"The State may prove its case by presenting either direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the defendant to each element of the crime." State v. Howell, 143 S.W.3d 747, 752 (Mo.App. 2004). In reviewing the evidence, we accept as true all evidence and inferences favorable to the State; all contrary evidence and inferences are disregarded.
Such admissions are not properly considered hearsay at all. State v. Howell, 143 S.W.3d 747, 751 (Mo.App. 2004); Still v. Ahnemann, 984 S.W.2d 568, 572 (Mo.App. 1999); State v. Brown, 833 S.W.2d 436, 438-39 (Mo.App. 1992). Thus, William Moore's testimony that he overheard Coday say he hit Victim in the back of the head was simply not hearsay.
The State may prove its case by presenting direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the defendant to each element of the crime. State v. Howell, 143 S.W.3d 747, 752 (Mo.App. 2004). All references to rules are to the Missouri Court Rules (2005).
The State may rely on direct and circumstantial evidence to meet its burden of proof. State v. Howell , 143 S.W.3d 747, 752 (Mo.App. W.D. 2004). We may "not supply missing evidence, or give the State the benefit of unreasonable, speculative, or forced inferences."
"The State may prove its case by presenting either direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the defendant to each element of the crime." Id. (quoting State v. Howell , 143 S.W.3d 747, 752 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) ). The State argues that Webb waived this claim insofar as his point relied on argues error in the overruling of his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s evidence, following which, Webb put on evidence.
"The State may prove its case by presenting either direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the defendant to each element of the crime." State v. Howell , 143 S.W.3d 747, 752 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004)."The evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom are viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, disregarding any evidence and inferences contrary to the verdict."
The handful of cases Defendant cites are inapposite. See State v. Whalen, 49 S.W.3d 181, 182–83 (Mo. banc 2001) (reversing conviction for first-degree assault because evidence was insufficient to prove defendant acted purposefully ); State v. Burton, 370 S.W.3d 926, 929 (Mo.App. E.D.2012) ( affirming conviction for third-degree assault of a law-enforcement officer where defendant was found to be reckless by leading state trooper on a foot chase through “wet, muddy conditions, over three fences, and into a thicket”); State v. Howell, 143 S.W.3d 747, 752–53 (Mo.App. W.D.2004) ( affirming conviction for third-degree assault where defendant did not dispute that he was reckless or that the victim suffered injury, but did dispute causation); State v. McGuire, 924 S.W.2d 38, 40 (Mo.App. E.D.1996) (reversing conviction for third-degree assault of a law enforcement officer where the issue was not whether defendant recklessly caused injury, but rather whether defendant purposefully placed police officer in apprehension of immediate physical injury). JEFFREY W. BATES, P.J., and GARY W. LYNCH, J., concur.
“The State may prove its case by presenting either direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the defendant to each element of the crime.” State v. Howell, 143 S.W.3d 747, 752 (Mo.App.2004). This is not an assessment of whether this Court believes that the evidence at trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather a question of whether, in light of the evidence most favorable to the State, any rational fact-finder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
The State may rely upon direct and circumstantial evidence to meet its burden of proof. See State v. Howell, 143 S.W.3d 747, 752 (Mo.App.2004). “In weighing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court will accept as true all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary.
"The State may prove its case by presenting either direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the defendant to each element of the crime.'" State v. Fraga, 189 S.W.3d 585, 586 (Mo.App. 2006) (quoting State v. Howell, 143 S.W.3d 747, 752 (Mo.App. 2004)). "[C]ircumstantial evidence is given the same weight as direct evidence and the jury is free to make reasonable inferences from the evidence presented."