The People v. Saelee CA5

DISCUSSION

I. Sufficient Evidence Supports the Verdict

Defendant claims a lack of substantial evidence to support his conviction of being a felon in possession of ammunition. “When appeal of a criminal conviction is based on insufficient evidence, the standard of review is 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.’” (People v. Rushing (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 618, 621 (Rushing), quoting Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319.) Substantial evidence is defined as evidence that is “‘reasonable, credible, and of solid value.’” (People v. Elliott (2005) 37 Cal.4th 453, 466.) A reviewing court must accept all logical inferences the jury might have drawn from circumstantial evidence. (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 396.) “‘“Where the circumstances in evidence … reasonably justify an inference of guilt, and the court so found, the fact that an inference of innocence might also … reasonably have been [drawn from] such circumstances does not present a question of law reviewable by an appellate court.”’” (People v. Nieto (1966)…