What is the standard for determining whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Phillips, A133778 (Cal. App. 2013):

"whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." ' [Citations.] We apply an identical standard under the California Constitution. [Citation.] 'In determining whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellate court "must view the evidence in a light most favorable to respondent and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence." ' [Citation.] The same standard also applies in cases in which the prosecution relies primarily on circumstantial evidence. [Citation.]" (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1175, italics omitted.) "[A] reviewing court resolves neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts. [Citation.] Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the exclusive province of the trier of fact. [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 1181.)

Other Questions


What is the standard for determining whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard for determining whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Is there any case law in which a jury has found that any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
Can a reasonable trier of fact have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.