People v. CookPeople v. Cook
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The evening of June 9, 2018, around 11:45 p.m., Cook was at home with his mother, Emmaline, as well as his father and brother.1 Emmaline heard Cook and his brother arguing. Cook said he wanted to hit his brother, and Cook‘s father tried to step in to prevent a fight. Emmaline saw Cook inching closer to his brother, who was sitting down, and she believed Cook was about to attack him. At some point she heard Cook‘s father fall to the ground, and she assumed he had been pushed.
Emmaline called 911 using a landline telephone attached to a wall, which was about 20 feet from Cook. She told the dispatcher Cook was fighting her other son and “the last time the cops came they told me to call them when he‘s all cutting up, acting, doing some illegal stuff.” Emmaline then provided her street address and full name.
While Emmaline was speaking with the dispatcher, Cook ripped the phone off the wall and threw it on the floor. The phone broke, which disconnected the call. The wire was no longer
Cook was charged by information with dissuading a witness from reporting a crime (
The police officer who responded to Emmaline‘s disconnected call testified that he was aware of only a single 911 call. No other officers showed up at the house in response to a second call.
The jury found Cook guilty of dissuading a witness and not guilty of battery. The court sentenced him to the low term of 16 months in prison. Cook timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Cook‘s sole contention on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for dissuading a witness. We disagree.
A. Standard of Review
When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of evidence supporting a jury‘s verdict, the reviewing court examines whether there is substantial evidence, considered as a whole, to permit a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the charged
This standard of review applies to claims involving both direct and circumstantial evidence. ” ‘We “must accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence. [Citation.]” [Citation.] “Although it is the jury‘s duty to acquit a defendant if it finds the circumstantial evidence susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which suggests guilt and the other innocence, it is the jury, not the appellate court that must be convinced of the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.]” [Citation.] Where the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact‘s findings, a reviewing court‘s conclusion the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant the judgment‘s reversal. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 87.)
B. Analysis
Cook argues his conviction must be overturned because there is insufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could find he acted knowingly, maliciously, and with the requisite intent. We are not persuaded.
Contrary to Cook‘s contentions,
Under
Here, Cook was convicted of violating
Cook contends no reasonable juror could have found he acted with the requisite intent because there is no evidence showing he knew Emmaline was on the phone with a 911 dispatcher or that he intended to prevent her from speaking with the dispatcher. Contrary to Cook‘s claims, the record discloses substantial evidence supporting the jury‘s implicit findings on these issues.
According to the recording of the 911 call, Emmaline told the dispatcher that Cook was fighting and “the last time the cops came they told me to call them when he‘s all cutting up, acting, doing some illegal stuff.” She then provided her full name and address. Anyone hearing such comments could reasonably infer Emmaline was speaking to a 911 dispatcher, especially in light of the fact that she made the call close to midnight and while her sons were in the midst of a heated argument.
Cook insists no reasonable juror could have found he acted with the requisite intent because the evidence shows his actions were a “reaction” of “someone who was very upset and having an angry moment,” rather than someone attempting to prevent his mother from reporting a crime. In support, Cook points to Emmaline‘s testimony that he was not trying to disrupt her, he looked “shocked” after he ripped the phone off the wall, and he did not attempt to prevent her from subsequently calling 911 on a cell phone.
Contrary to Cook‘s suggestions, jurors were free to disregard Emmaline‘s testimony on these points, and it would have been reasonable for them to do so. (See People v. Allen (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 616, 623 [“a jury is entitled to reject some portions of a witness’ testimony while accepting others“].) Emmaline is Cook‘s mother and had motivation to lie in order to protect him. Her testimony was also inconsistent with the responding officer‘s testimony that he was aware of only a single call to 911 and no other officers responded to the home.
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
BIGELOW, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
STRATTON, J.
WILEY, J.