Court Opinion

ID: 9685598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:52:03.438865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:08.469176
License: Public Domain

Carter, J.,
concurring.
The dissent filed in this case purports to incorrectly apply a rule of law that is too often misunderstood. It should not be permitted to stand unchallenged.
It is true, of course, that a crime may be proved by circumstantial evidence. It is the rule that in instructing a jury in such a case, the jury must be informed that in order to convict it must find that the circumstantial evidence is of such character that the facts when taken together must be consistent with each other *67and with the conclusion sought to be established thereby, and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. NJI 14.50, p. 318. The rule is one for the guidance of the jury only in considering circumstantial evidence in a criminal case.
But on review after conviction, in a circumstantial evidence case, the only question on appeal in determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether there is evidence in the record which, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Such rule is usually stated as follows: After a jury has considered the evidence in the light of this rule and returned a verdict of guilty the verdict on review may not, as a matter of law for insufficiency of evidence, be set aside if the evidence sustains some rational theory of guilt. Hoffman v. State, 162 Neb. 806, 77 N. W. 2d 592; State v. Ohler, 178 Neb. 596, 134 N. W. 2d 265; State v. Williams, 183 Neb. 257, 159 N. W. W. 2d 549; State v. Reeder, 183 Neb. 425, 160 N. W. 2d 753.
If this were not the rule, this court would be reviewing the evidentiary test given to the jury in a circumstantial evidence case by weighing the evidence and determining the credibility of the witnesses. This is a jury function and not that of this court. I submit that the dissenting opinion is completely in error and in no way detracts from the correctness of the court’s opinion.
White, C. J., Smith, and Newton, JJ., join in this concurrence.