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

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, " '[w]e examine the record to determine "whether it shows evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value from which a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." ' " (People v. Crabtree (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1321-1322 (Crabtree).) Further, we presume " ' "the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence." ' " (Ibid.) This standard applies whether direct or circumstantial evidence is involved. Although it is the fact finder's duty to acquit a defendant if it finds the circumstantial evidence susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which suggests guilt the other innocence, it is the trial court, not the appellate court, that must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. " ' "If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment." ' " (Ibid.) In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we are mindful that "it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to

Page 8

determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts on which that determination depends." (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.)

A lewd act upon a child is "any lewd or lascivious act . . . upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of [the defendant] or the child." ( 288, subd. (a).) The action may be " 'any touching' of an underage child . . . with the intent to sexually arouse either the defendant or the child." (People v. Martinez (1995) 11 Cal.4th 434, 442.) The crime may be based on conduct having " 'the outward appearance of innocence.' " (Id. at p. 444.) The controlling factor is the defendant's intent when touching the minor, not the type of touching.