What is the standard of review in the context of a sexual assault case?

Osuna's arguments misapprehend the deferential standard of review that governs his appeal. It was the jury's exclusive responsibility to evaluate the witnesses' demeanor and credibility. "In deciding the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court resolves neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts. [Citation.] Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the exclusive province of the trier of fact. [Citation.] Moreover, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable, testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a conviction." (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.) Furthermore, the "'incompatibility of and discrepancies in the testimony, if there were any, the uncertainty of recollection, and the qualification of identity and lack of positiveness in testimony are matters which go to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, and are for the observation and consideration, and directed solely to the attention of the [trier of fact] in the first instance . . . .'" (People v. Mohamed (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 515, 522.)