Opinion ID: 2630185
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inherently incredible testimony

Text: (15) Alternatively, defendant contends Mercurio's testimony was inherently incredible because it described events that were physically impossible. The standard for rejecting a witness's statements on this ground requires `either a physical impossibility that they are true, or their falsity must be apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions.' ( People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal.3d 284, 306 [228 Cal.Rptr. 228, 721 P.2d 110].) Defendant points to (1) the angle of the bullet wounds in Gitmed's body as contradicting Mercurio's testimony regarding where defendant stood when he shot Gitmed, and (2) that Gitmed's body was found in the water, although Mercurio testified at trial he did not see the body fall into the water. But Mercurio's testimony did not recount facts that were physically impossible, nor did it exhibit falsity on its face. Rather, defendant's contention that Mercurio's testimony was inherently incredible depends on the asserted inconsistencies that defendant argues exist between Mercurio's testimony and other evidence presented at trial. We reject defendant's attempt to reargue the evidence on appeal and reiterate that it is not a proper appellate function to reassess the credibility of the witnesses. ( People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 314-315 [270 Cal.Rptr. 611, 792 P.2d 643].)