Opinion ID: 1598118
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: In this case, all the evidence is circumstantial. When circumstantial evidence is the only basis upon which to support a conviction, the trial court must first determine whether the circumstantial evidence is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, one of guilt and the other of nonguilt, and whether the inference of guilt is stronger than the inference of nonguilt. This is determined by the trial court in either a bench trial or a jury trial. This is a question of law which must be determined by the trial court prior to submitting the evidence to the trier of fact. See, State v. Dean, 246 Neb. 869, 523 N.W.2d 681 (1994); State v. Covarrubias, 244 Neb. 366, 507 N.W.2d 248 (1993). In Covarrubias, 244 Neb. at 374, 507 N.W.2d at 253, we explained our earlier holding in State v. LaFreniere, 240 Neb. 258, 481 N.W.2d 412 (1992): LaFreniere holds that in determining the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to support a conviction, any fact or circumstance reasonably susceptible of two interpretations must be resolved most favorably to the accused. LaFreniere requires a reasonable inference from circumstantial evidence to be taken most favorably to the accused when circumstantial evidence is the only basis upon which to support a conviction and the circumstantial evidence is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, one of guilt and the other of nonguilt, and neither inference is stronger than the other. See, also, State v. Ruiz, 241 Neb. 693, 489 N.W.2d 865 (1992); State v. Dawson, 240 Neb. 89, 480 N.W.2d 700 (1992). If the inference of nonguilt is stronger than or equal to the inference of guilt, then the case should not be submitted to the trier of fact; the trial court having thus determined as a matter of law that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of guilt. On the other hand, if the trial court determines that the inference of guilt is stronger than the inference of nonguilt and determines that the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction, then the court submits the evidence to the trier of fact for a determination of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. On appeal, the appellate court must first independently decide as a matter of law whether the circumstantial evidence is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations and whether the inference of nonguilt is stronger than or equal to the inference of guilt. Regarding a question of law, an appellate court has an obligation to reach a conclusion independent of that of the trial court in a judgment under review. State v. Roche, Inc., 246 Neb. 568, 520 N.W.2d 539 (1994). If the appellate court determines that the evidence was properly submitted to the trier of fact, then on appeal the State is entitled to have all conflicting evidence and the reasonable inferences which can be drawn from the evidence viewed in its favor. See, State v. Covarrubias, supra ; State v. Sexton, 240 Neb. 466, 482 N.W.2d 567 (1992). The Court of Appeals held that the evidence must be viewed most favorably to Skalberg, unless we can say that the inference of guilt is stronger than the inference of innocence assuming that the evidence is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, one of guilt and one of innocence. State v. Skalberg, 94 NCA No. 11 at 15-16, case No. A-93-592, 1994 WL 77446 (not designated for permanent publication). We review this question of law to independently determine whether the inference of guilt was stronger than the inference of innocence. Under the burglary statute, Skalberg could be found guilty only if the evidence showed that he willfully, maliciously, and forcibly broke into and entered any real estate or any improvements erected thereon with intent to commit any felony or with intent to steal property of any value. See § 28-507. The Court of Appeals found that the State had not proven Skalberg's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but had merely proven that several burglaries were committed in Bloomfield on September 24, 1992. Skalberg testified he parked his car in the driveway of Wilson's home and fell asleep. The police chief could not identify Skalberg as the person he saw inside Kersten Auto, but could only report that the person was wearing dark clothing. Skalberg was wearing a gray shirt over a dark-blue or black shirt, which is not necessarily dark clothing as described by the police chief. The Court of Appeals found that the evidence of the physical description provided no inference of guilt which was stronger than an inference of innocence, particularly when the police chief, who knew Skalberg, could not say that Skalberg was the person that he saw inside Kersten Auto on the night of the burglaries. The presence of the tow chains in Skalberg's car did not establish that Skalberg had been inside Kersten Auto. Testimony received from an employee of Kersten Auto established that the company tow truck was parked in the alley behind the store on the night of the burglaries. As noted by the Court of Appeals, The only allowable inference from finding them in Skalberg's car is that he or Edwards had stolen them, but the evidence is uncontroverted that to steal the chains, no burglary was required. State v. Skalberg, 94 NCA No. 11 at 18. There was no evidence of any forcible breaking or entering of real estate or improvements erected thereon in order to steal the tow chains. No evidence established that the beer found in the car or the money and cigarettes found on Skalberg were taken in the burglaries. Skalberg testified that he purchased the beer in Yankton and that the cigarettes were given to him by his mother. No identifiable fingerprints were found at any of the crime scenes, and a palm print found at one of the locations did not match Skalberg's palm print. As to the State's first contention, that the Court of Appeals has announced a rule of law which infringes on the fact finder, we find that the determination by the Court of Appeals regarding the inferences presented by the circumstantial evidence does not infringe on the role of the fact finder. The determination of the inferences from the circumstantial evidence is a question of law to be decided by the trial court before the evidence is submitted to the fact finder. It is a determination of whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for the offense with which the defendant has been charged. Such a determination is made as a matter of law and does not infringe upon the trier of fact's determination of guilt or innocence. The State's second contention is that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the inference of nonguilt was as strong as the inference of guilt. We view this determination as a matter of law and make our own determination independent from that of the Court of Appeals and that of the trial court. See State v. Roche, Inc., 246 Neb. 568, 520 N.W.2d 539 (1994). Although the trial court could properly conclude that four burglaries had been committed, the State has not shown that the circumstantial evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Skalberg committed the burglaries. Our review of the circumstantial evidence leads us to the conclusion that the inference of nonguilt was as strong as the inference of guilt. The circumstantial evidence, taken in favor of Skalberg, was not sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence and did not support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the cause with directions to dismiss. AFFIRMED. FAHRNBRUCH, J., concurs in the result.