How does the Court of Appeal review a claim of insufficient evidence?

We review a claim of insufficient evidence by determining whether, viewing the whole record in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the record discloses substantial evidenceevidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuefrom which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 690.) "'We "'presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.'"'" (Ibid.)

"In making our determination, we do not reweigh the evidence .... We simply consider whether '"'any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of [each conviction challenged] beyond a reasonable doubt.'" [Citations.]' [Citation.] Unless it is clearly shown that 'on no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the [jury's] verdict[s,]' we will not reverse." (People v. Stewart (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 785, 790, second bracketed insertion added.)