The People v. Hagan CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends he should not have been convicted of grand theft because there is insufficient evidence he “intended to steal, and did steal” from Buck.

When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, we apply the familiar substantial evidence rule. We review the whole record in a light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence, i.e., evidence that is credible and of solid value, from which a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offense. (In re Ryan D. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 854, 859.) We must accept logical inferences that the factfinder might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence, and we will not set aside a judgment for insufficiency of the evidence, unless it clearly appears that on no hypothesis whatsoever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the verdict. (See People v. Cuellar (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 833, 838.)

3 Section 484 defines theft generally, and the relevant portion of section 484, subdivision (a) provides, “Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who…