Cordero-Artigas v. State (Second District Court of Appeals, Dec. 9th, 2011).

There was only circumstantial evidence of defendant's involvement in the operation of a marijuana grow house.  This including his fingerprints on two pieces of paper found at the house containing instructions for fertilizing marijuana.  The Court found that this was insufficient to support defendant's convictions for manufacture of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia.  The State did not introduce any evidence which conflicted with defendant's explanation that the papers were on top of an air conditioner box he helped deliver to the house and that he slipped them in the box without reading them because he thought they might be warranty documents.

In general to support a conviction, it is not sufficient that the facts just create a strong probability of guilt. They must be inconsistent with innocence. Therefore, a motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted in a circumstantial evidence case if the State fails to present evidence from which the jury can exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.  Thus, if the State does not offer evidence which is inconsistent with the defendant's hypothesis, the State's evidence would be as a matter of law insufficient to warrant a conviction.