the essential elements of the offenses of attempted second degree murder and aggravated criminal damage to property, and every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to find Cole guilty as charged was excluded.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; the presence of THC in the victim’s body did not provide such a hypothesis here.

State of Louisiana v. Marshall · filed 2024-01-10

Where a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, the evidence “must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Id., quoting La. R.S. 15:438. ... Further, it is not a reasonable hypothesis to argue that the presence of THC in Pierce’s body at the time of his death was a contributing factor of his demise.

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

State of Louisiana v. Jefferson · filed 2024-02-08

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. This statutory test comports with the Jackson constitutional sufficiency test to evaluate whether all evidence, direct and circumstantial, is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a rational jury. See State v. Rosiere, 488 So.2d 965, 968 (La. 1986).

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and serves as an evidentiary guide within the reasonable doubt standard.

State of Louisiana v. Savoy · filed 2024-03-06

As such, the jury, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could have found the State excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, thereby proving that Defendant had to be the individual who shot Ms. Mouton in the head twice then fled the home.

When the state uses circumstantial evidence to establish an essential element of a crime, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State of Louisiana v. Keith Brown, II · filed 2024-03-13

When the state relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of an essential element of a crime, the court must assume every fact that the evidence tends to prove and the circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438; State v. Lilly, supra; State v. Green, supra. ... Furthermore, the evidence was also sufficient to prove that Brown, when he got into bed with JW and hugged her, had the specific intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desires of Brown or JW.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; on appeal, the question is whether a rational juror could find that requirement satisfied.

State of Louisiana v. Johnson · filed 2024-03-27

When the conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that the state “must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence” in order to convict. ... we find that the jury’s rejection of Defendant’s hypothesis of innocence was reasonable.

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

State Of Louisiana v. Howard · filed 2024-06-03

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, 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.” This is not a separate test for evaluating the evidence; rather, all of the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, must be sufficient under Jackson to convince a rational juror the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

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. Rainey · filed 2024-07-17

When the state relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of an essential element of a crime, the court must assume every fact that the evidence tends to prove and the circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438; State v. Lilly, supra; State v. Green, supra. ... The evidence was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that when Rainey swung the pipe, he had the specific intent to inflict serious bodily injury.

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

State of Louisiana v. Johnson · filed 2024-07-17

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.

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

State of Louisiana v. Watkins · filed 2024-07-17

Likewise, if a case rests essentially on circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... The state proved every element of the offense and the identity of the offender beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State of Louisiana Versus Malik B. McGinnis AKA "Rk" · filed 2024-07-31

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.” Id.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and informs the reasonable-doubt inquiry without creating a separate test.

State of Louisiana Versus Charles E Bates · filed 2024-08-22

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of an offense, La. R.S. 15:438 mandates that “[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. ... We find that a rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence presented was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of illegal use of a weapon in violation of La. R.S. 14:94.

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

State of Louisiana v. Winslow · filed 2024-08-28

If a case rests essentially upon circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... With all the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the State negated any reasonable probability of Winslow’s misidentification as the shooter.

Section 15:438 requires evidence in a case resting essentially on circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State of Louisiana v. Hines · filed 2024-08-28

Likewise, if a case rests essentially on circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. The appellate court will review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether an alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

State of Louisiana (City of Bastrop) v. Nelson · filed 2024-08-28

As an evidentiary rule, La. R.S. 15:438 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 to sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence.

State of Louisiana v. Williams · filed 2024-10-09

That statute requires the State to exclude every “reasonable hypothesis of innocence” in order to sustain a conviction on appeal.

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. Morehead · filed 2024-10-23

When the state relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of an essential element of a crime, the court must assume every fact that the evidence tends to prove and the circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438; State v. Lilly, supra; State v. Green, supra.

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

State of Louisiana v. Rigmaiden · filed 2024-10-23

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that a rational trier of fact, in viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could have found that all reasonable hypotheses of innocence were excluded.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, while leaving appellate review under the rational juror standard.

State of Louisiana v. Toby · filed 2024-10-25

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis of the conviction, the evidence, “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.” La. R.S. 15:438; State v. Toups, 2001-1875, p. 3 (La. 10/15/02), 833 So.2d 910, 912 (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). ... Here, defendant does not identify any reasonable hypothesis remaining after the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

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

State of Louisiana Versus Enyel Bello-Urbina · filed 2024-10-30

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.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence used to convict to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; this rule helps assess reasonable doubt under the Jackson standard.

State of Louisiana Versus Lamonte Loggins · filed 2024-10-30

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.” Woods, 376 So.3d at 1155. 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.

State of Louisiana v. Detriavion D. Green · filed 2024-10-30

Every reasonable hypothesis of innocence was not excluded in this case, especially given the internal inconsistencies in Roberson’s statements, lack of an eyewitness to the shooting, and the lack of any physical evidence linking the defendant to the offenses.

Section 15:438 requires evidence in a case resting essentially on circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State of Louisiana v. White · filed 2024-11-20

If a case rests essentially upon circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438; Broome, supra.

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

State of Louisiana v. Dugar · filed 2024-11-27

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. On appeal, the issue is whether a rational trier of fact, when viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, could find that all reasonable hypotheses of innocence were excluded.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; an alternative hypothesis matters when it is reasonable enough to prevent a rational juror from finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State of Louisiana v. McDowell · filed 2024-12-02

“When the State uses circumstantial evidence to prove the elements 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.” ... Based on this circumstantial evidence, the alternative hypothesis offered by Defendant is not sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found Defendant guilty of simple burglary.

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

State of Louisiana v. Pierre · filed 2024-12-06

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 evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” The requirement of La. R.S. 15:438 does not establish a standard separate from the Jackson standard, but rather provides a helpful methodology for determining the existence of reasonable doubt.

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

State of Louisiana Versus Don Raines · filed 2024-12-18

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.” ... Defendant argues that the evidence provided by the State did not exclude the hypothesis that someone else could have used his PIN number to make the call. ... Accordingly, we conclude that a rational ... trier of fact, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence was sufficient to find that Defendant committed the offense under the standard set forth in Jackson.

When a case rests essentially on circumstantial evidence, Section 15:438 requires that evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State of Louisiana v. Moore · filed 2025-02-26

For a case resting essentially upon circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... Although Moore suggests that the jury was presented with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence, i.e., that Kendrick Moore was driving the vehicle as a principal at the time of the shooting, nothing in the record contradicts the State’s assessment that Kolby Moore was present in the vehicle during the shooting.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; intoxication does not necessarily defeat an inference of awareness from the surrounding facts.

State of Louisiana v. Rainey · filed 2025-02-26

The defendant’s intoxication does not make it irrational to conclude that the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was aware of the guns in the car before he fell asleep, i.e., with his leg resting against the AR-15 rifle and the 9mm pistol right next to him on the console.

When the state relies on circumstantial evidence to prove an essential element of a crime, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State of Louisiana v. Williams · filed 2025-02-26

When the state relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of an essential element of a crime, the court must assume every fact that the evidence tends to prove and the circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... The location and collection of Williams’ DNA in the perineal vaginal opening and the external aperture of the anus inside the intergluteal cleft further implies penetration took place.

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

State of Louisiana v. Derochowski · filed 2025-02-26

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. ... This court notes the jury could have found that it is not likely that a struggle over the gun in the victim’s left hand could have inflicted a wound on the right side of her head. ... Having reviewed the record in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there is sufficient evidence to support the jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant shot the victim with the specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm.