In what circumstances will a jury find guilty of two counts of aggravated robbery?

The cumulative evidence strongly suggests that appellants held an intent to rob the three victims during these two separate criminal incidents. (See, e.g., People v. Daya (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 697, 708-709 [in a circumstantial case, the evidence is viewed cumulatively to determine if a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable

Page 38

doubt].) Appellants' synchronized actions throughout this crime spree would not have been lost on the jury. The jurors were entitled to draw reasonable inferences based on the circumstantial evidence (People v. Livingston, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 1166) and we must presume every inference in support of the judgment the finder of fact could reasonably have made. (People v. D'Arcy, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 293.)