Ennis

People v. Ennis

Bad Law
118 Cal. Rptr. 3d 270·190 Cal. App. 4th 721·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 2027
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 1, 2010No. G041481California6,067 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bedsworth, J.

William Cook Ennis II was convicted of various crimes involving sexual molestation of his daughter, then age eight, and his stepdaughter, then age 14. He was sentenced to prison for an aggregate term of 64 years.

*725 Ennis’s primary contention on appeal is that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. He acknowledges there was testimony which, if believed, was sufficient to establish he did commit the crimes of which he was convicted, but argues that testimony was inherently improbable—by which he means full of contradictions, inconsistencies and implausibilities—and thus no rational jury could have relied upon it as a basis to convict. The contention is unpersuasive.

The “inherently improbable” standard for rejecting testimony on appeal is not merely an enhanced version of implausibility, as Ennis seems to be asserting. “Highly implausible” is still an argument reserved for the trier of fact. Inherently improbable, by contrast, means that the challenged evidence is “unbelievable per se” (italics omitted), such that “the things testified to would not seem possible.” (Lane v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1939) 33 Cal.App.2d 169, 175 [ 91…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.