Opinion ID: 1858683
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Circumstantial versus Direct Evidence

Text: On appeal, Lowe claims the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict because the evidence used to identify him as the robber was insufficient. Lowe argues the State introduced only inconclusive or circumstantial evidence of identification through Ms. Ashcraft's testimony and through items found at his residence. We disagree. While the items recovered from Lowe's apartment linking him to the crime are circumstantial evidence, we have held that guilt can be established without eyewitness testimony, and evidence of guilt is not less because it is circumstantial. Gamble v. State, 351 Ark. 541, 95 S.W.3d 755 (2003).; Gregory v. State, 341 Ark. 243, 15 S.W.3d 690 (2000); Trimble v. State, 316 Ark. 161, 871 S.W.2d 562 (1994). Where circumstantial evidence alone is relied upon, it must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, other than that of guilt of the accused, to be substantial. Gregory, supra . However, in the case at bar, Lowe was not convicted upon purely circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is evidence that proves a fact without resort to inference, when for example, it is proved by witnesses who testify as to what they saw, heard, or experienced. Gamble, supra . Furthermore, direct evidence is evidence which, if believed, resolves the issue. Id. This court has held that it is within the province of the jury to accept or reject testimony as it sees fit. Riggins v. State, 317 Ark. 636, 882 S.W.2d 664 (1994). The testimony provided by Ms. Ashcraft as to what she saw, heard, and experienced during the course of the robbery is direct evidence.