Randolph Wilson, Appellant v. the State of Texas, Appellee

Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reversed the conviction for theft, holding that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient because it did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of the appellant's innocence, and remanded with instructions to enter an acquittal. The opinion also clarified that the proper standard of appellate review in circumstantial evidence cases is the exclusion‑of‑reasonable‑hypotheses test, not the general “light most favorable to the prosecution” standard. A dissent argued that the majority improperly substituted its judgment for that of the intermediate appellate court.