Error and/or relief
Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of a sexual nature against children. There was insufficient evidence to support one of the counts. Six other counts are reversed because of a prejudicial error on their verdict forms for those counts (listing the descriptions of the crimes but incorrectly identifying the section number, thus possibly confusing the jury because there was another count that correctly bore that section number and the jury was instructed on its elements, which it may have incorrectly relied on for its verdicts in the erroneous verdict forms).
First Holding:
A conviction must be supported by substantial evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value such that a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Authority:
People v. Medina (2009) 46 Cal.4th 913, 919
Second Holding:
We review the trial court’s denial of the new trial motion for abuse of discretion. The California Constitution provides that no judgment shall be set aside, or new trial granted, in any cause, on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or of the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for any error as to any matter of pleading, or for any error as to any matter of procedure, unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The effect of this provision is to eliminate any presumption of injury from error and to require that the appellate court examine the evidence to determine whether the error did in fact prejudice the defendant.
Authority:
Cal. Const., art. VI, sec. 13
People v. Delgado (1993) 5 Cal.4th 312, 328
People v. Jacobs (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1346
Third Holding:
Under the applicable prejudice standard, an erroneous verdict form is harmless if it is unmistakably clear under the totality of the circumstances that the jury intended to convict the defendant of the crime charged.
Authority:
People v. Camacho (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1272
Fourth Holding:
A prosecutor’s statement of facts not in evidence constitutes misconduct.
Authority:
People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208, 212