Court Opinion

ID: 9851026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:06:05.694426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:47.411526
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
specially concurring:
The majority opinion states at page two (2) that “all of the evidence establishing appellant’s guilt is circumstantial,” but then applies the standard of Spuehler v. State, 709 P.2d 202, 203-04 (Okla.Crim.App.1985), to appellant’s claim that the evidence was insufficient. When the evidence against an accused is wholly circumstantial, considering the evidence and inferenc*1188es therefrom in the light most favorable to the State, it must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the defendant's guilt. Smith v. State, 695 P.2d 1360, 1362 (Okla.Crim.App.1985). Circumstantial evidence need not exclude every conceivable hypothesis or negate any possibility other than guilt. D.R.R. v. State, 734 P.2d 310, 311 (Okla.Crim.App.1987). Applying the “reasonable hypothesis” standard, I find the evidence sufficient to support the jury’s verdict and, therefore, I concur.