California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from The People v. Letner, S015384, Super. Ct. No. 26592 (Cal. 2010):
18. To the extent defendants contend on appeal that the trial court erred by denying their motions for acquittal made at the conclusion of the prosecution's case-in-chief, this contention is without merit. As we shall explain, based upon our review solely of the evidence presented in the prosecution's case-in-chief, that evidence is sufficient to support the jury's verdicts on all of the charges and allegations. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the motions for acquittal. (See People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1286 ["On a motion for judgment of acquittal under section 1118.1, the trial court applies the same standard as an appellate court reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence."].)
19. In capital cases, we apply this same standard in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting both the convictions and the special circumstance findings. (People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238, 271.)
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.