People v. Weary CA3

DISCUSSION

One commits vandalism by maliciously damaging, destroying, or defacing with graffiti any real or personal property that is not one’s own. (§ 594, subd. (a).) Defendant argues there was insufficient evidence he committed vandalism, as the prosecution “failed to prove [he] caused the damage to the pipe in the casino bathroom.” The People argue there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of defendant’s guilt. We agree with the People. “In reviewing a criminal conviction challenged as lacking evidentiary support, ‘ “the court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is

This case was fully briefed and assigned to this panel on June 1, 2022.

3 reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’ [Citation.] The same standard of review applies to cases in which the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence [citation] . . . [citation]. An appellate court must accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence.”…