Opinion ID: 726737
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 13 Mr. Hill next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for felony murder, that is, for killing Mr. Sturdivant in the course of perpetrating a robbery. See Ark.Code Ann. § 5-10-101(a)(1). A bare majority of the Arkansas Supreme Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support Mr. Hill's conviction. The issue in this case is not whether this panel would have convicted the defendant had it been the trier of fact. Our standard of review is as narrow as it is well-established: 14 This court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and sustain the verdict if it is supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, on appeal, the government must be given the benefit of all inferences that may logically be drawn from the evidence. It is not necessary that the evidence exclude every reasonable hypothesis except guilt; instead, the evidence is simply sufficient if it will convince a trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. This court will not disturb a conviction if the evidence rationally supports two conflicting hypotheses. Each of the elements of the crime charged may be proven by circumstantial evidence, as well as by direct evidence. And finally, this court must keep in mind that the standard to be applied to determine the sufficiency of the evidence is a strict one, and the finding of guilt should not be overturned lightly. 15 United States v. Brown, 921 F.2d 785, 791 (8th Cir.1990) (citations and quotation omitted). Our function as an appellate court is not to reweigh the evidence. United States v. Anderson, 78 F.3d 420, 422 (8th Cir.1996). To the contrary, we must accord great deference where a state appellate court has found the evidence supporting the conviction constitutionally sufficient, as the Arkansas Supreme Court has in this case. Ward v. Lockhart, 841 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir.1988). 16 Bearing these principles in mind, there can be little argument that Mr. Hill's murder conviction is supported by substantial, albeit not overwhelming, evidence. We readily concede that there is no direct evidence placing Mr. Hill in the victim's trailer the night of the murder. Forensic evidence such as hair, fingerprints, or body fluids are eminently useful when found, but their absence does not necessarily mandate acquittal. Although the evidence supporting Mr. Hill's conviction is admittedly circumstantial, circumstantial evidence may constitute substantial evidence under Arkansas law. Hill, 773 S.W.2d at 425. Our Court has also recognized that the verdict may be based in whole or in part on circumstantial evidence. Anderson, 78 F.3d at 422. 17 Mr. Hill argues that the circumstantial evidence supporting his guilt is insufficient because it fails to exclude other factual scenarios consistent with his innocence. The Supreme Court, however, quashed this contention in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), the very case that established the applicable standard by which we judge sufficiency of the evidence challenges. In that case, the Supreme Court rejected the habeas petitioner's sufficiency challenge based on his argument that circumstantial evidence in the case supported his claim of self-defense as well as the prosecution's theory of guilt. Id. at 325, 99 S.Ct. at 2792. Only under a theory that the prosecution was under an affirmative duty to rule out every hypothesis except that of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt could this petitioner's challenge be sustained. That theory the Court has rejected in the past. We decline to adopt it today. Id. at 326, 99 S.Ct. at 2792-93 (citation omitted). 18 This Court has followed that mandate faithfully. United States v. Alvarado-Sandoval, 997 F.2d 491, 493 (8th Cir.1993) (The evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt; it is sufficient if there is substantial evidence justifying an inference of guilt as found irrespective of any countervailing testimony that may have been introduced. (quotation omitted)); United States v. Searing, 984 F.2d 960, 963 (8th Cir.1993) (The evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt.); Perez v. Groose, 973 F.2d 630, 634 (8th Cir.1992) (Contrary to [the petitioner]'s contention, the prosecution is not required to rule out every hypothesis except that of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.... It was for the jury to resolve any conflicting inferences....); United States v. Brown, 921 F.2d 785, 791 (8th Cir.1990) (This court will not disturb a conviction if the evidence rationally supports two conflicting hypotheses.); United States v. O'Malley, 854 F.2d 1085, 1088 (8th Cir.1988) (While this determination could certainly have been resolved differently, it is not our function as a reviewing court to reverse based on a recognition of alternate possibilities.). 19 This case is analogous to a host of convictions based on circumstantial evidence affirmed by this Court despite the recognition of alternate possibilities. It is theoretically possible, but unlikely, that the true killer sold the proceeds from the killing to the hitchhiking Mr. Hill in the hour or so possibly separating the time of the murder from Mr. Hill's appearance with Mr. Sturdivant's property. It is even possible that Mr. Hill killed Mr. Sturdivant for other unknown reasons and then made off with the goods as an afterthought. But it was also possible in Jackson that the female victim willingly removed part of her clothing and then attacked [the defendant] with a knife when he resisted her advances thus requiring him to shoot her in self-defense. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 325, 99 S.Ct. at 2792. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court presumed that the trier of fact resolved any such conflicts in favor of the prosecution and deferred to that resolution. Id. at 326, 99 S.Ct. at 2793. 20 In United States v. Bates, 77 F.3d 1101 (8th Cir.1996), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 215, 136 L.Ed.2d 149 (1996), it was possible that the defendant found dressed in hunting apparel with two other individuals in a boat containing two shotguns, dead ducks, camouflaged netting, and decoys was merely acting as a wilderness guide as opposed to illegally hunting ducks with a shotgun as a felon in possession of a firearm. Id. at 1105. This Court, however, concluded that this alternative had been fairly presented to and rejected by the jury despite the fact that a wilderness guide business card was found on the defendant's person. Id. In Rhode v. Olk-Long, 84 F.3d 284 (8th Cir.1996), the Court conceded that some parts of the record could be read to support [the defendant's] theories that either her parents or her children could have inflicted the fatal injuries on her infant child. Id. at 288. Nevertheless, the Court found ample evidence in the record supporting her felony murder conviction. Id. As such, we find the evidence supporting Mr. Hill's conviction for felony murder to be supported by sufficient evidence.