Wright v. West

Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsHabeas CorpusSufficiency of the EvidenceDue Processfederal habeasJackson v. Virginiadue processsufficiency of evidence

Facts

Someone burglarized Angelo Cardova's Virginia home and stole about $3,500 worth of property between December 13 and December 26, 1978. On January 10, 1979, police lawfully searched West's home and found more than 15 stolen items there, including electronics, clothing, decorations, and household goods. At trial, West denied committing the theft and claimed he had bought many of the items from various people, especially Ronnie Elkins, but his testimony was vague, internally inconsistent, and left several major items unexplained. The jury was instructed on Virginia's permissive inference that exclusive possession of recently stolen property, if unexplained or falsely explained, permits an inference that the possessor is the thief, while also being told that the State still had to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue

Whether the Fourth Circuit correctly applied Jackson v. Virginia in holding that the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support West's state-court grand larceny conviction on federal habeas review. More specifically, the question was whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found West guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rule

Under Jackson v. Virginia, a conviction satisfies due process if, after viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying that standard, a reviewing court must consider all the evidence, need not require the prosecution to rule out every hypothesis except guilt, and must presume that the trier of fact resolved conflicting inferences in favor of the prosecution.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Toledo, Ohio, a state jury convicted Devin Cole of residential theft after police found eight distinctive items from a break-in in his apartment 12 days later. At trial, Devin testified that he bought the items from "different guys" at weekend swap meets, but he could not identify any seller, gave conflicting accounts of where the purchases occurred, and offered no explanation for two large items.

On federal habeas, Devin argues that the evidence was constitutionally insufficient because no eyewitness or forensic evidence linked him to the theft. How should the federal court rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is the Jackson standard as applied in federal habeas review: the court asks whether, viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The majority emphasized that the prosecution need not rule out every hypothesis except guilt, and that recent possession plus contradictory, vague, and incomplete explanations can suffice. The absence of eyewitnesses or forensic proof does not itself make the evidence constitutionally insufficient.