Opinion ID: 2533163
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in denying Thomas's motion for directed verdict of the arson charge.

Text: ¶ 36. Thomas argues there is no evidence that he is guilty of the arson [38] charge, and as such, the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict. Conversely, the State argues that there was sufficient evidence that Thomas was present in the home near the time the fires started, and there was evidence that the fires were the result of arson. ¶ 37. The State's case was based on circumstantial evidence. In circumstantial-evidence cases, the state is required to `prove the accused's guilt not only beyond a reasonable doubt, but to the exclusion of every other hypothesis consistent with innocence.' [39] However, a circumstantial evidence conviction will not be disturbed [on appeal] unless it is opposed `by a decided preponderance of the evidence.' [40] While Thomas did not confess to the arson, he admitted that he had been living with Harris at 619 Silver Street and that he had killed Harris. Ursula Fowler, Harris's neighbor, testified that she had heard fighting at the home and within ten or twenty minutes, the home had been on fire. Therefore, the testimony of Harris's neighbor, along with Thomas's confession, place him at the scene during the time the fire began and with a motive for setting the fire. Furthermore, various witnesses testified that debris had been piled on top of the body, and Broughton testified that a hammer had been placed on the body. Last, it was undisputed that the fire was the result of six separate fires that were intentionally set. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's denial of a directed verdict, since sufficient evidence (which is unopposed by a preponderance of the evidence) supports the arson conviction.