Court Opinion

ID: 9629611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:46:09.042415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:21.608978
License: Public Domain

*413WILKINS, Justice,
concurring with reservation:
I do not agree with the majority opinion’s comment that “. . . despite whatever weaknesses circumstantial evidence may have, it is recognized as a valid method of ascertaining the truth” because it implies that generally this class of evidence is inherently less reliable than direct evidence. I do however otherwise concur in the opinion.
The weight to be given to direct evidence is not — as a matter of law — necessarily greater than that given to circumstantial evidence. I believe an accurate statement of the law appears in 30 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, Sec. 1126, where it states:
. Many decisions are to the effect that circumstantial evidence in a criminal ease may be fully as satisfying as positive testimony and will sometimes outweigh it. In cases where the facts or circumstances which are proved are not only consistent with the guilt of the defendant, but also inconsistent with his innocence, such evidence, in its weight and probative force, may surpass direct evidence in its effect upon the jury. . Circumstantial evidence deserves a like consideration as the sworn statements of a witness and may disprove the testimony of living witnesses, and there is nothing in the nature of circumstantial evidence that renders it less reliable than other classes of evidence. [Citations omitted.]