Opinion ID: 1247774
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Reliability and Sufficiency of the Evidence.

Text: (12a) Defendant complains evidence of the Ernest F. and Catherine A. offenses was unreliable, as each was established by only a single witness. Our law, however, expressly provides that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to establish a fact. (Evid. Code, § 411.) Any contradictions, as defendant asserts, or other weakness in the witness's testimony are matters to be explored on cross-examination and argued to the trier of fact. The reliability of the evidence is safeguarded by the requirement that the trier of fact may consider the evidence only if it determines the other crimes have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. ( Robertson I, supra, 33 Cal.3d at pp. 53-55.) Defendant maintains that in neither instance did the evidence establish criminal activity beyond a reasonable doubt. (13) In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, our task is to 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.' ( People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576 [162 Cal. Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738, 16 A.L.R.4th 1255], quoting Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319 [61 L.Ed.2d 560, 99 S.Ct. 2781], italics in original; accord, People v. Guerra (1985) 40 Cal.3d 377, 385 [220 Cal. Rptr 374, 708 P.2d 1252].) (12b) Applying this test, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had used force or the threat of force to compel F. and A. to commit oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)).