SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1CR05-051 11/21/06
There are two types of evidence from which you may find the facts of this case: direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is the testimony of someone who asserts actual knowledge of a fact, such as an eye witness. Circumstantial evidence is proof of a chain of facts and circumstances tending to prove or disprove an issue in the case.
For example, if a witness were to testify that he or she had seen cows in a field, that would be an example of direct evidence that there were cows in the field. On the other hand, if a witness were to testify that he or she had seen fresh cow tracks in the field, that would be an example of circumstantial evidence that there had been cows in the field.
The law does not require the State to prove guilt by direct evidence alone, that is, by testimony from someone who actually saw (Def)_______________ commit the alleged act or offense. One or more of the essential elements, or all of the essential elements, may be established by reasonable inference from other facts which are established by direct testimony. Circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient proof.
The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to direct or circumstantial evidence. Nor is a greater degree of certainty required of circumstantial evidence than of direct evidence. You should consider all the evidence in the case and give it such weight as you think it deserves.