Opinion ID: 2042474
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: `A defendant may be convicted by circumstantial evidence which establishes the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The State is required to establish the defendant's guilt for the crime charged, but is not required to disprove every hypothesis consistent with the defendant's presumed innocence.` State v. Zitterkopf, 236 Neb. 743, 747, 463 N.W.2d 616, 620 (1990) (quoting State v. Oldfield, 236 Neb. 433, 461 N.W.2d 554 (1990)). `Circumstantial evidence' means facts or circumstances, proved or known, from which existence or nonexistence of another fact may be logically inferred or deduced through a rational process. State v. Jasper, 237 Neb. 754, 763, 467 N.W.2d 855, 862 (1991). See, also, State v. Loveless, 234 Neb. 463, 451 N.W.2d 692 (1990). Viewing and construing the evidence most favorably to the State, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Fleck was the perpetrator of the crimes charged. Because the evidence is sufficient to sustain each of Fleck's convictions, his convictions are affirmed. AFFIRMED.