What is the test for "inherently improbable" evidence in a sexual assault case?

Defendant's argument fails under the inherently improbable standard. "The inherently improbable standard addresses the basic content of the testimony itselfi.e., could that have happened?rather than the apparent credibility of the person testifying." (People v. Ennis, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 729.) "Hence, the requirement that the improbability must be 'inherent' and the falsity apparent 'without resorting to inferences or deductions.'" (Ibid.) The challenged evidence must be improbable "'on its face.'" (People v. Mayberry (1975) 15 Cal.3d 143, 150.) "Conflicts and even testimony which is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and

Page 6

the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends." (People v. Huston (1943) 21 Cal.2d 690, 693, overruled on another ground in People v. Burton (1961) 55 Cal.2d 328, 352.)