Error and/or relief
There was insufficient evidence to support the conviction of child endangerment where the child was not near the endangering activity (an insecure location where a firearm was stored in the home).
First Holding:
We generally review allegedly improper jury instructions de novo. Resulting error is reviewed under either Chapman, which requires the prosecution to show federal constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, or under the less strenuous standard of Watson, which requires the defendant to demonstrate the reasonable probability of a more favorable result and generally applies to state-law errors. An instructional error involving a single element will be deemed harmless only in unusual circumstances, such as where the element was undisputed, the defense was not prevented from contesting the omitted element, and overwhelming evidence supports the omitted element.
Authority:
People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24
People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836
People v. Merritt (2017) 2 Cal.5th 819, 828
Second Holding:
In evaluating a claim that a conviction lacks sufficient evidence, we review the whole record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying this test, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. Such evidence can include not only circumstantial evidence, but also all reasonable inferences drawn from it. We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence, but we neither reweigh the evidence nor reevaluate the credibility of the witnesses.
Authority:
People v. Wear (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1007, 1019
People v. Soriano (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 278, 286
People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206
Third Holding:
Failing to deny children access to a loaded firearm is sufficient to constitute circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm and death.
Authority:
People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti) (2002) 27 Cal.4th 888, 91