What is the test for a motion for judgment of acquittal in a sexual assault case?

A trial court is presumed to have known and followed the applicable law. (People v. Castaneda (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 334, 342; see Evid. Code, 664.) "But when a judge's remarks preceding a ruling reflect a misapprehension of the law upon which that ruling is based, the appellate court must consider the judge's remarks in its review." (People v. Carter, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 324.) Here, the trial court focused on irrelevant factors such as the jury instructions and the jury's province to weigh the evidence and make credibility determinations. It even referenced section 1118.1, which governs a motion for judgment of acquittal, and said, "There was ample evidence before the jury that would allow a reasonable juror to conclude the defendant was guilty ...." These statements show no recognition of, and are contrary to, the trial court's duty to make an "independent determination as to the probative value of the evidence" and

Page 19

"satisfy itself that the evidence as a whole is sufficient to sustain the verdict." (People v. Dickens, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1252, 1251, italics added.)