People v. Henning CA4/1

DISCUSSION

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

A. Standard of Review

In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we examine the whole record in the

light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial

evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt. (People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 496.) We must presume

in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier of fact could reasonably

deduce from the evidence. (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.) Unless it is

clearly shown that "on no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to

support the verdict," we will not reverse. (People v. Hicks (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 423,

429.)

"The standard of review is the same in cases in which the People rely mainly on

circumstantial evidence. [Citation.] 'Although it is the duty of the jury to acquit a

defendant if it finds that circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two interpretations, one

of which suggests guilt and the other innocence [citations], it is the jury, not the appellate

court which must be convinced of the defendant's guilt…