Opinion ID: 1133268
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Insufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence

Text: Defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal, because the evidence against him was entirely circumstantial and insufficient to connect him with the crime which admittedly occurred. In appraising the validity of this argument, we point out that circumstantial evidence need not amount to a mathematical demonstration of guilt. Mathis v. People, Colo., 448 P.2d 633; Gonzales v. People, 128 Colo. 522, 264 P.2d 508. As we stated in the Mathis case, The nature of circumstantial evidence implies the weaving of a fabric of known facts, which may be inconsequential alone, but become important when they are tied to other facts which lead to inevitable conclusions as to facts in issue. According to undisputed testimony, Bernard's Store was broken into in the early pre-dawn and a substantial amount of clothing was stolen therefrom; four witnesses saw only two men running from the scene of the crime; and, two of the witnesses, police officers, chased the running men to a parking lot. At the parking lot, an officer saw one of the men run over to a niche in a nearby building, where he stood stiff-like in the shadow. The officer promptly called the man out from his hiding place and arrested him. The man thus arrested was identified at trial as this defendant, Maes. There is obviously evidence in the record from which the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the circumstances were such as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of defendant's innocence. We therefore cannot say that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, and we will not sit as a 13th juror and set aside a jury verdict. Mathis v. People, supra , Cokley v. People, Colo., 449 P.2d 824. We further note that defendant rested his case without presenting any evidence whatsoever, either by his own testimony or by others on his behalf. We again find apt the court's opinion in the Mathis case, supra: A jury is permitted to draw any reasonable inference of guilt from the evidence before it. Where the defendant elects not to testify, he cannot successfully complain to this Court that the jurors have drawn inferences against him which are warranted by the evidence. Schamber v. People, 159 Colo. 102, 410 P.2d 514; and Allison v. People, 109 Colo. 295, 125 P.2d 146. We conclude that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdict of guilty and the judgment of conviction.