To determine whether the jury could reasonably have concluded that appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, this court must review the record and the legitimate inferences from the record in the light most favorable to the conviction. We assume the jury believed the state's witnesses and rejected contradictory evidence. The credibility of witness testimony and the weight given to the evidence are issues for the jury. Because these charges are inextricably linked, evidence that supports appellant's conviction for one charge also supports his conviction for the other. Appellant challenges only the proof that he intentionally set the fire.
Circumstantial evidence is, however, entitled to the same weight as other kinds of evidence.
Where, as here, a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, the verdict will be sustained on appeal when the reasonable inferences from such evidence are consistent only with the defendant's guilt and inconsistent with any other rational hypothesis. Thus, to succeed in an appeal based on insufficiency of circumstantial evidence, an appellant must point to record evidence consistent with a rational theory other than guilt. At trial, on appeal, and in his supplemental pro se brief, appellant offers several alternative explanations regarding the source of the fire. But the state's experts stated that the space heater was designed to prevent operation if knocked over. Appellant also suggested that a cat upset a dry Christmas tree, which fell close to a burning fireplace.