What is the test for credibility in a sexual assault case?

Defendant's argument is unpersuasive because we cannot resolve issues of credibility. (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 632.) The jury was free to "accept or

Page 18

reject all or any part of [the victim's] testimony unless the testimony [was] inherently incredible." (People v. Dilworth (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 27, 34.) There is no reason for concluding the victim's testimony is inherently incredible. A jury could reasonably conclude that kisses on the forehead are more believable than a kiss on the chest. Thus, the jury could reject the alleged candy incident, but find the forehead kisses occurred. The victim's reputation for lying does not equate to all of her testimony being false. The victim's inconsistent statements and lack of details were explained by the lapse of time between the incidents and trial. The victim explained that years had passed and she had difficulty recalling the details of the different incidents. The victim's explanation is reasonable given the two-year period between the incidents and trial. Since the victim's testimony is not inherently improbable, we conclude it constitutes substantial evidence.