In re Giselle P. CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Giselle contends the juvenile court erred in rejecting her duress defense because

there was sufficient evidence to support it as a matter of law. We disagree.

"Our review of [a minor's] substantial evidence claim is governed by the same

standard applicable to adult criminal cases. [Citation.] 'In reviewing the sufficiency of

the evidence, we must determine "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential

3 elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." [Citation.]' [Citation.] ' "[O]ur

role on appeal is a limited one." [Citation.] Under the substantial evidence rule, we

must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact that the trier of

fact could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. [Citation.] Thus, if the

circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact's findings, the opinion of the

reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a

contrary finding does not warrant reversal of the judgment. [Citation.]' [Citation.]"

(In re V.V. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1020, 1026.) We may not…