California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Clark, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 407, 372 P.3d 811, 63 Cal.4th 522 (Cal. 2016):
70 Defendant notes that, at the conclusion of the prosecutor's case-in-chief, defense counsel brought a motion under section 1118.1 for entry of judgment of acquittal based on the argument that the evidence was insufficient to show he had the necessary intent for the robbery and burglary-murder special circumstances. He contends this was sufficient to preserve his claim on appeal. In any event, defendant's sufficiency of the evidence claims against all the special circumstance findings are preserved for appeal as a federal constitutional due process claim under Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 322, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560.
70 Defendant notes that, at the conclusion of the prosecutor's case-in-chief, defense counsel brought a motion under section 1118.1 for entry of judgment of acquittal based on the argument that the evidence was insufficient to show he had the necessary intent for the robbery and burglary-murder special circumstances. He contends this was sufficient to preserve his claim on appeal. In any event, defendant's sufficiency of the evidence claims against all the special circumstance findings are preserved for appeal as a federal constitutional due process claim under Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 322, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.