Which type of evidence requires the trier of fact to draw inferences?

Circumstantial evidence is the type of evidence that requires the trier of fact to draw inferences from the information presented. This evidence does not directly link to a fact but instead provides a basis for interpreting the situation or drawing conclusions based on the surrounding circumstances. For example, if a person is seen near the scene of a crime around the time it occurred and possesses a tool commonly used in the crime, these factors are not direct evidence of guilt but can lead a jury to infer that the person might have been involved.

In contrast, direct evidence provides clear and straightforward proof of a fact, such as eyewitness testimony that directly confirms the occurrence of an event. Technical evidence usually refers to specialized information or materials obtained through scientific methods, which may support conclusions but does not inherently require inference. Admissible evidence pertains to whether evidence can be presented in court but does not specifically address the inferential nature of the evidence itself. Therefore, circumstantial evidence is specifically characterized by the need for inference and interpretation from the facts and context surrounding a case.