Opinion ID: 2388781
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: The defendant contends that the jury verdict against him is against the evidence. This issue of the sufficiency of the evidence has been properly saved at the trial level for our determination. The applicable test is, whether, in view of all the evidence in the case, the jury was warranted in believing beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the crime charged against him. State v. O'Clair, Me., 292 A.2d 186, 196 (1972); State v. Goldman, Me., 281 A.2d 8, 12 (1971). It is argued that, given the fact the evidence of the defendant's participation in the burglary was wholly circumstantial, no rational jury could be justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. With this conclusion, we disagree. In the light of all the evidence, the hypothesis that the defendant was on the Wolfe premises merely in search of beehives was not reasonable. When each separate circumstance as appears in this case is viewed in the context of its relation to the others, the resulting pattern knitted together by the forceful rational inferences to be drawn from the several circumstances compels the irresistible conclusion of guilt. A conviction based on circumstantial evidence is not for that reason any less conclusive. State v. Stewart, Me., 330 A.2d 800 (1975); State v. Cloutier, 134 Me. 269, 186 A. 604 (1936). The entry will be Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed. WEATHERBEE, J., sat at oral argument and participated in consultation, but died prior to the preparation of the opinion. DELAHANTY, J., sat at argument and conference, but did not otherwise participate.