Opinion ID: 2378023
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Issue 2: Sufficient evidence supports McCaslin's convictions.

Text: McCaslin argues that his murder and aggravated arson convictions were premised upon the rape conviction. He reasons that once the rape conviction fails for insufficient evidence, then the aggravated arson and murder convictions must also fail. Our standard of review on this issue is well known: `When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, the standard of review is whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citation omitted.] State v. Drayton, 285 Kan. 689, 710, 175 P.3d 861 (2008). During our review, we do not reweigh evidence, resolve conflicts in the evidence, or pass on the credibility of witnesses. State v. Swanigan, 279 Kan. 18, 23, 106 P.3d 39 (2005). Moreover, a conviction of even the gravest offense `can be based entirely on circumstantial evidence and the inferences fairly deducible therefrom.' Drayton, 285 Kan. at 711, 175 P.3d 861 (quoting State v. Bird, 240 Kan. 288, 299, 729 P.2d 1136 [1986], cert. denied 481 U.S. 1055, 107 S.Ct. 2194, 95 L.Ed.2d 849 [1987]); State v. Garcia, 285 Kan. 1, 22, 169 P.3d 1069 (2007). If an inference is a reasonable one, the jury has the right to make the inference. Drayton, 285 Kan. at 711, 175 P.3d 861 (quoting State v. Ordway, 261 Kan. 776, 804, 934 P.2d 94 [1997]). We address each conviction in turn.