What is the legal test for a claim of insufficient evidence in a sexual assault case?

"Our review of any claim of insufficiency of the evidence is limited. 'In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] Reversal on this ground is unwarranted unless it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction]." [Citation.]' " (People v. Veale (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 40, 45.) "Given this court's limited role on appeal, defendant bears an enormous burden in claiming there is insufficient evidence to sustain his molestation convictions." (Id. at p. 46.) "A reversal

Page 21

for insufficient evidence 'is unwarranted unless it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support" ' the jury's verdict." (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.)

To prove oral copulation by threat, the prosecution must establish: (1) the act was "accomplished against the victim's will by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person"; and (2) there was "a reasonable probability that the perpetrator will execute the threat." (Former 288a, subd. (c)(3), now 287, subd. (c)(3).) " 'Threatening to retaliate' means a threat to kidnap or falsely imprison, or inflict extreme pain, serious bodily injury, or death." (Former 288a, subd. (l), now 287, subd. (l).) "The circumstances at the time [the threat to retaliate was made], and the reasonableness of the victim's conduct in response, are not examined." (People v. Towers (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1281 (Towers).)