Does Section 1118.1 of the Criminal Code require a reviewing court to "ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"?

" '[T]his inquiry does not require a [reviewing] court to "ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." [Citation.] Instead, the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' (Original italics.) [Citation.] Where the section 1118.1 motion is made at the close of the prosecution's case-in-chief, the sufficiency of the evidence is tested as it stood at that point. [Citations.]" People v. Trevino (1985) 39 Cal.3d 667, 695, 217 Cal.Rptr. 652, 704 P.2d 719.)

Neither party disputes that the consistent language of section 1118.1 pertaining to a jury trial and section 1118 pertaining to a court trial results in any distinction as to the test; the sufficiency of the evidence is tested as it stands at the time the motion is made. (People v. Trevino, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 695, 217 Cal.Rptr. 652, 704 P.2d 719.)