sufficiency of evidence claim in California

2026A. Legal Principles and Standard of Review “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one.” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 738 (Smith).) “The proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] On appeal, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from

2026(Nieto Benitez, at p. 107.) B Standard of Review “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one. ‘ “The proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of 8 fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’ ” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733 , 738–739.) This court “evaluate[s] the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid

2023Applicable Law “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one.” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 738 .) We “ ‘review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that 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. Story (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1282, 1296 ; see Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319 [“[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing t

2022Again, we are not convinced. 23 “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one.” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Ca1.4th 733, 738.) We “evaluate the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence — evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value — from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.]” (People v. Ramos (2016) 244 Ca1.App.4th 99, 104; Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 318-319 .) If more than one inference

2026A. Legal Principles and Standard of Review “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one.” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 738 (Smith).) “The proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] On appeal, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from

2026A. Legal Principles and Standard of Review “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one.” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 738 (Smith).) “The proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] On appeal, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from

2011In addressing a sufficiency-of-evidence challenge, “the court must review the whole 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 (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 431 , 606 P.2d 738 ]; see also Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319-320 [ 61 L.Ed.2d 560 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 ].) “In making this determination, we do not reweigh the evidence

2011In addressing a sufficiency-of-evidence challenge, “the court must review the whole 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 (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 431 , 606 P.2d 738 ]; see also Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319-320 [ 61 L.Ed.2d 560 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 ].) “In making this determination, we do not reweigh the evidence

2023A finding of fact must be an inference drawn from evidence rather than . . . a mere speculation as to probabilities without evidence.” ’ ” (People v. Davis (2013) 57 Cal.4th 353, 360 ; People v. Sanford (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 84 , 91–92.) Of course, it is the exclusive province of the trier of fact to resolve conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony, and “ ‘unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable, [the] testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a conviction.’ ” (People v. Ramirez (2022) 13 Cal.5th 997 , 1118, quoting People v. Young (2005) 34 Ca

2020Code, § 459 [burglary requires entry into dwelling or other specified structure with intent to commit larceny or any felony]; People v. Davis (2013) 57 Cal.4th 353, 357 [“‘In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence challenge, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt’”].) As the trial court found in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial, the following evidence supported reasonable inferences that appellant was present during Wilkerson’s k

2026Legal Standards “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one. ‘ “The proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] On appeal, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.” ’ ” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733 , 738–739.) “The recor

2026Legal Standards “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one. ‘ “The proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] On appeal, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.” ’ ” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733 , 738–739.) “The recor

2025“In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, the reviewing court's role is a limited one.” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 738 .) “‘The proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] On appeal, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.’” (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th

2024“In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one.” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 738 .) “‘The proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’” (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206 .) “If there is substantial evidence which supports the disputed finding, the judgment will be upheld even though substantial evidence to the contrary also exists and the trier of fact might have reached a

2025With such a brief, Chapman argues there is insufficient evidence to support the true finding, an argument that has three sub-parts, that there was insufficient evidence that: (1) he displayed the meat claws in a menacing manner; (2) the meat claws constitute a dangerous weapon; and (3) he “displayed the meat claws in a menacing manner during the commission of the crime.” The Law of Substantial Evidence As the Supreme Court described in its most recent decision, just over a month ago: “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one. ‘ “The proper test

2025Our Supreme Court described the standard we apply to Easter’s claim: “ ‘In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one. “ ‘The proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] On appeal, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.’ ” ’ (Peopl

2025Standard of Review When evaluating a sufficiency of evidence claim, “ ‘we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial 9. evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Cravens (2012) 53 Cal.4th 500, 507 .) “The test for evaluating a sufficiency of evidence claim is deferential.” (People v. Flores (2020) 9 Cal.5th 371 , 411.) “We must presume in support of the judgment the existence of ev

2025A. Standard of Review “The test for evaluating a sufficiency of evidence claim is deferential.” (People v. Flores (2020) 9 Cal.5th 371 , 411.) In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “ ‘we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Cravens (2012) 53 Cal.4th 500, 507 (Cravens).) “We 14. must presume in support of the judgment the exist

2024“Attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill and the commission of a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing. [Citations.]” (People v. Lee (2003) 31 Cal.4th 613, 623 .) Because there is rarely direct evidence of a defendant’s intent, “[s]uch intent must usually be derived from all the circumstances of the attempt, including the defendant’s actions. [Citation.]” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 741 .) “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence challenge, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational

2023(People v. Gonzalez (2012) 54 Cal.4th 643, 663 .) “ ‘A senseless, random, but premeditated, killing supports a verdict of first degree murder.’ ” (People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 519 .) “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence challenge, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Gonzalez, at p. 653.) Contrary to defendant’s arguments, there was evidence of all three Anderson factors in this case, thus supporting the jury’s implici

2023(People v. Gonzalez (2012) 54 Cal.4th 643, 663 .) “ ‘A senseless, random, but premeditated, killing supports a verdict of first degree murder.’ ” (People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 519 .) “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence challenge, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Gonzalez, at p. 653.) Contrary to defendant’s arguments, there was evidence of all three Anderson factors in this case, thus supporting the jury’s implici

2022(People v. Gonzalez (2012) 54 Cal.4th 643, 663 .) “ ‘A senseless, random, but premeditated, killing supports a verdict of first degree murder.’ ” (People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 519 .) “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence challenge, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Gonzalez, at p. 653.) Contrary to defendant’s arguments, there was evidence of all three Anderson factors in this case, thus supporting the jury’s implici

2024Standard of Review re: Substantial Evidence When evaluating a sufficiency of evidence claim, “ ‘we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Cravens (2012) 53 Cal.4th 500, 507 .) “The test for evaluating a sufficiency of evidence claim is deferential.” (People v. Flores (2020) 9 Cal.5th 371 , 411.) “We must presume in support of the judgme

2021A. Standard of Review “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one.” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 738 .) We “evaluate the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable 9 doubt.” (People v. Ramos (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 99, 104 ; Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319 [“[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the

2024(People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181 (Young).) “A sufficiency of evidence challenge to a special circumstance finding is 14 reviewed under the same test applied to a conviction.” (People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 201 (Stevens).) In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether retrial is permissible for purposes of double jeopardy, we “must consider all of the evidence presented at trial, including evidence that should not have been admitted.” (People v. Story (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1282, 1296 .) The jury convicted Ramirez of first degree murder and found true the

2023A finding of fact must be an inference drawn from evidence rather than . . . a mere speculation as to probabilities without evidence.” ’ ” (People v. Davis (2013) 57 Cal.4th 353, 360 ; People v. Sanford (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 84 , 91–92.) Of course, it is the exclusive province of the trier of fact to resolve conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony, and “ ‘unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable, [the] testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a conviction.’ ” (People v. Ramirez (2022) 13 Cal.5th 997 , 1118, quoting People v. Young (2005) 34 Ca

2023(People v. Sanchez (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 325, 330 .) Therefore, “[a] reversal for insufficient evidence ‘is unwarranted unless it appears “that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support” ’ the jury’s verdict.” (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357 .) In People v. Majors (1998) 18 Cal.4th 385, 408 , the California Supreme Court stated the jurors need not unanimously agree on a theory of guilt: “ ‘It 21 is settled that as long as each juror is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty of murder as that offense is defined by statut

2022(People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 738-739 (Smith).) We “‘review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that 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. Story (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1282, 1296 ; see Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319 [“[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have f

2023Applicable Law “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one.” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 738 .) We “ ‘review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that 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. Story (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1282, 1296 ; see Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319 [“[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewing t

2021Standard of Review “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one.” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 738 .) We “‘review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that 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. Story (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1282, 1296 ; see Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319 [“[T]he relevant question is whether, after viewin

2025We evaluate whether substantial evidence, defined as reasonable and credible evidence of solid value, has been disclosed, permitting the trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Vargas (2020) 9 Cal.5th 793, 820 .) “ ‘The test for evaluating a sufficiency of evidence claim is deferential: “whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” [Citation.] We must “view the evidence in the 4 The trial court dismissed two of Guerra’s three prior strikes as to counts 4 and 17 only. 8 light most favorable to the

2024Standard of Review “The test for evaluating a sufficiency of evidence claim is deferential: ‘whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citation.] We must ‘view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People’ and ‘presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.’ [Citation.] We must also ‘accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Flores (2020) 9 Cal.5th 371 , 411.) We affirm

2024(People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181 (Young).) “A sufficiency of evidence challenge to a special circumstance finding is 14 reviewed under the same test applied to a conviction.” (People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 201 (Stevens).) In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether retrial is permissible for purposes of double jeopardy, we “must consider all of the evidence presented at trial, including evidence that should not have been admitted.” (People v. Story (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1282, 1296 .) The jury convicted Ramirez of first degree murder and found true the

2023“A sufficiency of evidence challenge to a special circumstance finding is reviewed under the same test applied to a conviction. [Citation.] Reviewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, the record must contain reasonable and credible evidence of solid value, ‘such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Stevens (2007) 41 Cal.4th 182, 201 .) “The ‘ “lying-in-wait special circumstance requires ‘ “ ‘an intentional murder, committed under circumstances which include (1) a concealment of purpose, (2) a substantial period of wa

2025A. Standard of Review “ ‘In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one.’ ” (People v. Alvarez (2025) 18 Cal.5th 387 , 470 (Alvarez); People v. Flores (2020) 9 Cal.5th 371 , 411 [“The test for evaluating a sufficiency of evidence claim is deferential[.]”].) “ ‘ “[W]e review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it contains substantial evidence — that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value — from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reaso

2024Standard of Review “The test for evaluating a sufficiency of evidence claim is deferential: ‘whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citation.] We must ‘view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People’ and ‘presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.’ [Citation.] We must also ‘accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Flores (2020) 9 Cal.5th 371 , 411.) We affirm

2022A criminal street gang under this statutory scheme is “any ‘ongoing organization, association, or group of three or more persons’ that shares a common name or common identifying symbol; that has as one of its ‘primary activities’ the commission of certain enumerated offenses; and ‘whose members individually or collectively’ have committed or attempted to commit certain predicate offenses.” (Prunty, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 67, quoting § 186.22, subd. (f).) “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one. ‘ “The proper test for determining a claim of in

2022A criminal street gang under this statutory scheme is “any ‘ongoing organization, association, or group of three or more persons’ that shares a common name or common identifying symbol; that has as one of its ‘primary activities’ the commission of certain enumerated offenses; and ‘whose members individually or collectively’ have committed or attempted to commit certain predicate offenses.” (Prunty, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 67, quoting § 186.22, subd. (f).) “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one. ‘ “The proper test for determining a claim of in

2025A. Standard of Review “ ‘In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one.’ ” (People v. Alvarez (2025) 18 Cal.5th 387 , 470 (Alvarez); People v. Flores (2020) 9 Cal.5th 371 , 411 [“The test for evaluating a sufficiency of evidence claim is deferential[.]”].) “ ‘ “[W]e review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it contains substantial evidence — that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value — from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reaso

2023Sufficiency of Evidence of Great Bodily Injury Next, defendant challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting the jury’s true finding on the great bodily injury enhancement allegation under sections 667.61, subdivisions (j)(1), (d), and 12022.7. 19 “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, the reviewing court’s role is a limited one. “‘The proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] On appeal, we must view the evidenc

2025We must also “accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence.” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Baker (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1044 , 1102–1103 (Baker).) Therefore, we do not reverse unless we conclude “ ‘ “ ‘that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support’ ” the jury’s verdict.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Penunuri (2018) 5 Cal.5th 126, 142 .) “An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.” (§ 240.) It is well established “that assault is a general intent cri

2013(People v Chance (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1164, 1167 .) O’Sullivan’s appeal goes to the question of the quantum of evidence necessary to satisfy the intent element of assault with a firearm.

2024“Attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill and the commission of a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing. [Citations.]” (People v. Lee (2003) 31 Cal.4th 613, 623 .) Because there is rarely direct evidence of a defendant’s intent, “[s]uch intent must usually be derived from all the circumstances of the attempt, including the defendant’s actions. [Citation.]” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 741 .) “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence challenge, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational

2023Anderson was simply intended to guide an appellate court’s assessment whether the evidence supports an inference that the killing occurred as the result of preexisting reflection rather than unconsidered or rash impulse.” (People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 247 .) “In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence challenge, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Gonzalez (2012) 54 Cal.4th 643, 653 .) “We presume in support of the