People v. Watts CA3

DISCUSSION

I There Was Substantial Evidence Defendant Was The Stabber Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support his attempted murder conviction because the evidence failed to establish he was the stabber. He argues the evidence was insufficient because “[n]o prosecution witness identified [defendant as the stabber] both before and at trial” and “[t]hree of the four prosecution witnesses changed their position on identification . . . .” Defendant’s argument misapprehends our standard of review. It is not an appellate court’s function to reweigh the evidence. “We resolve neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts; we look for substantial evidence.” (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 403.) “Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the exclusive province of the trier of fact.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.) Here, there was substantial evidence defendant was the stabber. The victim identified defendant as the stabber two days after the attack. Jonathan C. identified defendant in court as the victim’s assailant. And Karen C. identified defendant in court as the stabber. This evidence, individually or…