insufficiency of the evidence claim in California

2022We . . . review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment [citation], drawing all inferences from the evidence which supports the . . . verdict.” (People v. Olguin (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1382 .) Substantial evidence is “evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053-1054 .) We “presume[] in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.” (Ibid.) The same standard applie

2015(See, e.g., People v. Medina (2009) 46 Cal.4th 913 [finding sufficient evidence that the nontarget offenses of murder and attempted murder were a natural and probable consequence of the target offense of simple assault, which defendants aided and abetted]; People v. Olguin, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at p. 1376 [defendant’s punching of victim during gang confrontation foreseeably led to fatal shooting of victim by fellow gang member]; People v. Ayala (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1440, 1450 [fatal shooting was a natural and probable consequence of assault with a deadly weapon].) These cases support the pr

2026(See S.G., supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 672 [“merely conflicting evidence” does not “support an insufficiency of the evidence claim . . . let alone a claim that the evidence . . . compels resolution of Mother’s request in her favor”]; Rayii v. Gatica (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1408 [“The fact that there was substantial evidence in the record to support a contrary finding does not compel the conclusion that there was no substantial evidence to support the judgment”]; In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228 [substantial evidence review does not require reversal merely because “the trial

2021(See R.M. v. T.A. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 760, 780 [“[w]e defer to the trial court’s credibility resolutions and do not reweigh the evidence”].) Nor does merely conflicting evidence support an insufficiency of the evidence claim (see In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228 [substantial evidence review does not require reversal merely because “the trial court might have reached a different result had it believed other evidence”])—let alone a claim that the evidence in the record compels resolution of Mother’s request in her favor.

2021(People v. Watts, supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 113 [in ruling on an insufficiency of the evidence claim in a motion for new trial, the court “ ‘independently examines all evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to prove each required element beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge, who sits, in effect, as a “13th juror” ’ ”].) At the conclusion of its ruling on Stewart’s insufficiency of the evidence claim, the court stated, “I don’t think there was insufficient evidence.” The court was not deferring to the jury’s verdict there, it was expressing its own independent opinion after hearing

2021(People v. Watts, supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 113 [in ruling on an insufficiency of the evidence claim in a motion for new trial, the court “ ‘independently examines all evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to prove each required element beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge, who sits, in effect, as a “13th juror” ’ ”].) At the conclusion of its ruling on Stewart’s insufficiency of the evidence claim, the court stated, “I don’t think there was insufficient evidence.” The court was not deferring to the jury’s verdict there, it was expressing its own independent opinion after hearing

2021(People v. Price (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1275 [“the court’s exercise of its independent judgment is reflected in its statement that the evidence was sufficient.

2021(People v. Price (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1275 [“the court’s exercise of its independent judgment is reflected in its statement that the evidence was sufficient.

2016Analysis As indicated, “‘[o]ur role in considering an insufficiency of the evidence claim is quite limited.’” (In re Alexander L. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 605, 610 .) We review the record “in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Johnson, supra, 26 Cal.3d at p. 578 .) This standard of review applies to convictions on substantive offenses and to true findings o

2014False Imprisonment According to defendant: “There was insufficient evidence to convict [him] of false imprisonment because [he] neither restrained the complaining witness from leaving her apartment nor used violence or menace.” He says swearing, touching or being loud and obnoxious “does not imprisonment make.” He further 7 argues: “There is no evidence that [he] ever blocked or impeded Ms. V.’s ability to leave her bedroom.” In assessing an insufficiency of the evidence claim, a reviewing court must review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whethe

2016(People v. Ortiz (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 480, 484 .) Section 186.22, subdivision (b)(4), provides for enhanced penalties on “[a]ny person who is convicted of a felony . . . committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang . . . .” A “‘criminal street gang’ means any 40 ongoing organization, association, or group of three or more persons . . . having as one of its primary activities the commission of one or more of the criminal acts enumerated in paragraphs (1) to (25), inclusive, or (31) to (33), inclusive, of subdivision (e), having a common nam

2013Code (1995 ed.) foll. § 1200, p. 4 [A "statement that is offered for some purpose other than to prove the fact stated therein is not hearsay. [Citations.]"]; cf. Fed. Rules of Evid., rule 801(c).) The California Supreme Court has established that an expert witness's recitation of out-of-court statements for the nonhearsay purpose of showing the basis of the expert's opinion "does not transform inadmissible matter into 'independent proof' of any fact. [Citations.]"18 (People v. Gardeley, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 619 .) Here, the trial court repeatedly admonished the jury that the out-of-court st

2015(In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 136 [ 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 693 ].) “Our role in considering an insufficiency of the evidence claim is quite limited.

2015(In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 136 [ 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 693 ].) “Our role in considering an insufficiency of the evidence claim is quite limited.

2015We do not reassess the credibility of witnesses [citation], and we review the record in the light most favorable to the findings of the juvenile court [citation], drawing all inferences from the evidence which support the court’s determination.” (In re Nada R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1177 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 493 ].) Our task is to determine “whether evidence of reasonable, credible and solid value exists such that a reasonable trier of fact could find as the trial court did.” (Ibid.) Thus, in order to succeed on appeal, mother must demonstrate that there is no evidence of a sufficiently subs

2015We do not reassess the credibility of witnesses [citation], and we review the record in the light most favorable to the findings of the juvenile court [citation], drawing all inferences from the evidence which support the court’s determination.” (In re Nada R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1177 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 493 ].) Our task is to determine “whether evidence of reasonable, credible and solid value exists such that a reasonable trier of fact could find as the trial court did.” (Ibid.) Thus, in order to succeed on appeal, mother must demonstrate that there is no evidence of a sufficiently subs

2001We do not reassess the credibility of witnesses (In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 329 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 ]), and we review the record in the light most favorable to the findings of the juvenile court (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 315 ]), drawing all inferences from the evidence which support the court’s determination.

2001We do not reassess the credibility of witnesses (In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 329 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 ]), and we review the record in the light most favorable to the findings of the juvenile court (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 315 ]), drawing all inferences from the evidence which support the court’s determination.

2001We do not reassess the credibility of witnesses (In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 329 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 ]), and we review the record in the light most favorable to the findings of the juvenile court (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 315 ]), drawing all inferences from the evidence which support the court’s determination.

2001We do not reassess the credibility of witnesses (In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 329 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 ]), and we review the record in the light most favorable to the findings of the juvenile court (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193 [ 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 315 ]), drawing all inferences from the evidence which support the court’s determination.

2026(See S.G., supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 672 [“merely conflicting evidence” does not “support an insufficiency of the evidence claim . . . let alone a claim that the evidence . . . compels resolution of Mother’s request in her favor”]; Rayii v. Gatica (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1408 [“The fact that there was substantial evidence in the record to support a contrary finding does not compel the conclusion that there was no substantial evidence to support the judgment”]; In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228 [substantial evidence review does not require reversal merely because “the trial

2025Although typically “ ‘[w]hen an appellant fails to raise an issue in the opening brief . . . we . . . decline to address the issue or address it in a summary manner’ ” (Ramirez, supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 500), the prosecutor in this case introduced the same five predicate offenses as to all four defendants to the same jury for the purpose of establishing “the offenses commonly benefited a criminal street gang[.]” (§ 186.22, subd. (e)(1).) Therefore, to consider the insufficiency of the evidence as it relates to all four defendants “entails no unfairness to the” Attorney General who had the oppor

2024(See Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 728, 738 [“Where a party presents only facts and inferences favorable to his or her position, ‘the contention that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence may be deemed waived.’ ”]; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 [“[A]ppellants who challenge the decision of the trial court based upon the absence of substantial evidence to support it ‘ “are required to set forth in their brief all the material evidence on the point and not merely their own evidence.

2024(See Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 728, 738 [“Where a party presents only facts and inferences favorable to his or her position, ‘the contention that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence may be deemed waived.’ ”]; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 [“[A]ppellants who challenge the decision of the trial court based upon the absence of substantial evidence to support it ‘ “are required to set forth in their brief all the material evidence on the point and not merely their own evidence.

2023(See id. at pp. 40-41.) 10 In attempting to discredit A.M., Wilson identifies discrepancies that tend to undermine her trustworthiness but fall short of satisfying the insufficiency-of-the-evidence standard.

2022(D.Z. v. Los Angeles 5 Unified School Dist. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 210, 231 [“an erroneous evidentiary ruling requires reversal only if ‘“there is a reasonable probability that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error”’”].) Altindag’s second argument raises an insufficiency of the evidence challenge.

2021(See R.M. v. T.A. (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 760, 780 [“[w]e defer to the trial court’s credibility resolutions and do not reweigh the evidence”].) Nor does merely conflicting evidence support an insufficiency of the evidence claim (see In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228 [substantial evidence review does not require reversal merely because “the trial court might have reached a different result had it believed other evidence”])—let alone a claim that the evidence in the record compels resolution of Mother’s request in her favor.

2020(See In re Javier G. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 453, 464 [“Even if the parent does not contest the state of the evidence, he or she preserves the right to challenge it as insufficient to support a particular legal conclusion.”].) Stated another way, when the merits of a case are contested, a parent is not required to object to the agency’s failure to carry its burden of proof.

2017(In re V.V. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1020, 1026 [ 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 421 , 252 P.3d 979 ].) Under that standard, we determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the fight most favorable to the prosecution, any reasonable fact finder could have found the elements of the crime to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

2017(In re V.V. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1020, 1026 [ 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 421 , 252 P.3d 979 ].) Under that standard, we determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the fight most favorable to the prosecution, any reasonable fact finder could have found the elements of the crime to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.