Opinion
F071992
02-14-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD GUEST, Defendant and Appellant.
Allen G. Weinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Jeffrey A. White, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. DF011911A)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Robert S. Tafoya, Judge. Allen G. Weinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Jeffrey A. White, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Detjen, J.
-ooOoo-
Appellant Ronald Guest appeals his conviction for indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314.1). Appellant alleges insufficient evidence supported the jury's guilty verdict. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 2, 2014, appellant was an inmate at Golden State Correctional Facility. He was housed in the B4 dorm, where correctional officer Lydia Hernandez was stationed as the dorm officer.
At approximately 3:20 in the morning, Officer Hernandez observed appellant's reading light flashing on and off. Officer Hernandez observed appellant for 15 to 20 seconds before walking toward appellant to investigate. Appellant was wrapped in a white blanket. As Officer Hernandez approached, appellant opened the blanket and revealed he was stroking his erect penis. At the time, appellant's genitals were illuminated by his reading light. Officer Hernandez ordered appellant to stop and appellant complied.
The incident was recorded by the facility's cameras and a portion of that recording was played for the jury. On cross-examination, Officer Hernandez admitted that some of the details she testified to, such as the flashing light, could not be seen on the video. Officer Hernandez was also impeached regarding statements she made during the preliminary hearing. As an example, although Officer Hernandez testified at trial that appellant immediately ceased masturbating when given a command, she claimed not to recall testifying at the preliminary hearing that it "took him a while to stop."
At the conclusion of the trial, appellant was convicted by a jury. He was sentenced to a seven-year term of imprisonment. This appeal timely followed.
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review and Applicable Law
"In reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, the reviewing court's role is a limited one. ' "The proper test for determining a claim of insufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether, on the entire record, a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] On appeal, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and must presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence." ' " (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 738-739 (Smith).)
" ' "Although we must ensure the evidence is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, nonetheless it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts on which that determination depends. [Citation.] Thus, if the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, we must accord due deference to the trier of fact and not substitute our evaluation of a witness's credibility for that of the fact finder." ' " (Smith, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 739.) Substantial Evidence Supports the Jury's Verdict
Appellant argues insufficient evidence supports his conviction because Officer Hernandez's testimony is so incredible, due to allegations of lying under oath and contradictory video evidence, that this court cannot consider it competent evidence on appeal. We do not agree.
"The circumstances in which an appellate court may properly decline to credit testimony are exceptional and rare." (People v. White (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 305, 319, fn. 14.) "Testimony may be rejected only when it is inherently improbable or incredible, i.e., ' "unbelievable per se," ' physically impossible or ' "wholly unacceptable to reasonable minds." ' " (Oldham v. Kizer (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1046, 1065.)
There is nothing improbable or incredible in Officer Hernandez's testimony. Although there are potential conflicts between her trial testimony and both her preliminary hearing testimony and the video evidence introduced, "the testimony of a witness is ordinarily sufficient to uphold a judgment 'even if it is contradicted by other evidence, inconsistent or false as to other portions.' " (White, supra, 230 Cal.App.4th at p. 319, fn. 14.) While appellant insists the video evidence is incontrovertible proof Officer Hernandez lied, we are aware of no rule whereby video evidence must be accepted as the exclusive evidence on a subject. Indeed, while highly compelling evidence, video recordings are not infallible evidence. Indeed, like visual observations, angles, lighting, and perspective can all affect how a video is interpreted by the trier of fact.
Both video exhibits were viewed by this court in considering this appeal. --------
In this case, potential conflicts between the video and Officer Hernandez's testimony were raised by the defense and presented to the jury. While it may appear there is no light flickering in the video, there was no testimonial evidence introduced showing that such a light would necessarily be shown in a video of this quality. The jury was thus left to weigh the video evidence in light of the argument presented by counsel and determine whether the lack of light in the video was a sufficient basis to discredit Officer Hernandez's testimony. The jury apparently sided with Officer Hernandez.
Appellant's citations to cases where testimony was found so improbable it could not be considered are not persuasive. Officer Hernandez's testimony is sufficiently corroborated by the video evidence, and sufficiently consistent standing alone, that any discrepancies are matters best left to the jury to weigh and consider and do not rise to the level that we are compelled to set aside the testimony.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.