What is the test for determining the credibility of testimony by the jury in a sexual assault case?

More pointedly, during direct examination by his counsel, the defendant purported to identify each key on the key ring. This invoked the jury's duty to determine the veracity of the testimony. "[I]t is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends." (People v. Huston (1943) 21 Cal.2d 690, 693, 134 P.2d 758, overruled on another ground, People v. Burton (1961) 55 Cal.2d 328, 352, 11 Cal.Rptr. 65, 359 P.2d 433.) Having testified concerning the use of each key, the defendant cannot now complain the jury tested the truth of his testimony by using the available evidence.

The situation here is analogous to a Louisiana rape case. (State v. Gaston (1982) 412 So.2d 574.) There the victim identified the defendant by a [41 Cal.App.4th 781] skin discoloration on his shoulder, visible at the time of the offense because he was wearing a tank top. The tank top was introduced into evidence. In addition, the jury was shown the discoloration on the defendant's naked shoulder. After retiring to deliberate, the jury asked and was allowed to see the defendant dressed in the tank top. It intended to determine whether the discoloration was visible when the defendant wore the tank top, a specific fact not presented to the jury during the presentation of the case. On appeal, the defendant asserted that allowing the jury, during deliberations, to view the defendant

Page 745