In a sexual assault case, how have the courts interpreted the test in determining whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial?

As in reviewing sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction, even though an appellate court might believe that circumstantial evidence might be reasonably reconciled with a defendant's innocence, this alone does not warrant interference with the determination of the trier of fact. (People v. Towler, supra, 31 Cal.3d 105, 118, 181 Cal.Rptr. 391, 641 P.2d 1253.) Whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial,

Page 384

If the jury did not find the test results to be 0.10 percent or more beyond a reasonable doubt, then the instruction by its terms would have no application. It is unlikely that any prejudice would result. The record does not include any questions by the jury indicating confusion. (Compare People v. Milham, supra, 159 Cal.App.3d at pp. 505-506, 205 Cal.Rptr. 688.) We find no prejudice.