Opinion ID: 2074377
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Other Evidence Sufficient

Text: The record reflects that Brookins' argument overemphasizes the weight of the new DNA test results relating to the blood on the vase and overlooks the uncontradicted circumstantial evidence supporting his convictions. Although no single item of evidence, viewed in isolation, may have been sufficient to convict Brookins, the physical evidence and the testimony of other witnesses, taken together, were sufficient to support a jury finding that Brookins was present at the scene and was guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. As the Superior Court held: It is not likely that [the DNA evidence] would change the result even if a new trial was granted. . . . the evidence was substantial . . . a reasonable jury would not  could have reached the same conclusion and was likely to reach the same conclusion given quantity and sufficiency of the evidence, even in light of the DNA test results. Accordingly, we hold that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Brookins' motion for a new trial based upon the new DNA report concerning the blood on the vase.