How has the standard of review been applied in cases involving illegal entry and credibility issues?

beyond a reasonable doubt standard of review. (See People v. Rodriguez (1986) 42 Cal.3d 730, 750-751, fn. 2.) It is apparent from the record that the jury knew Contreras had illegally entered the United States. On direct examination, Contreras testified that there was a Border Patrol vehicle on the other side of the road near where he and Elizarde were walking, and he was focusing his attention on not being seen by the Border Patrol agent. From this testimony, as well as the fact that Contreras testified through a Spanish interpreter and was walking on a remote highway in the early morning hours, the jury likely surmised that Contreras was undocumented.²⁰ To the extent the jury might have wanted to consider illegal entry as affecting credibility, it was provided with evidence permitting this consideration even without direct impeachment questioning by defense counsel.