concluding that the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence “was sufficient to forge a link that eventually created a chain of circumstances that established the defendant’s connection to the shipment of [a] box” containing marijuana and LSD and “his possession of the illicit drugs and narcotics”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence “was sufficient to forge a link that eventually created a chain of circumstances that established the defendant’s connection to the shipment of [a] box” containing marijuana and LSD and “his possession of the illicit drugs and narcotics”
- holding that same test for assessing the sufficiency of evidence applies whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial
- stating that the prosecution need not “exclude every reasonable hypotheses other than that of guilt”
- explaining that the test “affords the same status to both direct and circumstantial evidence”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE
concurring in result only: I concur in the result of this case only.
In my view, the rule of law announced in People v. Calise, 179 Colo. 162, 498 P.2d 1154 (1972), and People v. Lopez, 182 Colo. 152 , 511 P.2d 889 (1973), which the majority overrules by its opinion today, states a humane and correct principle. I would not depart from this rule whiph has been so long established in this state, and, in my view, affords some protection against the conviction of an innocent person upon wholly circumstantial evidence.
MR. JUSTICE GROVES authorizes me to state that he joins in this concurrence.