Sufficiency of Evidence for Appeals
A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in an appeal to support his conviction bears heavy burden. On the other hand, while the burden is heavy, it is not insurmountable. In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court must allow the government the benefit of all reasonable influences from the facts proven to those sought to be established.
A jury's verdict must be upheld if there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, to support it. This includes circumstantial and direct evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the government. Note that an appellate court may not overturn a substantially supported verdict merely because it finds the verdict unpalatable or determines that another, resasonable verdict would be preferable.
Circumstantial as well as direct evidence may be considered in resolving a sufficiency of the evidence challege. Circumstantial evidence which does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence may nevertheless be enough to withstand a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.
In determining sufficiency of the evidence, the credibility of witnesses is strictly a matter for the jury. As to how much evidence is enough, the Fourth Circuit has held that the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness may be sufficient, even if that witness is an accomplice, a co-defendant, or an informant. On the other hand, it is beyond dispute that criminal defendant's conviction cannot rest entirely on an uncorroborated extrajudicial confession. If a post verdict challenge to sufficiency of the evidence is difficult, a post guilty plea challenge is all but impossible.
Rather, the sentencing court may use anything in the record, including the defendant's admission of guilt and any hearsay it considers reliable, to determine whether there is a factual basis for the guilty plea.
Finally, because a stipulation induces the government not to offer evidence to prove the facts involved in the stipulation, a defendant may not argue at trial or on appeal that the stipulation is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the facts or elements to which he has stipulated.
If you or someone you know would like to start the appeals process, call one of the experienced Myrtle Beach appeal lawyers at The Mace Firm for a free consultation.
If you or someone you know has been convicted of a crime and would like to appeal, please call one of our South Carolina appeal lawyers to represent you. Our good federal criminal appeal lawyers have handled federal appeals for years.
