reasoning from an established circumstantial fact through a series of inferences to the ultimate conclusion of guilt.” State v. Vargas, 21 A.3d 347, 353 (R.I. 2011) (quoting State v. Caruolo, 524 A.2d 575, 581-82 (R.I. 1987)). However, inferences cannot be drawn from another inference that rests upon an ambiguous fact that is capable of supporting other reasonable inferences clearly inconsistent with guilt. See State v. Cipriano, 21 A.3d 408, 425 (2011); see also Waldman v. Shipyard Marina, Inc., 102 R.I. 366, 374, 230 A.2d 841, 845 (1967) (“an inference resting on an inference drawn from established facts must be rejected as being without probative force where the facts from which it is drawn are susceptible of another reasonable inference”); In re Derek, 448 A.2d 765, 768 (R.I. 1982) (<HOLDING>). The defendant argues to this Court that a
holding that in reviewing sufficiency of evidence in juvenile adjudication the appellate court considers the evidence most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom and affirms if those inferences constitute substantial evidence recognizing that an owners opinion testimony on the value of his property cannot be based on naked conjecture or solely speculative factors holding that congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence when it had before it evidence including some memory surveys holding that reasonable inferences cannot be drawn from conjecture or speculative evidence holding that there was no evidence or inferences to be drawn from the evidence to support the damage award