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. Michael T. Robinson Denzel West Kirk Powell · filed 2024-09-04

If circumstantial evidence is used to prove that the alleged offense was committed, 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 the state to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when a conviction rests on circumstantial evidence, but it does not impose a stricter appellate standard than reasonable doubt.

State of Louisiana v. James Derek Person, II · filed 2024-09-25

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

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

State of Louisiana in the Interest of J.F. · filed 2024-10-18

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

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

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

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. ... Although Defendant argues someone else committed the theft and he merely possessed the items, it was reasonable for the trier of fact to conclude that Defendant committed the burglaries since he was found in possession of the missing items along with a glass breaking tool within two days of the burglaries.

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

State of Louisiana Versus Quincey Stewart · 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.” ... 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, but it does not impose a stricter appellate standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

State of Louisiana v. Leday · filed 2024-11-06

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 and guides the reasonable-doubt inquiry without creating a separate test.

State of Louisiana Versus Eddie J Richards · filed 2024-11-20

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

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

State of Louisiana v. Andrews · filed 2024-12-11

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

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and provides a basis for assessing reasonable doubt under the Jackson standard.

State of Louisiana Versus Charles Ross · filed 2024-12-18

This is not a separate test from the Jackson standard but rather provides a helpful basis for determining the existence of reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and provides a basis for assessing reasonable doubt under the Jackson standard.

State of Louisiana Versus Kemon Joshua Howard AKA "Tut" AKA "Glockboy Tut" AKA "Glockboy" · filed 2024-12-18

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

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

State of Louisiana v. Jones · filed 2024-12-18

Based on the record before us, the State provided ample evidence that excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence pursuant to 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. Hodge · filed 2024-12-18

If a case rests essentially upon circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... Further, although a finding of possession – the only element in question in this case – was based mostly upon circumstantial evidence, the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Hodge was guilty of the crime of felon in possession of a firearm.

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

State of Louisiana Versus Malcolm J Reed · filed 2024-12-30

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.” ... This is not a separate test from the Jackson standard, but rather provides a helpful basis for determining the existence of reasonable doubt.

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

State of Louisiana Versus Alonzo W. Ford AKA "lonnie" AKA "lon" AKA "lonz" AKA "big Ford" · filed 2025-02-26

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.”

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; on appeal, the court applies the rational-juror reasonable-doubt standard.

State of Louisiana v. Kendall D. Singleton A/K/A Kendall Singleton · filed 2025-02-26

In sum, 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 and guides the ordinary reasonable doubt analysis without imposing a stricter standard.

State of Louisiana in the Interest of A.M.. · filed 2025-03-17

Fingerprint evidence, in this context, is circumstantial evidence. See La. R.S. 15:438. In Louisiana, the circumstantial evidence rule is codified as follows: “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 rule 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.

Section 15:438 requires the state to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when a conviction rests on circumstantial evidence; it does not impose a stricter standard of appellate review.

State of Louisiana v. Stefan Jermaine Briggs A/K/A Stefan Briggs · filed 2025-04-02

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

Section 15:438 guides the jury’s consideration of circumstantial evidence but does not impose a stricter standard of appellate review than reasonable doubt.

State of Louisiana v. Donald Briggs, III A/K/A Donald Briggs · filed 2025-04-02

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

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

State of Louisiana v. Fruge · filed 2025-04-11

Under La. R.S. 15:438, when the State relies on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. This standard was satisfied.

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

State of Louisiana v. Christopher Ledet, Jr. · filed 2025-04-23

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 when it supplies proof of an offense element.

State of Louisiana v. Gomila · filed 2025-06-19

“[W]here there is no direct evidence presented proving one or more of the elements of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 governs circumstantial evidence and 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.’” State v. Mealancon, 21-0119, pp. 6-7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/22/21), 334 So.3d 792, 797 (quoting State v. Hutsell, 17-0112, p. 15 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/18/18), 241 So.3d 542, 551). ... With these tenets in mind, we now apply them to Mr. Gomila’s claims regarding self-defense.

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

State of Louisiana v. Bowie · filed 2025-07-01

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.”

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

State of Louisiana v. Palmer · filed 2025-07-16

When the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. ... Further, the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the jury in its deliberation was not in conflict with any of the physical evidence, and no evidence suggested any alternative hypothesis.

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

State of Louisiana Versus Davon Gilmore · filed 2025-08-27

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.” ... 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 a conviction.

State of Louisiana v. Simmons · filed 2025-11-21

But where there is no direct evidence presented proving one or more of the elements of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 governs circumstantial evidence and 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 the state uses circumstantial evidence to prove an essential element of a crime, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State of Louisiana v. Laquinton Eckles Convictions and Sentences Affirmed · filed 2025-12-17

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.

When an element lacks direct proof, Section 15:438 requires the circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State of Louisiana v. Howard · filed 2026-01-08

“[W]here there is no direct evidence presented proving one or more of the elements of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 governs circumstantial evidence and 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.’”

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

State of Louisiana v. Hyatt · filed 2026-05-20

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

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

State of Louisiana v. Bartie · filed 2025-02-06

Since the expert forensic pathologist, Dr. Tape, indicated the methamphetamine in the victim’s body could have been ingested or consumed either the day prior to, or on the morning of, her death (and presumably any time in between),7 the prosecution failed to exclude every ... reasonable hypothesis of innocence on the part the defendant in this case, as required by 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.”).

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

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

When a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence in order for the conviction to be upheld. McDonough, 2022- 0628, pp. 22-23, 376 So. 3d at 1020 (quoting La. R.S. 15:438). ... Looking at all this evidence in its totality, we do not find the jury’s conclusion that Defendant committed second degree murder to be unreasonable.

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

State of Louisiana v. Esteen · filed 2026-03-25

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.

State v. Allen · filed 1993-04-28

Where the conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... These facts are sufficient to support the conviction.

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

State v. Brown · filed 1994-04-06

This evidence is sufficient to find the defendant guilty of simple arson, as it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. Starr · filed 1996-12-11

For circumstantial evidence to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypotheses of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. ... After a review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, according great deference to the jury's decision to accept and reject testimony, it should be concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of second degree murder, and that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.

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

State v. Sims · filed 1999-10-27

When circumstantial evidence forms the basis for the conviction, such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. ... When viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the state, after excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, we find the evidence sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all the elements of first degree murder had been proven 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 proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Flowers · filed 2001-03-07

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. ... These facts are sufficient to support the seven convictions for distribution of heroin and the one conviction for possession with intent to distribute heroin.

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

State v. Antoine · filed 2001-12-26

La.R.S. 15:438 further provides: "The rule as to circumstantial evidence is: assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." ... Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the State, as we are instructed to do by Jackson, this evidence is sufficient for any rational trier of fact to determine that all elements of the offense of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

State v. Strogen · filed 2002-04-03

"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, therefore, that the record contains sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction of second degree murder.

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

State v. Brown · filed 2004-03-12

For circumstantial evidence to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. ... Under these facts, the evidence is sufficient for the jury to conclude that the defendant and his friends purchased the cocaine from the individuals outside the car and that the defendant was in constructive possession of cocaine.

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

State v. Callier · filed 2005-07-27

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 requires that "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." ... The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, is sufficient to support the convictions.

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

State v. Scroggins · filed 2006-03-22

Even if the evidence is considered to be only circumstantial, the evidence is sufficient to convict in that it meets the requirements of La. R.S. 15:438 which states: 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.

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

State v. Roberson · filed 2006-04-19

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." State v. Neal, XXXX-XXXX (La.06/29/01), 796 So.2d 649, 657. ... While this is a case of circumstantial evidence, the evidence presented leads to inferences of facts which, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, is more than sufficient to support the verdicts beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

State v. Oliphant · filed 2008-04-30

When circumstantial evidence is involved, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that "[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." ... We find that the evidence, taken in a light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to sustain the verdict of armed robbery.

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

State of Louisiana v. Vice · filed 2008-12-10

Further, when the conviction is based upon circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... 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. ... Taken in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant wrote the letter or caused the letter to be written and sent to Fox.

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

State of Louisiana v. Henry Leo Eaglin, Jr. · filed 2009-03-04

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.” ... Without any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the Defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

State v. Gilmore · filed 2009-05-06

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.” ... For the foregoing reasons, we find that the State elicited sufficient evidence for the jury to find defendant guilty of the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

State v. Mosley · filed 2009-05-12

In this case we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support an ultimate finding that the reasonable findings and inferences permitted by the evidence exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

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

State v. Bass · filed 2018-05-23

If a case rests essentially upon circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... Considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant killed Albritton by shooting him in the head and had the specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm.

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

State of Louisiana v. Aaron Orlando Richards -Aka- Aaron Richards · filed 2018-06-06

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 circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; whether it does so is a question of law.

State v. Elzie · filed 1977-03-07

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." (Italics ours.) The issue of whether every reasonable hypothesis of innocence has been excluded presents a question of law.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and whether it does so is reviewable as a question of law.

State v. Schwander · filed 1977-05-16

The issue of whether circumstantial evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, as required by La.R.S. 15:438, presents a reviewable issue of law.

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

State v. Entertainment Specialists, Inc. · filed 1980-07-07

La.R.S. 15:438 establishes the rule as to circumstantial evidence as: "... assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." ... Since the introduction of the lease did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of the defendant's innocence, the state has failed to prove an essential element of the crime.

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

State v. Hollie · filed 1982-06-21

Regarding circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 sets forth the rule that, in order to convict, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... The circumstantial evidence accepted most favorably to the state was simply not sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that every reasonable hypothesis of the innocence of defendant Steven Hollie had been excluded.

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

State v. Narcisse · filed 1982-10-18

The rule as to circumstantial evidence is that the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. Thus, on review of a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, we must determine that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that every reasonable hypothesis of the defendant’s innocence had been excluded. ... Clearly, there was a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Hence, there is insufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction for armed robbery. We must reverse.

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

State v. Baham · filed 1987-06-23

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.” ... In conclusion, the state failed to prove defendant was the thief. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to uphold defendant’s conviction.

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

State v. Love · filed 1988-04-06

In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to convict, the circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and must be sufficient for a reasonable trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. ... It is our opinion that the circumstantial evidence adduced by the State fails to exclude a number of reasonable hypotheses of defendant's innocence.

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

State v. Willson · filed 1988-11-09

When the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, the evidence, viewed favorable to the state, must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Only those hypotheses which are reasonable need be excluded. La.R.S. 15:438; State v. Sims, 426 So.2d 148 (La.1983). ... The circumstantial evidence fails to exclude or negate every reasonable hypothesis of innocence as required by law.

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

State v. Chapman · filed 1993-10-06

The circumstantial evidence fails to exclude or negate every reasonable hypothesis of innocence as required by law.

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

State v. Cortez · filed 1996-12-18

Recalling the rule as to circumstantial evidence, assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, the evidence was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of Ms. Cortez' innocence.

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

State v. Wilkinson · filed 1985-10-11

Although intent can be inferred from a defendant’s actions, the circumstantial nature of the inference would require a rejection of reasonable hypotheses of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438; State v. Washington, 412 So.2d 991 (La.1982). In this case, it is clear that the jury could reasonably have found that the film was not to have been shown that evening, or was to have been shown or had been shown by another person. There is not enough evidence for a rational trier of fact to have concluded that defendant intended to show the film later that night.

Circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Lindsey · filed 1989-05-01

Circumstantial evidence must "exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." La.R.S. 15:438. For the reasons which follow, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential element of specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt to support a conviction of first degree murder.

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

State v. Butler · filed 1990-02-15

No evidence established which brother killed Antoine, and no evidence established that Paul Butler intended to inflict bodily harm on Kates. The evidence does establish that Thomas intentionally inflicted great bodily injury on Kates, but without evidence that Thomas killed Antoine, a reasonable hypothesis remains that Paul killed Antoine while Thomas beat Kates. As such, the evidence is insufficient to support first degree murder convictions.

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

State v. Sheehan · filed 1990-03-14

Because the state relied in large part on circumstantial evidence to convict, our standard of appellate review must comply not only with the familiar standard of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), but also with La.R.S. 15:438, which requires that the proof must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... We find that a rational trier of fact, viewing all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence had been excluded, and that there existed a specific intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm on the victim.

An element proved by circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Cryer · filed 1990-07-17

In addition, an element of the offense proven by circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. ... The circumstantial evidence is sufficient to infer the intent to commit a theft. The defendant has suggested no other reasonable hypothesis.

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

State v. Crawford · filed 1993-05-28

When analyzing circumstantial evidence, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that the fact finder must be satisfied that the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... We find that, based on defendant's actions, rational fact finders could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did have the specific intent to rape the victim, despite his intoxication.

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. Beach · filed 1992-11-20

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. ... Under the circumstances present herein, it is obvious that the defendant was in possession of an amount of marijuana inconsistent with personal use. This fact, and the seizure of a scale, clear plastic sandwich bags, and other paraphernalia for drug use or packaging obviously indicated possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. Considering all of the above, we find sufficient evidence was presented to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the offense of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.

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

State v. Martin · filed 1997-05-13

For circumstantial evidence to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypotheses of innocence. La.R.S. 15:438. ... All of the evidence together excludes every reasonable hypothesis that Monroe was not in constructive possession of the drugs found in the search and in actual possession of the drugs sold to the CI.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; an inference that a defendant lived with his wife does not alone prove he possessed drugs found at her residence.

State v. Martin · filed 2000-11-15

The elements must be proven such that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence is excluded. La. R.S. 15:438. This is not a separate test from Jackson v. Virginia, supra , but rather an evidentiary guideline to facilitate appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. ... While it may be inferred that the defendant resided at the residence because his wife did, such an inference is not sufficient alone to support a conviction for possession of drugs found there.

Section 15:438 guides the review of circumstantial evidence without imposing a stricter standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Young · filed 2001-11-28

As stated by this court in State v. Chism, 436 So.2d 464, 470 (La.1983), La. R.S. 15:438 "may not establish a stricter standard of review than the more general reasonable juror's reasonable doubt formula, [but] it emphasizes the need for careful observance of the usual standard, and provides a helpful methodology for its implementation in cases which hinge on the evaluation of circumstantial evidence".

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

State v. Garmouche · filed 1987-01-12

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.”

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

State v. Darby · filed 1987-02-04

Where circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 mandates that: `Assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.' ... We have reviewed the evidence presented and find that, under the test enunciated by the Supreme Court in State v. Wright, supra, it was sufficient to support a conviction of the offense charged.

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

State v. Carmouche · filed 1987-05-18

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.

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

State v. Hilburn · filed 1987-06-23

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. ... Thus, the evidence is both constitutionally and statutorily sufficient to support defendant's conviction.

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

State v. Smith · filed 1988-02-08

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.' ... Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the armed robbery.

Section 15:438 requires the evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and serves as a guide to appellate review under the reasonable-doubt standard.

State v. Hall · filed 1988-04-12

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. La.R.S. 15:438 is not a separate test from Jackson but rather an evidentiary guideline to "facilitate appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Porretto, 468 So.2d 1142 (La.1985); State v. Wright, 445 So.2d 1198 (La.1984).

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

State v. Martin · filed 1984-10-15

Under Louisiana statutory law, when circumstantial evidence is involved the rule is that "assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." La.R.S. 15:438. ... Bearing in mind these standards, we have determined that there is sufficient evidence to support the defendant's conviction of second degree murder.

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

State v. Dufrene · filed 1984-12-28

La.R.S. 15:438 establishes the rule of 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." 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 reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Hart · filed 1985-04-15

R.S. 15:438 provides an evidentiary guideline for the jury when considering circumstantial evidence and facilitates appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found a defendant 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.” ... Viewing the evidence, direct and circumstantial, in light of the State v. Wright and Jackson v. Virginia standards, we cannot say on review that the jury erred in concluding that the State proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hart, who went to the trailer uninvited and armed with a weapon, had the specific intent to kill and that he had not acted in self-defense.

Section 15:438 makes exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence part of the reasonable doubt standard when circumstantial evidence is used to convict.

State v. Harriman · filed 1985-05-08

La.R.S. 15:438 provides an evidentiary guideline for the jury when considering circumstantial evidence and facilitates appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found a defendant 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. ... Therefore, we conclude that the evidence was clearly sufficient for the jury to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was guilty of the crime of second degree murder.

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

State v. Leason · filed 1985-10-08

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. 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; that rule guides the jury and forms part of appellate review for reasonable doubt.

State v. Fluitt · filed 1986-01-22

The statutory rule as to circumstantial evidence is that assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. ... The statutory rule, however, provides an evidentiary guideline for the jury when considering circumstantial evidence and facilitates appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 and serves as an evidentiary guide for the jury.

State v. Williams · filed 1986-02-14

Where circumstantial evidence is involved, La.R.S. 15:438 provides that such evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. R.S. 15:438 is merely an evidentiary guide for the jury.

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

State v. Garcia · filed 1986-02-24

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.

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

State v. Langford · filed 1986-02-24

Concerning circumstantial evidence La. 15:438 provides: "[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." And, of course the state has the burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Relative to appellate review, this Court now employs a single standard for reviewing claims of evidentiary insufficiency applicable to circumstantial evidence cases as well as to cases involving direct evidence.

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

State v. Rosiere · filed 1986-05-20

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 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; courts apply that rule within the reasonable doubt standard when reviewing sufficiency of the evidence.

State v. Floyd · filed 1986-06-02

Concerning circumstantial evidence La.R.S. 15:438 provides: “[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.” and, the state still has the burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. ... The jury acted reasonably in rejecting the defendant’s hypothesis that he was a victim of circumstances and that a misiden-tification had occurred. The facts established by the direct evidence and inferred from the circumstantial evidence are sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the crime of forcible rape and that no misidentification occurred.

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

State v. Porter · filed 1984-06-27

Further, the circumstantial evidence rule requiring that there be no reasonable hypothesis of innocence as to each count has also been satisfied.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; whether it does so is a question of law.

State v. Pryor · filed 1975-01-20

The issue of whether every reasonable hypothesis of innocence has been excluded presents a question of law. ... The evidence presented by the state reasonably excludes, if accepted by the jury, the hypothesis that the print was impressed at a time other than that of the crime.

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

State v. Wright · filed 1984-01-16

R.S. 15:438 provides an evidentiary guideline for the jury when considering circumstantial evidence and facilitates appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found a defendant 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 reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Nealy · filed 1984-04-19

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 makes the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence part of the broader reasonable doubt standard for circumstantial evidence.

State v. Malonson · filed 1984-07-31

The test enunciated in La.R.S. 15:438 is merely a component of the more comprehensive reasonable doubt standard.

Section 15:438 guides review of circumstantial evidence by requiring consideration of whether the facts support a reasonable hypothesis of innocence that raises reasonable doubt.

State v. Smith · filed 1983-11-28

Moreover, this court recently noted that "[a]lthough the circumstantial evidence rule [La.R.S. 15:438] may not establish a stricter standard of review than the more general reasonable juror's reasonable doubt formula, it emphasizes the need for careful observation of the usual standard, and provides a helpful methodology for its implementation in cases which hinge on the evaluation of circumstantial evidence". State v. Chism, 436 So.2d 464, 470 (La.1983). ... No hypothesis of innocence which is sufficiently reasonable or sufficiently strong to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a rational juror may be inferred from the record facts, and defendant offered no evidence or argument affirmatively suggesting a theory 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. Eason · filed 1984-12-05

The statutory rule, however, provides an evidentiary guideline for the jury when considering circumstantial evidence and facilitates appellate review of whether a rational juror could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Burge · filed 1986-11-12

The statutory rule as to circumstantial evidence is, "[A]ssuming 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 other 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 and guides review under the reasonable doubt standard.

State v. Bunch · filed 1987-06-03

La.R.S. 15:438 is not a separate test from Jackson, 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"; all evidence, direct and circumstantial, must meet the Jackson reasonable doubt standard.

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

State in Interest of TL · filed 1987-10-14

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

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

State v. Wooley · filed 1988-03-10

La.R.S. 15:438 is not a separate test from Jackson. 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 as part of the overall sufficiency review.

State v. Ford · filed 1988-05-11

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 requires the evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when guilt is proved by circumstantial evidence.

State v. Abrams · filed 1988-06-21

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

Circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; this rule guides appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency.

State v. Johnson · filed 1988-08-16

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

Section 15:438 requires the State to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when proving a crime with circumstantial evidence.

State v. Greenfield · filed 1988-09-16

Moreover, when circumstantial evidence is involved, the State must prove that no reasonable hypothesis of innocence exists. ... We find the circumstantial evidence sufficient to preclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438 requires proof that excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and works with the Jackson sufficiency test to evaluate direct and circumstantial evidence.

State of Louisiana v. Jimmie Dixon, Jr. · filed 2025-12-10

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.”

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and provides a method for applying the Jackson sufficiency standard, not a stricter standard.

State v. Brown · filed 1987-03-04

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 circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and provides a method for applying the Jackson sufficiency standard.

State v. Perkins · filed 1987-11-10

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

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and operates within the Jackson sufficiency standard.

State v. Hardeman · filed 1985-04-03

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

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; it provides a method for applying the reasonable doubt standard, not a stricter standard.

State v. Guirlando · filed 1986-05-28

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

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence as part of the reasonable-doubt standard, not as a separate sufficiency test.

State v. Honore · filed 1984-05-14

As noted in State v. Wright, 445 So.2d 1198 (La.1984) La.R.S. 15:438 is not a separate test to be applied in lieu of the Jackson standard whenever an element of the crime charged is to be proven by circumstantial evidence.

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

State v. Felo · filed 1984-07-16

The standard to be applied under Jackson, supra, is not altered by the fact that in the present case, the State's evidence as to causation, identity, and specific intent was circumstantial, for although it is the statutory rule that such evidence, in order to convict, must remove every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, (La.R.S. 15:438), due process of law requires no greater burden than that the State prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438 guides the review of circumstantial evidence within the reasonable doubt standard; it does not create a separate appellate sufficiency test.

State v. Smith · filed 1986-05-28

In his brief, the defendant cites State v. Shapiro, 431 So.2d 372 (La.1982), and State v. Graham, 422 So.2d 123 (La.1982), for the proposition that, when reviewing the sufficiency of evidence, the circumstantial evidence rule (LSA-R.S. 15:438) must be applied independently of and in addition to the Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), standard of review. We disagree.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; this is a method for assessing reasonable doubt, not a separate sufficiency test.

State v. Vinet · filed 1988-07-26

Where 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 from the Jackson standard but rather a "helpful methodology for determining the existence of reasonable doubt."

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

State v. Hall · filed 1992-06-24

However, R.S. 15:438 does not impose a stricter standard of appellate review than Jackson; Jackson is the objective standard for testing the overall evidence, direct and circumstantial, for reasonable doubt.

Section 15:438's rule for circumstantial evidence helps determine reasonable doubt under the Jackson standard; it is not a separate test.

State v. Cox · filed 2018-02-21

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's circumstantial-evidence test works with the constitutional sufficiency test to assess whether direct and circumstantial evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Le · filed 2018-04-11

The statutory test of La. R.S. 15:438"works with the Jackson constitutional sufficiency test to evaluate whether all the evidence, direct and circumstantial, is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a rational jury."

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

State of Louisiana Versus Juan C Romero · filed 2024-02-28

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

Section 15:438 entitles a defendant in a circumstantial-evidence case to a jury instruction that the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Sutton · filed 1983-06-27

In cases involving circumstantial evidence, the defendant is additionally entitled under the provisions of La. R.S. 15:438 (formerly Article 438 of the 1928 Code of Criminal Procedure) to have the jurors instructed that they must be satisfied that the overall evidence "excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence".

Section 15:438 entitles a defendant in a circumstantial-evidence case to a jury instruction that the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Captville · filed 1984-02-27

In cases involving circumstantial evidence, a defendant is additionally entitled under the provisions of La.R.S. 15:438 (formerly Article 438 of the 1928 Code of Criminal Procedure) to have the trial judge instruct the jurors that they must be satisfied the overall evidence "excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence".

Section 15:438 requires a requested jury instruction that circumstantial evidence exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; appellate courts review sufficiency under the rational juror standard.

State v. Camp · filed 1984-02-27

Therefore, when the defendant requests an instruction in a Louisiana case involving circumstantial evidence, the trial judge is statutorily required to instruct the jury in accordance with Section 438. However, the standard of appellate review of a conviction is the same in all cases, whether or not circumstantial evidence is involved: The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, must be sufficient for a rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty of the crime.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; a jury charge stating that rule need not be supplemented by a special charge it already covers.

State v. London · filed 1985-11-12

The second paragraph is taken directly from La.R.S. 15:438 and states the rule to be applied when the state's case depends on circumstantial evidence. ... It is readily apparent that the requested special charge contextually parallels the general charge given by the trial judge and hence is encompassed therein.

Section 15:438 entitles a defendant in a circumstantial evidence case to a jury instruction that the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Jacobs · filed 1987-04-06

When the case involves circumstantial evidence, the defendant is additionally entitled, under the provisions of La.R.S. 15:438, to have the jurors instructed that they must be satisfied that the overall evidence "excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence".

Section 15:438 entitles a defendant in a circumstantial evidence case to a jury instruction that the overall evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Wiggins · filed 1987-12-08

In cases involving circumstantial evidence, a defendant is additionally entitled under L.R.S. 15:438 to have the trial judge instruct the jurors that they must be satisfied the overall evidence "excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence". ... The charges, when read as a whole, are clear and appear to correctly state the law regarding the burden of proof when circumstantial evidence is involved.

Section 15:438 entitles a defendant to an instruction that the overall circumstantial evidence exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; a separate instruction applying that test to each element is unnecessary when the general charge covers it.

State v. Pravata · filed 1988-04-05

However, we find no merit to defendant's contention that the court erred by refusing to specially charge the jury that the evidence establishing each element must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... We find, therefore, that the special instruction requested by defendant was essentially included within the court's general charge, and the court did not err by refusing defendant's special instruction.

Section 15:438 entitles a defendant in a circumstantial evidence case to a jury instruction requiring the jurors to find that the overall evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Irvine · filed 1988-12-12

In cases involving circumstantial evidence, a defendant is entitled under the provisions of La.R.S. 15:438 to have the trial judge instruct the jurors that they must be satisfied the overall evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Section 15:438's rule that circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence applies even when a case also includes direct evidence.

State v. Flowers · filed 1991-01-23

We have therefore considered whether the charge might have misled the jury into thinking that the standard of proof under R.S. 15:438 cannot apply in a case based partly on circumstantial and partly on direct evidence. We do not find this charge to be misleading or an incorrect statement of the law.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before a defendant may be found guilty solely on that evidence.

State v. Bourque · filed 1993-07-01

You cannot find a defendant guilty solely on circumstantial evidence unless the facts proved by the evidence exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ... The second paragraph is taken directly from La.R.S. 15:438 and states the rule to be applied when the state's case depends on circumstantial evidence. ... The charge given was a correct statement of the law.

Section 15:438 requires a circumstantial evidence instruction when the jury must consider circumstantial evidence, directing jurors to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before convicting.

State v. Hawthorne · filed 1993-08-19

It is undisputed that no circumstantial evidence charge was given to the jury in this case. We find that the absence of this evi-dentiary guide for the jury when considering circumstantial evidence is error.

Section 15:438 requires facts proved by circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before a jury may convict solely on that evidence.

State v. Bailey · filed 1997-11-12

The judge instructed the jury, "You cannot find the defendant guilty solely on circumstantial evidence unless the facts proved by the evidence exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." Defendant complains that the judge misstated the law. The defendant's argument is, however, misplaced. The charge given by the court substantially tracks La. R.S. 15:438, which defines circumstantial evidence.

Section 15:438 requires the trial judge to instruct the jury to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when circumstantial evidence is used to prove a case; a different test applies on appeal.

State v. Gardner · filed 2005-06-28

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove a case, the trial judge 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. A different test is applied on appellate review.

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

State v. Lane · filed 2006-04-12

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. ... However, the record shows that the instruction was given, the trial court correctly gave the instruction regarding direct and circumstantial evidence, and that the defense counsel did not err in failing to object to the omission of an instruction that was, in fact, given.

In cases involving circumstantial evidence, the trial court must instruct the jury that conviction requires excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Babineaux · filed 2009-01-13

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.

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

State v. Moore · filed 2009-08-26

For a case resting essentially upon circumstantial evidence, that evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. La. R.S. 15:438. ... Contrary to Moore’s contentions that the state’s case rests primarily on circumstantial evidence of the alleged drug transaction inside Deja Vu, direct evidence of the transaction was reported in Johnson’s testimony and demonstrated by her production of the cocaine and Lortab to the officers.

Section 15:438 requires a jury in a circumstantial-evidence case to be instructed that the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before conviction.

State v. Collins · filed 2009-12-08

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.

Section 15:438 requires a jury considering circumstantial evidence to convict only if the evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Lewis · filed 2011-02-15

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.”

Section 15:438 requires a jury in a circumstantial evidence case to be instructed that the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before it can convict.

State v. Terrance · 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.

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

State v. Besse · filed 2011-12-28

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.”

Section 15:438 requires a jury instruction in circumstantial evidence cases that the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Merrill · filed 2012-12-27

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.

Section 15:438 requires a jury instruction in circumstantial-evidence cases that the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Pham · filed 2013-05-16

In cases involving circumstantial evidence, the trial court must instruct the jury that “assuming every 11Rfact 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 a jury instruction that circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence before conviction.

State v. Speaks · filed 2016-12-07

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.

Section 15:438 requires the jury in a circumstantial-evidence case to be instructed that the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to convict.

State v. Saulny · filed 2017-05-17

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.

Section 15:438 requires a jury instruction that circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

State v. Nevers-Hawkins · filed 2017-10-25

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 ordér to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis -of- innocence.” La. R.S. 15:438.

When the State relies on circumstantial evidence, courts apply admissibility rules less rigidly so the factfinder can consider circumstances that may shed light on the case.

State v. Giles · filed 1969-01-20

In such cases, where the State relies upon circumstantial evidence to sustain the prosecution, the rules relating to the admissibility of evidence are to some extent less rigidly applied. La.R.S. 15:438. This practice prevails in order that every circumstance, however remote, which may tend to shed light upon the issue in the case, may be heard by the trier of fact and entered into the record.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence even when direct evidence is also offered.

State v. Davis · filed 1988-11-29

The circumstantial evidence standard applies to whatever circumstantial evidence is presented whether there is direct evidence offered or not.

Section 15:438’s circumstantial evidence rule does not require separate application when direct evidence proves every element of the crime.

State v. Battieste · filed 1992-03-06

Defendant asserts that, because the state's case against him was based in part on circumstantial evidence, the rule regarding the use of circumstantial evidence set forth in La.R.S. 15:438 was applicable in this case. ... The state introduced direct evidence proving every element of the crimes for which defendant was convicted.

Section 15:438’s circumstantial evidence rule need not be applied when direct evidence proves every element of the crimes.

State v. Hunter · filed 2005-06-29

All of the elements of the crimes were proven by direct, rather than circumstantial, evidence, so there is no need to examine the evidence under the standard of La. R.S. 15:438, the circumstantial evidence rule.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; it does not apply when direct evidence establishes the disputed fact.

State v. Bowers · filed 2007-09-19

The court invoked La. R.S. 15:438, the circumstantial evidence rule, under which such evidence "must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." The instant case, by diametrical contrast, involved direct evidence: the testimony of at least eight eyewitnesses that Ms. Bowers struggled to take control of the car to elude Kroger employees. There is no application of R.S. 15:438 here.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; that rule does not govern proof the court finds to be direct eyewitness evidence.

State v. Guity · filed 2012-07-11

When circumstantial evidence is used to prove the commission of the offense, La. R.S. 15:438 requires that “assuming every fact to be proved that the evidence tends to prove, in order to convict, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” ... The evidence submitted by the State was not circumstantial. There was direct evidence from the victim and eyewitnesses that the defendant assaulted the victim with a baseball bat.

Section 15:438 requires circumstantial evidence used to prove an offense to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; the court treated DNA evidence as physical evidence outside that rule.

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

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.” ... In the present case, the record shows that physical evidence rather than circumstantial evidence was placed before the jury.

Section 15:438’s circumstantial evidence rule does not apply when the State presents eyewitness testimony and an inculpatory statement from the defendant.

State v. Zeno · filed 2002-03-13

However, this is not a circumstantial evidence case, as the ... State had two eyewitnesses, and an inculpato-ry statement from Defendant.

Section 15:438 requires the State to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when it relies on circumstantial evidence.

State v. Williams · filed 2018-11-07

The State's burden of proof does not require the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Such exclusion is only necessary in cases in which the State relies on circumstantial evidence. "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. Here, the State did not rely on circumstantial evidence, but offered direct evidence in the form of eyewitness testimony to prove defendant's guilt.

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

State of Louisiana v. Raven Lamar Wiltz · filed 2019-12-30

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. ... As stated above, the jury, therefore, had direct evidence that the defendant was one of the shooters.

Section 15:438’s circumstantial evidence rule does not apply when a conviction rests on both direct and circumstantial evidence.

State of Louisiana v. Clyde Santon Disedare, Jr. -Aka- Clyde Santon Disedare · filed 2020-05-13

We find that the circumstantial evidence rule does not apply because Defendant’s conviction rested upon both direct and circumstantial evidence.