State v. Sisk, 343 S.W.3d 60

Defendant Sisk was convicted of aggravated burglary, theft of property valued at $10,000 or more but less than $60,000, and theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000; the court classified him as a career offender with an aggregate 27-year sentence,” to be served as 15, 15, and 12 years respectively.”
DNA evidence from a cigarette butt found inside the victims’ home matched Defendant’s DNA, supporting liability for the burglary and theft conviction.
A cigarette butt, beer bottle, and other items were found after the burglarized home was discovered; the beer bottle had no DNA, but the cigarette butt did, with a calculated extremely low probability that someone else shared the profile.
The victims were out of the country when the burglary occurred, delaying identification and recovery of stolen items totaling about $40,000 plus a $26,000 BMW; Subhakul identified the BMW and the victim’s items, with the cigarette butt linking to Defendant.
Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the theft of $1,000–$10,000 as double jeopardy and found insufficient evidence for the aggravated burglary and theft convictions, prompting the State to seek review; this Court reinstates the two convictions under the standards set forth in Dorantes and remands for resentencing.
Detective testimony and the Defendant’s flight from arrest were considered together with DNA evidence to support the convictions under a circumstantial-evidence framework described in Dorantes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated burglary	Sisk contends evidence is insufficient.	State argues evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.	Sufficient; convictions reinstated.
Sufficiency of evidence for theft of $10,000–$60,000	Sisk contends evidence does not prove theft value threshold.	State argues evidence proves theft valued at $10k–$60k beyond reasonable doubt.	Sufficient; convictions reinstated.
Application of Dorantes standard to circumstantial evidence	Sisk argues traditional Crawford framework controls for circumstantial cases.	State argues Dorantes standard applies, treating circumstantial evidence as probative as direct evidence.	Dorantes standard applied; circumstantial evidence deemed sufficient.

Dorantes v. State, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (adopts federal standard; circumstantial evidence probative as direct evidence)
Lewter, 313 S.W.3d 749 (Tenn. 2010) (reaffirmed evaluating circumstantial evidence; multiple evidentiary strands support guilt)
Crawford, 470 S.W.2d 610 (Tenn. 1971) (earlier standard requiring web of guilt for circumstantial cases)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1980) (established standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence; not requiring exclusion of every hypothesis)
State v. James, 315 S.W.3d 440 (Tenn. 2010) (noted inconsistency with Crawford and federal standard; cited in Dorantes discussion)