What is sufficient to sustain a conviction for assault?

The uncorroborated testimony of a single witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable. (People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal.3d 284, 296.) The testimony in this case is neither. Here, the jury necessarily found Natali and Camacho credible, and well-established precedent requires us to defer to that finding. (See People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 1030 ["It is well settled that, under the prevailing standard of review for a sufficiency claim, we defer to the trier of fact's evaluation of credibility"].) Reversal of defendant's convictions because of conflicts in the witnesses' testimony is therefore unwarranted.

2. Express malice