Mr. Todd challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions for manufacture of methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. Standard of Review. After viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we must be able to conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Todd admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom by claiming the evidence is insufficient. We defer to the trier of fact on questions of conflicting testimony, witness credibility, and the persuasiveness of the evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is as probative and reliable as direct evidence.
But the circumstantial evidence must be consistent with the hypothesis that the defendant is guilty, and inconsistent with any hypothesis or theory tending to establish innocence. Mr. Todd contends the evidence is insufficient to support either crime because he was convicted based only on his fingerprints. Fingerprint evidence alone is sufficient to support a conviction where the trier of fact could reasonably infer from the circumstances that it could only have been impressed at the time the crime was committed. Thus, it is essential that the State point to sufficient evidence, as reflected in the record, that the fingerprinted object was generally inaccessible to the defendant at a previous time. The parties rely on State v. Bridge and State v. Lucca.