X hits on this document





9 / 23

The jury found defendant guilty on all four counts and the court sentenced him to a total of 10 years eight months in state prison.


Defendant contends here, as he did below, that Q. and D. were both accomplices and coconspirators whose testimony was worthless.  Because Q. testified under a grant of immunity, while D.’s charges were reduced from felonies to misdemeanors in exchange for a guilty plea, he insists that their evidence was not credible and was otherwise insufficient to support an inference that he pimped P. or pandered her or Q.  Like the trial court when it denied his motion for acquittal, we do not find defendant’s arguments persuasive.

Standard of Review

The standard used by a trial court in ruling on a section 1118.1 motion is the same as that used by an appellate court to assess the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction.  (People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 432, fn 2.)  “In assessing a claim of insufficiency of evidence, the reviewing court’s task is to review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”  (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11 (Rodriguez), citing People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.)  “Under this standard, the court does not ‘“ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable

Document info
Document views69
Page views69
Page last viewedWed Jan 18 20:22:52 UTC 2017