People v. Morales CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Morales contends the judgment should be reversed because there was insufficient evidence that Doe was 15 years old when he touched her breast. We disagree. To be convicted of violating section 288, subdivision (c)(1), prosecutors must prove that the victim was 14 or 15 years old when the lewd or lascivious act occurred. When evaluating Morales’s challenge to the jury’s finding that prosecutors proved that fact, our review is limited to determining whether substantial evidence—“evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value”—supports the judgment. (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357 (Zamudio).) We view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the prosecution[,] and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence.” (Ibid.) “ ‘Conflicts and even testimony [that] is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the . . . jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination

3 depends.’ ” (Ibid.) Reversal “ ‘is unwarranted unless it appears “that upon no…