What is the standard of review applied to a sexual assault claim?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Harris, B288611 (Cal. App. 2019):

" 'To determine whether sufficient evidence supports a jury verdict, a reviewing court reviews the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citation.]" (People v. Smith (2014) 60 Cal.4th 603, 617.) " ' "On appeal, we . . . must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [Citation.] [] Although we must

Page 25

ensure the evidence is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, nonetheless it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts on which that determination depends. [Citation.] Thus, if the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, we must accord due deference to the trier of fact and not substitute our evaluation of a witness's credibility for that of the fact finder. [Citations.]" [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. White (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 305, 315, fn. 13.)

This standard of review applies to claims involving both direct and 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.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 87.)

Other Questions


What is the standard of review applied in a sexual assault case where the prosecution relies primarily on circumstantial evidence and to special circumstance allegations? (California, United States of America)
When reviewing a claim of a violation of the constitutional right to confront, does the court apply the de novo standard of review? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review for a sexual assault claim involving both direct and circumstantial evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the test applied by the courts to review a sexual assault conviction under the Sexual Offences against Children Act? (California, United States of America)
How is the standard of review applied in a motion for sexual assault? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review applied in a sexual assault case? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review applied in a sexual assault case? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review applied by the Court of Appeal in the context of sexual assault cases? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review applied in a sexual assault case? (California, United States of America)
What is the de novo standard of review applied in cases involving sexual assault cases? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.