Error and/or relief
Substantial evidence does not support the defendant’s conviction for exhibiting harmful matter to a minor.
First Holding:
The law governing sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges is well established. In reviewing a claim for sufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. We review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses sufficient evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—supporting the decision, and not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
We neither reweigh the evidence nor reevaluate the credibility of witnesses. We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury reasonably could deduce from the evidence. If the circumstances reasonably justify the findings made by the trier of fact, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding. 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.
Authority:
People v. Jennings (2010) 50 Cal.4th 616, 638-639
People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357
Second Holding:
Under section 288.2(c), “harmful matter” is defined in section 313. Section 313(a) states that harmful matter means matter, taken as a whole, which to the average person, applying contemporary statewide standards, appeals to the prurient interest, and is matter which, taken as a whole, depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct and which, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
This definition is virtually identical to the constitutional standard of obscenity set forth in Miller. We conclude the record does not contain evidence from which a jury could reasonably find the video the defendant showed them minor was harmful matter within the meaning of section 288.2(a)(2) and section 313. Therefore, substantial evidence does not support the defendant’s conviction, and we will reverse the judgment and remand for resentencing.
Authority:
Miller v. California (1973) 413 U.S. 15, 24
People v. Dyke (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1383
Third Holding:
Nudity or depictions of sexual intercourse or other sexual activity do not, by themselves, make a movie obscene.
Authority:
People v. Powell (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1291
Fourth Holding:
The defendant may not be retried on this count.
Authority:
United States v. DiFrancesco (1980) 449 U.S. 117, 131