People v. Arispe CA3

DISCUSSION

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence of Misdemeanor Child Endangerment

Defendant first contends that insufficient evidence supports her conviction for misdemeanor child endangerment, arguing that the evidence she stored a loaded syringe with 0.02 milliliters of fluid containing methamphetamine did not demonstrate criminal endangerment or criminal negligence. We conclude sufficient evidence supports her conviction. “When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the verdict, drawing all inferences that reasonably support it, and determine whether it contains

2 Officer Snyder was not asked about whether methamphetamine ingestion by a 14, 15, or 16 year old could result in serious injury.

3 substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a trier of fact could rationally find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] In making this determination, we do not reweigh the evidence, resolve conflicts in the evidence, draw inferences contrary to the verdict, or reevaluate the credibility of witnesses.…