Following a jury conviction, the initial presumption of innocence is removed from the defendant and exchanged for one of guilt, so that on appeal, the defendant had the burden of demonstrating the insufficiency of the evidence. State v. Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). It is the duty of this Court to affirm the conviction unless the evidence adduced at trial was so deficient that no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 317, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253, 259 (Tenn. 1994); Tenn R. App. P. 13(e). In State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tenn. Crim. App.), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 1990), this Court held this rule is applicable to findings of guilt predicated upon direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. We do not reweigh or reevaluate the evidence, nor may we replace our inferences for those drawn by the trier of fact. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978). Furthermore, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54, 75 (Tenn. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 954, 113 S. Ct. 1368, 122 L. Ed. 2d 746 (1993). A jury verdict accredits the testimony of the State's witnesses and resolves all conflicts in favor of the State's theory. State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983).