California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. D.S. (In re D.S.), C081440 (Cal. App. 2017):
the evidence, we must determine "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." [Citation.]' [Citation.] ' "[O]ur role on appeal is a limited one." [Citation.] Under the substantial evidence rule, we must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact that the trier of fact could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. [Citation.] Thus, if the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant reversal of the judgment.' " (In re V.V. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1020, 1026.) Reversal is not warranted unless it appears that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the adjudication. (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.)
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.