Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to warrant a conviction, however heinous the crime may be, provided it convinces the jury of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.11

In a case of purely circumstantial evidence it is necessary not only that the circumstances relied upon 6 Hughes' Cr. Law, Sec. 3089;

People vs. Palmer, 109 N. Y., 110. 7 Carlton vs. People, 150 111., 186;

McCullough vs. State, 48 Ind., 109; Hoch vs. People, 219 111., 265, 284. Carroll vs. People, 136 111., 463;

People vs. O'Neil, 109 N. Y., 251. Wistrand vs. People, 213 111., 72, 79; Gore vs. People, 162

111., 265; Gray vs. Com., 101

Pa. St., 380; Campbell vs.

People, 159 111., 24; 1 Greenl.

Ev., Sec. 217; McCullough vs. State, 48 Ind., 109; State vs. German, 54 Mo., 526 (evidence not sufficient).

10 People vs. Plath, 100 N. Y., 590;

Williams vs. People, 101 Ill., 385; State vs. Harvey, 131 Mo., 339; Jones vs. State, 51 Ohio St., 331; Underbill's Cr. Ev., Sec. 23.

1 State vs. Avery, 113 Mo., 475;

Carlton vs. People, 150 Ill., 187; Hughes' Cr. Law, Sec. 3204.

for a conviction shall all concur to show that the defendant committed the crime, but that they are all inconsistent with any other rational conclusion.12

In a case where the evidence is entirely circumstantial, the guilt of the accused must be so thoroughly established as to exclude every other reasonable theory.13

The circumstances taken together should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, leading on the whole to a satisfactory conclusion, and producing in effect a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused and no one else committed the offense charged.14

The test is the sufficiency of the evidence to satisfy the understanding and conscience of the jury.15