California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Adegbenro, B265513 (Cal. App. 2016):
substantial evidence to support" ' the jury's verdict. [Citation.]" (Ibid.) The standard is the same where the prosecution relies primarily on circumstantial evidence. "We 'must accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence. [Citation.]' [Citation.] 'Although it is the jury's duty to acquit a defendant if it finds the circumstantial evidence susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence, it is the jury, not the appellate court that must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.]' [Citation.] Where the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, a reviewing court's conclusion the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant the judgment's reversal. [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 357-358.)
We review the correctness of an instruction de novo. (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088.)
2. Elements of robbery
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.