California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from The People v. Levine, Ct. No. F415531, No. B217691 (Cal. App. 2010):
To convict a defendant of first degree premeditated murder, the prosecution must establish "beyond a reasonable doubt[] that [the defendant] acted with the specific intent to kill, and with premeditation and deliberation. (Alcala v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1205, 1223.) Appellant does not dispute that the evidence is sufficient to establish that he intended to kill his grandmother. He contends that the evidence is insufficient to establish premeditation and deliberation.
" 'When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence-that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value-from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citation.]... [A] reviewing court 'presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' [Citation.] 'This standard applies whether direct or circumstantial evidence is involved.' [Citation.]" (People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 701.)
Page 11
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.