People v. Reed

ASHBURN, J.

Defendant appeals from a conviction of robbery in the first degree (Pen. Code, §§ 211 and 211a). He was represented at the trial by a deputy public defender of Los Angeles County, but now appears in propria persona, advancing numerous grounds for reversal, none of which has any merit.

It is argued that the evidence is insufficient to establish the corpus delicti. “ ‘We must assume in favor of the verdict the existence of every fact which the jury could have reasonably deduced from the evidence, and then determine whether such facts are sufficient to support the verdict.’ If the circumstances reasonably justify the verdict of the jury, the opinion of the reviewing court that those circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with the innocence of the defendant will not warrant interference with the determination of the jury.”

(People

v.

Newland,

15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [104 P.2d 778].)

Appellant’s argument rests upon certain minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim and that of Police Officer Rice; he claims their testimony was therefore inherently incredible. The established rule with respect to inherent improbability is thus stated in

People

v.

Huston,

21 Cal.2d 690, 693 [134 P.2d 758] : “Although an appellate court will not uphold a judgment or verdict based upon evidence inherently improbable, testimony which merely discloses unusual circumstances does not come within that category. [Citation.] To warrant the rejection of the statements given by a witness who has been believed by a trial court, there must exist either a physical impossibility that they are true, or their falsity must be apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions. [Citations.] 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 the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends. [Citation.] ” Appellant also argues that these inconsistencies plus certain other circumstances are sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt and therefore the judgment should be reversed. However, “[t]he ‘test on

[405]