When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the question this Court examines is whether there is sufficient evidence in the record which, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt . . . . However, the evidence need not exclude all possible hypotheses of innocence, only reasonable hypotheses of innocence. The jury heard evidence indicating that Fender s individual security access code had been used to enter and leave the building early in the morning the day of the theft. They also heard evidence that although Fender alleged two others knew his access code, those individuals were not in town at the apparent time of the theft. Furthermore, the jury heard evidence of Fender s strange behavior the morning of the incident and of his plan to leave town without notifying his employer.
Sufficient evidence exists to support the jury s verdict.
Fender did not suffer a violation of due process. The prosecution never disclosed the tape recorded statements Fender made to Wessel and the prosecutor never disclosed the alleged taped conversations Fender had on Taco Bell work phones. Fender argues that the prosecutor s failure to disclose these tape-recorded statements constitutes a violation of his due process rights. He correctly points out that the Brady rule applies to situations where the prosecution suppresses exculpatory evidence to the detriment of the defendant. We have noted on numerous occasions that the Brady rule only applies to situations where the defendant discovers after trial that the prosecutor had material evidence that was not disclosed during the trial.