Opinion ID: 2509294
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: Sufficiency of Lewd-conduct Special Circumstance Evidence

Text: Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the lewd-conduct special circumstance finding. [37] We disagree. In considering a claim of insufficiency of evidence, a reviewing court 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 elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citations.] Where, as here, the jury's findings rest to some degree upon circumstantial evidence, we must decide whether the circumstances reasonably justify those findings, `but our opinion that the circumstances also might reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding' does not render the evidence insubstantial. ( People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 887-888, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15, quoting People v. Proctor (1992) 4 Cal.4th 499, 528-529, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 340, 842 P.2d 1100.) Additionally, [a]n appellate court must accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence. ( People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 396, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561, 68 P.3d 1.) Moreover, an appellate court resolve[s] neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts; we look for substantial evidence. ( Id. at p. 403, 133 Cal. Rptr.2d 561, 68 P.3d 1.) Section 288 is violated by `any touching' of an underage child committed with the intent to sexually arouse either the defendant or the child. ( People v. Martinez, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 442, 45 Cal. Rptr.2d 905, 903 P.2d 1037.) Defendant argues the evidence was insufficient (1) to establish that Nicole was alive during the commission of the lewd conduct and (2) to prove his intent. Dr. Heuser testified, in essence, that the bruising she observed on Nicole's body indicated her heart was still pumping blood when she sustained those injuries. Thus she concluded the bruises to Nicole's face, neck, arms, and legs occurred while Nicole was alive, as did the bruising she observed around Nicole's vaginal area and rectum. Indeed, she concluded the penetration of Nicole's rectum was a possible cause of death. Accordingly, substantial evidence established that Nicole was alive during the commission of the offense. Substantial evidence also establishes defendant's sexual intent, based on all the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense. ( People v. Martinez, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 445, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 905, 903 P.2d 1037.) First, Nicole's body was found in the nude. Second, the evidence firmly established that her rectum had been penetrated. Third, her vaginal opening was very widely open and bruised, which suggested stretching consisting with the penetration of the area with a finger. Fourth, there was body fluid evidence from which the jury could have inferred that defendant ejaculated in Nicole's presence. The conclusions to be drawn from this evidence, and the reasonable inferences therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment are plain: defendant disrobed Nicole, or caused her to disrobe, penetrated her vaginally and anally, and ejaculated. This clearly established lewd conduct. Defendant attempts to parse the evidence as narrowly as possible, resisting all reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the testimony of the coroner and the serologist, and citing such portions of their testimony that support his argument. In doing so, defendant simply ignores the substantial evidence rule. Properly applied to the evidence in this case, the evidence is more than sufficient to support the lewd conduct special circumstance.