Can a jury rely on circumstantial evidence of a defendant's mental state to convict him of assault?

The evidence of defendant's mental state was circumstantial, but such evidence may be properly credited and relied upon by the jury in finding the requisite specific intent. " 'Evidence of a defendant's state of mind is almost inevitably circumstantial, but circumstantial evidence is as sufficient as direct evidence to support a conviction. [Citations.]' [Citation.] A jury may infer a defendant's specific intent from the circumstances attending the act, the manner in which it is done, and the means used, among other factors." (People v. Ferrell (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 828, 834.)