What is the legal test for assessing the sufficiency of evidence in a sexual assault case?

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we "consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment and presume the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence in support of the judgment. The test is whether substantial evidence supports the decision, not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.]" (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 432.) Our sole function is to determine if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime present beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.) "Reversal on [sufficiency of the evidence] ground[s] is unwarranted unless it appears 'that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction].'" (Ibid.)

Substantial evidence in this context means "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." (People v. Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 331.) "In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to

Page 12

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.]" (Ibid.) We resolve "all conflicts in [the] evidence and questions of credibility in favor of the verdict, and indulge every reasonable inference the jury could draw from the evidence." (People v. Autry (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 351, 358.) "'[T]he appellate court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' [Citation.] This standard applies whether direct or circumstantial evidence is involved." (People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 139.)