P.

DISCUSSION

The jury found defendants guilty of robbing Marco, Elva, Jacqueline and Eva.

Defendants contend there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions on counts

3 and 4 pertaining to Jacqueline and Eva because the prosecution did not present

evidence that these individuals had constructive possession of the money that Marco and

Elva kept in the safe and dresser drawers.

In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the entire record in the

light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial

evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have found the defendants guilty

beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334, 364.) We must

3 presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier of fact could

reasonably deduce from the evidence. (People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1053.)

Before a conviction can be set aside for insufficiency of the evidence, it must clearly

appear that there is insufficient evidence to support it under any hypothesis. (People v.

Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 575–578.) Our opinion that the evidence could

reasonably be reconciled with a…