What evidence supports a finding that defendant impregnated the victim during one of the charged acts?

Defendant's sole contention is one of insufficient evidence. Defendant and the victim first had unprotected intercourse on May 13, 2016. This was one of the charged acts. The victim testified that the second occasion was "a while" after the first occasion, possibly a few weeks. She gave birth on February 12, 2017, almost exactly nine months after the first instance of intercourse. The baby was born near the due date. From this evidence, a rational jury could have properly concluded that defendant impregnated the victim during the first charged act. While it may be possible that defendant impregnated the victim on a subsequent occasion weeks later, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the jury. (See People v. Ochoa, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 1206 [When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, a reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trier of fact.].)

Viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, substantial evidence and reasonable inferences support the jury's finding of great bodily injury. (People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 314 [it is the exclusive province of the jury to determine the truth

Page 6

or falsity of the facts on which a determination depends].) Defendant's contention lacks merit.

The judgment is affirmed.