If there is no physical evidence or no eyewitness testimony, how can the state meet it's burden of proof?
In a trial for aggravated sexual assault of a child where there is no DNA evidence, no physical evidence and no eye witness testimony put forth by the prosecution, does the prosecution meet it's burden of proof?
There must be *some* evidence, or else the case wouldn't have come to light, let alone been prosecuted--perhaps a statement from the child, a confession by the alleged assailant; or perhaps "circumstantial" evidence, that shows that the alleeged assailant was the only person who could have been at the scene of the attack; something. If there is some evidence of any kind, then it's down to the jury to evaluate it. While conviction must be by evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt," there is no requirement for particular kinds of evidence. So, for example, say that the alleged assailant confessed the act, but then later tried to retract or recant it. Even if he says he was tricked or pressured into confessing, the jury can weight the confession and the circumstances and decide whether, and how much, they believe it.
So there has to be some evidence, or else there'd be no case; if there is some evidence, the jury, as trier of fact, will decide if its enough. They can convict even in the absence of the evidence described above, and in particular, *can* convict on circumstantial evidence, such as evidence of access and opportunity to commit the crime. "Circumstantial" doesn't mean weak evidence; it just means that it is about the "circumstances" around the crime, rather than being direct evidence of the act.