Error and/or relief
The evidence is insufficient to support the conviction for sexual penetration by force upon a child.
First Holding:
To evaluate the defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment, and then determine whether it contains evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
We must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends.
But we cannot, however, venture beyond the evidence presented at trial, and may consider only those inferences that are reasonably supported by the record. A reasonable inference may not be based on suspicion alone, or on imagination, speculation, supposition, surmise, conjecture, or guess work. It must logically flow from other facts established in the action, and it cannot be based entirely on the suspicions of the officers involved in the case and the conjecture of the prosecution.
Authority:
People v. Ware (2022) 14 Cal.5th 151, 167–168
Second Holding:
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. Because the record contains no evidence that could support a reasonable inference that the defendant sexually penetrated the victim with a foreign object, insufficient evidence supports a verdict of guilt on that count. Double jeopardy bars retrial on that count.
Authority:
People v. Story (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1282, 1296
Lockhart v. Nelson (1988) 488 U.S. 33, 39
Third Holding:
When a trial or appellate court concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction of a greater offense, it can reduce the conviction to a lesser included offense that is supported by the evidence.
Authority:
PEN 1181(6)
PEN 1260
People v. Goolsby (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1225
People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 677