Does the Attorney General have sufficient evidence to overturn a conviction for cutting the telephone lines at Reyna's home?

No one saw defendant cut the telephone lines. No one saw him near the location of the telephone lines. No evidence narrowed the time at which the telephone lines were cut to the time when defendant was on the grounds of the apartment complex. Instead, the evidence showed the phones worked before Reyna left her apartment (presumably on September 2) and did not work after the police left on September 3. Although, as the Attorney General argues, defendant had a knife and may have "had the opportunity to sever the telephone lines prior to entering Reyna's apartment," other people on the grounds during the undefined interval also had such an opportunity. At most, the evidence creates suspicion that defendant might have cut the telephone lines, but evidence that merely raises a strong suspicion of guilt is insufficient to support a conviction. (People v. Thompson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 303, 324.) Suspicion is not evidence; it merely raises a possibility, which is an insufficient basis for a factual inference. (Ibid.) The conviction in count 1 must be reversed for insufficiency of evidence.