Filed 8/19/22 P. v. Guzman CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

The Santa Clara County District Attorney (District Attorney) appeals an order granting Mike Joseph Guzman’s motion pursuant to Penal Code section 995[1] to dismiss the information charging him with one count of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and one count of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, 186.22, subd. (b)).

On appeal, the District Attorney argues there was sufficient evidence presented at the preliminary examination to support the necessary element of malice and therefore the trial court erred in dismissing these charges.

For the reasons explained below, we agree and will reverse the trial court’s order.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A. Procedural history

Following a lengthy preliminary examination, Guzman and two codefendants, Israel Arroyo and Juan Velazquez‑Tellez, were held to answer on charges of murder and attempted murder. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664, 189, 186.22, subd. (b); counts 1 & 2.) They were also held to answer on the charge of active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 3).

Guzman subsequently filed a section 995 motion, challenging all three counts. On April 7, 2021, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss count 3, but granted the motion with respect to counts 1 and 2, concluding there was insufficient evidence to support the necessary element of malice.

The District Attorney timely appealed.[2]

B. Evidence presented at the preliminary examination[3]

1. Interviews with victim Marcus Westbrook and eyewitnesses

On October 26, 2019, Westbrook was in the parking lot of a Grocery Outlet located near North Fifth Street[4] in San Jose when he encountered Arroyo. According to Westbrook, Arroyo was staring at him disrespectfully and began saying “slick shit,” such as “What are you looking at?” After the two exchanged some words, Westbrook told Arroyo that if he had a problem, he could find him on North Fifth Street near downtown San Jose.

Some time later that day, Westbrook and two of his associates, including Wilmer Spikes, were on North Fifth Street when he saw Arroyo, accompanied by Guzman and Velazquez‑Tellez, approaching. Westbrook recognized Guzman as he had encountered him three or four months prior, at which time Guzman introduced himself “prison‑style” by name and a “northern hood.” As the men converged, Westbrook asked, “What’s happening?” and Guzman replied, “What’s up with you and my homie?” Westbrook answered, “Your homie has a problem with me and we can handle it.” According to Westbrook, Guzman told Arroyo to fight Westbrook.

Arroyo then pulled out a “ ‘nice’ ” “ ‘fat’ ” “ ‘Rambo’ ” knife. Westbrook asked Arroyo to drop the knife,[5] but Arroyo called out “ ‘Ay yay yay.’ ”[6] At that moment, Velazquez‑Tellez pulled out a black firearm with an extended magazine and began shooting. Westbrook ran off as Velazquez‑Tellez fired at him eight times. Westbrook was shot in both arms but the only weapons he saw were Arroyo’s knife and Velazquez‑Tellez’s gun. Spikes was shot twice and died. Police recovered a semiautomatic Glock 19 with an extended magazine near Sixth Street and St. John Street on October 27, 2019.

Following the shooting, Westbrook was interviewed by police and, after viewing a photo lineup, identified Guzman, Arroyo, and Velazquez‑Tellez as the men who confronted him and Spikes on October 26.

Police interviewed several other witnesses, including Humberto Arriaga, Lavera James, and Dominick Giotta.

Arriaga told police that he witnessed the shooting on North Fifth Street, and said he saw three Hispanic men approach a group of approximately five Black men. He heard the Hispanic men tell the Black men, “ ‘Don’t fuck with us. This is our street.’ ” In response, one of the Black men walked over to a nearby dumpster and picked up a metal chain from the ground, raising it over his head. One of the Hispanic men pulled out a gun and fired four or five shots at the Black men.

James also witnessed the shooting and the events leading up to it. She was “hanging out” with some other people on the corner of St. James Street and North Fifth Street when she saw three Hispanic men walk past her. The men walked toward another group of Black men and, at first, it seemed their interaction was “cordial.” One of the Black men, whom James knew as “Shorty,” “began to get loud and argue” with the three Hispanic men, asking them “ ‘What you gonna do?’ ” James said that one of the three Hispanic males, who was “much older,” “[p]robably in his 50s and chunky” gave “some sort of a command” to a younger member of the group.[7] The younger Hispanic man pulled out a firearm and fired four to five times at the Black men. After the shots were fired, one of the Hispanic men yelled, “ ‘We don’t play,’ ” before they fled “northbound on Fifth.”

On the day of the shooting, Giotta saw two cars, one black and one gray, pull up and park in front of his home on North Fifth Street. A total of five males got out of those vehicles and met with another man across the street for about 10 minutes before returning to their cars. The two cars then drove some ways down North Fifth Street before parking again. Two men got out of the black car and went into a nearby house. The other three men exited the gray car and one of them, a heavy‑set man, began playing with Giotta’s dog in front of his house, while the other two walked southbound on North Fifth Street. When the two men called out to the heavy‑set man, “ ‘Chuy, let’s go,’ ” the man stopped petting the dog and jogged toward his companions. The three men paused near a portable toilet and Giotta could hear them yelling, though he could not make out what was said. A man exited the toilet and “words were exchanged” before a second man came over. Giotta then heard five gunshots and saw one person fall down. The three men ran back to their gray car and Giotta saw the man who had been petting his dog trying to put a gun into his waistband as he ran. The men got into the car and sped away.

2. Guzman’s interview

Guzman’s November 6, 2019 interview with San Jose police investigators was played at the preliminary hearing.[8]

Guzman initially denied knowing anything and repeatedly asked that the police tell him “what’s going on.” When asked what he was doing on October 26, 2019, Guzman said he thought he was working, but if he was not working, he was most probably home “chilling with [his] family.” He would typically start work at 7:30 a.m. and be home at “6, 7 [p.m.], around there.” When police asked when he last remembered “being in the area of [Fifth] Street and Santa Clara,” Guzman said he knew about “the guy that got [sic] on [Fifth] Street,” but denied being involved. Guzman said he was reluctant to tell police what he knew because “they’re gonna kill me” if he said anything.

Guzman began talking about the shooting, and at first said that he was home when Arroyo[9] came by his house, crying because a “random Black guy pulled up on me with my kids in the car” and, pointing a gun, threatened to kill Arroyo and his family. In this version, Guzman and Arroyo walked up to Fifth Street and Guzman confronted the Black man, asking why he is pointing a gun at other people. The man responded by reaching for a nearby bag and saying, “I’ll fuckin’ kill all you motherfuckers.” Guzman suggested that the man and Arroyo settle their dispute by fighting instead, but when the man again reached for the bag, “my buddy in the back shot him.” He repeatedly said that his intention was to “defuse the problem.” Guzman said that he did not own a gun and did not like guns.[10]

Eventually, Guzman related the following version of what happened that day. Guzman was home with his family and some others when Arroyo and Alberto Hernandez showed up. Velazquez‑Tellez,[11] who Guzman previously said arrived at the scene of the shooting “outta nowhere,” was at Guzman’s home as well. Arroyo told Guzman and the others that Westbrook had pulled a gun on him and his girl earlier that day near Fifth Street and Santa Clara Street.

According to Guzman, he told everyone, “[W]here’s this guy at? Let’s go, let’s go see what the fuck his problem was.” Guzman got into a car with Velazquez‑Tellez and another JSP gang member, Alberto Hernandez (aka “Flaco”), and drove to the location to find Westbrook. Guzman said he was not aware that Velazquez‑Tellez was carrying a gun, but he told Velazquez‑Tellez to stay in the car while he talked to Westbrook. When he confronted Westbrook, Westbrook threatened to kill him and the others, at which point Velazquez‑Tellez pulled out his gun and started shooting. Guzman said that he had never seen Westbrook before that day.

When asked about Velazquez‑Tellez, Guzman admitted that he knew him because they were both members of JSP, although Guzman said he was no longer involved with that gang.[12] Guzman also was aware that Velazquez‑Tellez is violent and knew that he had robbed a marijuana club where he worked and, in the course of that robbery, pistol‑whipped his boss.

3. Video surveillance

A synopsis of video surveillance footage showing the incident was admitted into evidence.

The footage showed Guzman arriving at the scene in a dark gray Honda accompanied by Velazquez‑Tellez and Hernandez. The three men wait in the car until a second, light‑colored car parks behind it. Guzman and the other two men get out of the Honda and greet the driver of the second car in the street. The group walks northwest out of camera frame, but 20 minutes later, another camera captures video of Guzman, Velazquez‑Tellez, and Arroyo walking along North Fifth Street toward the location of the shooting. The group approaches another group of men and, after a couple of minutes, Westbrook enters the frame at which point “[s]ome people’s behaviors change[].”

4. Gang evidence

Detective Cuahutemoc Mendoza testified as an expert in Norteño criminal street gangs in San Jose. Mendoza said he is familiar with JSP and that it is a Norteño subset. The area where the shooting took place, North Fifth Street and Santa Clara Street is claimed by JSP and there are JSP tags in that area. JSP and Norteño share common signs and symbols such as “14,” the letter “N,” and four dots with two bars underneath. JSP members also use subset specific symbols such as “Posse,” “JSP,” as well as clothing and symbols associated with the Philadelphia Phillies baseball team. While searching Guzman’s home, police recovered multiple items with “JSP” on them. Mendoza opined that the JSP’s primary activities are, among other crimes, assault with a deadly weapon and firearms possession.

When presented with a hypothetical mirroring the facts of this case, Mendoza testified that, as “members of a criminal street gang, any disrespect, especially within their territory, has to be retaliated against. If not, then it shows weakness on them individually, and then collectively as a subset, and would, therefore, invite other street gangs to further challenge them by them not retaliating against this overt act.”

II. Discussion

A. Standard of review

Pursuant to section 995, a court properly sets aside all or part of an information upon finding that the defendant “had been committed without reasonable or probable cause.” (§ 995, subd. (a)(2)(B).) To overcome a section 995 motion, “ ‘the People must make some showing as to the existence of each element of the charged offense.’ [Citation.] ‘Evidence that will justify a prosecution need not be sufficient to support a conviction.’ ” (People v. Scully (2021) 11 Cal.5th 542, 582.) “ ‘ “ ‘Reasonable or probable cause’ means such a state of facts as would lead a [person] of ordinary caution or prudence to believe, and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.” ’ ” (People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 473.) The showing required at this stage “is exceedingly low”[13] (Salazar v. Superior Court (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 840, 846), and an information “ ‘should be set aside only when there is a total absence of evidence to support a necessary element of the offense charged.’ ” (Salazar, supra, at p. 842, quoting People v. Superior Court (Jurado) (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1226.)

In reviewing a section 995 motion “the appellate court in effect disregards the ruling of the superior court and directly reviews the determination of the magistrate holding the defendant to answer.” (People v. Laiwa (1983) 34 Cal.3d 711, 718; accord, Lexin v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1050, 1072.) Upon review of the magistrate’s ruling, this court determines whether “ ‘the magistrate, acting as [a person] of ordinary caution or prudence, could conscientiously entertain a reasonable suspicion that a public offense had been committed in which the defendant had participated.’ ” (People v. Hall (1971) 3 Cal.3d 992, 996.) Insofar as the motion “rests on consideration of the evidence adduced, we must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the information [citations] and decide whether there is probable cause to hold the defendant[] to answer, i.e., whether the evidence is such that ‘a reasonable person could harbor a strong suspicion of the defendant’s guilt.’ ” (Lexin, supra, at p. 1072.)

B. Malice and liability as aider and abettor

“Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being . . . with malice aforethought.” (§ 187, subd. (a).) An aider and abettor to an unlawful killing or attempted killing is also culpable for those offenses. (§ 31.) “Aider and abettor liability is ‘ “based on a combination of the direct perpetrator’s acts and the aider and abettor’s own acts and own mental state.” ’ ” (People v. Superior Court (Valenzuela) (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 485, 501 (Valenzuela).)

For the crime of murder, malice can be either express or implied. (People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 712 (Powell).) For the crime of attempted murder, however, express malice—“a deliberate intention to unlawfully” kill—is required. (§ 188, subd. (a)(1); People v. Lee (2003) 31 Cal.4th 613, 624.) Implied malice will be found where “no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.” (§ 188, subd. (a)(2).) The California Supreme Court has explained that “malice may be implied when defendant does an act with a high probability that it will result in death and does it with a base antisocial motive and with a wanton disregard for human life.” (People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290, 300.) In the context of implied malice murder, “the aider and abettor of [that offense] need not intend the commission of the crime of murder. Rather . . . he or she need only intend the commission of the perpetrator’s act, the natural and probable consequences of which are dangerous to human life, intentionally aid in the commission of that act and do so with conscious disregard for human life.” (Powell, supra, at p. 714.)

C. Analysis

1. Sufficient evidence was presented to support count 1

There was sufficient evidence presented at the preliminary examination to show that Guzman acted with the requisite mental state to be found liable as an aider and abettor to the murder of Spikes. In reaching our conclusion, Valenzuela, supra, 73 Cal.App.5th 485 is instructive. In that case, Valenzuela was charged with implied malice murder based on his participation in a fist fight which resulted in the fatal stabbing of the victim. (Id. at p. 490.) The altercation occurred after the opponents exchanged challenges, left the scene, and subsequently returned with backup for a potential fight. (Id. at pp. 491‑493.) The trial court granted Valenzuela’s section 995 motion to dismiss on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence he acted with implied malice. (Valenzuela, supra, at p. 495.)

The appellate court reversed, noting that the evidence showed that Valenzuela arranged the fight and “instigated and encouraged” Diaz, a known gang member and the perpetrator of the fatal stabbing, to participate in the “armed melee, which under the circumstances was conduct that carried with it a significant risk of death.” (Valenzuela, supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at p. 502.) With respect to Valenzuela’s intent, the court stated “it [was] not unreasonable to believe Valenzuela brought an armed gang member to the fight based at least in part on Diaz’s propensity or at least willingness to use deadly force.” (Id. at p. 503.) The court ultimately concluded there was “ ‘some rational ground for assuming the possibility’ [citation] that Valenzuela knowingly instigated and encouraged conduct by Diaz, fully appreciating that it posed a significant risk to human life, and consciously disregarded that risk.” (Id. at p. 504.)

In this case, Guzman admitted that he decided to confront Westbrook after Arroyo, another JSP member, came to his home and told him that Westbrook had pointed a gun at Arroyo and his girlfriend. Guzman said that he told Arroyo and other JSP members, including Velazquez‑Tellez, “[W]ell, where’s this guy at? Let’s go . . . see what the fuck his problem was.” Guzman admitted that he knew Velazquez‑Tellez had committed an armed robbery of his own workplace and pistol‑whipped his boss in the process. In addition, according to the gang expert, JSP’s principal activities consisted of, among other things, assault with a deadly weapon and possession of firearms. Even if Guzman were telling the truth about no longer being part of JSP, it is reasonable to infer that he knew of that gang’s violent offenses.

Once at the scene, it is true there was conflicting testimony about what took place just prior to the shooting. Guzman said he wanted to “defuse” the situation and just wanted Arroyo to fight Westbrook without weapons. Westbrook said Guzman told Arroyo to fight, but instead of fist‑fighting, Arroyo pulled out a large knife.[14] Westbrook said Arroyo was the person who called out what Westbrook considered a “code to attack,” at which point Velazquez‑Tellez opened fire. Guzman, who consistently denied knowing that Velazquez‑Tellez had a gun, said that Velazquez‑Tellez suddenly opened fire from behind him[15] in response to Westbrook threatening to kill them and reaching for a nearby bag. However, another witness, James, told police that Velazquez‑Tellez pulled out his gun and started shooting immediately after the “older” “chunky”[16] Hispanic man issued a “command.”[17]

For the crime of implied malice murder, it is not necessary that the evidence show Guzman had the express intent to kill, rather he need only know that his conduct endangers the life of another and act with a conscious disregard for life. (Powell, supra, 63 Cal.App.5th at p. 714.) In this case, there was sufficient evidence presented for the magistrate to find that Guzman acted with implied malice. Guzman, a current or former member of a violent criminal street gang, admitted that Velazquez‑Tellez was a violent man who had committed at least one violent offense with a firearm, but still encouraged him and Arroyo to confront Westbrook in response to Westbrook’s earlier threat of deadly force.

Based on the evidence presented and keeping in mind the applicable standard of review, we conclude there was sufficient evidence that Guzman acted with the requisite mental state to be found liable as an aider and abettor to the murder of Spikes. Consequently, the trial court erred in granting Guzman’s motion to dismiss count 1.

2. Sufficient evidence was presented to support count 2

With respect to the charge of attempted murder, we also conclude that the evidence presented was sufficient to show that Guzman acted with express malice.

The District Attorney relies on People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015 (Nguyen). In that case, the appellate court rejected the defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for attempted murder under a theory of aiding and abetting. (Id. at p. 1053.) In Nguyen, the defendant gang member was a passenger in the rear seat of a vehicle, whereas the shooter, Phan, was in the front passenger seat. (Id. at p. 1027.) Their vehicle was following another car driven by Tony Nguyen (no relation), a member of a rival gang and when the cars were stopped at a traffic light, Phan shot Tony Nguyen in the neck. (Ibid.)

During trial, a gang expert testified that “a gang member would be expected to serve as a lookout, and ‘f something were to happen and they would have to bail out of the car, that member would be expected to back that person up. Be it assault somebody, be it shoot somebody, be it take over the driving of the vehicle, whatever it may be.’ ” ([i]Nguyen, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 1054.) Because the two gangs involved were at war at the time of the shooting, “members of both gangs were expected to be able to engage in gunfights with their rivals at ‘a moment’s notice.’ ” (Ibid.) Based on this evidence, the court found that a “jury could have inferred that defendant knew of . . . Phan’s intent to kill, shared that intent, and aided Phan by spotting potential targets.” (Id. at p. 1055.)

We recognize that Nguyen is procedurally distinguishable as it addresses a postconviction challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence rather than the sufficiency of the evidence to withstand a section 995 motion to dismiss. Because the evidentiary bar is significantly lower in this case, however, Nguyen’s analysis is instructive.

“ ‘Among the factors which may be considered in making the determination of aiding and abetting are: presence at the scene of the crime, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense.’ ” (Nguyen, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 1054.) While “ ‘ “mere presence alone at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to make [the accused] a participant” ’ ”; however, such factors “ ‘ “may be . . . circumstance[s] that can be considered by the jury with the other evidence in passing on his guilt or innocence.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 1055.)

In this case, the events immediately preceding and following the shooting are relevant to drawing inferences about Guzman’s intent. As previously stated, Arroyo told Guzman that Westbrook threatened Arroyo and his family with a gun. This threat took place in JSP territory and Mendoza, the gang expert, testified that “any disrespect, especially within [a gang’s] territory, has to be retaliated against.” Guzman said he told Arroyo, Velazquez‑Tellez, and the other JSP members at his house “[W]ell, where’s [Westbrook] at? Let’s go . . . see what the fuck his problem was.” In addition, at the scene of the altercation, James testified that the “older” and “chunky” Hispanic male—a description which fit Guzman—gave the command that immediately preceded the shooting.

“Although ‘gang evidence standing alone cannot prove a defendant is an aider and abettor to a crime,’ ” gang expert testimony can “strengthen[] inferences arising from other evidence specific to defendant’s role in the crime at issue.” (Nguyen, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 1055.) Because Westbrook disrespected Arroyo and JSP itself, within JSP territory, that disrespect required retaliation, whether or not Guzman still considered himself a member of JSP. Given that JSP’s primary activities included assault with a deadly weapon and firearms possession, it is reasonable to infer that JSP members would respond to someone disrespecting their territory and threatening a fellow gang member with a gun with potentially deadly force.

Furthermore, there was evidence that, following the shooting, the Hispanic men called out, “We don’t play,” and “Don’t fuck with us. This is our street.” These statements strengthen the inference that the confrontation with Westbrook, as initiated and encouraged by Guzman, was carried out as a gang retaliation for JSP. These affirmative exclamations took place immediately after the shooting, thereby indicating a lack of surprise or distress and further suggesting that the shooting was not unexpected. Given the gang expert’s testimony about JSP’s history of assaults with deadly weapons and possession of firearms, combined with James’s testimony that it was a person who fit Guzman’s description who appeared to command Velazquez‑Tellez to start shooting, there is a reasonable inference that Guzman and his codefendants intended to kill Westbrook going into the confrontation.

While it is true that other inferences can be made based on the evidence presented at the hearing, such contrary inferences do not preclude those that can be made in support of the information. Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the magistrate’s ruling and in support of the information (People v. Woods (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1147), we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support the charge of attempted murder and that the trial court erred in dismissing count 2.

III. Disposition

The trial court’s order granting the Penal Code section 995 motion to dismiss as to counts 1 and 2 is reversed. The trial court is directed to enter a new order denying the motion as to all counts. Based on the District Attorney’s concession that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations that Guzman personally used a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)) in the commission of the offenses, those allegations should be stricken.

___________________________________

Wilson, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________________

Greenwood, P.J.

______________________________________

Danner, J.

People v. Guzman

H049244

[1] Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

[2] We summarily denied the District Attorney’s petition for writ of mandate (case No. H049164) on October 19, 2021.

[3] As this case comes to us following the trial court granting Guzman’s section 995 motion to dismiss, we derive the facts from the transcript of the preliminary examination. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss the active gang participation offense (count 3) so we will not discuss much of the evidence relating to gang membership in Julian Street Posse (JSP), other than where it is relevant to Guzman’s knowledge of Velazquez‑Tellez’s propensity for violence.

[4] The Grocery Outlet is located at East Santa Clara Street and South Seventh Street.

[5] Westbrook also said that, after Arroyo pulled a knife, he told Arroyo and the others that he would retrieve a gun from his car.

[6] Westbrook told police he interpreted this as a “code to attack.”

[7] Guzman, born on March 25, 1985, is approximately 10 years older than Arroyo, who was born on December 15, 1994. During his interview with police, Guzman said he was five foot seven or five foot eight inches tall and weighed “around” “230, 238” pounds though he had “lost some weight recently.”

[8] Guzman subsequently spoke with police and a recording of his January 24, 2020 interview was admitted into evidence but only against Arroyo and Velazquez‑Tellez. That interview is not part of the record on appeal and, to the extent any references to its content appear in the record, we do not rely on them.

[9] Guzman referred to this person as “Chino.” Westbrook identified Arroyo as the person whom he previously argued with near downtown on the day of the shooting.

[10] Later in the interview, after reminding Guzman that he said he did not own a gun, police asked what he thought they found while searching his house. Guzman immediately replied, “A gun.” Guzman said the gun found in his home belonged to Velazquez‑Tellez but it was not the gun used in the shooting. Rather, it was the gun Velazquez‑Tellez used when he robbed the marijuana club and pistol‑whipped his boss. Guzman admitted holding the gun for Velazquez‑Tellez but said that was “a dumb choice.”

[11] In his interview, Guzman referred to the shooter as “Apache,” and Westbrook said that Velazquez‑Tellez was the shooter.

[12] While being photographed at the police station, Guzman said that he got the tattoos on his arms when he “was a kid.” In response to a question about a web tattoo on his hand, Guzman said “I don’t kick it with them no more, that was just somethin’ that was stuck on my body forever.” When asked to lift his shirt, Guzman first said, “I don’t got nothing on my back,” but then admitted that he was lying and had a Huelga bird tattoo there.

[13] “The term ‘probable cause’ . . . in connection with criminal proceedings, . . . signifies a level of proof below that of . . . proof by a preponderance of the evidence.” (People v. Hurtado (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1179, 1188‑1189.)

[14] Guzman made no mention of Arroyo carrying or displaying a knife during the encounter.

[15] Guzman initially told police he did not even know that Velazquez‑Tellez was at the scene and that Velazquez‑Tellez came “outta nowhere.”

[16] These descriptors appear to apply only to Guzman.

[17] It is well‑settled that, in the context of a trial, “unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable, testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a conviction.” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.) It follows that, testimony from a single witness in a preliminary examination is sufficient to establish one or more of the necessary elements of an offense.