People v. McNeil CA2/4, B265374

On Dec. 11, 2013, occupants of unit C at 4141 Muirfield were confronted at their front door after an altercation; the door was kicked open and shots were fired.
Victims: Chenika Carter, Kindu Carter, and Yvonne Pamela Hargrave were shot; all survived; multiple eyewitnesses observed events.
Multiple witnesses placed Carl McNeil at the front door as it was forced open; one witness saw him run from the scene holding a handgun and several witnesses (including victims) identified him at trial as the shooter.
Some witnesses gave inconsistent statements at preliminary hearing (e.g., attribution to a light-skinned man); defense emphasized these inconsistencies and challenged identification credibility.
A jury convicted McNeil of three counts of attempted murder and found true firearm and great-bodily-injury enhancements; court found prior strikes and prior prison terms; sentence: 100 years to life.
McNeil appealed, arguing insufficient evidence—principally that eyewitness identification was not credible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove McNeil was the shooter	Evidence (multiple eyewitnesses) placed McNeil at the door, saw him with a gun, and heard shots from the front; one saw him run with a handgun	Eyewitness IDs were inconsistent and unreliable; some witnesses previously identified another (light-skinned) man; testimony should not support conviction	Affirmed — viewed in light most favorable to verdict, eyewitness testimony (though imperfect) was substantial evidence of identity
Weight of inconsistent eyewitness testimony	Inconsistencies go to credibility, not legal sufficiency; jury properly evaluated conflicts	Inconsistencies rendered identification practically no evidence	Court held inconsistencies affect weight for jury; not so weak as to be no evidence

People v. Lindberg, 45 Cal.4th 1 (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
People v. Young, 34 Cal.4th 1149 (testimony of a single witness can support conviction unless inherently improbable)
People v. Allen, 165 Cal.App.3d 616 (credibility and weakness of ID are for jury)
People v. Lindsay, 227 Cal.App.2d 482 (identification need not be free from doubt; discrepancies go to weight)
People v. Mohamed, 201 Cal.App.4th 515 (same standard: identification must be so weak as to be practically no evidence to overturn)
In re Gustavo M., 214 Cal.App.3d 1485 (trial exploration of ID circumstances binds reviewing court when trier of fact believes ID)