What is the standard of review in a case where the evidence relied mainly on circumstantial evidence?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Brown, E073157 (Cal. App. 2020):
"Substantial evidence must be of ponderable legal significance, reasonable in nature, credible and of solid value." (People v. Briscoe (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 568, 585.)
Page 8
" 'The uncorroborated testimony of a single witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable.' " (People v. Duncan (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1018.)
"The standard of review is the same in cases in which the People rely mainly on circumstantial evidence." (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 792.) Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient on its own to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id. at p. 793.) Just because the circumstances may also reasonably support a different conclusion than the one drawn by the trier of fact does not warrant reversing the judgment. (Ibid.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
