What is the standard of review in determining whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction or support the denial of a section 1118.1 motion?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Tabron, A144079 (Cal. App. 2020):

In determining whether the evidence was sufficient either to sustain a conviction or to support the denial of a section 1118.1 motion, the standard of review is essentially the same. (People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1215.) " '[W]e 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.] [] The same standard of review applies to cases in which the prosecution relies primarily on circumstantial evidence and to special circumstance allegations. [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.)

Other Questions


What is the standard of review in determining whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction or support the denial of a section 1118.1 motion? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review used in determining whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction or support a denial of a section 1118.1 motion? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review in determining whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction, or to support the denial of a section 1118.1 motion? (California, United States of America)
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction of a convicted rapist, does the court have to review the evidence in the context of section 1118.1? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review in the California Court of Appeal and what is the test for determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a motion to dismiss the motion? (California, United States of America)
When a criminal defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, what is the standard of review required by the California Court of Appeal to determine whether the evidence is sufficient? (California, United States of America)
What is the applicable standard of review to determine whether sufficient evidence supports the findings of a juvenile court? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction under section 1118.1? (California, United States of America)
When the evidence is sufficient to sustain some but not all alleged damages, when the evidence does not support all of the damages, will the court reduce the judgment to the amount supported by the evidence? (California, United States of America)
When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction, what is the standard of review? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.