Is a defendant's claim that his conviction for arson is without merit?

4. Appellant's claim that his conviction is unsupported by the evidence is also without merit. Under the well-established principles of appellate review, we " 'must view the evidence in a light most favorable to respondent and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.' " (People v. Johnson, 26 Cal.3d 557, 576, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738.)

"[T]he very nature of the crime of arson ordinarily dictates that the evidence will be circumstantial." (People v. Beagle, 6 Cal.3d 441, 449, 99 Cal.Rptr. 313, 492 P.2d 1.) Some of the factors upon which courts have relied in affirming arson convictions are motive, evidenced by a threat; prior presence in the building; possession of inflammatory materials; presence in the vicinity at the time of the fire; lack of evidence of natural or accidental cause but evidence of intentional (incendiary) cause; and more than one fire with temporal and spatial proximity. (Id. at pp. 449-450, 99 Cal.Rptr. 313, 492 P.2d 1.) All [146 Cal.App.3d 378] of these factors were established here by both direct and circumstantial evidence.