State v. Espelin

Mr. Justice Anderson:

I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion holding the evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilty.

In the case of State v. Wallette, ante, p. 15, 75 Pac. (2d) 799, we said: “Where a criminal prosecution is dependent upon circumstantial evidence, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the criminatory circumstances point so clearly to defendant’s guilt as to be inconsistent with any other rational hypothesis. (State v. Ebel, 92 Mont. 413, 15 Pac. (2d) 233; State v. Hood, 89 Mont. 432, 433, 298 Pac. 354; State v. Woods, 54 Mont. 193, 169, Pac. 39; State v.…