Opinion ID: 2110800
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Defendant next contends that the State's circumstantial forensic evidence of hair, fiber, and tire print comparisons was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant argues that the probative value of the State's forensic evidence lies merely in establishing that defendant could not be excluded as the possible offender, not that he must be the offender. When faced with a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant inquiry for the reviewing court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Collins (1985), 106 Ill.2d 237, 261, 87 Ill.Dec. 910, 478 N.E.2d 267; see also People v. Pintos (1989), 133 Ill.2d 286, 139 Ill.Dec. 832, 549 N.E.2d 344; People v. Campbell (1992), 146 Ill.2d 363, 166 Ill.Dec. 932, 586 N.E.2d 1261.) The reviewing courts apply this standard regardless of whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial. ( Pintos, 133 Ill.2d at 291, 139 Ill.Dec. 832, 549 N.E.2d 344; see also People v. Eyler (1989), 133 Ill.2d 173, 191, 139 Ill.Dec. 756, 549 N.E.2d 268.) This standard of review does not allow the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder on questions involving the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses [citation]. ( Campbell, 146 Ill.2d at 375, 166 Ill.Dec. 932, 586 N.E.2d 1261.) Therefore, this court will not reverse a criminal conviction unless the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or so unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt [citation]. Campbell, 146 Ill.2d at 375, 166 Ill.Dec. 932, 586 N.E.2d 1261. The evidence in this case, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, establishes that the two Caucasian pubic hairs removed from Amy Schulz's rectum were consistent in all respects to those from the defendant, but dissimilar from those of her family members and 24 other suspects in this case. The evidence also established that the gold fibers found in Amy Schulz's socks, shoes, underpants, shorts, and shirt were consistent in all respects to the carpeting in the defendant's vehicle, but dissimilar to the carpet samples from Amy's environment. In addition, the evidence showed that a foreign fiber found in the victim's shirt was consistent with the seat fibers from defendant's vehicle in every respect, but it was dissimilar to the sample fibers submitted from Amy's environment. Other fiber-comparison evidence demonstrated that fibers found on the front passenger side of defendant's vehicle were consistent with the fibers from Amy Schulz's shirt and shorts. The prosecution further demonstrated that the dog hairs found in Amy Schulz's socks, shoes, shorts, and shirt were consistent with the dog hair standard submitted from defendant's dog in all characteristics; and, that the defendant's dog's hair was ubiquitous in the defendant's vehicle. Furthermore, the State established that a tire on defendant's vehicle could have made the tire impressions found in the immediate vicinity of the victim's body. Finally, the State's evidence demonstrated that defendant lived only minutes away from where Amy Schulz was last seen alive and that he had ample time between the time he left his brother's house until he was next seen at Harper's gas station to commit the crime. Given the overwhelming and overlapping nature of the circumstantial evidence in this case, we are not prepared to say that the evidence is so unreasonable, improbable, or so unsatisfactory as to justify a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt. We find that a rational trier of fact could have inferred from the totality of the evidence that defendant kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and murdered 10-year-old Amy Schulz, and that he was guilty of these crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.