Sufficiency of, in gen. (see also particular crimes)
Category > Sufficiency of, in gen. (see also particular crimes)
Defendant’s rape convictions were reversed where the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction on the factual theory the prosecution elected to argue.Evidence showed that defendant raped the victim in the house, but not in the vacant apartment. The prosecution argued only that he raped the victim in the apartment. When the prosecution has elected to proceed on one factual theory, and when that election has obviated the need for a unanimity instruction, the court is bound by the prosecution’s election. Here, because the prosecution’s elected theory was not supported by substantial evidence, defendant’s forcible rape and rape in concert convictions were reversed.id: 25238
Defendant was improperly convicted of five counts of robbery and another five counts along with an allegation based on the same five acts.Defendant was improperly convicted of five counts of residential robbery under Penal Code section 211 and another five counts of residential robbery along with an allegation that he acted in concert and entered an inhabited dwelling under section 213, subd.(a)(1)(A). The first five counts were necessarily included in the second five counts.id: 25522
Evidence did not support the arson of a structure conviction under section 451, subd.(b) where defendant set fire to his motor home. Defendant’s motor home was not a “structure” as that term is defined in the arson statutes. Therefore, the evidence that defendant set fire to a motor home that caused a second inhabited motor home to catch fire was insufficient as a matter of law to support the conviction of arson of an inhabited structure. Moreover, because arson of property (Penal Code section 451, subd.(d)) is a lesser related rather than a lesser included offense, the court could not reduce the conviction to that offense. Instead, the conviction was reversed with directions to dismiss.id: 23462
The trial court erred in denying defendant’s acquittal motion made after the prosecution rested even though sufficient evidence was provided in the rebuttal case. Defendant was charged with three counts of criminal threats and three counts of dissuading a witness. A witness testified as to one incident in the prosecution’s case-in-chief, and the victim testified in the prosecution’s rebuttal case after the trial court denied the defendant’s motion for acquittal under Penal Code section 1118.1. The trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion for acquittal because the evidence before the court at the time the motion was made was insufficient to support certain counts even though the prosecution’s evidence in rebuttal supplied the missing evidence and thus would support the convictions.id: 22501
There was no evidence to support the finding that defendant personally wielded a stake in the attack on the victim.The evidence was insufficient to support the finding that defendant used a deadly weapon in the commission of various crimes. While he admitted raping, kicking and other acts against the victim, he denied personally using the stake or stick and attributed those acts to the others involved in the incident. There was no evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant personally wielded the stake in the attack.id: 22554
An appellate court finding insufficient evidence to support a greater offense may not substitute convictions for two lesser included offenses shown by the evidence.An appellate court that finds insufficient evidence to support a greater offense may modify the judgment of conviction to reflect a conviction for a lesser included offense. However, an
appellate court finding insufficient evident to support one greater offense may not substitute convictions for two lesser included offenses shown by the evidence at trial.id: 19468
Updated 2/4/2024The pages of writing tablet were authenticated by their content and location in defendant’s house, and were admitted for the nonhearsay purpose of establishing a relationship between the defendants.The trial court did not err by admitting pages of the writing tablet containing drawings and a list of names. The writings were properly authenticated given their location in defendant’s residence, their content (referring to people murdered in the crime), and witness testimony that the drawings depicted the codefendant. The evidence was not hearsay since it was admitted for th nonhearsay purpose of identity -establishing a relationship between the defendants.id: 27286
Evidence supported the robbery conviction even though the eyewitnesses were not 100 percent certain and neither saw the robber’s entire face.Defendant argued there was insufficient evidence to support his robbery conviction even though one witness was only 80 percent sure that defendant was the robber and another had a “little bit” of doubt about his curbside identification. Given the closeness of the witnesses’ descriptions to defendant’s appearance, his proximity to the crime scene, his possession of a “do rag” similar to the mask worn by the robber, and his false alibi, the identifications were not inherently improbable.id: 22514
Contradictions and inconsistencies in witness testimony did not render the evidence “inherently improbable.” Defendant was convicted of several counts of child molestation involving two victims. He argued the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions because the testimony of the victims and his wife was “inherently improbable.” However, that standard requires that the challenged evidence be “unbelievable per se.” Here, defendant’s claim was based on a series of comparisons, contradictions and inferences which amounted to an attack on witness credibility. This did not meet the “inherently improbable” standard.id: 21889
A witness’s testimony is inherently incredible only if a statement is physically impossible or its falsity apparent.Defendant argued the testimony of Kelly, a homeless alcoholic, was inherently unreliable and therefore insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction, special circumstance finding and death sentence. However, to reject testimony as inherently incredible there must exist either a physical impossibility that a statement is true or its falsity must be apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions.id: 21214
Throwing a dog into oncoming traffic was sufficient to support defendant's cruelty to an animal conviction.Following a minor traffic accident, the defendant reached into the other driver's car, grabbed her dog and threw it into a busy roadway. After reaching the safety of the other side of the roadway, the dog panicked and ran back into traffic attempting to reach it's owner; it was fatally struck by a car. Defendant was convicted of felony cruelty to an animal and sentenced to prison for the aggravated term of three years. Defendant argued that the dog's death was not caused by him but rather by the intervening cause of the dog's own confusion in running back into traffic after reaching safety. The court held that a panic-stricken reaction by a victim - here, the dog - does not break the chain of causation. No reasonable jury would find that the dog's reaction was not foreseeable. "Substantial evidence established that defendant was the cause of the cruel death of [the dog]." id: 17453
Prior out-of-court identifications denied at trial were sufficiently reliable to support the conviction.Appellant argued substantial evidence was lacking to sustain his conviction because there was an absence of other evidence tending to connect him with the Martinez burglary and the extrajudicial identifications made by three witnesses were not confirmed at trial or at the preliminary hearing. However, the out of court statements of each of the witnesses was admissible as competent evidence and could be considered for the truth of the statements themselves. For each of the youth's out-of-court statements there were two statements admitted into evidence, made by the other two youths which were substantively identical and clearly connected appellant to the crime.id: 12973
Conviction based on partially false testimony did not require reversal where the remaining evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Appellant was convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault. He argued reversal was necessary because conviction was based on false evidence adduced at trial. It was determined after trial that the victim lied about her relationship with her father, who sat next to her while she testified as a support person under Penal Code section 868.5. The false evidence was substantial material evidence going to the credibility, her motive to fabricate the charges to explain her all-night absence, and to impeach appellant's credibility. However, excising the false testimony, the evidence showed appellant and the codefendant acted in concert, that they kidnapped the victim in moving her from one location to another and that the victim did not participate in the sex acts because she consented. The use of false testimony was therefore harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.id: 12971
Evidence supported convictions of three counts of sodomy despite the imprecise question.Prosecutor asked the sodomy victim about how many times did he try that? The victim answered Three. The evidence supported three convictions notwithstanding the lack of precision in the question where the victim gave a definite answer.id: 12972
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245