California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Millwee, 18 Cal.4th 96, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418, 954 P.2d 990 (Cal. 1998):
Contrary to what defendant suggests, the judgment is not subject to reversal on appeal simply because the prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and because conflicting inferences on matters bearing on guilt could be drawn at trial. Although the jury is required to acquit a criminal defendant if it finds the evidence susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which favors guilt and the other innocence, it is the jury, not the appellate court, which must be convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Bean (1988) 46 Cal.3d 919, 932-933, 251 Cal.Rptr. 467, 760 P.2d 996.) We review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment and affirm the convictions as long as a rational trier of fact could have found guilt based on the evidence
Page 440
1. Robbery/burglary.
Ample evidence was presented that defendant entered the house intending to steal his parents' property and that he fatally shot his mother in order to accomplish this goal. (See 211, 459; People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 59-62, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468.) It was undisputed that, shortly before the crime, defendant became frustrated and angry when his father refused to take him to work and to replace the cane and shoes that had been destroyed in the campfire the night before. Defendant's own vulgar account of the exchange suggested that he resented his father's control, and that this particular dispute was the proverbial "last straw" in a long and troubled relationship.
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.