Error and/or relief
We find there is insufficient evidence to support one of the convictions for sexual penetration. We find no other errors. Thus, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand for resentencing.
First Holding:
When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains 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.
Authority:
People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 27
Second Holding:
In deciding the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court resolves neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts. Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the exclusive province of the trier of fact.
Authority:
People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181
Third Holding:
The reviewing court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably deduce from the evidence.
Authority:
People v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1208
Fourth Holding:
Evidence of a defendant’s state of mind is almost inevitably circumstantial, but circumstantial evidence is as sufficient as direct evidence to support a conviction.
Authority:
People v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1208