Sufficient evidence to support the convictionPeople

Thesaurus

						iLaw Dictionary			USAConstitution Law
						California			Law Students-USL
						Law Dictionary			BankruptcyCode.US
						Appeal -Standard of Review			United States Law.US

US Codes

State Codes

Evidence

Law Students-USL

Federal Civil Procedure-Main Page

Medical Dictionaries

A Legal and Business Portal
A Legal and Business Portal

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
Appeal -Standard of Review
(People_v_Hawkins)

A - Aa - Ab - Ac - B- C- D - E- F - G - H -I- J - L - M- N - K to Z

Criminal Law Appeal-Standard of Review-Sufficieciency of evidence to support the conviction-
(People v. Hawkins)

If the independent evidence in Jones sufficed to support the corpus delicti for oral copulation, then the corpus delicti for the opening-or-maintaining offense was amply supported here. People v Hawkins F043865 Dec 02 2004-Corpus Delicti

II. Sufficient evidence to support the conviction

Defendant argues that even if the corpus delicti rule was satisfied, there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. This contention is unconvincing.

“When an appellant asserts there is insufficient evidence to support the judgment, our review is circumscribed. [Citation.] We review the whole record most favorably to the judgment to determine whether there is substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the requisite finding under the governing standard of proof.” (In re Jerry M. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 289, 298.)

As defendant points out, evidence of a single instance of drug use or sales at the house, without circumstances supporting a reasonable inference that the house was used for the prohibited purposes continuously or repetitively, does not suffice to sustain a conviction of the opening-or-maintaining offense. (People v. Shoals (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 475, 491-492; People v. Horn, supra, 187 Cal.App.2d at pp. 73-74; People v. Holland, supra, 158 Cal.App.2d at pp. 588-589.) Defendant argues that the evidence showed no more than use on a single occasion. As noted in the discussion above, however, there was evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer ongoing use. Even if the quantum of that evidence standing alone was too small to support the conviction, when combined with defendant’s statements to the deputies, it was sufficient. The assertions that the drugs were “for everyone in the house to use,” that defendant’s son was “selling out of the residence” with defendant’s knowledge, and that she knew her son was receiving numerous visitors and telephone calls even though he did not live there, sufficiently showed a purpose of ongoing use or sale to support the verdict when added to the other evidence described earlier.

People v Hawkins F043865 Dec 02 2004-Corpus Delicti

Dec 02 2004

F043865
[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Hawkins 12/1/04 CA5

A - Aa - Ab - Ac - B- C- D - E- F - G - H -I- J - L - M- N - K to Z
California: Authoritative-Law Dictionary: Table of Contents
Glossaries Directory Table of Contents
Thesaurus Directory
Dictionaries Directory Table of Contents