California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from The People v. Rodriguez, D056481, No. RIF125410 (Cal. App. 2011):
When a criminal defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we "examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidenceevidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid valuesuch that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.) We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. (Ibid.) "Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the exclusive province of the trier of fact. [Citation.] Moreover, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable, testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a conviction." (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.)
We apply the same deferential standard to determine the sufficiency of the gang enhancement evidence (People v. Vy (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1224; Killebrew, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 660) as well as convictions based largely on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Ferraez (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 925, 930.) The test is not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether substantial evidence, of
Page 39
credible and solid value, supports the jury's conclusion. (People v. Arcega (1982) 32 Cal.3d 504, 518.)
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.