This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2010-02-16 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In the case before us, the pieces of circumstantial evidence do not indubitably lead to the conclusion that appellant is guilty of the crime charged. When two antithetical interpretations may be inferred from the circumstantial evidence presented, the situation calls for the application of the equipoise rule - i.e., when the evidence is consistent with a finding of innocence and also compatible with a finding of guilt, then the evidence is at equipoise and does not fulfill the test of moral certainty sufficient to support a conviction.[54] | |||||