What is the standard of review for sufficiency of evidence in a sexual assault case?

The standard of appellate review for sufficiency of evidence was articulated in People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557. When an appellate court seeks to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it "'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.'" (Id. at p. 576.) The court does not limit its review to the evidence favorable to the respondent, but must resolve the issue in light of the whole record. (Id. at p. 577.) "Substantial evidence" is evidence that is "reasonable, credible, and of solid valuesuch that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." (Id. at p. 578.)

Given this court's limited role on appeal, appellant bears an enormous burden in arguing insufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. If the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, we are bound to give due deference to the trier of fact and not retry the case ourselves. (People v. Ochoa, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1206.)

"We review the sufficiency of the evidence to support an enhancement using the same standard we apply to a conviction. [Citation.] Thus, we presume every fact in support of the judgment the trier of fact could have reasonably deduced from the evidence. [Citation.]" (People v. Carrasco (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1058.)

Page 5