◆ SpookStack

ra toshow that the defendant's wife . a the stolen check. In reaching its decision, the court reasoned as follows: Although it is apparent that someone endorsed Mr. Moore's signature on the back of the treasury check, the evidence was not sufficient for a fair jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Henderson was the endorser. The evidence, because it was circumstantial required that the jury draw an inference that because Ms. Henderson used the defendant's car to cash the check, and because Ms. Henderson did cash the check, the defendant must have signed the check. This simply does not follow. It is unreasonable to infer Mr. Henderson's guilt based upon the actions of his wife. Yet, it is apparent from the evidence that there was little else upon which to base a conviction. . . . Although circumstantial evidence is testimony to the surrounding facts and circumstances of the point at issue, they must at some point connect, to allow the trier of fact to draw the inference that the fact asserted is true. Id. at 1031 (internal citation omitted). The court then http://vis.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1636p.htm Page 24 of 29 5/10/2005