La. Stat. Ann. § 15:438

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

State of Louisiana v. Hoffpauir · filed 2025-03-26

However, as there is no direct evidence linking Defendant to the crime, her identification as the perpetrator was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, to convict, the State needed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State of Louisiana v. Thompson · filed 2025-04-09

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.

State of Louisiana v. Ragsdale · filed 2025-04-09

For a case resting essentially upon circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find the jury reasonably inferred defendant, the sole occupant of the vehicle, was driving the vehicle and was thrown into the passenger seat by the force of high-speed chase, the vehicle going airborne and flipping 360 degrees, and striking another vehicle.

Circumstantial evidence used to prove an element of an offense must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State of Louisiana v. Stewart · filed 2025-05-14

when the State uses circumstantial evidence to prove elements of the offense, those elements must be proven in order to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence pursuant to La. R.S. 15:438. ... Dr. Kopari, however, contradicts any theory that D.S.’s injuries resulted from an accidental “splash burn.”

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

State of Louisiana v. Jackson · filed 2025-05-21

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

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. Tovar · filed 2025-05-21

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 state also failed to exclude the reasonable hypothesis of innocence that Tovar was fidgeting with the recorder because he was coming down from his methamphetamine usage.

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

State of Louisiana v. Steele · filed 2025-06-12

Based upon our review, the record is completely devoid of any evidence to show a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State of Louisiana v. Tatianna Jenell Burns · filed 2025-07-16

For a case resting essentially upon circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... Viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution, we see no other reasonable hypothesis in the cause of death of the minor child, and Burns’ argument that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused the death of A.W. is without merit.

Section 15:438 requires the evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when assessing whether guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

State of Louisiana v. Horton · filed 2025-07-24

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. The statutory test of La. R.S. 15:438 “works 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.” Id. (citation omitted).

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

State of Louisiana v. Wiggins · filed 2025-08-27

When the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. ... The jury found Haines’ version of what she saw more credible, a finding that is exceedingly reasonable considering Wiggins’ bizarre explanation.

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

State of Louisiana v. White · filed 2025-12-11

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 innocence.” La. R.S. 15:438. ... Hence, the evidence offered by the State failed to exclude the hypothesis that Kimberly owned and never informed the defendant about the gun in the dresser, which she had placed there over a year before he moved into the home.

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

State of Louisiana v. Daniels · filed 2025-12-17

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. ... Finally, we note the absence of physical evidence connecting Daniels to the crime, and the suggestion, through Ofc. Dailey’s testimony, that somebody else in the neighborhood might have shot George. Given the rest of the evidence, we do not find these arguments rise to the status of reasonable doubt.

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

State of Louisiana v. Briley · filed 2025-12-19

Seeing as there is no “extant reasonable hypothesis of innocence,” circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict in this case.

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

State of Louisiana v. Duncan · filed 2025-12-22

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

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

State of Louisiana v. Devin Owen Porter, Jr · filed 2026-02-11

Further, 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. ... After reviewing the record, we conclude that, based on the totality of the circumstantial evidence and testimony, a jury could reasonably find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant was the person that exited the vehicle, wearing the dark jacket and jogging pants with white stripes, and fired shots into the crowd.

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

State of Louisiana v. Lewis · filed 2026-03-11

We find that a rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, could find that all reasonable hypotheses of innocence were excluded in this case.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, with the jury deciding whether the State has negated a defendant’s reasonable alternative.

State of Louisiana v. Donald Briggs, III A/K/A Donald Briggs C/W State of Louisiana v. Stefan Jermaine Briggs · filed 2026-05-01

Summarily stated, the jury is the ultimate factfinder of whether a defendant presented a reasonable hypothesis of innocence and the state negated that hypothesis. See La. R.S. 15:438; and State v. Mitchell, 1999-3342 (La. 10/17/00), 772 So.2d 78. ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that defendants were guilty of second degree murder of Mr. Levy.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; a jury’s reasonable rejection of the defendant’s hypothesis stands unless another hypothesis raises reasonable doubt.

State of Louisiana v. Thibodeaux · filed 2026-05-06

The jury rejected the hypothesis of innocence advanced by Defendant, i.e., that V.K. sustained her injury by “plopping” down on some bricks while playing outside. Under the the facts of the case, including Defendant’s statement, the significant bruising sustained by V.K., and Defendant’s internet searches regarding spanking, abuse, and the injuries resulting therefrom, there was not another hypothesis that raised a reasonable doubt.

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

State v. Ellis · filed 2014-06-25

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 the factfinder to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when assessing circumstantial evidence.

State v. Wright · filed 1987-04-14

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

Section 15:438 requires the factfinder and the appellate court to convict on circumstantial evidence only if every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded.

State v. Jackson · filed 1989-06-14

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

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

State v. Robertson · filed 1993-03-05

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. ... After a careful review of the record, we believe that a rational trier-of-fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could have concluded that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that defendant committed the offense of simple arson with damage less than $500.

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

State v. Seal · filed 1993-03-05

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.

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

State v. Pittman · filed 1994-04-08

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that the factfinder 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 factfinder 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 second degree murder, that he did not kill the victim in self-defense, and that the mitigatory factors were not established by a preponderance of the evidence.

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

State v. Theriot · filed 1994-12-22

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that the factfinder must be satisfied that 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; the rule guides review of whether a rational factfinder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Sciortino · filed 1998-11-25

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 . State v. Davis, 92-1623 (La.5/23/94), 637 So.2d 1012. This is not a separate test from Jackson v. Virginia , but is instead an evidentiary guideline for the fact-finder 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 the factfinder to be satisfied that the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when evaluating circumstantial evidence.

State v. Patorno · filed 2002-06-21

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.

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

State v. McGeorge · filed 2008-02-08

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. ... We are convinced that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that the defendant did not kill his victim in self-defense and, as such, was guilty of second degree murder.

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

State v. Woodard · filed 2008-02-20

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. ... While the evidence presented in the instant case may not be fairly categorized as overwhelming, in light of Hearold we cannot say that the jury acted unreasonably in rejecting the defendant's hypothesis of innocence and in finding the defendant guilty as charged.

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

State v. Lowe · filed 2008-10-31

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. ... We are convinced that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that the defendant, in striking Deputy Owens in the head, did not act in self-defense and, as such, was guilty of battery of a correctional facility employee.

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

State v. Wilkerson · filed 2009-02-13

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. ... We are convinced that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that defendant was guilty of armed robbery.

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

State v. Griffin · filed 2009-09-11

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. ... We are convinced that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that the defendant was guilty of distribution of cocaine.

Section 15:438 requires the factfinder to find that the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before convicting on circumstantial evidence.

State v. Clouatre · filed 2012-11-14

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 provides that, in order to convict, the factfinder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... We are convinced that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that the defendant was guilty of simple rape.

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

State v. Huey · filed 2014-02-18

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. ... We are convinced that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that the defendant was guilty of armed robbery.

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

State v. Wallace · filed 2015-12-23

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.

Section 15:438 requires the factfinder to find that the overall circumstantial evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State of Louisiana v. Abshire · filed 2016-02-03

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

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

State v. Cotton · filed 2016-04-15

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. ... Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the circumstantial evidence supports the jury’s conclusion that defendant was the individual who made the numerous unauthorized purchases on the Wex Fleet card.

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

State v. Bland · filed 2016-04-20

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 provides that the factfinder must be satisfied the overall evidence excludés every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... In the instant case, any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence presented in this ease 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 second degree murder.

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

State v. White · filed 2016-10-28

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. ... We are convinced that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that the defendant was guilty of the armed robbery.

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

State v. Golden · filed 2017-06-02

We are convinced that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant 11ltwas guilty of these offenses.

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

State v. Cousin · filed 2017-12-21

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

State v. Dufrene · filed 2018-06-04

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.

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

State v. Mollerberg · filed 2018-09-24

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. ... We are convinced that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that the defendant was guilty of aggravated assault with a firearm.

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

State of Louisiana in the Interest of C.R.. · filed 2020-01-29

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, 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.” ... When a case involves circumstantial evidence, the court does not determine whether another possible hypothesis exists which could explain the events in an ... exculpatory fashion. Rather, the reviewing court evaluates the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determines whether the alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

State Of Louisiana v. Campbell · filed 2023-11-03

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 defense, that hypothesis falls, and the defendant is guilty unless there is another hypothesis that raises a reasonable doubt. ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that based on the record before us, a rational trier of fact could have found that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of second degree murder.

When circumstantial evidence supports a conviction, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; an alternative hypothesis matters if it would prevent a rational juror from finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Maxie · filed 2000-11-01

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 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; on review, the court asks whether a proposed alternative is reasonable enough to prevent a rational juror from finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Duncan · filed 2002-09-27

In circumstantial evidence cases, this court does not determine whether another possible hypothesis suggested by a defendant could afford an exculpatory explanation of the events. Rather, this court, evaluating the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, determines 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; on review, an alternative hypothesis matters if it is reasonable enough to prevent a rational juror from finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Adams · filed 2011-11-15

In cases involving circumstantial evidence, the trial court must instruct the jury that, “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” La. R.S. 15:438. The 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; on review, an alternative hypothesis matters only if it is reasonable enough to prevent a rational juror from finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Nguyen · filed 2011-12-28

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; on appeal, an alternative hypothesis matters if it prevents a rational juror from finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Cartagena · filed 2012-03-13

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. ... A reasonable trier of fact could conclude from these circumstantial facts that defendant hit the victim from behind on the side of his neck with a glass beer bottle.

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 v. Gatewood · filed 2012-10-30

In cases involving circumstantial evidence, the trial court must instruct the jury that, “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” La. R.S. 15:438. The 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; on review, an alternative hypothesis matters if it is reasonable enough to prevent a rational juror from finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Smith · filed 2012-12-11

“The rule as to circumstantial evidence is: assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” La. R.S. 15:438. The 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; on review, an alternative hypothesis matters only if it is reasonable enough to prevent a rational juror from finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Gillum · filed 2014-11-25

Under Louisiana law, “[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. However, circumstantial evidence is still subject to the Jackson standard of review. Therefore, a reviewing court is not required to determine whether another possible hypothesis of innocence suggested by the defendant offers an exculpatory explanation of events. Instead, 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. On review, an alternative hypothesis matters if it is reasonable enough that a rational juror could not find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. McClure · 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. 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; on appeal, an alternative hypothesis matters if it is reasonable enough to prevent a rational juror from finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Williams · filed 2015-05-14

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. On appeal, the reviewing court does not determine if another possible hypothesis suggested by the defendant could afford an exculpatory explanation of the events. Instead, the appellate 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.

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 v. Allen · filed 2015-10-14

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 supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; an alternative hypothesis matters when it prevents a rational factfinder from finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Harris · filed 2016-04-13

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 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, an alternative hypothesis matters if it is reasonable enough to prevent a rational juror from finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Thomas · filed 2016-05-12

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; on review, an alternative hypothesis matters if it is sufficiently reasonable to prevent a rational juror from finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Davis · filed 2019-04-10

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 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; the jury may reject a hypothesis based on testimony it finds unconvincing.

State v. Cook · filed 1985-02-27

The defendant contends that the State failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence as required by LSA-R.S. 15:438 because of the evidence introduced by the defendant; specifically, Greene's testimony that defendant was asleep during the burglary. ... When viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have rejected the defendant's hypothesis of innocence and found that the defendant was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted simple burglary.

When circumstantial evidence supports a conviction, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; the jury may reject a defendant's account if it is unreasonable.

State v. Brooks · filed 1987-04-08

Where circumstantial evidence forms the basis for a conviction, every reasonable hypothesis of innocence must be excluded. La.R.S. 15:438; State v. Shapiro, 431 So.2d 372 (La.1983). ... The jury could have found that defendant's story did not present a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Defendant claimed he broke the window to get in to what he thought was his house, but he never checked for a key or to see if the door was unlocked. He also claimed he went in to go to bed; however, he passed up the bed in the bedroom and went to the door to the hall to try to enter the rest of the house. A rational trier of fact could find this an unreasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; a jury’s reasonable rejection of the defendant’s account defeats that hypothesis unless another raises reasonable doubt.

State v. Seals · filed 1996-11-25

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." In circumstantial evidence cases, when the jury reasonably rejects the hypothesis on innocence offered by the defendant in his own testimony, "that hypothesis fails, and the defendant is guilty, unless there is another hypothesis which raises a reasonable doubt."

Section 15:438 requires the evidence in a circumstantial case to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; a hypothesis the jury reasonably rejects does not prevent conviction unless another raises reasonable doubt.

State v. Taylor · filed 1998-09-25

The jury obviously rejected defendant's testimony that he stabbed Hayes in self-defense only after the victim attempted to grab a knife himself. No other hypothesis of innocence was presented by defendant. Consequently, when all the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the state, any rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that defendant did not stab the victim in self-defense.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; a jury may reject a defendant’s account as unreasonable.

State v. Smith · filed 1999-03-24

The jury apparently found Defendant’s hypothesis unbelievable and ruled it out as unreasonable when they found him guilty of conspiracy to commit armed robbery.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; a hypothesis the jury reasonably rejects does not bar conviction.

State v. Carthan · filed 1999-12-08

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis of the conviction, the elements of the crime must be proved such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La.R.S. 15:438. ... On this record, we find that the jury reasonably rejected the "Scarface" hypothesis of innocence. ... Without the "Scarface" hypothesis, there is no remaining hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 permits a conviction based on circumstantial evidence when the factfinder reasonably rejects the defendant’s hypothesis of innocence.

State of Louisiana v. McGinnis · filed 2008-04-30

Under all of these circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court’s rejection of the hypothesis of innocence offered at trial was unreasonable and that no rational trier of fact could find that the Defendant committed armed robbery while armed with a firearm.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; a hypothesis reasonably rejected by the jury does not defeat a conviction unless another raises reasonable doubt.

State v. Graham · filed 2014-07-03

When a case involves circumstantial evidence, and the trier of fact 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 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; when the jury reasonably rejects the defense’s hypothesis, another hypothesis must raise reasonable doubt.

State v. Moyers · filed 2014-11-07

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 theft greater than five-hundred dollars but less than fifteen-hundred dollars.

Section 15:438 permits a conviction based on circumstantial evidence when the jury reasonably rejects the defendant’s hypothesis of innocence and no other hypothesis raises a reasonable doubt.

State v. Ferguson · filed 2015-09-18

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 exists in this case.

Section 15:438 permits a conviction based on circumstantial evidence when the jury reasonably rejects the defendant’s hypothesis of innocence.

State of Louisiana v. Jackson · filed 2015-11-04

Thus, we find that the jury obviously and reasonably rejected any hypothesis of innocence based on Ms. Hunt having committed the crime.

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

State v. Edouard · filed 1987-07-22

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove an element of a crime, the evidence will be sufficient when it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. ... This is sufficient to rebut any reasonable hypothesis of innocence regarding how defendant came into possession of stolen papers.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; an officer’s observations of intoxication can support a DWI conviction without sobriety or breath test results.

State v. Landry · filed 1985-01-14

LSA-R.S. 15:438 provides as follows: 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. ... It is implausible to hold that, because the defendant refused to submit to a field sobriety test, his exhibition of the same physical traits which the field sobriety test was designed to uncover were insufficient to support a driving while intoxicated conviction.

Section 15:438 permits intent to be proved by circumstantial evidence and inferred from the nature and facts of the case.

State v. Anderson · filed 1977-02-28

Proof of intention may be based on circumstantial evidence, and defendant's intention may be inferred from the nature and facts of the case. La. R.S. 15:438.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis before it can support proof of an element of a crime.

State v. Wrestle, Inc. · filed 1978-06-19

In determining whether the circumstantial evidence constitutes some evidence of the crime, the reviewing court must determine whether there is some evidence from which, if accepted by the jury, it could reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it excluded every other reasonable hypothesis, as required by La.R.S. 15:438, than the essential element sought to be proved (here, that the accused Burch knew or had reason to know of the nature and character of the films exhibited by his corporation). ... Assayed by this test, some evidence was introduced by which the jury could reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the resident president of this local corporation (who had actually participated in building the booths apparently intended for the sole purpose of exhibiting pornographic films) had knowledge or reason to know of the nature and character of the films exhibited therein.

Section 15:438 applies when an essential element lacks direct proof and requires every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to be excluded before conviction.

State v. Johnson · filed 1983-09-02

Where an essential element of the crime is not proven by direct evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 applies. That 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 it proves an essential element through circumstantial evidence.

State v. Coleman · filed 1984-05-30

However, where an essential element of the crime is not proven by direct evidence, the rule of La.R.S. 15:438 applies and the State must prove this essential element of the crime to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... We find sufficient circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 permits circumstantial evidence to establish unauthorized entry when it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Torres · filed 1985-05-13

However, circumstantial evidence can be used to show that an unauthorized entry occurred. LSA R.S. 15:438, State v. Credit, 455 So.2d 1238 (La.App. 4th Cir.1984). ... The above testimony sufficiently dispells every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, such that any rational trier of fact could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not authorized to enter Pat Dennis' car.

Section 15:438 guides juries evaluating circumstantial evidence of specific intent; excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is part of the reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Chairs · filed 1985-03-11

When circumstantial evidence is used to show specific intent, R.S. 15:438 should be consulted, as it provides an evidentiary guideline for a jury when considering circumstantial evidence. Exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is a component of the more comprehensive reasonable doubt standard.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence of specific intent to exclude a reasonable hypothesis that the defendant lacked that intent.

State v. Davis · filed 1986-10-14

Nevertheless the jury determined the facts were indicative of such an intent and we likewise find it difficult, if not impossible, to imagine any hypothesis under the above facts that does not include a specific intent on the part of the defendant to rape the victim.

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

State v. Nora · filed 1987-11-04

When an essential element of the crime is proven by circumstantial evidence, the fact finder must accept as true all that the evidence tends to prove and then convict only if every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. ... Any reasonable hypothesis of innocence for defendant’s presence in the house would appear to be excluded by these facts.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and allows it to prove an element of an offense.

State of Louisiana v. Pitre · filed 2005-02-09

Accordingly, we find circumstantial evidence in this case can be used to determine whether the victim was married to the Defendant at the time the offenses at issue occurred.

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

State v. Lilly · filed 1985-05-14

Where an essential element of the crime is not proven by direct evidence, La. R.S. 15:438 applies. That 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 circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to support a conviction.

State v. Williams · filed 1983-02-09

Rather, the circumstantial evidence must be analyzed to determine whether it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... The state, therefore, has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed this crime; the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the state does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. Lindinger · filed 1978-04-10

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." ... In view of the lack of proof as to how long Lindinger had been in the field, for instance, the hypothesis may have been just as reasonable that he consumed whiskey after the vehicle skidded off the highway instead of before it had done so.

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

State v. Shapiro · filed 1983-04-14

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 factfinder 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 permits conviction based on circumstantial evidence only when that evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Hall · filed 1983-11-29

As an evidentiary rule, this statute restrains the factfinder 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 before conviction.

State v. Rosiere · filed 1985-08-23

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

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

State v. Nelson · filed 1986-04-14

The failure to recover these items from the defendants, who were apprehended just outside the premises, indicates that they did not steal them and further suggests that someone else may have committed the break-in during the thirty-hour time span.

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

State v. Green · filed 1987-04-08

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 mandates that ‘assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’ ... When viewing the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of armed robbery of the victim by either the taking of his money or his truck by the defendant.

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

State v. Garcia · filed 1985-04-15

Because this is a conviction based upon circumstantial evidence, the evidence presented at trial must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. Walker · filed 1987-10-07

As to Janice Brumfield, the evidence is wholly circumstantial and does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438.

Section 15:438 requires facts inferred from circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but does not create a separate standard of appellate review.

State v. Dickerson · filed 1989-01-30

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis of proof, the facts inferred from it are assumed as true and those facts must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. This rule of circumstantial evidence, however, does not establish a separate standard of appellate review.

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

State v. Reaux · filed 1989-02-16

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 circumstantial evidence supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Thomas · filed 1989-02-28

Concerning 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.”

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

State v. Greene · filed 1989-04-11

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of a crime, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that, assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... Applying the statutory rule for circumstantial evidence as a component of the more comprehensive reasonable doubt standard, we find that the evidence supports the jury's verdicts of guilty.

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

State v. Gross · filed 1989-04-11

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of a crime, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that, assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... There is no rational hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. Heacox · filed 1989-04-19

Under the mandate of La.R.S. 15:438, we do not find that the evidence excludes every 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. Augustine · filed 1989-06-08

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 supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Morgan · filed 1989-11-16

Where the conviction rests on circumstantial evidence, as here, 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. R.S. 15:438.

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

State v. East · filed 1989-11-30

When a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... The trier of fact properly concluded that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires evidence in a wholly circumstantial case to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and guides appellate review under the Jackson sufficiency standard.

State v. James · filed 1989-12-14

Although La.R.S. 15:438 requires that when a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence the elements of the crime must be proven so that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded, the statute is not a separate test from Jackson, supra, but rather an evidentiary guideline to facilitate appellate review and application of the Jackson test to determine whether a rational juror could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

State v. Hicks · filed 1989-12-19

The rule regarding the use of circumstantial evidence is contained in La.R.S. 15:438. This rule restrains the factfinder, 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 appellate review under the reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Sterling · filed 1990-03-14

However, La.R.S. 15:438 does not set forth a separate test from Jackson v. Virginia, supra; it simply provides an evidentiary guideline to facilitate appellate review of whether any 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 overall sufficiency inquiry.

State v. Johnson · filed 1991-01-31

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.

Section 15:438 guides appellate review of circumstantial evidence by requiring the evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; it is not a separate test from the reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Nguyen · filed 1991-06-27

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

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

State v. Tucker · filed 1992-06-24

Even so, because of the nature of circumstantial evidence and a statutory rule requiring it to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, the Jackson standard must be carefully observed and methodically implemented in cases that hinge on circumstantial evidence.

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

State v. Brewington · filed 1992-07-10

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. ... After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, it is clear that a reasonable trier of fact could have excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and found defendant guilty of second degree murder.

When evidence is only circumstantial, the reviewing court determines whether a rational factfinder could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence was excluded.

State v. Roy · filed 1992-10-06

Where the evidence is.only circumstantial, in reviewing the conviction the appellate court must determine that a rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence had been excluded. ... The evidence presented excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and provides a method for applying the ordinary sufficiency standard.

State v. Nelson · filed 1992-12-23

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that the finder of fact must be satisfied that the overall evidence "exclude[s] every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." La. R.S. 15:438 does not establish a stricter standard of review than the Jackson standard but provides a methodology for its implementation in cases which hinge on the evaluation of circumstantial evidence.

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. Nevers · filed 1993-01-20

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 a careful review of the record, we believe that a rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could have concluded that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, that the defendant committed the offense of distribution of cocaine.

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

State v. Darce · filed 1993-01-26

When circumstantial evidence is involved, “it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” La.R.S. 15:438. ... We do not believe the purely circumstantial 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. Lyles · filed 1993-03-30

When a conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence as to the element it tends to prove; it does not create a separate standard of appellate review.

State v. Perow · filed 1993-03-31

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, every reasonable hypothesis of innocence must be excluded as to that element of the crime which the circumstantial evidence tends to prove. La.R.S. 15:438. However, this rule of circumstantial evidence does not establish a standard of appellate review separate from that set out in Jackson.

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. Savage · filed 1993-06-23

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 as to the element it tends to prove; that requirement is part of the reasonable doubt standard, not a separate standard of appellate review.

State v. Taylor · filed 1993-06-23

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, every reasonable hypothesis of innocence must be excluded as to that element of the crime which the circumstantial evidence tends to prove. La.R.S. 15:438. However, this rule does not establish a standard of appellate review separate from that set out in Jackson. State v. Wright, 445 So.2d 1198 (La.1984); State v. Chism, 436 So.2d 464 (La.1983). 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. Exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is therefore a component of the more comprehensive reasonable doubt standard, where circumstantial evidence is used to convict.

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

State v. Holliday · filed 1993-07-02

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 standard is not a purely separate one 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 and serves as a guideline for applying the reasonable doubt standard on appellate review.

State v. Gales · filed 1993-07-27

The elements must be proven so that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La.R.S. 15:438. La.R.S. 15:438 is not a separate test from Jackson v. Virginia, 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, that rule is applied under the Jackson standard.

State v. Rice · filed 1993-11-03

In evaluating circumstantial evidence, 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 a reviewing court to assess whether an alternative hypothesis of innocence is reasonable enough to prevent a rational juror from finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Davis · filed 1994-05-23

In circumstantial evidence cases, this court does not determine whether another possible hypothesis suggested by a defendant could afford an exculpatory explanation of the events. Rather, this court, evaluating the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, 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, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). La.R.S. 15:438; State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676, 678 (La.1984); State v. Rosiere, 488 So.2d 965 (La.1986).

Section 15:438 guides review of circumstantial evidence under the Jackson sufficiency standard and does not impose a separate test.

State v. Gaudet · filed 1994-06-24

However, La.R.S. 15:438 is not to be construed as a test separate from the standard set in Jackson, supra .

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

State v. Camp · filed 1994-07-27

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La.R.S. 15:438. This is not a separate test from Jackson v. Virginia, supra, but rather is 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 prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found that every reasonable hypothesis of defendant's innocence was excluded.

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

State v. Cushenberry · filed 1995-01-31

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, as part of the ordinary sufficiency review under Jackson.

State v. Rubin · filed 1995-02-08

According to 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." This does not override the Jackson standard of review. It is part of a conventional sufficiency review.

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. Green · filed 1995-08-23

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 serves as a guideline for reviewing whether a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Allen · filed 1995-09-15

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

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

State v. Young · filed 1995-10-04

The statute’s standard is not different from the Jackson standard. Rather, the statutory analysis becomes part of the Jackson test, where the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence is called into question.

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

State v. Johnson · filed 1995-10-06

The statutory rule as to circumstantial evidence is that, assuming every fact proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. However, where circumstantial evidence is used to convict, exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is simply a component of the more comprehensive reasonable doubt standard, providing an evidentiary guideline for a jury, and facilitating an appellate court in determining whether a rational juror could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

State v. Allen · filed 1995-11-09

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 standard is not purely separable from the Jackson sufficiency standard so as 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 and serves as a guideline for reviewing whether the evidence meets the reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Addison · filed 1995-11-30

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 and serves as an evidentiary guide for the jury rather than a stricter standard of review.

State v. Laws · filed 1995-12-06

When the conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. 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 to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, as part of the Jackson sufficiency standard rather than a separate test.

State v. Forrest · filed 1996-02-14

The statutory rule as to circumstantial evidence is that, assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. This statutory rule for circumstantial evidence does not provide a separate test from the Jackson standard to be applied in determining the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction.

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

State v. Quatrevingt · filed 1996-02-28

In a case involving 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. ... The circumstantial evidence presented at trial, as will be detailed more fully in our harmless error review to follow, excluded any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. Cummings · filed 1996-02-28

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

Circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; this rule guides the trier of fact rather than imposing a stricter standard of review.

State v. Mock · filed 1996-05-29

When a 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 as part of the overall sufficiency review.

State v. Allen · filed 1996-06-28

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. ... Viewing all the evidence presented by the state pertaining to the count one offense in the light most favorable to the state, we conclude 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 state proved all of the elements of the count one armed robbery and defendant's identity as the perpetrator of that crime.

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

State v. Page · filed 1996-08-21

Louisiana Revised Statute 15:438 is not a separate test from Jackson, 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. Mitchell · filed 1996-10-09

After carefully reviewing the testimony and the evidence, we find the case presented by the State excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; on appeal, the court applies that rule under the Jackson standard.

State v. Spencer · filed 1996-11-06

Applying La.R.S. 15:438 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 could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence had been excluded.

When a conviction rests on circumstantial evidence, every reasonable hypothesis of innocence must be excluded.

State v. Warren · filed 1996-12-11

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

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

State v. Belino · filed 1996-12-20

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of an offense, "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 standard is not purely separable from Jackson; all the evidence 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 supporting a conviction to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Allen · filed 1996-12-27

Where the conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438; State v. Langford, 483 So.2d 979 (La.1986).

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

State v. Brown · filed 1997-04-09

La.R.S. 15:438 is not a separate test from Jackson v. Virginia, supra, but rather is an evidentiary isguideline 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 guides appellate review of whether the evidence supports a conviction.

State v. Williams · filed 1997-04-09

With circumstantial evidence hothe 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.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and serves as a guideline within reasonable doubt review.

State v. Williams · filed 1997-04-16

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 the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and provides a method for assessing reasonable doubt.

State v. Guccione · filed 1997-04-29

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." 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.

State v. Jones · filed 1997-06-04

"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 conclude that, after the facts adduced at trial are viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, there is no alternative hypothesis that is sufficiently reasonable that would prohibit a reasonable juror from finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

State v. Parker · filed 1997-06-18

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 evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when analyzing circumstantial evidence.

State v. Amato · filed 1997-06-30

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, as part of the overall sufficiency review.

State v. Barnett · filed 1997-09-23

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

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

State v. Gladney · filed 1997-09-24

La. R.S. 15:438 provides that when circumstantial evidence is used to convict, every reasonable hypothesis of innocence must be excluded; however, this statutory rule is not a separate test from the Jackson standard and does not establish a stricter standard of review.