What is the standard of review in a sexual assault case where the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from The People v. Olmos, B211685, Super. Ct. No. GA067272 (Cal. App. 2010):

"In assessing a claim of insufficiency of evidence, the reviewing court's task is to review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] The federal standard of review is to the same effect: Under principles of federal due process, review for sufficiency of evidence entails not the determination whether the reviewing court itself believes the evidence at trial establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but, instead, whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] The standard of review is the same in cases in which the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence. [Citation.] ' "Although it is the duty of the jury 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 jury, not the appellate court[,] which must be convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. ' "If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings,... that... does not warrant a reversal of the judgment." ' [Citations.]" ' [Citation.]" (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11.)

Other Questions


What is the standard of review in a sexual assault case where the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review in a sexual assault case where the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review in a sexual assault case where the prosecution relied mainly on circumstantial evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review in a sexual assault case where the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review in a sexual assault case where the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review in a sexual assault case where the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review in a sexual assault case where the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review in a sexual assault case where the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review in a sexual assault case where the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review for a defendant in a sexual assault case where the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.