Opinion ID: 844220
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence to Establish Guilt

Text: Defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to establish his guilt of the charged offenses. He argues that the eyewitness testimony identifying him as the perpetrator of the charged offenses is unreliable because the witnesses‟ initial descriptions of the perpetrator were inconsistent and because the identification testimony was tainted by suggestive lineups and photo arrays, and by the passage of time. When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is challenged on appeal, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Lee, supra, 51 Cal.4th 620, 632.) “Conflicts and even testimony which is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends.” (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 403.) Unless it describes facts or events that are physically impossible or inherently improbable, the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a conviction. (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.) Here, multiple witnesses identified defendant in court as the perpetrator of the crimes at the Boys Market and the Lucky Supermarket. Their identifications of defendant were neither physically impossible nor inherently incredible. Inconsistencies in their initial descriptions of the perpetrator and any suggestiveness in the lineups or photo arrays they were shown are matters 64 affecting the witnesses‟ credibility, which is for the jury to resolve. We conclude that substantial evidence supports defendant‟s convictions. Insofar as defendant is asserting that unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedures tainted the courtroom identifications, so that the witnesses should not have been permitted to identify defendant in court, defendant has forfeited the claim by failing to make a timely objection or motion to exclude in the trial court. (People v. Virgil (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1210, 1250; People v. Medina, supra, 11 Cal.4th 694, 753.) Defendant also asserts that he could not have committed the charged crimes because the perpetrator of those crimes was right-handed and he is left-handed. We reject this argument. During the trial‟s guilt phase, defendant presented no evidence that he is left-handed or that a left-handed person could not have committed the charged crimes.