State v. Mitchell

SCHWAB, C. J.,

specially concurring.

I agree with the result, but disagree with the majority’s reliance on State v. Dennis:

“* * * [circumstantial evidence for conviction] must not merely coincide with, render probable, and be consistent with, the guilt of the accused, but it must be inconsistent with any reasonable theory of his innocence and incapable of explanation upon any other rational hypothesis than that of guilt * * State v. Dennis, 177 Or 73, 77, 159 P2d 838, 161 P2d 670 (1945).

I believe the majority is confusing two separate *618questions: (1) in a circumstantial evidence criminal case…