Opinion ID: 1660087
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: We consider first defendant's fourth assignment in which he insists the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict.

Text: On defendant's appeal from criminal conviction based on jury verdict challenging sufficiency of evidence to sustain the verdict we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and accept as established all reasonable inferences tending to support action of the jury. It is necessary to consider only the supporting evidence whether contradicted or not. Also, it is for the fact finder, not us, to decide questions of fact and determine credibility of witnesses. And a finding of guilt is binding on this court unless without substantial support in the record. State v. Cartee, 202 N.W.2d 93, 96 (Iowa 1972), and authorities cited. Where, as in the present case, all evidence connecting the accused with the alleged crime is circumstantial, this court has consistently adhered to the principle that circumstantial evidence on each and every essential element to conviction is sufficient to warrant a finding of guilt if it satisfies the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence may be equal in value to and sometimes more reliable than direct evidence. However, where circumstantial evidence alone is relied on as to any one or more of the essential elements the circumstance or circumstances must be entirely consistent with defendant's guilt and wholly inconsistent with any rational hypothesis of defendant's innocence and so convincing as to exclude a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of the offense charged. Like direct evidence it must raise a fair inference of guilt, generating something more than suspicion, or speculation or conjecture. State v. DeRaad, 164 N.W.2d 108, 109-110 (Iowa 1969); State v. Stamper, 195 N.W.2d 110, 111 (Iowa 1972), and State v. Cartee, 202 N.W.2d at 96. Mere presence at the scene of a crime is not enough to prove defendant committed the offense. In accordance with the State's theory defendant left his home, walked four blocks to the rear of Foreman's Tire Service, broke a window and entered the building sometime between 2:30 and 2:45 a. m., removed approximately $25 from the cash register, left the building through the same window and walked another three blocks to a point within about one block from his home. We are told he was observed standing at the corner of Fifth Avenue and Seventh Street a short while after 2:30 a. m., but there is no indication that point was crossed when the officers traced the set of footprints to and from defendant's home. No comparison was made between the footprints located near the windows and defendant's shoes to determine whether his shoes could have made the impressions left in the snow. In fact, none of the evidence adduced by the State suggests any of the three officers ever procured or attempted to procure from defendant the pair of shoes he was wearing at the time he purportedly saw someone run from behind Foreman's Tire Service. Moreover, the officers testified they did not search beyond defendant's home for a continuation of the set of prints purportedly leading from the house to Foreman's Tire Service. Zeutenhorst testified he estimated the size of the footprints to be 11-11½ inches by placing his foot adjacent to one of the prints. As a witness, defendant reiterated his statement previously given at the police station that he wore size 9½ inch shoes. The record does not reveal any sum of money was discovered on defendant's person or, for that matter, that his person was searched. There is no indication an attempt was made to lift fingerprints from the immediate scene of the crime. The prosecution's witnesses do not intimate defendant's conduct ever aroused their suspicion. Testimony that a single set of footprints leading to the point of entry into Foreman's Tire Service from defendant's home, and back toward the home, does not constitute substantial evidence reasonably tending to support the charge filed against defendant here. The evidence does nothing more than serve to generate mere suspicion, speculation or conjecture, and there does arise a reasonable doubt as a matter of law. Due to the inadequacy of the record even as amended in this case it has been necessary to gather the facts of this lawsuit from the trial transcript. Because of our conclusion that a jury question was not generated, the trial court's failure to sustain defendant's motion for directed verdict made at the close of all evidence requires reversal. Therefore, the case is remanded to the district court for entry of an order dismissing the indictment discharging and exonerating his bail or if money has been deposited instead, that it must be returned to him. Section 793.21, The Code. It is not necessary that we reach other errors assigned by defendant. The case is thereforereversed and remanded with directions.