State v. Morrill
In State v. Morrill, 193 Conn. 602, 610, 478 A.2d 994 (1984) the Court explained how "the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean that the proof must be beyond a possible doubt, and a possible hypothesis or supposition of innocence is far different from a reasonable supposition. . . . Emphasis needs to be placed on the distinction between the word 'reasonable' and the word 'possible.' . . . Proof of guilt must exclude every reasonable supposition of innocence . . . . A mere 'possible hypothesis' of innocence will not suffice." Id.