<p><b>PEOPLE v. LEDESMA</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b>Filed 8/17/06</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"><b>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA</b></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p>THE PEOPLE, )</p> <br /> <p> )</p> <br /> <p> Plaintiff and Respondent, )</p> <br /> <p> ) S014394</p> <br /> <p> v. )</p> <br /> <p> ) </p> <br /> <p>FERMIN RODRIGUEZ LEDESMA, )</p> <br /> <p> ) Santa Clara County</p> <br /> <p> Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. 72102</p> <br /> <p>_______________________________________ )<u></u></p> <br /> <p><b>Continue from Part V ………</b></p> <br /> <p><b>M. Sufficiency of Evidence of First Degree Murder</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p>Defendant contends his murder conviction must be reversed because the evidence was insufficient to prove malice or <a href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">deliberation and premeditation</a>. He argues the evidence was insufficient because the prosecution provided no response to the testimony of the defense experts that, due to the effect on his brain of PCP use, defendant lacked the capacity to form these <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">mental states</a>. He contends that the testimony of the prosecution expert Dr. Coleman that the requisite mental state could be inferred from defendant's acts was insufficient to rebut the testimony of the defense experts. </p> <br /> <p>In resolving such a claim, a reviewing court must determine â€