People v. K.S. CA2/6

DISCUSSION

K.S. argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the finding that she aided and abetted a robbery because there is no evidence that she was aware a burglary had occurred and that there were other reasons (curfew violation, lack of a driver’s license) for her to flee apprehension. Specifically, she asserts that there is insufficient evidence that Romero entered the cannabis property or that he intended to commit a theft. She contends that the jurisdiction finding violates her constitutional rights to due process of law and a fair trial. The same standard of review governs the sufficiency of evidence in adult criminal cases and juvenile cases; we review the entire record and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the judgment to determine whether substantial evidence supports the conviction. (In re A.G. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 647, 653.) We

3 do not redetermine the weight of the evidence or issues of witness credibility. (In re M.S. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1177, 1185.) Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence is the exclusive province of the trier of fact. (Ibid.) “If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings,…