Is there any prejudicial error regarding the jury's instructions in a sexual assault case?

Defendant also appears to argue that the instruction requiring the jury to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses was not followed because he asserts the victim's testimony was thoroughly inconsistent and recanted by her original statements to her father, the forensic interviewer, and the medical examiner. However, at trial it was the exclusive province of the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which that determination depended. (People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 996.) Here, by virtue of its verdicts, the jury obviously determined the victim's testimony was credible.

Defendant further questions the court's purported failure to issue a final response to the jury's question of whether they were to follow the judge's instructions in filling out the verdict forms or do something different. The judge responded appropriately by telling the jury it "must follow my instructions." Thus, defendant has failed to identify any prejudicial error regarding the instructions to the jury, the jury's adherence to those instructions, or the court's response to the jury's question. Under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

Page 11

The judgment is affirmed.