A.B.G. v. StateA.B.G. v. State
Lead Opinion
We originally accepted jurisdiction to review A.B.G. v. State,
Accordingly, this Court is without jurisdiction to hear this cause and the case is hereby dismissed.
It is so ordered.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I would accept jurisdiction in this case based on conflict with State v. Law,
In the present case, the state relied entirely upon circumstantial evidence to prove intent. Accordingly, the majority looks to Law, supra, the supreme court’s recent enumeration of the “special standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence” where conviction is based entirely upon circumstantial evidence. The standard established in Law, however, requires as a procedural threshold that the state “introduce competent evidence which is inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of events.’’ While setting out this legal principle in its opinion, the majority fails to heed it.
I agree with Judge Kahn that the State failed to exclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, the reasonable hypothesis of A.B.G.’s innocence raised by the defense. See, e.g., C.P.P. v. State,
SHAW and KOGAN, JJ., concur.