California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Ifopo, B255922 (Cal. App. 2016):
that is reasonable, credible and of solid valuefrom which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] "'[I]f 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.'" [Citation.] "The standard of review is the same in cases in which the People rely mainly on circumstantial evidence. [Citation.] 'Although it is the duty of the [finder of fact] to acquit a defendant if it finds that circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence [citations], it is the [finder of fact], not the appellate court which must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.'"'" (People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1572.)
"'[U]nder the general principles of aiding and abetting, "an aider and abettor [must] act with knowledge of the criminal purpose of the perpetrator and with an intent or purpose either of committing, or of encouraging or facilitating commission of, the offense." [Citation.]' [Citation.] When the offense is a specific intent offense, '"'the accomplice must "share the specific intent of the perpetrator"; this occurs when the accomplice "knows the full extent of the perpetrator's criminal purpose and gives aid or encouragement with the intent or purpose of facilitating the perpetrator's commission of the crime."'"'" (People v. Canizalez (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 832, 851.)
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.