Section 1.19 Direct Evidence Versus Circumstantial Evidence: Identical Standard of Review

• Library: Evidence 2017

A. (§1.19) Direct Evidence Versus Circumstantial Evidence: Identical Standard of Review

Direct evidence is evidence that, if believed, establishes the fact or element it is offered to prove without the necessity for inference. For example, a witness’s testimony that he saw the defendant shoot the victim is direct evidence that the defendant shot the victim.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that tends to establish an element or fact of consequence only by way of inferential reasoning. From a witness’s testimony that she heard a gunshot then observed the defendant running out of the alley where the victim lay shot, a trier of fact might infer that the defendant shot the victim. Virtually all cases rely on at least some circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence of mental state is rarely available, and the intent element of a claim...