1 Filed 1/14/15 P. v. Le CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. LAN ANH LE, Defendant and Appellant. C072488 (Super. Ct. No. 10F01589)

Defendant Lan Anh Le st abbed her girlfriend, Moni ca Anderson, approximately 91 times. A complaint deemed information charged defendant with murder and personal use of a knife. (Pen. Code, §§ 1 87, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (b)(1).) 1 A jury found

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise designated.2 defendant guilty of first degree murder and found the section 12022 allegation true. Sentenced to 25 years to life plus one year in state prison, defendant appeals, arguing the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s finding that she premeditated and deliberated prior to killing Anderson. We shall affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCED URAL BACKGROUND Early on a March morning in 2010 defendant stabbed her girlfriend, Anderson, and was subsequently charged w ith murder and personal use of a knife. Prior to trial, defendant was found to be mentally incomp etent under section 1368 and was committed to Napa State Hospital. Seven months later, following a two-day hear ing, the trial court determined defendant was competent to sta nd trial. A jury trial followed. Since defendant challenges the suffici ency of the evidence to support her conviction, we provide a detailed description of th e evidence presen ted at trial. Ryan Millwee’s Testimony Ryan Millwee and Anderson were friends who had met at an auto parts store no more than a couple of months before the murder. Anderson introduced defendant to Millwee. 2 On the evening before the murder, Millwee was at a ta ttoo shop when he received a call from Anderson. Later that evening, Anderson and de fendant came to the tattoo shop. Millwee was surprised to see them together because Anderson had told him she was not seeing defendant anymore. The trio left the tattoo shop and went to a liquor store, where they purchased a liter of vodka and some orange juice. After they returned to the tattoo shop, Anderson suggested they go to her apartment. According to Millwee, they were all in a good mood.

2 Millwee admitted to a conviction of po ssession of heroin fo r sale in 2006.3 At the apartment, the three started dr inking and each did a couple of lines of cocaine. All told, the trio dr ank about three quarters of the liter of vodka and used half a gram of cocaine. The group became re laxed and began disc ussing Anderson and defendant’s relationship. Millwee believed the relationship betwee n the two was almost over, but since defendant was going to spend th e night, “obviously something was there.” As they continued to drink, defenda nt became agitated and Anderson started talking about other people. Defendant’s m ood shifted from laughing to being serious to being “pissed off.” Millwee thought defe ndant was jealous, and both women made “snippy” comments to one another. Many of the comments Millwee did not understand. Defendant began drinking straight from the bottle and was becoming angry. The more defendant drank, the more her anger came out. Anderson made it clear the relationship with defendant was ending, and defendant reacted with jealousy and rage. Millwee testified defendant wa s “trying to hold onto [ sic ] something that was leaving.” Twice defendant told Millwee to leave, butAnderson told him to stay. Millwee stayed, which might have irritated defendan t. Defendant stated she knew Millwee and Anderson had been hanging out with each othe r and accused them of sleeping together. Millwee denied the allegation. According to Millwee, the room was full of tension and anger. He tried to placate defe ndant, cautioning Anderson not to exacerbate the situation. Around 2:00 a.m., defendant became calmer and went outside to smoke a cigarette. Millwee left but told Anderson to call if anything happ ened. Five minutes after he left, Millwee’s cell phone rang. No one responded when he answered, so Millwee called the number right back. Wh en the call was answered, Millwee heard screaming and “chaos,” the sounds of a fight . As he listened, the noises diminished. In a panic, Millwee quickly returned to the apartment. As he approached the apartment, he saw Anderson lying on the ground with her eyes open, “feet to feet” with defendant, with a knife beside her. De fendant appeared to have fallen over from4 exhaustion. Millwee kicked the knife away . Defendant began to move, and Millwee grabbed her and pinned her down. George P.’s Testimony The night of the murder, 14-year-old George P., who lived in Anderson’s apartment complex, heard screaming and yelli ng and the word “stop.” As he looked out the window, George saw Anderson running do wn the stairs followed by defendant, who was armed with a chef’s knife in her hand. He testified defendant appeared calm as she chased Anderson. George testified that when Anderson got to the bottom of the stairs, she stopped and tried to calm down defendant. Defendant stabbed Anderson, who fell to the ground. Defendant then dropped down on her knee s and began stabbing Anderson repeatedly, holding the knife with both hands. As defe ndant stabbed Anderson again and again, the victim continued to beg defendant to stop. After a few minutes, Anderson died. Defendant continued to stab Anderson’s body until she gr ew tired. Defendant then remained sitting next to Anderson’s body. Not long after, a man approached, took the knife from defendant, and held he r down until the police arrived. Victor Garcia’s Testimony Another resident of Anderson’s apartm ent complex was inside a downstairs apartment when he hear d someone screaming “stop.” Garc ia left the apartment and saw defendant come out of another apartment, ar med with a kitchen knife. His neighbor, Anderson, was nearby at the top of the stai rs. Anderson ran down the stairs, yelling “stop.” Defendant chased her, yelling “bitch. ” Garcia saw defendant stab Anderson once or twice in the back, a nd he called the police. Anderson fell to the ground at the botto m of the stairs. De fendant got on top of Anderson and stabbed her in the chest, stomach, and face . As she stabbed Anderson, defendant continued to yell “bitch.” The st abbing continued for about three minutes, until defendant got tired. Defend ant lay on the ground and let the knife fall. A man came5 up to defendant and said, “look what you did, you killed her,” and to ld defendant she was going to jail. In response, defendant said, “s hut up, bitch,” and bega n to argue with the man. The parties stipulated that after office rs arrived at the scene, defendant said, “what about my shoes and purse? Shit, just beca use I killed someone, I don’t get my stuff. I guess I’m going away for life.” Coroner’s Testimony Dr. Elizabeth Albers, a forensic pathologi st with the coroner’s office, met with defendant at the police department. She ex amined scratches on defendant’s hand and wrist, and some injuries on her chest. Defe ndant claimed the chest injuries were selfinflicted using the knife found at the murder s cene. Dr. Albers asked defendant if she had been in a fight, and defendant replied that she just wanted to get her charger and one thing led to another. Dr. Albers performed the autopsy on Ande rson and determined the cause of death was multiple stab wounds. The autopsy re vealed stab wounds to Anderson’s neck, shoulders, and back, and blunt force injuries to the neck. Three stab wounds penetrated her chest cavity and caused lung injury, and there were multip le stab wounds to her face and neck. Many stab wounds that entered Anderson’s chest cavity caused injury to her heart, aorta, and liver. Acco rding to Dr. Albers, the inju ries to Anderson’s heart and aorta were fatal. Dr. Albers also found br uising to Anderson’s face , arms, and legs, and petechial hemorrhages in the right eye, commonly seen with strangulation. Crime Scene Observations Officers found Anderson lying at the f oot of a staircase to the second-floor apartment. There were blood drops on the ground; a knife wa s off to the side, as well as debris from a broken cell phone. The trail of blood began at the apar tment, with blood on an interior wall of the apartmen t next to the door and blood next to the doormat. There were blood smears or swipes on the staircase wall and on the staircase.6 Defendant left her jacket, shoes, and purs e inside Anderson’s apartment. Officers also found a three-quarters-empt y vodka bottle. A phone cord lay next to the front door, and a phone charger was in Anderson’s bedr oom. Another phone charger was in the living room with a single strand of hair entwined in the cord. Defendant’s Interview Five hours after the murder, Detective Ronald Pfleger interviewed defendant; the interview was played fo r the jury. Defendant admitted sta bbing herself above her breast. Defendant said she wanted to k ill herself after killing Anderson. Defendant told Pfleger that Anderson wa s the love of her life and they had an intimate relationship. They had been a couple for about a year when things became off and on. Defendant ceas ed trusting Anderson after she be gan hearing things. Anderson had lied to defendant about sl eeping with a friend of Millw ee’s earlier that year. Although defendant said the co uple had broken up, they still had feelings for each other. The evening of the murder began well. Anderson picked up defendant and they saw Millwee at the tattoo shop. They all we nt to Anderson’s apartment, where they drank vodka and did several lines of cocaine. 3 According to defendant, Millwee and Anderson were pushing her buttons. She be lieved Anderson was attracted to Millwee, although Anderson denied it. They seemed to be playing “mind games” with her, which made her upset. Defendant asked Millwee to tell her the trut h, and he jokingly said he had slept with Anderson. Anderson took Millwee’s side. Defendant believed th e pair were talking behind her back and she starte d feeling “weird.” Millwee became rude and defendant told him to leave. Millw ee initially stood up to defendan t, but ultimately he left.

3 The first 911 call was made at 2:34 a.m. A toxicology screen taken at 4:15 a.m. revealed defendant’s blood alcohol content at .14 percent. The screen also showed cocaine in defendant’s system.7 Defendant and Anderson be gan to argue over defendant’s phone charger. Anderson did not want defendant to use the charger, and things got violent. Defendant tried to get the charger, but Anderson said defendant was strangling her because the cord was around her neck. The room was dark and defendant was unaware she was hurting Anderson. They fought over the ch arger and defendant finally took it. Over defendant’s objecti on, Anderson called Millwee. Defendant became angrier and told Anderson she did not want Millwee to return because sh e considered him a threat. If Anderson had not called Millwee, “[e]verything w ould have been peaceful.” After calling Millwee, Anderson tried to leave the apartment. Defendant said Anderson “just ran out like she really wanted to be with him.” De fendant was very drunk and angry, and she was not goin g to let Anderson go. Defenda nt went into the kitchen, opened a drawer, and grabbed a knife. Later in the interview, defendant said th at before picking up the knife, she thought about a video game, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, which she played almost daily. When asked what the game entails, defenda nt said, “just do missions, whatever. You know, kill people. You can k ill whatever -- whoever you want . You can have [a sheet] that you can clear out your felonies or what ever.” In the game, defendant was “the bad guy there and you just kill wh oever you want,” lik e gang members. De fendant thought it was this video game that made her “think in that mindset.” Defendant also said she did not think much about what she was doing and that she was drunk. According to defendant, “[i]t was just stupid, me doing that, and I have no excuse for what I was doing. I just felt so mad that like I ha d so much things bu ilt in that . . . I know that I have an anger issue. Like I never really got helped right, and depression . . . .” She was angry and felt “really delirious.” She knew “eve ry part of it was wrong,” but she wished Anderson had not called Millwee.8 When asked why she had k illed Anderson, defendant said she was not in her right state of mind. Defendant did not know wh y she had even though t about killing Anderson but admitted she was at fault. Defendant began stabbi ng Anderson as Anderson ran away from her. As Anderson ran down the stairs, defendant caught up with her. She began stabbing Anderson in the back, and after Anderson fe ll she stabbed her in the front. Defendant stabbed Anderson “[j]ust anywhe re I could.” Anderson tried to fight back and begged defendant to stop, but defendant “didn’t stop, cause with me, I don’t listen to -- I don’t really listen to a lot of people because . . . I’ve been through a lot in my whole life that I don’t just trust anybody.” As Anderson lay on the ground, defendant continued to stab her, but “then she was gone.” Defendant tried to kill herself, but it hurt too much. Millwee then appeared and de fendant said he “was all li ke, what the fuck are you doing? Blah, blah, blah . . . .” Millwee t ook away the knife and go t her on the ground. Defendant said Millwee was rude to her. Evidence of Prior Assault The prosecution introduced evidence, under Evidence Code section 1109, of a 2009 assault by defendant against Anderson. Anderson’s mother testified that on the day of the assault, a crying Anderson had called her. Anderson told her mother defendant had beaten her. Anderson came to her mother’s house with a bloody nose and an abrasion on the side of her face. Anderson told her mother she had been home lying down an d defendant was on the phone. Defendant was talking about an argument she and Anderson had about defendant moving out of the ap artment. Defendant hung up, got on top of Anderson, and began hitting her in the face. Anderson managed to extricate herself and ran to a neighbor’s apartment. Anderson’s mother took her to the police department, where Anderson gave a statement. They then went to the hospital. Anderson’s in juries included a broken nose,9 multiple abrasions, and swelling a nd bruising around her eye. Too afraid to return to her apartment, Anderson stayed with her mother. Defenda nt called and apologized, but Anderson’s mother hung up on her. Defense Case Lori Huhtala Lori Huhtala, a child care group counselo r, met defendant in 2008. Defendant was in a group home that cared for children with drug or alcoho l abuse problems. Defendant did well in the group home and participated in anger management classes. Defendant left the group home when she “[a]ged out.” Ho wever, Huhtala did not believe defendant was ready to leave and be on her own. Defendant’s life skills were sufficient, but Huhtala believe d defendant did not have family support. Family did not visit defendant in the group home or help her financially. Huhtala stayed in touch with defendant and had met Anderson twice. She knew they were a couple. In 2009 or 2010 Huhtala, defendant, a nd a woman named April went to a lake. While at the lake, defendant received numerous phone calls , causing her stress. Each time defendant explained where she was. The caller was Anderson, and after Huhtala explained that she was with defendant, Ande rson appeared placated. They left the lake and went to Huhtala’s house, and Anderson called defendan t while they were there; again, defendant became stressed. After she was arrested, defendant called Hu htala. Defendant told her that she and Anderson had gotten back together, but then Anderson went behind defendant’s back. Defendant said she did not want anyone else to have Anderson. Hu htala asked defendant if she had stabbed Anderson 30 to 40 times, but defendant said that was an exaggeration. She admitted using alcohol and co caine the night of the murder.10 Perry Knight’s Testimony Perry Knight, a friend of the couple, te stified that Anderson and defendant had a passionate relationship. The couple argued ab out small things, and Knight thought there were some issues with jealousy. Knight often acted as a mediat or, and Anderson would respond by making light of th e situation, which bothered defendant. According to Knight, defendant suffered from mood swings and could become angry over little things. His relationship with the couple ended in 20 09 when he told them it would probably be better if Anderson and defendant broke up. Dr. Gregory Sokolov’s Testimony Dr. Gregory Sokolov, an expert in forens ic psychiatry, interviewed defendant after her arrest. Dr. Sokolov diagnosed defend ant as suffering from three psychiatric conditions on the day of the murder: alcohol intoxication, cocaine intoxication, and personality disorder not otherwise specified with borderline traits. The personality disorder is characterized by a pervasive pattern of instability in interpersonal relationships. The condition usually begins during adol escence and affects thoughts, emotions, impulse control, and world view. A person suffering from borderline persona lity disorder, in stressful situations, misperceives things and can become angry. Symptoms of the diso rder include frantic efforts to avoid abandonment, unstable self-i mage, recurrent suicidal or self-mutilating behavior, impulsivity that is potentially self-damaging, a ffective instability due to a marked reactivity of the mood, chronic feelings of emptiness, inappropriate intense anger or difficulty controlling anger, frequent disp lays of temper, a nd paranoid ideation. Dr. Sokolov based his diagnosis of pe rsonality disorder on defendant’s unstable and intense interpersonal relationships. Defenda nt also demonstrated impulsivity in areas including substance abuse, suicidal and se lf-mutilating behaviors, difficulty controlling anger, and “transient stress re lated paranoid ideations.”11 According to Dr. Sokolov, defendant dem onstrated these transient stress related paranoid ideations on the night of the killing. Dr. Sokolov to ok into account the fact that defendant told police Anderson and Millwee were playing mi nd games with her and she believed the two of them were talking behind her back. Defendant also had the paranoid idea that Millwee and Anderson were in a re lationship, which was an ideation based in reality but misinterpreted. When Dr. Sokolov interviewed defendant sh e told him she felt like she was not Anderson’s girlfriend anymor e and that Anderson was making her hang out with people she did not like. Defendant felt kidnapped and An derson threw it in her face, frustrating her. Because defendant exhib ited a paranoid belief, Dr. So kolov concluded that the night of the murder her decision making was not grounded in reality. Defendant’s impulsivity resulted in a lack of weighing consequences, worsened by her drinking. Dr. Sokolov based his opinions on his in terview with defendant, the facts and circumstances of the offense, defendant’s st atement to police, and records and reports. Dr. Sokolov also testified regarding de fendant’s background. Defendant was the eighth of 10 children and her mother may have had mental health issues. Defendant’s parents abused her and her siblings. Child Protective Services had been referred to the home 24 times. The most recent referral was for sexual abuse by defendant’s 24-year-old brother on her 17-year-old siste r. Such a chaotic upbringing was consistent with a person who had borderline personality traits. Defendant first saw a psychiatrist at age 16. When she was 17 she was hospitalized, which is typical for the onset of a personality disorder. In addition, Dr. Sokolov’s review of the record revealed defendant cutting hersel f to relieve stress, suicide attempts, physical and sexual abuse by a boyfriend, and an assault on her sister with a piggy bank that resulted in her sister needing three staples to her head. Following the assault, defendant became a ward of the court and wa s placed in a group home.12 When she was 15 defendant began using drugs, including crystal methamphetamine, marijuana, Ecstasy, opium, and mushrooms. While in the group home, defendant wa s diagnosed with po sttraumatic stress disorder, for which she was pr oscribed Prozac. A 2008 c ourt report stated defendant vacillated in the group home between acceptan ce and adherence to the program, and selfdefeating behaviors and poor decision making. Dr. Sokolov found this consistent with borderline personality disorder. In addition, Dr. Sokolov re ferenced a 2011 psychiatric assessment that noted traits consistent with borderline persona lity disorder, including emotional instability, cutting, and an inability to control anger. During cross-examination, Dr. Sokolov tes tified that on the night of the murder, defendant was able to make her own decisi ons, and in the aftermath she demonstrated goal-oriented behavior. Defendant spent six m onths in a mental hospital, where the staff diagnosed her as malingering in addition to a diagnosis of bord erline personality traits. However, in Dr. Sokolov’s opinion, de fendant did not malinger her symptoms. Verdict and Sentencing The jury found defendant guilty of fi rst degree murder and found true the section 12022, subdivision (b)(1) allegati on. The court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 25 year s to life on count one, to r un consecutively to the one-year term imposed on the section 12022 allegation. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction for first degree murder. According to defendant, “There is no evidence that she weighed and considered the question of k illing and the reasons for and ag ainst such a choice and, having in mind the consequences, decided to and did kill.” Sin ce the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support a finding of prem editation and deliberation, defendant argues her murder conviction must be reduced from first degree to second degree murder.13 Section 189 provides: “All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive device or explosive, a weapon of mass destru ction, knowing use of ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison, lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing . . . is murder of the first degree. All other kinds of murders are of the second degree.” The court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 521: “The defendant is guilty of first degree murder if the People have prov ed that she acted willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation. The defendant acted willfully if she intended to kill. The defendant acted deliberately if she carefully weighed the consid erations for and against her choice and, knowing the conseque nces, decided to kill. The defendant acted with premeditation if she decided to kill before comp leting the acts that caused death. “The length of time the person spends co nsidering whether to kill does not alone determine whether the killing is deliberat e and premeditated. The amount of time required for deliberation and premeditati on may vary from person to person and according to the circumstances. A decision to kill made rash ly, impulsively, or without careful consideration is not deliberate and premeditated. On the other hand, a cold, calculated decision to kill can be reached quickly. The test is the extent of the reflection, not the length of time. [¶] . . .[¶] “The number of stab wounds alone does not prove premeditation and deliberation, but is a factor for your consideration along with all the other evidence supporting premeditation and deliberation.” To determine the sufficiency of the evidence in support of a conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether it contains evidence that is reasonable, cr edible, and of solid value, from which a reasonable trier of fact coul d find the defendant guilty be yond a reasonable doubt. ( People v. Romero (2008) 44 Cal.4th 386, 399.) We mu st accept logical inferences that14 the jury might have drawn from the evidence, even if we wo uld have reached a contrary conclusion. ( People v. Streeter (2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 241.) We do not reweigh the evidence. “ ‘Conf licts and even testimony which is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgm ent, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or ju ry to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determinatio n depends.’ [Citation.] Unless it describes facts or events that are physically impossibl e or inherently improbable, the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to suppo rt a conviction. [Citation.]” ( People v. Elliott (2012) 53 Cal.4th 535, 585.) Three types of evidence are commonl y found in cases i nvolving premeditated murder: planning activity, preexisting motive, and manner of killing. The Supreme Court in People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15 ( Anderson ) provides a framework for reviewing the sufficiency of the eviden ce supporting a finding of premeditation and deliberation. The Anderson court’s goal was to aid reviewing co urts in assessing whether the evidence supports an infe rence that the killing was the result of preexisting reflection and weighing of consider ations rather than mere unconsi dered or rash impulse. However, Anderson did not purport to establish an exhaus tive list that excludes other types of evidence that could support a finding of premeditation and deliberation. ( People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 812-813.) Planning activity may be reflected in ev idence “about how and what defendant did prior to the actual killing which sh ow that the defendant was e ngaged in activity directed toward, and explicable as intende d to result in, the killing.” ( Anderson , supra , 70 Cal.2d at pp. 26-27.) Motive refers to evidence “about the defendant’s prior relationship and/or conduct with the victim from wh ich the jury could reasonably infer a ‘motive’ to kill the victim, which inference of motive, [combined with planning activity or the preconceived design to kill], would in turn support an inference that the killing was the result of ‘a preexisting reflection’ and ‘careful thought and weighing of considerations’ rather than15 ‘mere unconsidered or rash impulse hastily executed’ . . . .” ( Id. at p. 27.) Last, “facts about the nature of the killing from wh ich the jury could infer that the manner of killing was so particular and exacting that the defenda nt must have intentionally killed according to a ‘preconceived design’ to take [her] vict im’s life in a particular way for a ‘reason’ which the jury can reasonabl y infer from facts of” planning activity and motive. ( Ibid .) Defendant argues the record is devoid of any planning activity, pointing out that she simply walked into the k itchen and grabbed a knife with out selecting any particular weapon. As for motive, although defendant wa s jealous of Anderson and angry about her relationship with Millwee, this motive was “m ore consistent with sudden rage or fury than with slower simmering.” Defenda nt contends her postkilling conduct was completely inconsistent with careful thought or a deliberate plan, since she did not try to flee or hide. Nor does the manner of killing, according to defendant, show th e murder was part of a preconceived design to take Anderson’s life: “Here, [defendant] randomly, violently and indiscriminately stabbed Anderson 91 times , in a wild frenzy, all over her body, in the front and back, screaming ‘bitch’ with each thrust.” Defe ndant did not aim for Anderson’s vital organs. In addition, de fendant states that strong, uncontradicted evidence indicates she killed A nderson on impulse due to bo rderline personality disorder traits. Therefore, the only reasonable in ference to be drawn from the facts is that defendant killed Anderson because of “a co mbination of borderlin e personality traits, alcohol intoxication, cocaine intoxication, an d unconsidered impulse, rather than of a deliberate judgment or plan coolly and stead ily carried out according to a preconceived design.” We disagree. Defendant overlooks or minimizes evidence of deliberation and premeditation in her murder of Anderson. Du ring her lengthy interv iew with detectives, defendant mentioned a video game called Gr and Theft Auto: San Andreas that she played daily. She was thinki ng about the video game befo re she picked up the knife.16 The game involves play ers killing whomever they want to and is very viol ent. Defendant thought the video game made her “think in that mindset.” Defendant points out that these statements were made during a long interv iew and that she also referenced anger, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, a nd alcohol consumpti on among other reasons for her actions. While the evidence of planni ng was not extensive, th e fact remains that defendant discussed a violent video game invol ving murder as part of her mindset when she set out to get the knife from the kitchen, reflecting some degree of premeditation. As for motive, despite defe ndant’s efforts to minimize her feelings of anger and jealousy, both her own statem ents and Millwee’s testimony show that she was very angry and jealous of the victim. Prior to the st abbing, defendant and An derson fought over the phone charger, a fight which got “a little viol ent.” Anderson’s phone call to Millwee exacerbated defendant’s anger, and according to defendant, if it were not for the phone call she would not have tho ught about getting the knife. Anderson ran out of the apartment, and defendant thou ght Anderson “really wanted to be with [Millwee].” Faced with the prospect of Anderson’s leaving to go to Millwee, defenda nt walked into the kitchen, got the knife, and overtook Anderson. In a later jailhouse phone call, defendant stated she killed Anderson because she did no t want anyone else to have Anderson. These events took place over a pe riod of time, not necessarily reflective of a sudden rage or fury, but of a simmering anger that burst out lethally as events unfolded. Defendant also stresses that she kille d Anderson on impulse b ecause of borderline personality disorder traits. At trial, Dr. So kolov testified about defendant’s mental state and his diagnosis of her. Defense counsel st ressed this testimony at trial, and the jury could have accepted it and returned a different verdict—but it did not. Our task on appeal is not to comb the record for evid ence contrary to the jury’s verdict or to speculate on why the jury chose to accept or reject the testimony presen ted. Rather, a verdict will not be reversed for insuffi cient evidence unless it appe ars that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial ev idence to support the verdict rendered.17 ( People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.) Viewin g the entire record in the light most favorable to the verdict, we find reasonable credible evidence from which the jury could find that defendant kille d Anderson deliberately and with premeditation. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

RAYE , P. J.

We concur:

BUTZ , J.

MAURO , J.