What is the legal test for establishing that a witness's testimony is inherently improbable?

Appellant contends that the victim's testimony is inherently improbable and, therefore, cannot constitute substantial evidence supporting the guilty verdicts. This is a difficult standard to satisfy. "'"To warrant the rejection of the statements given by a witness who has been believed by the [trier of fact], there must exist either a physical impossibility that they are true, or their falsity must be apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions. [Citations.] Conflicts and even testimony which is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends. [Citation.]" [Citation.]" (People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal.3d 284, 306.) A witness's testimony will be deemed improbable only if it is "'so inherently incredible, so contrary to the teachings of basic human experience, so completely at odds with ordinary common sense, that no reasonable person would believe it beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citation.]" (People v.

Page 8

Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 996.) "While an appellate court can overturn a judgment when it concludes the evidence supporting it was 'inherently improbable,' such a finding is so rare as to be almost nonexistent." (People v. Ennis (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 721, 728.)