California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Ambito, D067341 (Cal. App. 2016):
1118.1 motions to our assessment of Ambito's claim of error as to his motion to dismiss. When determining whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's denial of a section 1118.1 motion, the standard of review is essentially the same as used when evaluating whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction on the charged offenses. (People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1215.) Under that standard, we " 'do not determine the facts ourselves. Rather, 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." [Citations.] We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. [Citation.] [] . . . "[I]f the circumstances reasonably justify the jury's findings, the judgment may not be reversed simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding." [Citation.] We do not reweigh evidence or reevaluate a witness's credibility.' " (Ibid.)
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.