§ 24-14-6 [Circumstantial Evidence Sufficiency for Conviction]

When a case is built on circumstantial evidence, meaning there are no direct witnesses or confessions, the evidence has to do more than just point toward guilt. It has to rule out every other reasonable explanation for what happened.

For example, if someone is found near a crime scene with mud on their shoes, that might be consistent with guilt, but it does not rule out other explanations. To convict someone using only circumstantial evidence, the facts must leave no reasonable alternative explanation other than that the person committed the crime.

This is a high bar for prosecutors to meet. If a jury can think of another reasonable explanation for the evidence, one that does not involve the defendant being guilty, then the circumstantial evidence is not enough on its own to support a conviction.