What is the test for reversing a jury's verdict in a sexual assault case?

We review the record to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. We view the record in the light most favorable to the prosecution; make all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution; and resolve all evidentiary conflicts in favor of the prosecution. We do not resolve credibility issues. "'A reversal for insufficient evidence "is unwarranted unless it appears 'that upon no hypothesis [whatsoever] is

Page 16

there sufficient substantial evidence to support'" the jury's verdict. [Citation.]' [Citations.]" (People v. Mecano (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1061, 1068-1069.)

"Section 647.6, subdivision (a) does not require a touching, 'but does require (1) conduct a "'normal person would unhesitatingly be irritated by'" [citations], and (2) conduct "'motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest'" in the victim [citations].' The 'words "annoy" and "molest" [in the statute] . . . are synonymous and generally refer to conduct designed to disturb, irritate, offend, injure, or at least tend to injure, another person. [Citations.] . . . . [] "Annoy" and "molest" ordinarily relate to offenses against children, with a connotation of abnormal sexual motivation. The forbidden annoyance or molestation is not concerned with the child's state of mind, but rather refers to the defendant's objectionable acts that constitute the offense. [Citation.] [] Accordingly, to determine whether the defendant's conduct would unhesitatingly irritate or disturb a normal person, we employ an objective test not dependent on whether the child was in fact irritated or disturbed. [Citations.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Brandao (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 436, 440-441 (Brandao), fn. omitted.)