Oftentimes direct eyewitness or documentary evidence of an event will not be available. When that occurs, a party may seek to prove a fact by proving collateral facts which supposedly have a connection, near or remote, with a fact in controversy. These connected facts permit the trier of fact to conclude that the fact in controversy follows as a natural or very probable conclusion from the facts actually proved. This evidence, called circumstantial evidence, permits an inference of fact from other facts proved.1 In other words, circumstantial evidence is testimony not based on actual personal knowledge or observation of the facts in controversy, but of other facts from which deductions are drawn, showing indirectly the facts sought to be proved.1.1 Circumstantial evidence is admissible in both civil and criminal cases.2
Circumstantial evidence carries the same weight as direct evidence3 and is sufficient of itself to establish criminal guilt4 or civil liability,5 as well as any individual element of a criminal charge6 or civil claim.7 Circumstantial evidence can be used to authenticate a document.7.1
In 1972, the Delaware Supreme Court changed the common-law rule, theretofore followed in Delaware, that if evidence against an accused in a criminal case is entirely circumstantial, the evidence must be consistent with a finding of guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable finding. The Court approved a jury instruction that circumstantial evidence is no different from testimonial or direct evidence, that both forms of evidence are to be weighed against the possibility of inaccuracy or ambiguous inferences8 and that the test is whether the evidence, viewed in its entirety and including all reasonable inferences, is sufficient to enable the trier of fact to find that the charges have been established beyond a reasonable doubt.9
Similarly, on the civil side, the rule used to be that circumstantial evidence had to be such that negligence or proximate causation was the only reasonable inference possible.10.1 In 1980, the Delaware Supreme Court recognized that, at least in simple negligence cases, the change to the common law rule in criminal cases, described above, by necessary implication changed the rule in civil cases as well.10.2 In product defect cases, however, the circumstantial evidence must tend to negate other reasonable causes of the injury sustained or there must be expert opinion that the product was defective.10.3
In civil and criminal cases, with circumstantial evidence, as with direct evidence, the finder of fact must rely on his or her own experience with people and events in determining whether the facts in evidence point to the accuracy of the conclusion sought to be derived.10 That conclusion should be reasonably, naturally and probably inferred from the existence of the other facts proved.11
Any inference sought to be raised by circumstantial evidence, like an inference from any other type of evidence, is subject to rebuttal. 12
1. Ciociola v. Delaware Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 172 A.2d 252, 257 (Del. 1961); State v. Stiegler, 30 Del. 236, 7 Boyce 236, 105 A. 667, 671 (Del. 1918); Oberly v. Howard Hughes Medical Inst., 472 A.2d 366, 384 (Del. Ch. 1984); In re Langmeier, 466 A.2d 386, 402 (Del. Ch. 1983); State v. Matushefske, 215 A.2d 443, 448 (Del. Super. 1965); State v. Winsett, 205 A.2d 510, 521 (Del. Super. 1964); State v. Cole, 114 A. 201, 204 (Del. Gen. Sess. 1921); Johnston v. Director General of Railroads, 109 A. 581, 584 (Del. Super. 1920), aff’d, 114 A. 759 (Del. 1921); Fahey v. Niles, 108 A. 135, 136 (Del. Super. 1918); Cecil v. Mundy, 92 A. 850, 852 (Del. Super. 1914); State v. Roberts, 78 A. 305, 310 (Del. O. & T. 1910), aff’d, 79 A. 396 (Del. 1911); State v. Tyre, 67 A. 199, 205 (Del. Gen. Sess. 1907); State v. Collins, 62 A. 224, 226 (Del. O. & T. 1903); State v. Fisher, 41 A. 208, 212 (Del. O. & T. 1898); State v. Evans, 41 A. 136, 138 (Del. O. & T. 1893); State v. Blackburn, 75 A. 536, 541 (Del. O. & T. 1892); State v. Miller, 32 A. 137, 141 (Del. O. & T. 1892); State v. Goldsborough, 1 Houst. Cr. Cas. 302, 314 (Del. 0. & T. 1869).
1.1. NVF Corp. v. Thompson, C.A. No. 09A-01-013-JOH, slip op. at 14, Herlihy, J. (Del. Super. Mar. 25, 2010).
2. State v. Matushefske, 215 A.2d 443, 448 (Del. Super. 1965); State v. Winsett, 205 A.2d 510, 520-21 (Del. Super. 1964); State v. Samuels, 67 A. 164, 166 (Del. O. & T. 1904); State v. Roberts, 78 A. 305, 310 (Del. O. & T. 1910), aff’d, 79 A. 396 (Del. 1911); State v. Blackburn, 75 A. 536, 541 (Del. O. & T. 1892); State v. Tyre, 67 A. 199, 205 (Del. Gen. Sess. 1907); State v. Evans, 41 A. 136, 138 (Del. O. & T. 1893); State v. Miller, 32 A. 137, 141 (Del. O. & T. 1892); State v. Goldsborough, 1 Houst. Cr. Cas. 302, 314 (Del. O. & T. 1869); State v. Baynard, 1 Del. Cas. 662, 665 (Del. O. & T. 1794).
3. Skinner v. State, 575 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Del. 1990); Shipley v. State, 570 A.2d 1159, 1170 (Del. 1990); Williams v. State, 539 A.2d 164, 167 (Del.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 969 (1988); Van Arsdall v. State, 486 A.2d 1, 10 (Del. 1984), vacated on other grounds, 475 U.S. 673 (1986); In re Langmeier, 466 A.2d 386, 402 (Del. Ch. 1983); State v. Dinneen, 76 A. 623, 625 (Del. O. & T. 1896).
4. Vincent v. State, 996 A.2d 777, 780 (Del. 2010) (criminal mischief); Harris v. State, 965 A.2d 691, 694 (Del. 2009) (drug possession with intent to deliver); Seward v. State, 723 A.2d 365, 369 (Del. 1999) (drug delivery); Davis v. State, 706 A.2d 523, 525 (Del. 1998) (same);Williams v. State, 539 A.2d 164, 168 (Del. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 969 (1988) (burglary); Potts v. State, 458 A.2d 1165, 1167-68 (Del. 1983) (drug possession); Holden v. State, 305 A.2d 320 (Del. 1973) (same); Conyers v. State, 396 A.2d 157, 159 (Del. 1978) (murder); Moore v. State, 268 A.2d 875, 876 (Del. 1970) (burglary); State v. Wallace, 214 A.2d 886, 890 (Del. Super. 1963), aff’d, 211 A.2d 845 (Del. 1965); State v. Winsett, 205 A.2d 510, 520 (Del. Super. 1964) (conspiracy); State v. Pritchett, 173 A.2d 886, 889 (Del. Super. 1961) (drunk driving); State v. Cole, 114 A. 201, 204 (Del. Gen. Sess. 1921) (conspiracy); State v. Tilghman, 63 A. 772 (Del. O. & T. 1906) (murder); State v. Crocker, 2 Del. Cas. 150, 154 (Del. Quart. Sess. 1801); State v. Loftland, 2 Del. Cas. 133, 139 (Del. Quart. Sess. 1800).
5. See, e.g., Ciociola v. Delaware Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 172 A.2d 252, 257 (Del. 1961) (negligence); Nutt v. A.C. & S. Co., 517 A.2d 690, 696 (Del. Super. 1986) (civil conspiracy); Wavrinevich v. Wavrinevich, 170 A.2d 709 (Del. Super. 1961)(adultery); Adkins v. Adkins, 190 A. 740, 743 (Del. Super. 1937) (adultery); Nye Odorless Incinerator Corp. v. Felton, 162 A. 504, 511 (Del. Super. 1932)(civil fraud); Johnston v. Director General of Railroads, 109 A. 581, 584 (Del. Super. 1920), aff’d, 114 A. 759 (Del. 1921) (negligence); Cecil v. Mundy, 92 A. 850, 852 (Del. Super. 1914) (negligence); Ranch v. Lynch, 89 A. 134, 136 (Del. Super. 1913) (civil fraud).
6. Lecates v. State, 987 A.2d 413, 426 (Del. 2009) (constructive possession of a firearm); McKinley v. State, 945 A.2d 1158, 1165 (Del. 2008) (state of mind may be proved with circumstantial evidence); Davis v. State, 453 A.2d 802, 803 (Del. 1982); Ross v. State, 232 A.2d 97, 98 (Del. 1967). See also Perry v. State, 303 A.2d 658, 659 (Del. 1973) (intent to sell a dangerous drug); Ross v. State, 232 A.2d 97, 98 (Del. 1967) (knowing possession of a weapon); State v. White, 97 A. 231, 233 (Del. Gen. Sess. 1916) (element of larceny); State v. Thomas, 97 A. 869, 871 (Del. Gen. Seas. 1916) (intent to commit forgery); State v. Jackson, 82 A. 824, 825 (Del. Gen. Sess. 1912) (intent to commit murder); State v. Stockley, 82 A. 1078, 1079 (Del. Gen. Sess. 1911) (intent to commit murder); State v. Anderson, 74 A. 1097, 1098-99 (Del. Gen. Sess. 1910) (knowledge and intent to commit forgery); State v. Moore, 74 A. 1112, 1114 (Del. Gen. Sess. 1910) (intent to commit murder); State v. McCallister, 76 A. 226, 229 (Del. Gen. Sess. 1909) (malice); State v. Palmer, 53 A. 359, 360 (Del. Gen. Sess. 1902).
7. See e.g., Cerchio v. Mullins, 138 A. 277, 279 (Del. Super. 1922) (agency); Geylin v. De Villeroi, 7 Del. 311, 2 Houst. 311, 316 (Del. Super. 1860) (same).
7.1. Johnson v. State, 878 A.2d 422, 429 (Del. 2005).
8. Henry v. State, 298 A.2d 327, 330 (Del. 1972). See also Ciccaglione v. State, 474 A.2d 126, 131 (Del. 1984).
9. Williams v. State, 539 A.2d 164, 167 (Del. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 969 (1988); Holden v. State, 305 A.2d 320, 322 (Del. 1973); Potts v. State, 458 A.2d 1165, 1167 (Del. 1983); Webb v. State, No. 229, 1985, slip op. at 2, McNeilly, 1. (Del. Sept. 12, 1986) (ORDER), disposition reported at 515 A.2d 398 (Del. 1986) (TABLE); State v. Matushefske, 215 A.2d 443, 448 (Del. Super. 1965); State v. Winsett, 205 A.2d 510, 521 (Del. Super. 1964); State v. Tyre, 67 A. 199, 205 (Del. Gen. Sess. 1907).
10. Howard v. State, 303 A.2d 653, 657 (Del. 1973); Henry v. State, 298 A.2d 327, 330 (Del. 1972); Oberly v. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 472 A.2d 366, 384 (Del. Ch. 1984).
10.1. Suburban Propane Gas Corp. v. Papen, 245 A.2d 795, 798 (Del. 1968).
10.2. Kuyper v. Gulf Oil Corp., 410 A.2d 164, 165 n.1 (Del. 1980).
10.3. Reybold Group, Inc. v. Chemprobe Technologies, Inc., 721 A.2d 1267, 1270 (Del. 1998).
11. Johnston v. Director General of Railroads, 109 A. 581, 584 (Del. Super. 1920), aff’d, 114 A. 759 (Del. 1921); Cecil v. Mundy, 92 A. 850, 852 (Del. Super. 1914).
12. State v. Dinneen, 76 A. 623, 625 (Del. O. & T. 1896).
© 2010 David L. Finger