State v. Peschon

I dissent.

The facts developed follow a time-worn pattern. They closely parallel those shown in the ease of State v. McCarthy, 36 Mont. 226, 92 Pac. 521.

The entire proof offered by the state and received by the court in the case at bar was based upon circumstantial evidence.

When a conviction is sought upon circumstantial evidence, the proof must be such as not only to authorize a belief in the guilt of the accused, but also to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis. State v. Mullins, 55 Mont. 95, at page 99, 173 Pac. 788, at page 789.

Convictions may not be founded upon conjectures, however…