People v. Carlisle CA3

DISCUSSION

I The Jury’s Findings That Defendant Committed Assault And Battery Are Supported By Substantial Evidence Defendant contends that no reasonable juror could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was not acting in self-defense when he struck Rolando. The crux of defendant’s argument is that “[Rolando’s] testimony at trial [that he did not have a gun] completely discredited him” because Kielborn’s unbiased testimony established that Rolando actually was carrying a gun. Defendant argues that because Rolando’s testimony is discredited, the inference that must be drawn from the remaining evidence is that defendant was acting in self-defense, in that the only reason Rolando could have had for wanting to put the gun away was he had been planning on using it to harm defendant, and defendant could only have known Rolando had a gun if Rolando had done something prior to the assault to put defendant in fear that it would be used to harm him. Defendant’s attack on Rolando’s credibility is without merit. We “view the [record on appeal] in the light most favorable to the respondent . . . .” (Estate of Isenberg (1944) 63 Cal.App.2d 214, 216.) “[W]e do not resolve conflicts in…