Opinion ID: 1934571
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review for insufficiency of evidence claims

Text: The standard of review in assessing an insufficiency of evidence claim is whether any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find [a] defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Robertson v. State, Del.Supr., 596 A.2d 1345, 1355 (1991); accord Shipley v. State, Del.Supr., 570 A.2d 1159, 1170 (1990); Skinner v. State, Del.Supr., 575 A.2d 1108, 1121 (1990). In making this determination, [t]he fact that most of the State's evidence [is] circumstantial is irrelevant; `the Court does not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence.' Robertson, 596 A.2d at 1355 (quoting Shipley, 570 A.2d at 1170). In the instant case, the State's evidence, though purely circumstantial, was sufficient to sustain the jury's finding that the appliance center was burglarized. The key issue, however, is whether the fingerprint evidence presented here was sufficient to establish, prima facie during the State's case, the identity of Monroe as the burglar. As to that issue, we agree with Monroe that no rational trier of fact could have concluded that he committed the charged offenses based on the evidence presented during the State's case.