Arlene Dugmore v. Mary Lattimore

facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. §

2254(d).

Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, viewing all “the evidence in

the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have

found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v.

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). In making this sufficiency determination, a

state court of appeal “must respect the province of the jury to determine the

credibility of witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts, and draw reasonable

inferences from proven facts by assuming that the jury resolved all conflicts in a

manner that supports the verdict.” Walters v. Maass, 45 F.3d 1355, 1358 (9th Cir.

2 1995). Direct evidence of guilt is not required; “circumstantial evidence can form

a sufficient basis for conviction.” United States v. Yoshida, 303 F.3d 1145, 1151

(9th Cir. 2002).

Here, the California Court of Appeal reasonably found, viewing all the

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there was sufficient

evidence for a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the charged

crimes of murder and…